Note from the Editor-in Chief: This is the final installment of a three-part series about the current state of science at Misericordia and other colleges and universities in America. Part one is broad focus on a national level and how it trickles down to universities across the country, part two highlights research being conducted at Misericordia and part three is a student perspective from Misericordia science majors who are considering careers in research or medicine.
After graduating with a degree in psychology, Cody Palubinsky fell in love with science so much that he decided to pursue a second bachelor’s in biology, with the hope of broadening his scientific knowledge and opening more doors for his future.
“So, in my second-to-last semester of my first degree, I did an internship with social work. I liked being there for the counseling sessions, but it always felt like I kind of leaned more towards the psychiatry sessions and more of the physical side. It made more sense to me and it was a lot more fun for me to do more of the physical side,” he said.
At Misericordia and other universities across the country, science majors who are considering careers in medicine or scientific research are weighing their options after a series of federal research grant terminations and freezes from Feb. to June sent shockwaves through the scientific and medical communities.
Due to a thriving research program that does not heavily rely on federal funding, future nurses, doctors and scientific researchers at Misericordia are not as affected short-term as their collegiate counterparts at larger universities, but they are still forced to consider the impact on their futures long-term.
Palubinsky is considering a career in either neuroscientific research or application, but he is also using the pursuit of his second bachelor’s degree as an opportunity to conduct ecological research. He is conducting a study on microplastics in crayfish in local streams under the supervision of Dr. Linda Auker, associate professor of biology and program director of environmental studies.
Palubinsky is concerned about the impact the cuts will have on science and medicine, and he also feels that the people in the current administration who are making these decisions may not be qualified to do so.
“[It’s} concerning, especially considering who in the administration has been really vocal about this,” he said. “It seems like their understanding on a scientific level of what is going on isn’t really to the degree that [it] should be to be making these decisions. So, it seems like it’s coming from a place of not really understanding the mechanisms and what goes into it, rather than having actual experience in the field.”
Jyanna Mendola, a junior premedical biology major, has been a part of the university’s Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship program and plans to pursue a doctoral career in either pediatrics or orthopedics.
“I was conducting my research on Schwann cells,” she said. “So, your body is split into two systems, your central nervous system and peripheral nervous system. Central nervous system is brain and spinal cord, [and] peripheral is all the nerves branching from that. So, your Schwann cells are the cells that create the myelin sheath wrapped around your nerves. Myelin sheath is what allows the signals in your body to transmit faster.”
Mendola hopes that this research will help the medical community to understand and treat various diseases that affect the nervous system.
“We specifically looked at the injury of these Schwann cells in the lab,” she said, “and we were looking at different proteins in these cells, when these cells are injured and we were looking at pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory proteins. Specifically, we looked at the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10.”
She added that conditions involving “People with peripheral nervous system injury like MS [Multiple Sclerosis], where you get the degrading of the myelin sheath, maybe this research will help make medications in order to help rebuild the myelin sheath swan cells to allow [patients] to live a better life.”
Mendola is also concerned about the impact these cuts will have on scientific and medical research going forward.
“Definitely a concern,” she said. “It limits what you can do with your research, how far you can go and how much data you can collect. So, I think the cuts in these funds could make everything very limited, especially like applying for grants or stuff, and you just can’t get the money you need.
As far as the cuts specific to cancer research, Mendola believes there could be an overlooked monetary motive behind them.
“This is probably a personal opinion, but with cancer research and stuff, I think it’s very hard for everybody to be like, ‘Oh, we’re doing all this cancer research. Like maybe we’ll find a cure for cancer,’” she said. “Because cancer is a big moneymaker when it comes to radiation and treatments and stuff. So, if we go and do this research and we actually find something, it’s like, ‘Wait, now we’re not going to make the money on it, and we’re losing money.’”
Dr. Maureen Pascal, professor of physical therapy and a board-certified specialist in neurologic physical therapy, is deeply concerned about the impact these cuts will have on science and medicine in general, but particularly in her field.
“In my job as a practicing physical therapist and as a professor teaching future physical therapists, I rely heavily on research evidence,” she said. “I try to use the most recent research to discuss developments in rehabilitation for many conditions. So, although I am not receiving funding, we all benefit from the basic and clinical research that is supported by grants from NIH [National Institutes of Health] and the NSF [National Science Foundation].”
Pascal fears that having less research evidence to work with will directly and negatively impact the evolution of treatments of certain diseases.
“Knowing about the processes in the brain that occur after someone has a concussion or a stroke, and how those processes are affected by physical activity are extremely important for us when we work with patients,” she said. “That type of research takes years, first looking at injuries in animals and then translating it to humans. This is also true for treating diseases like cancer, Parkinson’s disease and ALS [Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis].”
Pascal is deeply saddened and worried about the number of lives that could potentially be impacted by the cuts.
“The funding cuts have been frustrating and demoralizing realizing real patients may be impacted,” she said. “I understand that oversight of funding is important and necessary, but a more measured and systematic approach certainly would have been less disruptive.
Pascal said losing funding has meant losing staff for some laboratories, and, as a result, an inability to continue a project that can take years to replicate.
‘That can mean years lost before the basic scientific developments are translated into the clinical practice that directly affects the lives of people with disease or dysfunction,” she said.
Like Palubinsky, Pascal is troubled by how unqualified the decision-makers involved in these cuts appear to be and how credible and qualified individuals do not appear to have been consulted during the process.
“There is always a political side to grant funding, with each administration deciding on funding priorities,” she said. “In the best cases, these decisions are guided by public health concerns and taking care of all members of society. In the best cases, funding decisions are informed by leaders and peers in the scientific community. When funding is being cut based on ideas that have been clearly disproved by many high-quality research studies, that is a threat to public health.”
Palubinsky is worried by the potential long-term effects of the cuts and freezes, but he is hopeful the political pendulum will swing back toward an administration that sees more value and potential in research grants in the future.
“I do think it’s going to have ripple effects in the long term,” he said. “I’m very hopeful for the future in the sense of, obviously, there’s change of power constantly. It’s always a back and forth. I’m hoping that a future administration will pump a little bit more resources into the scientific community and more research avenues, but I do still think no matter what is done in the future, the ripple effects from what is currently going on will continue for potentially decades.”
Palubinsky is not letting the cuts and the current state of science in the nation affect his decision-making about his future, and he does not expect these things to deter his career path.
“I would say I’m very steadfast on wanting to continue in this field, no matter the outcome. I do think it’s beneficial to society as a whole to have kind of a mindset of wading, and not just wading the waters, but still sailing the seas, no matter how rough the wave is. This is the avenue for me, and this is what I want to do with my life. So, if it’s a career that makes me happy, the [research grant] money doesn’t necessarily have to be there.”
Mendola, whose dream job is running her own doctoral practice someday, is also not letting the grant cuts and freezes deter her from her career goals.
“Personally, I would have to say no,” she said, “just because that’s not something that is the bigger picture in my mind, but I do know people that it definitely would affect their future.”
Mendola also believes that any student who is passionate about the scientific or medical fields should not let the current situation change their plans.
“I would say don’t let these funds getting cut skew you from doing something that you’re passionate about and something that is overall going to help the world,” she said.
Pascal has a similar message of encouragement for students considering medical or scientific research careers.
“I think it’s important for students who are interested in science and medicine to keep in mind that we will always need professionals who are dedicated to the greater good,” she said. “This might not seem like the best time to enter one of these fields, but I recommend taking the long view. I really believe the importance of science will eventually transcend politics. We saw an extreme example of this during COVD, when a life-saving vaccine was developed in record time. Regardless of how long that takes, careers in medicine and health care will continue to be rewarding.”