Member Spotlight

Q&A with George M. Martin, MD, longtime member and past president from Seattle, WA.

		"It illustrates what happens when one 'follows one’s nose' in science!"
Meet George.

Q: How long have you been a GSA member?
A: I will have to plead with GSA administration to check the records! I have been doing research on the biology of aging since the late 1950’s and probably joined the GSA in the early 60’s.

Q: Why did you become a member and what type of involvement do you have?
A: I became a member because of the opportunity to network with colleagues in all branches of gerontology. Have been quite active over most of my years of membership: Elected Fellow, 1977; Biological Sciences Section Chairman, 1979-80; President, 2003; I have organized a symposium on Alzheimer’s disease for the upcoming Annual Meeting in Atlanta.

Q: How has membership in GSA benefited you?
A: Personal contacts made at Annual Meetings have endured for decades.

Q: How did you get interested in the field of aging?
A: This is a long and interesting story. It illustrates what happens when one “follows one’s nose” in science! Research on a copper enzyme involved in a rare genetic disease led me to explore enzymes with metals closely related to copper, which led me to research on vanadium, which then led me to an exciting literature on the genetics of a fungus, which led me to do a fellowship in somatic cell genetics in Glasgow, where the project failed because of the limited growth potential of human skin fibroblast-like cells, which led to research on the Werner Syndrome and the entire field of biology of aging!

Q: How do you feel GSA serves the field of gerontology and aging research?
A: First of all, it is the best outlet for interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research in gerontology. Secondly, given its comparatively large membership and the expertise of its membership in diverse areas, including political science and economics, it provides a crucially important function in attempting to influence public policy.

Q: What are your key responsibilities at your job?
A: While at the age of 82, I no longer am accepting graduate students, I continue to serve on many PhD supervisory committees and do what I can to help young investigators see the importance and excitement of doing basic research on the biology of aging, particularly via genetic approaches. I continue to serve on the executive committees of our institutional training grant on “Genetic Approaches to Aging Research,” now headed by Professor Peter S. Rabinovitch, my former graduate student in genetics, and I also continue to serve on the executive committee of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. I am still PI of an NIH Grant, so am on track to “Die Funded!” Our lab, however, has been undergoing “controlled atrophy!”

Q: What has been your most memorable experience in gerontology and aging research?
A: The most rewarding experiences have been our contributions to the genetics to the Werner Syndrome and Autosomal Dominant forms of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the engineering of important mouse models. To find patients with the Werner Syndrome, my late wife Julie and I traveled all over the world; she taught me a bit about art history while I taught her a bit about geriatric diseases!

Q: Tell us a little about your most recent activities/accomplishments?
A: I now have a short theoretical paper in press for aging cell, thanks to very helpful critiques by reviewers; that two of them identified themselves is a tribute to the degree of collegiality and growing maturity of basic research on the biology of aging. I am working with a long time research associate, Dr. Galynn Zitnik, to begin modest efforts to test some predictions from that paper.

Q: Have you had an important mentor in your career? If so, how did it make a difference?
A: My fellowship with the late professor Guido Pontecorvo at The University of Glasgow was invaluable. I learned more genetics in one year than I had learned in the previous twenty years.

Q: Do you have any tips for emerging gerontologists?
A: There is a magic window of opportunity for making major contributions to a new field of research. If it is too early, the base of information is insufficient; if it is too late, one can wind up making only small incremental contributions.