I began working on apoptosis as part of my Ph.D. work (1987-1990) at a time when very little was known about the process. Few papers had been published on the subject prior to 1990 so it was possible to read almost everything in the field at that time. The seminal 1972 paper by John Kerr, Andrew Wyllie, and Alistair Currie was an obvious source of inspiration, but a lot of work in the field during the mid-to-late 1980s was published by Sten Orrenius/David McConkey and Richard Duke/John Cohen and my interest was sparked by their papers.

I think we all hate when our papers are rejected by good journals but usually the decisions are pretty fair. My pet hate is reading a paper in a high-quality journal that I know to be wrong or contrived. I truly believe that science is worthless if it’s done just to publish large numbers of papers that really say nothing. I really respect scientists who really try to make sense of the field and of their findings. Otherwise, there is really not much to complain about. This is a great hobby to have as a job; I still can't believe they pay us for this.

I am pleased to have been involved in a number of studies that have had an impact on the field (I won't bore you with the specifics). I am delighted to have survived the experience of starting up my own lab in the past 5 years; it was much tougher than I expected. I am proud of the quality of the people in my lab and how much effort they put into their projects.

I am convinced that discoveries in the apoptosis field will have a major impact in cancer therapy within the next 5-10 years. Work in this area has thrown up a lot of drug targets that should yield drugs for many other conditions: stroke, inflammation, sepsis, hepatitis. These drugs will be discovered by major drug companies (for that is their job) and they will take all of the credit and quickly forget why they targeted these molecules in the first place. People in industry and many clinicians often forget that this is a pipeline of which we are all a vital part. I hope the general public appreciates this also.

  Did you expect your work to become highly cited, or is this surprising to you?

No, I did not expect that our work would be so highly cited but it is a nice surprise and I am grateful to my colleagues for that. I believe that we do high-quality work, we certainly strive to, and I don't believe in publishing "salami" papers.

Be passionate about your science, don't do it just to publish X number of papers. Read as much as you can but be critical. Don't forget to be critical of your own work the most! Above all, enjoy your work, don't get cynical, and stay off the bandwagons (they are usually too crowded already).

Actually, I think that the way research is conducted works pretty well. Sweeping changes are probably not required. I would like European scientists to collaborate a bit more effectively and to see less of the painting-by-numbers science that appears in the journals. Overall, the system works pretty well I hate to say.

  Would you like to leave any other comments about your work or share a personal side of yourself?

I am very lucky to have such an understanding and supportive partner (Geraldine O'Brien) who has indulged my obsession for science in so many ways. I don't acknowledge or thank her for this anything like as much as I should. Thanks Ger. My mother Ann has also been very supportive of my education and career and got me hooked on science as a child by giving me chemistry kits as presents. I am very proud of my lab and appreciative of how they put up with my fussing around and annoying them for new data. I am also grateful to the many people who have helped me in my scientific development, particularly, Doug Green, Ivan Roitt, Tom Cotter, and Ann Burnell.

Professor Seamus J. Martin, Ph.D.
Smurfit Institute
Department of Genetics
Trinity College
Dublin, Ireland