| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
ChangeDepartment of Cariology, Restorative Sciences & Endodontics, School of Dentistry, 1011 N. University, Room 2361, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078, USA; bricla{at}umich.edu
Key Words: change • technologies • competitive This is not a campaign speech! However, name recognition is useful when one is running for office, especially as Vice-president of the AADR. There are three Clarksons in dental research. So I am sure that, while pondering your vote for Vice-president, you had certain images in mind. For those who thought you were voting for John Clarkson, a former Executive Director of the IADR/AADR—you were right about the candidate being European and male, but with the wrong accent—Irish vs. English. For those who thought you were voting for Janet Clarkson – you were right about being European, and the accent is similar – Manchester vs. Birmingham, UK – but you have to work on your gender recognition. For those who actually voted for Brian Clarkson – The cheque is in the mail (or post, depending on your country of origin). CHANGE Some change in life is inevitable. Preferences change, fashion changes, even haircuts change. And in research, change is necessary. The technologies that you used in your research yesterday and today are not going to be those that you use tomorrow. For example, I had the honor of working with Basil Bibby (1969). We used the "destruction" of enamel to measure the effects of spices on enamel demineralization (not the most erudite of the research that I have done, but certainly the best-smelling). Basil Bibby...a wonderful man and a great mentor. He taught me not only the scientific method, but also how to handle people. The abstract we submitted on this research for the AADR meeting in San Francisco was rejected. I then had the unfortunate task of telling one of the "gurus" of cariology that my first abstract, with his name on it, had been rejected. I walked into his office with a feeling of trepidation and broke the bad news. His response: "Oh, Brian, do not worry, my first abstract was rejected." I am not sure how true this was, but it made me feel better. Two lessons: one—how to make a graduate student/junior faculty member feel better about himself and his work after a big disappointment (how to handle people); and second—you can still be President of the AADR (and other organizations, I suspect), even if your research has been rejected! But back to my script. After "destroying" enamel in 1969, I worked with Haifeng Chen (2006), and we used nano-technology to "build" synthetic enamel—prompted to a certain extent by working with Jim Baker, our plenary speaker and my colleague at Michigan. With Jun Liu (2007), we used stem cells to create dentin. So my research field has not changed, but the technologies we use have. During this meeting, you will be exposed to some of the best researchers in science, not just dental science, but science in general. My challenge to you is to go to poster and oral sessions outside your research field, but do not focus on the results or conclusions (as we all do), but focus instead on the method, technique, or technology the investigators used to obtain their results. Then ask, "How can I use those technologies in my research?" In my opinion, if you are to remain competitive in research, you must be open to and accepting of change. "Today’s great ideas must be dressed in tomorrow’s technologies." Thank you, and have a stimulating and productive meeting.
Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 87, No. 6,
510 (2008)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
