"While this chronology depicts an extraordinary life from humble beginnings
to the dais in Stockholm for the Nobel Prize, it does not do justice to his
remarkable personal qualities. Julie was the ultimate mentor. His laboratory
was not simply a place where good science was done, but one where the
fellows learned how to do good science. Julie's government-issue steel desk
was strategically placed in the laboratory, where it was 4 feet from the
reagent scale and 10 feet from the scintillation counter so that every
fellow would have to chat with him when either starting or finishing an
experiment. He took his annual vacation in July, just as the new fellows
were arriving. This unnerving practice forced the new fellows to work with
the established fellows so that they became familiar with the ongoing
research of the laboratory by the time Julie returned. Then, the new fellow
could decide with him on potential projects that fit into the general themes
of the laboratory.
Julie made sure his fellows were visible. Every fellow presented a slide
talk at the annual American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental
Therapeutics meeting, which was the meeting of the year. Julie would turn
down seminar invitations and recommend a fellow to speak in his stead. Julie
would give fellows journal articles to review. After he felt confident in
the quality of these reviews, he would let the fellow sign the review so
that soon the journal was soliciting reviews directly from the fellow. Once,
I wrote a sarcastic review of what was a weak scientific manuscript. Julie
caught me at the reagent scale and said 'Joe, a scientific article is like
the person's child. You shouldn't attack it. Be constructive with your
criticism.' I learned humility from a Nobel Prize winner.
Julie taught us that the best science is not simply confirming your beliefs
but watching out for the anomalous results that may point to novel insights.
He encouraged us to be aggressive in our research—'Be the firstest with
the mostest.' He bridled a bit at the introduction of statistics into data
analysis, commenting 'If you have to do a t-test to prove something is
different, it probably isn't important.' This skepticism about statistics
derived from his uncanny ability to pose experimental questions with such
clarity that the results were unequivocal. For 30 years, he trained a series
of fellows, who invariably went on to distinguished careers in science and
academe, a testimonial to his skills as a mentor. But there was not an
arrogant fiber in him. On the day that he won the Nobel Prize, the Director
of NIH asked what he would like. Julie thought for a moment and then replied
, 'A parking space would be nice.'"
Molecular Psychiatry (2005) 10, 225–226. doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001650
Julius Axelrod (1912–2004)
