Interview of Sriram Kosuri
by Paras ChopraFor the inaugural edition of Jeev, I interviewed Sriram Kosuri, who is currently at MIT and doing research in the field of Reverse Systems Biology. Below is the interview:
1. Brief Biography
I went to UC Berkeley interested in both biology and mathematics. I naively
picked bioengineering as a major. In my second year, I met Adam Arkin where
I started becoming interesting in system biology and stochastic biological networks.
From there, I came to MIT and joined Drew Endy's lab working on understanding
and predicting perturbations of the simple biological organism, bacteriophage
T7.
2. In what field are you currently doing research?
Reverse Systems Biology. I don't think this is an actual field, but we are trying
to construct artificial biological systems to see if our understanding is sufficient
to recapitulate and further extend natural biological systems.
3. How did you get inspired to work in this field?
My entrance in the field began when I was working in Adam Arkin's lab. I became
very interested in development, and specifically how a set of chemicals can
interact in a very noisy way to produce behavior that is robust to this noisiness
(i.e., bilateral symmetry, 5 fingers on a hand). After studying a number of
organisms, it became quite frustrating to study natural systems, because you
never quite know if you know everything about the system; I started doubting
my own analyses. Thus, I became more interested in constructing and studying
engineered biological systems that were better defined and showed many of the
same characteristics of natural biological systems that I found interesting
(i.e., developmental robustness).
4. What exact research are you doing?
I work on understanding the gene expression of a simple virus that infect E.
coli, bacteriophage T7. By understand, I mean we want to make simple changes
and be able to predict the results. Our lab used new simulators to construct
a model for T7 gene expression using measured quantities. We compared the results
of these simulations to new system-wide measurements of T7 gene expression.
We found some unexpected results that led to new biological insights, but still
were unsure of how accurate our models were. We decided to embark on a separate
path, which is instead of making our models ever more detailed to explain data,
we could make physical representations of our models by synthesizing only what
we understand, and removing that which we do not. We began this process with
the T7 genome, and are now continuing to make iterations of the T7 genome which
are more reflective of our understanding. The purpose of this process is that
differences between your new genome and the model will point to deficiencies
in your understanding of the biophysical processes you are studying. On the
other hand, differences between your new genome, and the original isolate, will
point to new biology that still is not understood.
5. What do you think is future of life sciences?
Life Engineering: Almost every scientific field eventually morphed into a dynamic
engineering field. I think we are on the cusp of that in biology. Whether it
happens now, or in a 100 years, is a matter of ingenuity, luck, and hubris.
6. Any advice for students?
If you are interested in research, get into a lab early. It is far more efficient
and productive to learn science in the lab, rather than in a class.
7. Are there any Job/Research opportunities in your company/institute?
There are many opportunities for graduates in academia. However, MIT is a place
that is very competitive to get into, especially for foreign graduates. Probably
the most important considerations are the research you do, and your recommendations
(because there are plenty of people with good grades).
8. What are your plans for the future?
I am beginning to look for post-doctoral opportunities in synthetic biology.
That being said, ten years ago, I wanted to be a rock star. Ten years from now,
who knows where I will be.
9. How can society contribute to the development of life sciences?
Society already contributes to the development of science by direct funding
in many countries. Societies responsiblities lie in attempting to understand
the research that is worked on and prioritize it considering other societal
goals. I think the reverse question is also important to consider: how can scientists
contribute to the development of society. We often forget as scientists, that
we are public servants. Thus it is our responsibility to not necessarily work
towards direct cures to today's problems, but to educate the public on the work
we do, and why it is important to you. Secondly, when thinking about funding
priorities and ethics of science, one should consider that there are many other
problems where the lack of scientific discovery/development is not the problem.
There are many basic societal issues such as poverty, education, and freedom
of thought that also need funding and resources and are probably far more important
than scientific discovery.
10. What should future research be directed at, according to you?
One thing that is often overlooked in funding and hiring decisions is that much
of the
progress we see is exponential. The technologies that we work with become ever
more powerful. I think we should spend much more of our funding on these types
of high-risk/high-reward projects, rather than projects that continue to do
more of the same to yet another organism/cell/protein/gene.
April 2006, Jeev
http://www.dce.edu/jeev
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.