Science Chat with Dr. Andrew Spencley
Dr. Andrew Spencley is a Genome Editing Scientist at Novo Nordisk. He received his Bachelor’s in Microbial Biology from the University of California Berkeley and his PhD in Cancer Biology from Stanford University. A wet lab biologist at heart, Dr. Spencley’s passions for experimentation and collaboration drive his work in biotech and bioinformatics.
Blake: How did you become interested in science as a potential career?
Andrew: I had a great high school biology teacher who connected me to a cancer biology summer research program at Stanford. I spent a summer at the Stanford Center for Clinical Research (SCCR), where I would actually later end up as a technician in Kevin Wang’s lab. At the time, I worked with Professor Amato Giaccia. I didn’t end up there because I was doing exceptionally well in my classes – I just had the interest and eagerness to work in a biology lab, and pursued it.
Blake: As someone with a background in the wet lab, how did you get involved in bioinformatics?
Andrew: Kevin’s lab was very small, so I needed to be able to both do the experiments and analyze the data. Initially it was a matter of brute forcing analyses just to get the job done. I started branching out and slowly picked up skills. I was lucky because in academia there are a lot of grad students and postdocs who are eager to help out – it's just a matter of striking up the right conversation. This approach extended into my PhD in the Wysocka lab where I was again surrounded by incredibly talented computational biologists eager to teach and share their expertise.
Blake: What led you to focus on molecular biology?
Andrew: After I learned the basics of lab work in high school, my molecular biology training happened primarily in undergrad, where I worked with an incredibly talented grad student Tom Kleist. He and the PI, Dr. Peggy Lemaux, dedicated most of their time to training younger students, which is really cool. The lab’s focus at that time wasn't to attract top-tier grad students or postdocs and churn out huge papers – it was to mentor younger scientists. It's tough to maintain a lab and do that, and I really appreciate what they did for my colleagues and I.
Blake: How did you decide to pursue a PhD?
Andrew: I took time between undergrad and grad school, working as a technician for 3 years. Kevin Wang’s lab was quite technology-forward as opposed to clinically-focused. While I picked up a lot of molecular biology basics in undergrad, working in Kevin's lab was like being doused with a fire hose of information. It was just him and I for about a year, and then just 3 of us after. This was certainly challenging, but it gave me great exposure to the whole field.
I was attracted to the idea of a PhD because of how hands-on the process is. I think there is a bigger focus on experimentation compared to pursuing something like an MD, and having some amount of benchwork really helps me ground and focus myself.
Taking the time to work as a technician ultimately helped me to make the decision to join Joanna Wysocka’s lab in grad school. I was eager to apply many of the molecular biology approaches I had learned in that time to the fields of epigenetics and chromatin biology.
Blake: Do you have a favorite experiment or a highlight from your work on the bench?
Andrew: One that stands out is an experiment I did early on at Stanford as a technician. It was just for fun, without a lot of pressure and no real stakes: observing a spontaneous differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). We were trying to get these cells to differentiate directly into a variety of specific cells, like neurons. But if you just leave mESCs in media, some fraction of them end up differentiating into cardiomyocytes on their own. You can start to see them pulse and contract together. I took a bunch of videos because it just looked so cool.
Blake: What motivates you to work in both the wet and dry lab, and how do you navigate transitioning between them?
Andrew: For me, handing off the experiment or the data analysis part to someone else is not as cohesive or satisfying. I enjoy the whole process, from designing the experiment, to executing and gathering results, and then analyzing and interpreting the data. I think staying closer to the data the whole way through makes it easier to understand what’s going on.
As for transitioning between the wet and dry lab, the most important thing is collaboration. I wouldn't be anywhere without the help and generosity of other people. It's crucial to be vocal when you don’t know something – being able to ask for help has been my biggest asset. I’m rarely the person that is most suited to figure out a specific situation.
Blake: Do you have a favorite scientist?
Andrew: I have both a favorite celebrity scientist and a favorite personal scientist. In terms of public-facing scientists, it would probably be Jennifer Doudna. I got a chance to take a class with her at UC Berkeley before her work really blew up. She taught us the principles of CRISPR in a bacterial system long before I had any idea that it could change the face of medicine and biology. In terms of personal connections, it has to be Peggy Lemaux. She was my undergrad mentor who dedicated her lab and career to supporting young scientists, which really speaks to her character.
Blake: Do you have a chance to mentor others now in your current position? What advice would you give them?
Andrew: Yes, I'm doing my best to share as much as I can. Besides the science itself, human connection is one of my biggest motivators. The advice I have to give is: fail quickly. Don’t be afraid of it, because it’s inevitable. In baseball, hitting the ball even one out of every three times is an amazing batting average. There's so many failed experiments you have to get through, but they’ll make your benchwork that much smoother and bring your positive result that much nearer. You can spend all your time trying to design the perfect experiment, but sometimes it’s better to just go for it.