Research Frontiers

Dr. Ron Kopito and Dr. Brigit Riley

Dr. Kopito, HD research, and the public

When asked what the most rewarding parts of research are to him, Dr. Kopito stressed that he most enjoys the satisfaction of discovering and understanding something new. In his role as a professor and researcher, he is also a mentor to the graduate students and post-doctoral students in his lab. He emphasizes how much he enjoys teaching and nurturing other people’s sense of discovery. But Dr. Kopito further elaborates by saying that his research program is not intended to directly cure HD, but rather to further understand the background and the cause of the disease. As he explains, he finds HD to be a “compelling medical problem, an interesting scientific problem, and really, a human problem”. But when asked if he hopes he is making an impact on lives, he recognizes that his role is indirect and not concrete. While he feels he is not directly accountable to HD patients, he also recognizes that scientists have to be responsible to the HD community. Scientists have to spend any grant money on research that will get scientists or doctors closer to a place where they can find a treatment.

This line of questioning raises many ethical questions for Dr. Kopito. He wonders- what if it turns out that inclusion bodies are not the problem to target in HD? Can he still work on studying IBs in other diseases, because he finds it to be interesting and compelling research? Or would it be more ethical to switch the focus of his research, and look at other mechanisms that may be involved in causing HD? He thinks about these questions a lot, meeting with other people to talk about inspiring new ideas within the group of researchers working on HD.

Finally, Dr. Kopito emphasizes that the biggest myth about research is that it proceeds in a very dry, set manner from hypothesis to experiment to truth. The public does not often get to see how qualities like intuition, passion, and creativity are involved in conducting research. If scientists were to fit the cold, objective stereotype, there would be no important discoveries. Rather, when scientists get ideas, some people see it as crazy risks, but they have to have enough faith in their own ideas to work on it, and they have to convince other fellow scientists and students to take risks along with them. Scientists have to design an experiment with objectivity and creativity. An experiment must be designed to test, not prove, a hypothesis- scientists must be willing to acknowledge when they are wrong or their hypothesis is incorrect. But, that can be hard because the ego gets wrapped up in it. Throughout their careers, scientists have to utilize ego, passion, commitment, and risk to conduct experiments. For Dr. Kopito, research is a vital, dynamic profession.

We hope you enjoyed this section of the HOPES website. To email this article to a friend, please click here. To leave feedback for the HOPES team, click here. Make sure to specify which article you're referring to.

-J. Seidenfeld, 2-3-07

For further reading:

• Find the Kopito Lab at: http://www.stanford.edu/group/kopito/
  
• Debnath, J, et al. “Does Autophagy Contribute to Cell Death?” Autophagy 2005. 1 (2): 66-74.
  A good review of autophagy, not too technical language. Discusses roles of autophagy in both cell death and cell survival.
• Ross, CA, et al. “What is the role of protein aggregation in neurodegenation?” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 2005. (11):891-8.
  A more complex review of disease involving protein aggregation, inclusion bodies, and the roles of both in causing diseases or acting as a protective response.
• Yorimitsu T, et al. “Autophagy: molecular machinery for self-eating.” Cell Death Differ. 2005. 12 (2):1542-52.
  A technical paper on autophagy, how it works, and the various roles it plays in the cell.
• Iwata, A, et al. “HDAC6 and microtubules are required for autophagic degradation of aggregated huntingtin.” J Biol Chem. 2005. 280(48):40282-92.
  A technical research paper on the role of microtubules on forming aggregates and how they participate in forming vesicles and activating the lysosome.
• Levine, B, et al. “Development by self-digestion: molecular mechanisms and biological functions of autophagy.” Dev Cell. 2004. 6(4):463-77.
  A good review of autophagy that goes into a bit more detail about the sets of genes involved in autophagy and different analogous genes in model organisms.
• Kopito RR. “Aggresomes, inclusion bodies and protein aggregation.” Trends Cell Biol. 2000. 10 (12):524-30.
  A review that clarifies the similarities, differences, and relationship between aggregates, IBs, and aggresomes.

Last Modified: 08/05/2008

An educational product of HOPES, not to be used in place of medical care. For more information about HOPES, click on the Logo. To contact HOPES with comments or questions, click here.