Because our main product, StemBeads FGF2, contains it, people regularly ask us, “What actually is Fibroblast Growth Factor?” In this post, we will attempt to answer that question and create a resource that can direct people to in the future on this topic. [Read more…]
Media, Media, Media – Cell Culture Media, of Course
When we are thirsty, nothing is better to me than an ice-cold glass of H20. Some people reach for something sweet, some like the carbonation, but us, we love the refreshing feel of ice-cold water. To each their own, right? Like all living things, cells need nourishment, and cell culture media is the 
vessel to this nourishment when cells are grown outside the body in a culture dish. Typically, media are water-based liquids that carry basic nutrients cells need to survive: salts, sugars, amino acids, proteins, etc. However, just as the water industry exploded with its various flavors of water, vitamin water, energy water, the cell culture media industry has exploded with so many different types and flavors—and that’s just for the basic cell culture media. [Read more…]
Can Product Management Salvage Your Failed Scientific Research Experiment?
This is a guest post by Nicholas Mitchell, PhD.
Like many life science doctoral students, I dedicated my years in graduate school to focusing on experiments, troubleshooting technical problems, learning to write manuscripts, and marveling at 
how fickle biology can be. I developed a cursory appreciation for project management, but I was the only person affected by my projects. My graduate program didn’t offer any management courses, and I don’t remember any of my mentors suggesting management as a good way to go about conducting science. If nobody was even talking about project management, they certainly weren’t talking about product management.
Project management is about creating (and navigating) a well-articulated plan for what needs to be done, how long it will take, how much it will cost, and who is going to do the work. A final component, which deserves special mention, is the ability to identify potential problems that would derail the project (e.g., an unanticipated shortage of the irreplaceable fetal bovine serum required for your experiments). The application of project management in the field of science is pretty obvious. And when you consider its definition, you are likely to find it reminiscent of the typical grant structure. This, I suggest, is not a coincidence.
Product management is not to be confused with project management. In fact, although product management utilizes project management, it is something entirely unique.
Product management is about identifying a problem and working backwards to strategically design a solution for that problem. This flow from problem backwards is important, because good products solve big problems. In the business world, a product’s worth (i.e., what people are willing to pay for it) is directly related to how much the problem currently costs them. I’m writing this piece because I think this is exactly how most of us should be conducting our scientific investigations. If you’re already conducting science this way, you’ll probably stop reading. If not, what I’m about to tell you is bound to make your science more rewarding and more profitable.
Grants are products, manuscripts are products, and posters are products. I know—you saw those coming. Have you ever thought of your experiments as products, though? They are. And if you aren’t designing your experiments to move you closer to solving a problem that will yield a high-impact publication, change someone’s life, or get you funding—you’re doing the wrong experiments.
For an improved understanding of how product management works, consider its application in the following setting.
When Bank of America needs software to control their new ATMs, a software product manager from their contracted software company, say Diebold, works tirelessly with thought leaders (TLs) and consumers to understand the most important functions that the new software must deliver. Those functions are then communicated to software coders through the creation of “user stories.” A user story is a brief description of an outcome that should be short enough to fit on an index card (e.g., bank customers will be given the option to receive a receipt for each ATM transaction). The coders then write a program that prompts the customer with this option at the beginning of each transaction. The coders and the product manager determine whether the outcome has been achieved through testing. Testing involves simulation of as many as possible, and often devious, situations that might result in a circumstance where the program fails to ask the costumer if they would like a receipt. The product manager knows the coders have done a good job when the program appears to work in all conceivable scenarios. Sounds like science, doesn’t it?
I’ve included this example because the most current and effective product management practices (Agile Product Management) were developed by management leaders in the software industry to manage complex and highly unpredictable projects. It would seem that scientific research projects also fit this bill.
I discovered agile project management about two years ago when I became determined to find a better way to manage my professional life. My journey was precipitated by the recognition that one week after having—what appeared to be—a productive meeting with a research student, I realized I hadn’t made either of us accountable for doing something that moved the project forward. Worse yet, I couldn’t remember the next step we were supposed to take. I realized I was a bad manager, so I tried to be a good leader and find a solution. My research led me to agile product management, which I practice in a version that I’ve modified for science.
Are you interested in learning more about the application of project and product management to your research? For a brief primer, consult Josh Kaufman’s The Personal MBA.
I’d also love to hear your thoughts on this post and receive suggestions for further elaboration or discussion.
Nicholas Mitchell is an assistant professor of biology at St. Bonaventure University, St. Bonaventure, NY. His research interests focus on determining what value adult hippocampal neurogenesis offers the brain for the purposes of learning and memory. To promote greater organization and efficiency within his undergraduate staffed research laboratory, he adopted both project and product management practices.
Note: StemCultures facilitates posting on this blog, but the views and accounts expressed herein are those of the author(s) or interviewee(s) and not the views or accounts of StemCultures its officers or directors whose views and accounts may or may not be similar or identical. StemCultures, its officers and directors do not express any opinion regarding any product or service by virtue of reference to such product or service in this blog.
Smooth Edges in Stem Cell Culture
This is a post by StemCultures CEO Jeffrey Stern PhD, MD.
When I think about the development of an organism, smooth edges, like the irresistible full folds and curves of a baby, come to mind. Throughout development, stem cells give rise first to the 
embryo, then later, through tissue-specific stem cells, to the final biological form, with naturally rounded shapes and few sharp edges. At the molecular level, I imagine similar changes—with gradual shifts in growth factors forming rolling gradients elastically linked to intrinsic gene regulation and protein expression. Over time and through evolution, the jagged peaks and shear faces of primitive organisms have been worn into smoother, more complex forms of life. As time softens sharp-edged mountain ranges into rounded, biologically complex environments, evolution shapes the sudden molecular and organismal changes that carve new pathways of development.
On the other hand, research seeks sharp, definitive, cut-and-dried explanations. Human nature seeks a clear path—with, when needed, stairs and a guide-rail—to follow. Indeed, the current revolution in stem cell science was enabled by the discovery of step-by-step protocols to expand cells without differentiation. Discoveries by pioneers such as Martin Evans, Irving Weissman, James Thomson, Benjamin Reubinoff, Rudolf Jaenisch, Shinya Yamanaka, Douglas Melton, and Austin Smith led to an understanding of the factors needed to maintain stem cells, providing the large quantities of cells needed for research and therapy. These pioneering results enable us to study stem cells and to discover just how complex the targeted biological processes are. As work progresses to refine protocols, they are beginning to evolve. Our recent work aims to mimic the more gradual changes, resembling environments encountered in normal development.
We’ve found that copying the normal developmental niche can have practical advantages, illustrated by our laboratory’s recent success using controlled levels of growth factor in stem cell cultures. Standard protocols add FGF2 daily in a step-wise fashion: suddenly via pipette, a bolus of this key growth factor is released onto the cells, causing a dramatic spike in levels. Surprisingly, half of the added FGF2 is lost in less than six hours, meaning there are extended periods of negligible FGF2 levels each day, followed by a sudden rise in concentration upon feeding. Using controlled-release to smooth these dramatic peaks and valleys results in more stem cells, increased stem markers, and decreased differentiation. The cells seem happier when these natural gradients replace sudden, dramatic changes in environment. For this discovery, like any other, it will take time to learn the full implications—but the philosophy of letting nature guide is one that we believe is worth following.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing below to our monthly newsletter through which we provide stem cell scientists information on the most current research topics and tools to help them constantly improve their stem cell culture experience.
Note: StemCultures facilitates posting on this blog, but the views and accounts expressed herein are those of the author(s) or interviewee(s) and not the views or accounts of StemCultures its officers or directors whose views and accounts may or may not be similar or identical. StemCultures, its officers and directors do not express any opinion regarding any product or service by virtue of reference to such product or service in this blog.
