Back in Jan. of this year Joanne Sumner-obst posted a series of
articles in this news group to solicit support for an increase in
the NCI’s budget. I then posted a reply to one section of her
posting… as follows:
********************
KHPJ…@prodigy.com (Joanne Sumner-obst) wrote on 1/17/95
>We want (and need) more research, better treatments, and more
>cures. We want you to provide funding and oversight to accomplish
>that. yes, medical research takes time and results are
>unpredictable. But money speeds things up, especially when we
>already have dedicated and highly trained researchers and good
>research opportunities in inventory. We want a commitment to
>research and a healthier future.
Sorry to disappoint you… I am a cancer research technician who
have just spent this last year unemployed because I could not find
a lab of high enough caliber to work in.
We do not have ‘dedicated’ researchers… we have greed, egos and
politics grossly interfering with the pursuit of scientific truths.
We do not have highly trained researchers… today’s PhDs are being
taught more how to ‘present’ data and write papers/grants more than
actual technical skills. I’m talking about labs where people don’t
even know the proper way to do an accurate cell count for christ’s
sake!
We have very little in inventory which can be considered ‘valid’
and credible data!
Sorry to burst your bubble… but I really think it’s more of
matter of ‘properly’ allocating the monies we get to those who are
really the best at what they do. And not this ‘who you know’ more
than ‘what you know’ mentality which tends to govern government
funding.
Thank you for your time,
-Kathy
*****************************
Well, I began a new job on May 1, 1995 at the University of
Illinois at Chicago, Biochemistry… in the laboratory of Dr.
Margalit Mokyr who runs a cancer research lab.
And for anybody who doubted my above statement… here’s an example
of exactly the kind of thing I was referring to.
This is the type of cell culture work they do…
- They work with what they believe to be non-human cancer
cells utilizing non-laminar flow hoods (they use hoods
which blow sterile air over the work surface and right
into your face)
- These hoods do have UV lights, but it is considered a
waste of time to utilize them in between working with the
various cell lines… "we don’t have time, too many
people are waiting to use the hoods" was the reason
given.
- All biological waste is considered non-biohazardous and
thus used flasks and pipets gets tossed into the regular
garbage… and media waste gets poured down the sink [all
unbleached]
- They repeatedly claimed they don’t have a problem with
cross-cell contamination… yet the lab has never done
species specificity testing on any of their cell lines to
verify this claim.
- No notebook is kept on the history of their cell lines…
nor do they bother to keep track of passage numbers.
- With respect to their claim of no cross-cell
contamination occurring in their lab… they claim they
have very stable cell lines. Yet, they have a P-815 cell
line which they have been growing continuously in their
lab for somewhere between 2-3 years. This cell line
originally started out as a suspension culture but has
somehow turned into a monolayer culture sometime during
this time period. It’s chalked up to genetic drift and
the cells remain to be utilized for experiments. Again,
no species specificity testing was done to verify their
claim.
- I saw one graduate student do injections of some cells
into mice… this cell solution had been sitting for 2
hours at room temperature (in a solution not containing
FBS) before he got around to injecting them. In
addition, he sucked the cellular solution up through a
25G needle to load his syringe. No viability testing was
done immediately prior to injection nor have they
bothered to do any studies on the viability of these
cells under these conditions… but they claim it’s
alright and the cells are 80-90% viable – without
anything to show to back this claim up. One final
note… he did multiple mouse injections utilizing just
one syringe and tossed the syringe (uncapped) onto the
bench top in between injecting mice [not only was he
sloppy about his work... but not very clean either]
On the subject of cell counts:
- First she claims that a cell count done on a
hemacytometer is more accurate than one done via a
coulter counter. In conjunction to this, their coulter
counter counts are normally off by 20-30% as compared to
a hemacytometer count of the exact same cell solution…
and they will take the hemacytometer count over the
coulter counter under these circumstances [and no, I am
not talking about cells which are massive clumps here]
- When they do their cell counts on a hemacytometer they
don’t bother to clean the hemacytometer cover slip or the
hemacytometer itself… it just gets wiped off with a dry
kemwipe in between counts. I never saw the hemacytometer
properly cleaned with EtOH, bleach or even water! As a
matter of fact, I saw it left sitting under a microscope
overnight, wiped off and then used for another cell
count. When I took another hemacytometer out of drawer
and cleaned it… we compared cell counts and guess what,
the counts were off by nearly 50%. When Dr. Mokyr
complained that I have to do ‘something’ to get my cell
counts more consistent with the lab’s… I failed to
figure out a way how to get my hemacytometer filthy
enough to be more consistent with their counts… just
how long should I sit it out under a microscope allowing
the cells and trypan blue to dry out before it’s dirty
enough?
By the end of the week it was mutually decided that my personality
did not fit into their lab. The one tech even suggested I might
seek a job at ATCC because they are the only ones who have to be so
strict with how they handle their cell lines… out here in the
real world of research, such details does not matter.
And as Dr. Mokyr stated to me at one point during the week…
"Sometimes science must move on and we just don’t have time to
worry about ever little detail" And when I asked, "Yes, but
sometimes you have to stop and determine if what you are doing is
actually valid" Her only reply was, "It’s valid!"
This fits right into the ‘It’s only research’ and ‘It’s good
enough’ mentality which is so prevalent in research of the 90′s.
And this is how the graduate students in her lab is being taught to
do their work; who in turn will go on and teach this to yet others.
And if this doesn’t show you how badly this field needs to become
standardized and certified (with certified techs and certified
labs)… I just don’t know what else will?
I welcome any comments or questions on this matter…
-Kathy