|  Admissions  |  Resources for Students  |   Resources for Faculty & Staff  |  About the Graduate School  | 

Back to The Graduate School Medal

General Information about the Medal

The Graduate School Medal Announcement

The Graduate School Medal Nomination Procedures

The Graduate School Medal Nomination Form

Medalist FAQ Page

Past Medal Winners 

The Graduate School Medal

THOMAS ROBEY
Bioengineering

Thomas Robey is a MD/Ph.D. student (Bioengineering) and a student in the Medical Scientist Training Program.  He is an ARCS scholar and a co-founder of the Forum on Science, Ethics, and Policy (FOSEP).  His proposed dissertation topic is "Cell Death and Fibrosis in Cardiac Cell Transplantation."

Mr. Robey's personal statement:      

"The American philosopher and educational scholar John Dewey said, "There is more than a verbal tie between the words common, community and communication."  This aphorism suggests a key for effective community change, namely that social progress depends on mutual understanding.  As a biomedical researcher at a vibrant academic complex in a progressive urban center, I am situated at the intersection of three communities (science, academia and the city) that have great potential to contribute to an improved world.  I hope to summon each group's collective knowledge and bridge these communities to form strategies that result in innovative technology, better science policy and a healthier society.  Finding common ground and translating it into action are the activities I have enjoyed the most in graduate school; they are also the experiences from which I have learned the most.

"One of the most visible impacts science has on society is its influence on medicine and health.  My graduate and medical training at the University of Washington is preparing me to impact the communities around me as a scientist, a  physician and a teacher.  I joined Professor Chuck Murry's lab because it is a fertile environment for translational cardiovascular research.  Our goal is to develop a treatment to regenerate heart muscle after heart attack.  The success of such an intervention requires collaboration between bioengineers, cardiologists, cell and molecular biologists, pathologists, physiologists and surgeons.  While each of these groups may look the same to an outsider to biomedical research, the customs and skills of each profession are as similar as the techniques used by bricklayers and astrophysicists.  That diverse environment drew me in--perhaps I could learn from each of these groups and communicate between them all.  When our lab found that no adult cell types could offer significant treatments for heart disease, we started investigating the potential of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) to restore heart muscle.  Not only did these new experiments add developmental biologists to the mix of researchers in the lab, my colleagues started to pay attention to legislative action and public statements about EC research.  Most scientists acknowledge that scientific research is done in the context of society, but this truth hit home when the Murry Lab started growing "presidentially approved" human ESC lines.

Initially, my project was only peripheral to stem cell work.  When I began to use the cells for my own projects, I sought to learn as much as I could about the social context of EC research.  In so doing, I found an outlet for my interests in philosophy, ethics, religion and politics.  I discovered that I could contribute to discussions on the UW campus and in Seattle about issues at the intersection of science, ethics and policy.  When I heard of a small group of graduate students aiming to engage scientists and the public about topics in science policy, I signed up.  A month later, I was a founding director of the Forum on Science Ethics and Policy (FOSEP).  I contributed a vision for FOSEP that transformed a seminar series into a dynamic structure that (1) is an education al resource for the public, (2) trains graduate students about how ethics and policy impact science (and vice versa), and (3) furthers interdisciplinary activity on campus.  FOSEP's leaders stumbled onto the fact that graduate students and post-docs are well situated to facilitate inter-disciplinary conversations, but also have the energy to bring people together.  We work overtime at the bench or at the desk, but trainees still yearn to fix big problems.  In the three years we have been operating, FOSEP has held more than 50 events, most of which I helped plan, and ten of which I was a primary organizer. 

Since I work in the ESC field, it was natural that the stem cell debate would draw me in to community involvement.  I helped run a public forum in Kane Hall that presented scientific, ethical and legal elements of stem cell research to 700 people, have attended hearings in Olympia about stem cell funding, and coordinated a panel discussion about the Hwang ESC ethics scandal.  This last event was particularly rewarding because the interdisciplinarity of the topic enabled complimentary accounts of the situation.  Presentations included an ethical analysis of scientific misconduct, a just-the-facts account of the science, and a report from a Korean scholar that shed light on the nationalism involved in that controversy.

Two other FOSEP events that I am particularly proud of planning include a visit by an historian of science from a Christian college near Dover, PA who spoke about intelligent design (ID), and a series of events featuring Neal Lane, the former NSF director and Science Advisor to President Clinton.  Hosting an advocate for scientist citizenship such as Dr. Lane energized my colleagues and me to continue our mission, but also helped us realize that there is a role for individuals that wish to translate science into politics and society at large.  you might expect the ID talk was one of FOSEP's most controversial seminars.  I worked hard to inform interested parties in advance of speaker's intention to present a Christian perspective critical of intelligent design, but that he was also open to certain elements of dialogue about the theory's fallacies.  When it became clear that there was potential for negative reaction to the talk, I initiated a process of review with the sponsoring department (Medical History and Ethics) that included input from parties both critical and supportive of the event.  In my final report, I established a standard operating procedure for hosting controversial events that included communications guidelines and entailed planning timelines.  This plan furthers FOSEP's goals not to incite controversy, but to bring differing views tot he table for a constructive discussion.

In the course of my work with FOSEP, I have learned that there is much room for improving the relationship between scientists and the public.  To help address this, I organized a well-attended symposium at last year's national meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that discussed concrete models of engagement to connect scientists with the public.  I see forming connections between individuals as the first step to bridging communities, disciplines and cultures.  My activity with FOSEP has reinforced my interest in translating between fields and I expect this to be a foundational element of my career.

If fluency in science and policy will help apply new knowledge to solving today's social problems, medicine offers a personal avenue to improving individuals' lives.  I wish not to limit my commitment to improving society to the scientific and academic venues.  After some volunteer experiences on the street, I learned that access to reliable health care was a service where I could be of use.  Healthcare is a tremendous challenge for homeless persons; this is compounded for minors.  As a volunteer STD counselor at a free evening clinic for homeless teens, I have learned much about the homeless population in Seattle and have formed relationships with a community with which I will continue to work in the future.  In fact, I am drawn to a career that will enable me to work toward increasing access to healthcare for un- and underinsured individuals. 

My personal measure of success depends heavily on a willingness to act on opportunities and develop relationships that will enrich the communities of which I am a part.  Managing effective interplay between scientific fields is a survival skill for someone committed to a meaningful research program.  I am supplementing my scientific training with experiences that I hope will prepare me to contribute to the dialogue between science and society.  Personal interactions are as important to me as decisions made in the academy, so I have found a way to provide a needed service to the community of homeless youth in Seattle.  After I finish my graduate training, I intend to follow a path of community building that has three parts:  in science and medicine, I will translate ideas and technology into treatments that increase health and reduce suffering; as a member of the academy, I will mediate the relationships between scientists and policy makers; finally, as a medical care provider, I will serve fellow citizens in a manner that provides a meaningful effect on the well-being of my community.  I agree with George Bernard Shaw's opinion that "my life belongs to the community, and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can."

| Return to the Top |
 

 The Graduate School   G-1 Communications Building    Box 353770  
University of Washington  Seattle  WA   98195   Phone: 206-543-5900