Research That Moves Organizations Forward

A laboratory can have strong safety rules and still struggle when people do not feel comfortable asking questions, reporting concerns, or challenging harmful behavior.

Our team studied what happens when biomedical trainees experience harassment, racial mistreatment, or incivility, even over a short period. We found that these experiences can shape how people feel about their careers, their workplaces, and whether they believe they can succeed in science. That means laboratory culture is not separate from safety and productivity. It helps determine whether people speak up, work together, and stay engaged.

Our broader work also brings together perspectives from researchers, safety professionals, and organizational leaders to identify practical changes in supervision, communication, reporting, and policy. The focus is not simply on whether rules exist, but on whether the day-to-day environment supports people in following them.

Strong research training requires more than placing someone in a laboratory. Trainees also need opportunities to define their goals, understand expectations, build confidence, and prepare for the next stage of their careers.

Our team used Individual Development Plans as the starting point for ongoing mentoring conversations rather than as forms completed once a year. We connected career goals with mentor support, skill development, scientific communication, graduate-school preparation, and regular progress reviews.

The innovation was not the document. It was the structure around it. Mentors and trainees had clearer roles, conversations became more intentional, and professional-development activities were tied to each person's goals. The same model can be expanded to prepare graduate students and postdoctoral fellows for future faculty roles, including mentoring, intercultural communication, research-team leadership, and constructive feedback.

Cell membranes do more than hold a cell together. They organize signals, guide proteins to the right location, and influence how cells grow, move, and respond to their surroundings.

Our team studied Angiomotin, a protein involved in controlling cell growth and movement, to understand how it recognizes and attaches to lipid membranes. By changing specific amino acids within the protein, we identified sites that were especially important for keeping Angiomotin associated with the membrane. That work connected a small molecular change with a larger effect on where the protein functions inside the cell.

We continue to approach this problem from several angles. Some projects use small-angle X-ray scattering together with computer-generated structural models to evaluate protein shape when conventional structure methods are difficult. Another combines differential scanning fluorescence and dynamic light scattering to examine protein stability, size, dimerization, and lipid-binding behavior. These uncommon assay combinations are especially useful when a question cannot be answered by one experiment alone.

Together, the article and posters show how our team moves from a difficult molecular question to a coordinated experimental strategy, then connects findings across biochemical, biophysical, structural, and cell-based studies.

Providing cancer information does not always mean that people will use it. Decisions about asking for help can be shaped by trust, family and community relationships, past experiences, access, and whether people believe an organization understands their needs.

Our team listened to community members to better understand how they recognize a need for cancer-related help, where they turn for support, and what may discourage them from approaching healthcare organizations. This work grew from a small community-engaged pilot study that explored the challenges people face when seeking cancer help and how patients and their support networks cope.

The innovation is the starting point. Instead of beginning with what an institution wants to tell the community, the work begins with how people experience the problem and what support feels useful and trustworthy to them. That creates a stronger foundation for outreach, navigation, communication, and community partnership.

Organizations often create thoughtful policy statements but struggle with what should happen after the statement is approved.

Our team developed a participatory approach that treats policy development as more than a writing exercise. It brings affected people into the process, connects policy language with organizational needs, and considers implementation, communication, responsibility, and evaluation from the beginning.

The innovation is recognizing that a policy succeeds only when people understand what it means for their decisions and daily work. This approach helps leaders move from broad commitments to practical action while identifying where new expectations may conflict with existing systems, resources, or responsibilities.