April 1, 2024 • 49 mins
David Dichek's pioneering work in gene therapy for cardiovascular disease at the University of Washington Division of Cardiology left an indelible mark. In the warm glow of his memory, special guests Drs. Anne-Marie Schmidt, Daniel Yang, and Farid Moussavi-Harami join me to share the profound influence he had not only on their careers but on their scientific philosophy. We weave a tapestry of personal stories highlighting David's meticulous nature and his unwavering commitment to excellence, which continue to guide us in our quest for truth in research.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is Coffee and Cardiology.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
In this podcast, we sit down with a faculty from the
University of WashingtonDivision of Cardiology to
discuss the very latest indiagnostics therapeutics and, as
a special bonus, we ask whatmakes our cardiologists tick?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
My sick heart shows that I must yield my body to the
earth and by my fall, theconquest to my foe Thus yields
the cedar to the axe's edge,whose arms gave shelter to the
princely eagle, under whoseshade the ramping lion slept,
whose top branch overpeered to aspreading, spreading tree and
(00:46):
kept low shrubs from winter'spowerful wind.
Henry VI, part 3.
John Michael, I open with thatquote today because this episode
of our podcast is celebratingthe life and legacy of David
Ditschek, who we unfortunatelynever had the chance to
(01:10):
interview on this podcast,longtime member of the
University of WashingtonCardiology Division, really
central to our research effortsand mission our research efforts
(01:30):
and mission who very, verytragically passed away a few
weeks ago after complicationsfrom ironically coronary artery
bypass surgery.
And today we have some veryspecial guests to help us
remember him and learn moreabout his life.
Anne-marie Schmidt has knownDavid for quite a long time.
She is the editor-in-chief ofArteriosclerosis, thrombosis and
(01:53):
Vascular Biology, which is anAmerican Heart Association
journal and is extremelyprominent in the field.
And then we also have DanielYang and Fared Musavi, who have
been absolutely touched andbenefited greatly, as were we
all, but I think particularlythey were very close to David
(02:15):
and benefited so much from hismentorship here at the
University of Washington.
So thank you all so much forjoining.
I really, really appreciatethat you are here and the
information that you're going tobe able to share with us today.
So let's start out with the bigpicture and the national and
(02:37):
international reputation of thisamazing individual, and maybe
I'll turn to Anne-Marie Schmidtfirst.
And what is it that struck youmost about David and his
international nationalreputation in the research field
in vascular biology?
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Well, david was a leader, an international leader,
in gene therapy and, as youknow, there have been many
hurdles to really identifyingthe most effective ways of
therapy for cardiovasculardisease.
And David dedicated hisresearch, his work in the
(03:19):
laboratory, to trying toidentify the most optimal means
and strategic possibilities forutilizing gene therapy
approaches.
And what is most important forhow we remember David there is
no question and many people willsay this, have said this to me,
(03:42):
to others in the recent past isthat David is one of the most
rigorous, careful and thoughtfulscientists that you will meet.
David did not know the meaningof a shortcut and absolutely
everything he did he did toperfection.
(04:04):
I will say at this moment, inparallel with that tremendous
scientific gift, he hadabsolutely one of the best
abilities as a mentor to be surethat the laboratory trainees,
that the cardiology fellows,that the doctors, understood
(04:26):
what he was doing and why itcould be so important in the
long run for people sufferingwith cardiovascular disease.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
That characterized it so well.
I know our listeners can't seeit.
We're on the Zoom call here,and when you started saying that
about his meticulousness, allof our heads just automatically
started nodding in unisonbecause that was so, so true of
him.
Well, let me ask also, danieland Fareed, what sort of when
you began to be involved withDavid, what attracted you to him
(05:02):
as someone who could serve asyour mentor?
Speaker 5 (05:12):
Go ahead, daniel.
I first met David when Iinterviewed for cardiology
fellowship and this is 15-16years ago and he was very
excited to hear that somebodywas interested in lab-based
research and at the time he wasin, he was the director of our
(05:40):
T32 and he was reallyinstrumental in me choosing from
the University of Washington.
He said that he was going to besupportive of whatever area I
study and he was true to hisword.
He would continue to mentor methroughout my fellowship as
junior faculty and as juniorfaculty, and David really cared
(06:09):
deeply about science, truth,rigor and making sure that we
pass on good habits to nextgeneration of scientists.
When I would present data,david was the one who asked
about the statistics, about youknow what kind of and I was
naive.
I didn't know much about thephysics when I first started in
(06:34):
fellowship and David was reallythe one that you know would
teach me about different ways toanalyze things and really
making sure that if somethingcomes out of our laboratories,
that it should be able to bereproduced if we provide the
information and detail in ourmanuscripts, and I think that
(06:58):
was really best summarizes whatI had learned from him during
the time that I knew him as afaculty member and a mentor.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Yeah, I agree, I was a very similar footstep,
actually just literally threeyears behind Farid, and so I was
recruited here, also to theresearch pathway at University
of Washington, and so DavidDichek was our T32 director at
the time.
So I've had interactions withthem throughout the T32.
(07:35):
They weren't limited because itwas probably once or twice a
year, but really as it becamejunior faculty, as I started my
own lab applying for earlycareer at Bellmore, that's when
I actually started to seek outDavid more, because I could tell
he really had a vested interestin us, the junior faculty.
He really wanted us to succeed.
His research is very differentfrom mine, but I could tell he
(07:58):
would read about my research,the field, and provide insight
into my grant applications, mypapers and my presentations and
I felt that really just went theextra mile.
It was clear that he trulycared and that he, even though
it's outside his field, he wouldtake the time, the effort to
learn about to be able toprovide me useful insight and
(08:21):
helpful insight and I appreciatethat a lot.
And then I kept gravitatingtowards David and so pretty much
before I present to anywhereoutside UW I would run my
presentation by David, my grants, I would always have him read
my specific aims and even mypapers.
I would discuss with him thefigures and he was just
(08:44):
tremendously helpful and it'sgoing to be a large void to Bill
.
He had a very large.
Really can't overstate theamount of impact for the early
career distance scientists at UW.
And even beyond.
I have colleagues at Stanfordalso that have said the same
thing, that David has beencollaborating with them too, and
(09:04):
I report very similar.
He really took mentorshipseriously.
It was something that he trulyloved doing and was really
really good at.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Dr Schmidt as the editor of the ATVB Journal.
What role did David play forthat journal and in your
interactions with him?
Speaker 1 (09:26):
role did David play for that journal and in your
interactions with him?
Well, I'll tell you the wholestory because I think it tells
so much about David.
We all were asked anyone whowished to apply it was 2022, to
being considered foreditor-in-chief of ATVV, and I
did not have any idea who theothers were that were applying.
But at the end of it, it turnedout that I was fortunate to be
(09:49):
the one that they had chosen,but it was very important to me
to find out who the other peoplewere.
One of them was David, and Ireached out to him and to the
other person immediately.
I wanted to talk with themabout the journal, invite them
to be part of the senioreditorship of ATVB, and I
(10:12):
remember when I reached out toDavid, it was amazing.
He said well, we have to ZoomNow.
David is an extremely seniorperson and I was embarrassed.
What can I tell David Dichkabout being an editor?
Right, but we had a wonderfulZoom and as example of his
brilliance and his incomparableability to blend that brilliance
(10:38):
with kindness and humility, hesaid can you take me through how
to do the selection of thereviewers, etc.
And I almost felt that I paledin comparison.
(11:09):
You know, to all of hisaccomplishments.
We had two calls.
We actually ran through on hisrequest, an example of how to
outline the reviewers, line themup, etc.
Line the reviewers, line themup, et cetera.
And within no time so we wereinstated.
(11:31):
In July of 2022, david justbecame one of the most
outstanding leaders on theeditor team Absolutely unselfish
, brilliant, happy to not justsay, yeah, that looks fine, I'm
happy with that.
No, what David would do is, ifnecessary, would literally help
the authors to rephrase thatabstract to be exactly what he
(11:54):
knew they were trying to say.
And, in terms of theinitiatives, he always had his
hand up, you know, in thebackground with all those
beautiful flowers, and for allpractical purposes, his input
was always the go-to.
Like what does David think?
And I would also say that veryimportant for ATVB is the Early
(12:19):
Career Editorial Board, and sothe Early Career Editorial Board
are very young investigators,postdocs, junior faculty.
When David took on his mentee,without a doubt, the level and
the depth of how he worked withher was simply extraordinary.
Not only did they communicateby email, they would set up
(12:43):
Zooms, and I just want to tellyou that this young person was
in Europe.
So do the math right.
Nine hours Didn't stop Davidfrom finding the time to be able
to make sure that he couldcommunicate with the mentee in
order to be able to have a realdiscussion by Zoom about the
(13:06):
work, and I cannot.
You know, the mentee hasactually graduated onto the
editorial board because of allof the incredible depth of
understanding manuscript reviewthat David really had imparted
to her.
There were other initiativesthat you'll see coming out in
(13:29):
the future that just last nightI had to edit an Excel file
because three of the five of thenew areas, david was one of the
leaders, and you know to haveto do that.
I'm not surprised at all why Iwaited so long.
His indelible mark on thejournal in even two years is
(13:52):
going to be extremely hard, ifnot impossible, to replace is
not the right word, but to match, and in fact I do see it as a
way for the rest of us to learnfrom his legacy and step up and
try to emulate that type ofexcellence.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
That's just wonderful .
To me that really rings true asa characterization, Fried,
would you say.
That is consistent with whatwe've seen too.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
Yes, it's actually interesting.
Dr Schmidt, you wouldn't besurprised to know that Daniel
can speak to this.
One of the last emails thatDavid had to our junior faculty
was to encourage us to join AHAAerial Career Committees, and
you know we will cherish thatemail to encourage us to join
(14:48):
AHA Aerial Career Committees,and we will cherish that email.
He gave instructions of whyit's important.
He made a point that it'simportant for our careers, but
he also mentioned that it's howyou pay things forward.
If nobody joins thesecommittees, then we can't have
science.
So that was David at a nutshell.
Yeah, that's the last groupemail that we had from him and
(15:13):
Daniel can comment on that too.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Exactly yeah, and I actually emailed him back and
asked him you know, farid and Iare both kind're starting our
own lab or early career for thisscientist.
Does he feel like this is a gooduse of our time?
And he said he said it isbecause if we don't contribute
back to the community, thescientific community, it
wouldn't be able to grow, wewouldn't be able to develop
(15:39):
these meetings and have peoplecome together and foster ideas,
and so it was good to hear fromhim from a very senior
perspective to see, becauseotherwise we're kind of in our
lab, we're just trying to getthings up and running, and he
was stressing this importance ofthis, like giving back to the
rest of the community.
And that embodies David verymuch, because the time that he
spends on our grants completelyoutside this field time he
spends mentoring us and we'renot even he's not even our
(16:01):
primary mentor per se.
We have primary mentors.
He's doing this completelyselfishly, he's just out of the
goodness of his heart and hejust wants to see people succeed
and see the scientificcommunity succeed, and I think
that truly embodies David quitewell.
That was who he was.
He loved science and he wantedus to succeed and do well.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
It strikes me that that is such an example of the
way that things should work.
You know, I think we especiallyif one is involved in scientific
societies there's a lot of talkabout investing in the next
generation and making sure thatyoung people get their
opportunities and their chances,and yet so many of us are still
(16:47):
doing things very much forourselves and we are very
mindful of our careers and wedon't think probably enough
about how we can help otherpeople do it.
And even if we do, it's oftenjust our own people and we're
trying to promote people fromour institution.
But it strikes me that Davidspent that time and that effort
(17:10):
because he just loved science somuch and he wasn't parochial at
all.
His vision and his way oflooking at the world was so
broad and so generous and socentered on the advancement of
the field that he does serve asan amazing example for how we
(17:33):
all should think.
Well, let me ask you also ofsome other examples perhaps that
you've seen with other peoplein the ways that he has really
contributed to their upbringing,as it were, in the field, and
(17:54):
it doesn't necessarily have tojust be in areas of basic and
translational research.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
So I just in terms of all the things that we would
chat about on the emails, youknow I came to know David very
well because we have a lot ofsimilar characteristics in some
ways and it was very easy to beable to work with him and to
literally understand each other.
I really didn't know David verywell in terms of depth simply
(18:34):
because my area of research isin diabetes and diabetic
complications, so our researchwas sort of by definition
different.
But when I observed howbeautifully so we're a large
editor team we're a group ofsenior editors, associate
editors, technical statisticaleditors, the management team
what struck me was, whether itwas by email or on our Zoom
(19:01):
meetings twice a month, davidhad an ability to understand.
You know what each person wasindicating, contributing, and
was one of the first people toalways help to support a
viewpoint.
And that, I think, is veryimportant because you know you
have a lot of different peoplewith a lot of expertise, some
(19:24):
very opinionated he couldnavigate his way across the
super, you know, opinionated andthe ones that were struggling
to be able to get a chance tosay something.
And I think you know the single,what I came to understand.
You know more and more, andespecially sadly, as you said
(19:46):
you know somewhat after hisdeath, is how you can have in
one person tremendous brillianceand, you know, absolute
dedication to the field, to thescience, to the patients, to the
legacy of the early careerpeople.
But in every interaction thatDavid had, the single most
(20:13):
important thing that anyoneobserving would note was his
humility and his kindness.
And truthfully, if you thinkabout it, and all of us,
especially those of us a littlebit more on the quiet side and
certainly wouldn't go out and dooutlandish or say outlandish
(20:33):
things sometimes, it's very hardto navigate our field because
of the fact that there are justso much diversity of people.
No matter what the situation onthose meetings, with just a lot
of different opinions, davidalways was able to maintain
humility and tremendous kindnessand that is really an
(20:56):
extraordinary legacy, all ofthat to be embodied in one
person.
So I think in the end, eventhough we weren't direct mentees
, for example, all of us shallhave learned and should have
learned just so much more aboutthe way to do things.
(21:18):
He was such an extraordinaryperson.
We will miss him.
He is not replaceable.
There will have to be someoneto come in to cover his areas of
expertise.
But think about it in your ownlife.
How often can you truly saythat someone is really not
replaceable?
And that was David D Check.
Speaker 5 (21:46):
That's a really great point that you bring up,
because people have people knewthat Daniel and I were close to
him and since his passing, otherfaculty from other departments
at University of Washington havecome to me and said, well, look
, when I gave a job talk here orI came after I started my
(22:09):
faculty job and I gave a talk atUniversity of Washington, at
South Lake Union or on maincampus, then David reached out
to me get some feedback andpeople have told this to me
since his passing and becausethese are things that he did
that I didn't know about.
I just knew what he meant to me,knew what he meant to Daniel,
(22:32):
because we're close and we talkamongst each other.
But since his passing there'speople that have come out.
Folks at the University ofWashington bioengineering come
out in, folks in at universityof washington bioengineering,
folks in pathology that haveshared this with me and it
really shows you that he, he, hewas really interested in
(22:54):
helping people and mentoring andnot really he um not to just
benefit himself.
He was really interesting, butI think the scientific community
and it wasn't just thescientific community that
benefited from David.
Speaker 4 (23:14):
I've also heard other people come by and tell me more
clinical vignettes, so peoplewho have known him clinically
because David was a physicianscientist and I've never worked
with David personally clinicallybut I've heard that he really
took incredible care.
He was very meticulous,detail-oriented with his
patients.
Not surprised to any of us,obviously, who know him from a
(23:35):
scientific realm.
But I've had other specialistscome and share, you know,
anecdotes that they've had withDavid and so a lot of times when
, like generalists like referpatients to specialists,
sometimes they feel like, oh,they're done with this problem
and the specialist can deal withit.
But no, that was not David.
He would frequently read aboutthe problem first, he would try
(23:58):
to understand it and then posevery legitimate, thoughtful
questions to the specialist andthen after that he would
continue to manage the patientin collaboration with a
specialist so that it wasn'tjust that he didn't just push
things off his plate, he wastruly involved.
He took meticulous care of hispatients and it's not just his
patients that realized that, butalso other of his clinical
(24:21):
colleagues also had taken noteof that and shared that with us
after his passing.
Speaker 5 (24:36):
That's a great point.
Daniel at UCampus shared withme that David was one of the few
physicians that when they werethey were asked to go get a
tracing of the patient.
The patient was already in gownand ready to go and obviously
(25:00):
it's no surprise to all of usthat know him.
He also had clinic on the sameday as one of my other friends
and they shared with me thatDavid really had the team
approach on the clinical sidetoo, so he would want to discuss
cases.
You know run things by otherphysicians, kind of like the
outpatient version of doingrounds.
You know kind of he reallyliked discussing cases.
(25:23):
That's what was shared with mebecause I I I have not seen
david, um, uh, on the clinicalside before.
You know my interactions wereon there on the research side
but, uh, since his passingpeople have reached out and
shared these interesting facts,which are not surprising.
(25:43):
But it's just good to know thatthat meticulousness was seen in
every aspect of his life.
The ultimate physician scientist.
I think all of us here at UWwho have presented at research
(26:06):
faculty conference which Davidled, know that he had the last
slide.
He wanted to know how would myfinding change the practice of
cardiology and he was veryspecific about that and
obviously we have differentfields.
You know I'm more lab-based.
Daniel's lab-based DrKirkpatrick is, you know, doing
more patient-oriented typeresearch.
(26:27):
But all of us are hoping thatour findings would help patients
in the long term.
But he really wanted to makesure that we don't forget about
that site when we're presentingour scientific findings, because
it's easy to get lost in bargraphs, key values and whatnot.
But he really wanted to makesure that we remember that at
(26:49):
the end of the day, what we'reworking on should be helping the
patient, either now or in thefuture.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
No, it's funny you say that because when we
obviously the editorialsials, wedon't send the editorials out
for peer review, so the editorstook care of the editorials
ourselves.
We knew the papers super welland David was always one of the
editors that would chime in evenwhen, frankly, quote unquote he
didn't have to right but he did.
(27:18):
He would the paper.
And I can remember a fewcircumstances in the editorials
where he would come back in ourgroup chat or at the meetings
and he would say you know, theymissed a point about another
clinical, translationalinference of their work.
So he knew their work so wellthat he could point out to them
(27:43):
how to make the editorial betterby including something.
And that was like extraordinary.
The rest of us were like,what's that?
We've never even heard of someof these things.
So you are absolutely rightthat that was so important to
him, even so much as to helpauthors that really were in
(28:03):
different areas, you know, bringout some of the other important
aspects.
And of course, quite frankly,there were times that he
corrected their interpretations,which is okay.
You need that too, right, butalways in the spirit of we want
this to be the best possibleeditorial really jives with my
(28:32):
knowledge of David as well.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
He was so dedicated to things being as they should
be and really was so interestedin that and in multiple
different areas.
I also was very struck by thisconcept of what are we going to
do to change cardiovascularmedicine with this research,
because sometimes, and even,I'll tell you, even in
(28:55):
patient-oriented or populationresearch, you lose sight of that
because you get so excitedabout what we're working on.
These are interesting findingsand that sort of thing in the
science of discovery, but it'sall and not that discovery is a
problem.
Problem, but it's just that ifyou don't at least ask that
question, you may miss something.
(29:15):
Just like sounds like peoplemay have missed, in some of the
of their editorials that they'rewriting, the opportunity to
sort of extend this beyond andopen this up and be practical
about it.
And and he was a very practicalperson, I have to say-
Absolutely yes.
(29:37):
Well, one other thing that I wasalways struck with about him
and maybe you all could commenton this too.
So a lot of times for theresearch conference.
Well, first of all, he startedactually laying out what the
ground rules were for theconference.
(29:57):
It wasn't just people are goingto present their research, it
was the.
You needed to think aboutthings in a certain way.
And here's the type of feedbackactually that's going to be
helpful for these people.
So, no, good job.
Or, you know, liked yourpresentation.
No, no, you had to actuallygive some constructive,
(30:20):
practical feedback that's goingto help make this person better
and, to be honest, I have neverseen that anywhere in my
academic career that people haveemphasized that as much as he
did.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Absolutely, and he brought that to the manuscript
peer review process also because, even when he would receive so,
the way it would work is thathe would identify three
reviewers and then the reviewswould come back, and he was
absolutely not shy.
This is not really correct andI would like to add the
following.
(30:56):
And he really took the time,energy and effort, which, of
course, everyone has.
Time is a very preciouscommodity, right?
Never stop David from makingsure that he edited those
comments If he disagreed, if hefelt that they were wrong, and,
most importantly, to add his ownsuggestion about how to really
(31:18):
make this paper better.
And he was so fair.
He, even with all of his, youknow, factual knowledge and
ability to, you know, integratewhat he knew into their research
expertise area.
He always was so fair andunderstood that, okay, this is
one manuscript and really, whatshould be encompassed within
(31:42):
this one manuscript?
Really, in the spirit offeasibility, just is this
possible to do five more yearsof research for this one paper?
And so that element of judgmentand ability to really gauge how
much more they needed was avery unique and critical aspect
(32:03):
of David, and it's no surprisethat.
You know David had served inassociate editor roles in
journals such as atherosclerosis, as one example, and it's
absolutely clear to me now whyhe was so sought after because I
think people respected thatreal interaction with the author
(32:25):
in terms of getting the bestyou can out of what you're gonna
do in this manuscript, and alsothat element of fairness.
Speaker 5 (32:37):
Right, yeah.
All of us that have givenresearch conference here know
that David would give feedbackand he would ask for the
audience to give feedback andthen after your talk, maybe a
week or two, then you get asummative summary of what the
(32:58):
feedback was, which there's somequestions that are numerical
and there was comments andusually there are one or two
comments and I think usuallyDavid was at least 50 percent or
more of the comments, was atleast 50% or more of the
comments, and then he would also, in the email that he would
send out, say well, if you'dlike to talk about your
presentation, I'm happy to meetwith you, and he was serious.
(33:23):
He did meet with me a few timesbecause I wanted to hear how I
can improve things and again, hewas all about giving
constructive feedback and thatwas really important to him, I
think, to make presentationsimproved, and I really used some
of the techniques that hetaught me to improve how I give
(33:46):
talk or how I communicate.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
What were?
Speaker 5 (33:50):
some of those.
Oh, go ahead, Daniel, and thenFarid, I'm going to ask you what
were some of those?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Oh, go ahead, daniel.
And then, fred, I'm going toask you what were some of those
things, those practical thingsthat you gained?
But go ahead, Daniel.
Speaker 4 (33:59):
Oh yeah, I was always struck by those, although those
summative feedback are alwaysanonymous.
He always knew which one wasDavid because he would write
like paragraphs and it would beso involved.
It always struck me me likehe's not even in my field.
How is he so like insightfuland knows my side so well that
he can give me, you know, someuseful pointers about which way
(34:19):
I could pursue my science orwhich angles it might make more
sense?
And, and it was just incredible, it was like I was getting like
like I had another mentor, um,on my team and it was just truly
.
I was always so struck how likea, how well of a Renaissance
man he was in science Like it'snot in the basket botany field,
(34:39):
but he was well versed in thisto be able to provide me some
very sound advice, and I thoughtthat was very unique and that's
why I graduated towards him, asI kind of started my lab the
last few years.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
In particular, that you learned.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
So some practical things are make sure your slides
are not very crowded.
Make sure that the title sayssomething about the data, not
just describing.
And then, if you have datapresented in a chart, you should
(35:26):
walk through what the axes are.
And those are some of thethings that David taught me when
I was a fellow that I continueto model and try to teach to
folks in my lab.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
He always told us the title of the slide is the most
important part of the slide.
And then, even more nuanced, hethen told me that if your slide
is two lines, you should breakit up in a way that makes sense,
like by phrase or something, sothat the phrasing of the slide
titles.
So he was so meticulous anddetail oriented and he paid
(36:04):
attention to things like thisand it made sense.
So I take that into account now.
So when I make my titles, Iwill try to break them to
phrases so that it reads andmakes sense to people.
Speaker 5 (36:16):
Yeah, I was fortunate enough to get my first R01 a
couple years ago and rightbefore the submission of the
grant, maybe about two weeks, Isent the newest version of the
grant to David.
I mean, he had made comments afew weeks earlier but the last
(36:41):
edits he made were reallyhelpful in the significance and
innovation part.
You know, that's the part thatwhen you're not experienced it's
kind of very difficult tocommunicate and David had kind
of broke down the significanceinto areas and suggested I make
things bold and it was veryhelpful.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
You know it's interesting.
You made that comment about howhe was a Renaissance person in
science.
I probably shouldn't admit this, but it took me three years to
figure out what his scientificspecialty was, because I knew he
did something in basic andtranslational, but I didn't
really know what that was,because every time in
conferences he did seem to knoweverything about everything and
(37:28):
it didn't really matter.
He could comment universallything and it didn't.
It didn't really matter, hecould comment universally.
Well, uh, I want to turn us nowto to some of his pastimes.
Um, I understand that he wasquite the bicyclist, as as many
people in seattle are.
Um, was that a consumingpassion, and I imagine he did it
very meticulously.
Speaker 5 (37:51):
Yes, he would go every summer and take his bike
to Europe and he would go withhis family at times and they
would bike.
And then I've been told thatpeople have seen him biking on
(38:11):
two campus often, and I believethat one of the bikes had a name
, a French name, francois.
Speaker 4 (38:23):
I know you guys can't see it, but Brie and I just
attended his funeral the otherday and the family gave everyone
one of these to commemorate.
David Biking was definitely avery big part of his life and he
apparently I think the bike wasfrom the 1970s or so he's taken
to take care of this bike.
(38:44):
He apparently does all therepairs himself.
He apparently goes to therepair shop where you pay the
repair shop to be able to usethe tools so that you can repair
yourself that's how he did thisand how how careful he was with
this bike, and and so I thoughtit was quite fitting that that
that's what the
Speaker 1 (39:02):
family, all of us, yeah, I think last summer
actually, I remember he was gonefor two weeks in the late
summer and he had gone to France.
So now I'm actually wonderingif he took his bicycle.
I know he was going bicycleriding, but I wouldn't think
you'd win your own bicycle.
Speaker 4 (39:27):
That's really incredible yeah, yeah, and
classic David form.
This is another anecdote that Iheard someone else has shared
with me.
They had Randy David actuallyon the bike trails in France and
you know this person had goneto more as a vacation.
(39:48):
And so had kind of broadoutlines of what their plan and
bike trails were, but not notplanned out quite as
meticulously.
But david, classic david hadeverything planned out, all the
routes planned out, exactlyeverything pre-planned, and and
so he, he took everything to thefullest.
He really didn't leave thingswith a chance to make the most
of it right.
Speaker 3 (40:08):
Exactly that's david, I want to throw out another
word that that struck me abouthim and that is courageous.
The reason that I bring that upis that my experience at least,
is that david would always besomeone to comment.
(40:30):
Whether it was a clinical casepresentation or whether it was a
research presentation, he wouldalways be the one to raise his
hand and sometimes eveninterrupt and say something and
comment, and he didn't reallycare what people thought about
that.
And in Seattle I don't know, drSchmidt, in Seattle we tend to
(40:53):
be a little reserved and peopledon't do that as much and we
always try to be very polite.
But he had the courage to standup at all times to say what he
thought and to correct anythingthat he thought was wrong.
Do you agree with that?
Speaker 1 (41:11):
I certainly do Because, as I said it was, we
had a large editor group rightand you're not always going to
have, you know, everyone, butDavid would always have his hand
up.
Many of the people rarely hadtheir hand up, you know, because
they just didn't or they wouldput it in the chat box.
David never put anything in thechat box.
(41:33):
His hand was up and he wouldgive his opinion and you know,
the honest truth is thinkingback on it after he would speak.
Even some of the people thatmay not have agreed, at least
they would have acknowledged.
That's a very good point and Ithank you for proposing this
(41:53):
interpretation.
So, without a doubt, he was notafraid to let how he felt.
I think he also thought of someof those experiences as
learning experiences too, thatyou would be able to elicit more
from the person that perhapsyou didn't see things exactly
the same way you know, throughthat dialogue.
(42:14):
So it's amazing how someonecould pretty much 24-7, you know
really embody that desire toimpart knowledge and also be
flexible and to receiveknowledge and then, of course,
integrate it into a new entity.
So I think courageous is a verybeautiful way to put it.
Speaker 5 (42:38):
Yeah, that's a great summary and you know our
institution, similar to others,have struggled to get people to
come back for conferences.
You know there's a Zoom optionin most things, but not David.
David was in person for everyGrand Rounds and every
conference that was offered asan in-person.
(43:00):
So he would again similar toyour experience here.
He would ask questions, hewould ask comments, he would ask
for clarification, reallywanted to make sure that what
(43:20):
was presented was accurate andmake sure that he understood
what the speaker was trying tosay.
Speaker 4 (43:27):
One more thing maybe I could kind of share with
everyone is also humanism side.
So, like Jim's aware, so mywife works in the UW ECHO lab
and usually when, when, whenshe's reading other you know
attendings, other providers,clinical providers, would come
up to her and usually they'rewanting something right there,
want to review an ECHO case.
They're wanting to review hey,what are the imaging modality?
(43:49):
I can do to answer thosequestions, generally something
that they need, and so that'swhy they're coming up to ask
when you're in the echo lab.
Well, apparently one day Davidcame in and now my wife has
actually never really interactedwith David much.
I never communicate with himbecause she's not in the science
field and their paths generallydon't cross.
But David came up once and sheasked him how can I help you?
(44:13):
How can I help you?
And he was like oh, nothing.
I just wanted to saycongratulations.
I heard that you and Daniel gotmarried recently and I just
wanted to pass on mycongratulations and that's it.
And then he walked away and shewas so like strapped like that,
because usually people arecoming for a particular thing or
two to ask, but he's justcoming to congratulate us really
(44:34):
.
And apparently he found outthat she was in the echo lab
because he was in clinic In abusy clinic morning.
He had saw that she had justread an echo by her and so knew
that she was in the echo lab.
So he took a few moments out ofhis busy clinic to go to the
echo lab just to saycongratulations, because he had
heard from you that we gotmarried recently.
And then he went back to hisbusiness.
So that's the type of personDavid is.
(44:56):
That's a great point.
Speaker 5 (45:01):
My wife and I had spent many Christmas holiday
parties talking to David and hiswife and you know, since I've
been around for at least 15years, so multiple times I've
got to really know both of themand both very lovely people, and
(45:22):
really David was interested toask about my kids and how
they're doing and he reallywanted, he really cared and
wanted to know about us beyondjust colleagues or even
scientists.
Speaker 3 (45:43):
He also did for our division and Freed has now taken
over this role and will beabsolutely fabulous in it.
But at every faculty meetingDavid was in charge of
collecting all of theaccomplishments from the
division and then going throughthem and sharing the ones that
he found most interesting andasking us if we had gotten a
(46:05):
grant or if we had published aresearch paper, something like
that, actually saying a fewwords to describe it and really
broadcast those other people'ssuccesses to the group.
I was always so impressed withwhat he chose because obviously
there were more than we couldget through, but he always chose
very interesting, maybe evenhumanly interesting things and
(46:29):
gave us a real chance to seethat and to begin to understand
and know each other within thedivision.
I think that was such a greatservice and I'm really glad that
that legacy will live onthrough Freed taking that on for
our division.
But I always found that toprobably be the most no offense
(46:50):
to everyone else who was on theschedule normally, but that was
my most favorite part of thefaculty meetings that took place
.
Well, thank you all so much forbeing here loved and admired
and appreciated David and hiscontributions in so many
(47:11):
different ways internationally,nationally, locally to science
and clinical care, education,mentorship, teaching and
humanism, and we're all going tomiss him terribly.
He is, as you said, dr Schmidt,completely unreplaceable, but I
think that he worked very hardto raise people up, not to
(47:35):
necessarily to replace him, butto accomplish the same things
that he did and to contribute toall of these different fields
that he loved so much.
And I just want to leave us withone more Shakespeare quote, and
it's obvious why I'm doing this.
He also, I believe, received adegree in Shakespeare and loved
(47:58):
Shakespeare.
He did not go around quotingShakespeare all the time, at
least not to me than I ever was,but I think his life is such
that it is wrapped up.
I think and I referenced thisearlier about courageousness,
(48:19):
and in Julius Caesar, in Act II,howards die many times before
their deaths, but the valiantnever taste of death but once.
And David was valiant.
David was courageous and I hopethat all of us can live out his
legacy in proportion to theways that he's contributed to us
(48:43):
and influenced our lives.
So again, thank you so much forbeing here.
Thanks, john Michael, forputting this all together, for
being here.
Thanks, john Michael, forputting this all together and if
anyone has further interest,please do contact the division.
There will be a celebration ofhis life later on and I'm sure
that there will be opportunitiesto be able to contribute and
(49:04):
learn from that.
But again, dr Schmidt and DrMusavi and Dr Yang, thank you so
much for being on today.
Take care.
Speaker 1 (49:16):
Thank you very much, bye-bye, bye, thank you.
This is Coffee and Cardiology.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
In this podcast, we sit down with a faculty from the
University of WashingtonDivision of Cardiology to
discuss the very latest indiagnostics therapeutics and, as
a special bonus, we ask whatmakes our cardiologists tick?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
My sick heart shows that I must yield my body to the
earth and by my fall, theconquest to my foe Thus yields
the cedar to the axe's edge,whose arms gave shelter to the
princely eagle, under whoseshade the ramping lion slept,
whose top branch overpeered to aspreading, spreading tree and
(00:46):
kept low shrubs from winter'spowerful wind.
Henry VI, part 3.
John Michael, I open with thatquote today because this episode
of our podcast is celebratingthe life and legacy of David
Ditschek, who we unfortunatelynever had the chance to
(01:10):
interview on this podcast,longtime member of the
University of WashingtonCardiology Division, really
central to our research effortsand mission our research efforts
(01:30):
and mission who very, verytragically passed away a few
weeks ago after complicationsfrom ironically coronary artery
bypass surgery.
And today we have some veryspecial guests to help us
remember him and learn moreabout his life.
Anne-marie Schmidt has knownDavid for quite a long time.
She is the editor-in-chief ofArteriosclerosis, thrombosis and
(01:53):
Vascular Biology, which is anAmerican Heart Association
journal and is extremelyprominent in the field.
And then we also have DanielYang and Fared Musavi, who have
been absolutely touched andbenefited greatly, as were we
all, but I think particularlythey were very close to David
(02:15):
and benefited so much from hismentorship here at the
University of Washington.
So thank you all so much forjoining.
I really, really appreciatethat you are here and the
information that you're going tobe able to share with us today.
So let's start out with the bigpicture and the national and
(02:37):
international reputation of thisamazing individual, and maybe
I'll turn to Anne-Marie Schmidtfirst.
And what is it that struck youmost about David and his
international nationalreputation in the research field
in vascular biology?
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Well, david was a leader, an international leader,
in gene therapy and, as youknow, there have been many
hurdles to really identifyingthe most effective ways of
therapy for cardiovasculardisease.
And David dedicated hisresearch, his work in the
(03:19):
laboratory, to trying toidentify the most optimal means
and strategic possibilities forutilizing gene therapy
approaches.
And what is most important forhow we remember David there is
no question and many people willsay this, have said this to me,
(03:42):
to others in the recent past isthat David is one of the most
rigorous, careful and thoughtfulscientists that you will meet.
David did not know the meaningof a shortcut and absolutely
everything he did he did toperfection.
(04:04):
I will say at this moment, inparallel with that tremendous
scientific gift, he hadabsolutely one of the best
abilities as a mentor to be surethat the laboratory trainees,
that the cardiology fellows,that the doctors, understood
(04:26):
what he was doing and why itcould be so important in the
long run for people sufferingwith cardiovascular disease.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
That characterized it so well.
I know our listeners can't seeit.
We're on the Zoom call here,and when you started saying that
about his meticulousness, allof our heads just automatically
started nodding in unisonbecause that was so, so true of
him.
Well, let me ask also, danieland Fareed, what sort of when
you began to be involved withDavid, what attracted you to him
(05:02):
as someone who could serve asyour mentor?
Speaker 5 (05:12):
Go ahead, daniel.
I first met David when Iinterviewed for cardiology
fellowship and this is 15-16years ago and he was very
excited to hear that somebodywas interested in lab-based
research and at the time he wasin, he was the director of our
(05:40):
T32 and he was reallyinstrumental in me choosing from
the University of Washington.
He said that he was going to besupportive of whatever area I
study and he was true to hisword.
He would continue to mentor methroughout my fellowship as
junior faculty and as juniorfaculty, and David really cared
(06:09):
deeply about science, truth,rigor and making sure that we
pass on good habits to nextgeneration of scientists.
When I would present data,david was the one who asked
about the statistics, about youknow what kind of and I was
naive.
I didn't know much about thephysics when I first started in
(06:34):
fellowship and David was reallythe one that you know would
teach me about different ways toanalyze things and really
making sure that if somethingcomes out of our laboratories,
that it should be able to bereproduced if we provide the
information and detail in ourmanuscripts, and I think that
(06:58):
was really best summarizes whatI had learned from him during
the time that I knew him as afaculty member and a mentor.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Yeah, I agree, I was a very similar footstep,
actually just literally threeyears behind Farid, and so I was
recruited here, also to theresearch pathway at University
of Washington, and so DavidDichek was our T32 director at
the time.
So I've had interactions withthem throughout the T32.
(07:35):
They weren't limited because itwas probably once or twice a
year, but really as it becamejunior faculty, as I started my
own lab applying for earlycareer at Bellmore, that's when
I actually started to seek outDavid more, because I could tell
he really had a vested interestin us, the junior faculty.
He really wanted us to succeed.
His research is very differentfrom mine, but I could tell he
(07:58):
would read about my research,the field, and provide insight
into my grant applications, mypapers and my presentations and
I felt that really just went theextra mile.
It was clear that he trulycared and that he, even though
it's outside his field, he wouldtake the time, the effort to
learn about to be able toprovide me useful insight and
(08:21):
helpful insight and I appreciatethat a lot.
And then I kept gravitatingtowards David and so pretty much
before I present to anywhereoutside UW I would run my
presentation by David, my grants, I would always have him read
my specific aims and even mypapers.
I would discuss with him thefigures and he was just
(08:44):
tremendously helpful and it'sgoing to be a large void to Bill
.
He had a very large.
Really can't overstate theamount of impact for the early
career distance scientists at UW.
And even beyond.
I have colleagues at Stanfordalso that have said the same
thing, that David has beencollaborating with them too, and
(09:04):
I report very similar.
He really took mentorshipseriously.
It was something that he trulyloved doing and was really
really good at.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Dr Schmidt as the editor of the ATVB Journal.
What role did David play forthat journal and in your
interactions with him?
Speaker 1 (09:26):
role did David play for that journal and in your
interactions with him?
Well, I'll tell you the wholestory because I think it tells
so much about David.
We all were asked anyone whowished to apply it was 2022, to
being considered foreditor-in-chief of ATVV, and I
did not have any idea who theothers were that were applying.
But at the end of it, it turnedout that I was fortunate to be
(09:49):
the one that they had chosen,but it was very important to me
to find out who the other peoplewere.
One of them was David, and Ireached out to him and to the
other person immediately.
I wanted to talk with themabout the journal, invite them
to be part of the senioreditorship of ATVB, and I
(10:12):
remember when I reached out toDavid, it was amazing.
He said well, we have to ZoomNow.
David is an extremely seniorperson and I was embarrassed.
What can I tell David Dichkabout being an editor?
Right, but we had a wonderfulZoom and as example of his
brilliance and his incomparableability to blend that brilliance
(10:38):
with kindness and humility, hesaid can you take me through how
to do the selection of thereviewers, etc.
And I almost felt that I paledin comparison.
(11:09):
You know, to all of hisaccomplishments.
We had two calls.
We actually ran through on hisrequest, an example of how to
outline the reviewers, line themup, etc.
Line the reviewers, line themup, et cetera.
And within no time so we wereinstated.
(11:31):
In July of 2022, david justbecame one of the most
outstanding leaders on theeditor team Absolutely unselfish
, brilliant, happy to not justsay, yeah, that looks fine, I'm
happy with that.
No, what David would do is, ifnecessary, would literally help
the authors to rephrase thatabstract to be exactly what he
(11:54):
knew they were trying to say.
And, in terms of theinitiatives, he always had his
hand up, you know, in thebackground with all those
beautiful flowers, and for allpractical purposes, his input
was always the go-to.
Like what does David think?
And I would also say that veryimportant for ATVB is the Early
(12:19):
Career Editorial Board, and sothe Early Career Editorial Board
are very young investigators,postdocs, junior faculty.
When David took on his mentee,without a doubt, the level and
the depth of how he worked withher was simply extraordinary.
Not only did they communicateby email, they would set up
(12:43):
Zooms, and I just want to tellyou that this young person was
in Europe.
So do the math right.
Nine hours Didn't stop Davidfrom finding the time to be able
to make sure that he couldcommunicate with the mentee in
order to be able to have a realdiscussion by Zoom about the
(13:06):
work, and I cannot.
You know, the mentee hasactually graduated onto the
editorial board because of allof the incredible depth of
understanding manuscript reviewthat David really had imparted
to her.
There were other initiativesthat you'll see coming out in
(13:29):
the future that just last nightI had to edit an Excel file
because three of the five of thenew areas, david was one of the
leaders, and you know to haveto do that.
I'm not surprised at all why Iwaited so long.
His indelible mark on thejournal in even two years is
(13:52):
going to be extremely hard, ifnot impossible, to replace is
not the right word, but to match, and in fact I do see it as a
way for the rest of us to learnfrom his legacy and step up and
try to emulate that type ofexcellence.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
That's just wonderful .
To me that really rings true asa characterization, Fried,
would you say.
That is consistent with whatwe've seen too.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
Yes, it's actually interesting.
Dr Schmidt, you wouldn't besurprised to know that Daniel
can speak to this.
One of the last emails thatDavid had to our junior faculty
was to encourage us to join AHAAerial Career Committees, and
you know we will cherish thatemail to encourage us to join
(14:48):
AHA Aerial Career Committees,and we will cherish that email.
He gave instructions of whyit's important.
He made a point that it'simportant for our careers, but
he also mentioned that it's howyou pay things forward.
If nobody joins thesecommittees, then we can't have
science.
So that was David at a nutshell.
Yeah, that's the last groupemail that we had from him and
(15:13):
Daniel can comment on that too.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Exactly yeah, and I actually emailed him back and
asked him you know, farid and Iare both kind're starting our
own lab or early career for thisscientist.
Does he feel like this is a gooduse of our time?
And he said he said it isbecause if we don't contribute
back to the community, thescientific community, it
wouldn't be able to grow, wewouldn't be able to develop
(15:39):
these meetings and have peoplecome together and foster ideas,
and so it was good to hear fromhim from a very senior
perspective to see, becauseotherwise we're kind of in our
lab, we're just trying to getthings up and running, and he
was stressing this importance ofthis, like giving back to the
rest of the community.
And that embodies David verymuch, because the time that he
spends on our grants completelyoutside this field time he
spends mentoring us and we'renot even he's not even our
(16:01):
primary mentor per se.
We have primary mentors.
He's doing this completelyselfishly, he's just out of the
goodness of his heart and hejust wants to see people succeed
and see the scientificcommunity succeed, and I think
that truly embodies David quitewell.
That was who he was.
He loved science and he wantedus to succeed and do well.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
It strikes me that that is such an example of the
way that things should work.
You know, I think we especiallyif one is involved in scientific
societies there's a lot of talkabout investing in the next
generation and making sure thatyoung people get their
opportunities and their chances,and yet so many of us are still
(16:47):
doing things very much forourselves and we are very
mindful of our careers and wedon't think probably enough
about how we can help otherpeople do it.
And even if we do, it's oftenjust our own people and we're
trying to promote people fromour institution.
But it strikes me that Davidspent that time and that effort
(17:10):
because he just loved science somuch and he wasn't parochial at
all.
His vision and his way oflooking at the world was so
broad and so generous and socentered on the advancement of
the field that he does serve asan amazing example for how we
(17:33):
all should think.
Well, let me ask you also ofsome other examples perhaps that
you've seen with other peoplein the ways that he has really
contributed to their upbringing,as it were, in the field, and
(17:54):
it doesn't necessarily have tojust be in areas of basic and
translational research.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
So I just in terms of all the things that we would
chat about on the emails, youknow I came to know David very
well because we have a lot ofsimilar characteristics in some
ways and it was very easy to beable to work with him and to
literally understand each other.
I really didn't know David verywell in terms of depth simply
(18:34):
because my area of research isin diabetes and diabetic
complications, so our researchwas sort of by definition
different.
But when I observed howbeautifully so we're a large
editor team we're a group ofsenior editors, associate
editors, technical statisticaleditors, the management team
what struck me was, whether itwas by email or on our Zoom
(19:01):
meetings twice a month, davidhad an ability to understand.
You know what each person wasindicating, contributing, and
was one of the first people toalways help to support a
viewpoint.
And that, I think, is veryimportant because you know you
have a lot of different peoplewith a lot of expertise, some
(19:24):
very opinionated he couldnavigate his way across the
super, you know, opinionated andthe ones that were struggling
to be able to get a chance tosay something.
And I think you know the single,what I came to understand.
You know more and more, andespecially sadly, as you said
(19:46):
you know somewhat after hisdeath, is how you can have in
one person tremendous brillianceand, you know, absolute
dedication to the field, to thescience, to the patients, to the
legacy of the early careerpeople.
But in every interaction thatDavid had, the single most
(20:13):
important thing that anyoneobserving would note was his
humility and his kindness.
And truthfully, if you thinkabout it, and all of us,
especially those of us a littlebit more on the quiet side and
certainly wouldn't go out and dooutlandish or say outlandish
(20:33):
things sometimes, it's very hardto navigate our field because
of the fact that there are justso much diversity of people.
No matter what the situation onthose meetings, with just a lot
of different opinions, davidalways was able to maintain
humility and tremendous kindnessand that is really an
(20:56):
extraordinary legacy, all ofthat to be embodied in one
person.
So I think in the end, eventhough we weren't direct mentees
, for example, all of us shallhave learned and should have
learned just so much more aboutthe way to do things.
(21:18):
He was such an extraordinaryperson.
We will miss him.
He is not replaceable.
There will have to be someoneto come in to cover his areas of
expertise.
But think about it in your ownlife.
How often can you truly saythat someone is really not
replaceable?
And that was David D Check.
Speaker 5 (21:46):
That's a really great point that you bring up,
because people have people knewthat Daniel and I were close to
him and since his passing, otherfaculty from other departments
at University of Washington havecome to me and said, well, look
, when I gave a job talk here orI came after I started my
(22:09):
faculty job and I gave a talk atUniversity of Washington, at
South Lake Union or on maincampus, then David reached out
to me get some feedback andpeople have told this to me
since his passing and becausethese are things that he did
that I didn't know about.
I just knew what he meant to me,knew what he meant to Daniel,
(22:32):
because we're close and we talkamongst each other.
But since his passing there'speople that have come out.
Folks at the University ofWashington bioengineering come
out in, folks in at universityof washington bioengineering,
folks in pathology that haveshared this with me and it
really shows you that he, he, hewas really interested in
(22:54):
helping people and mentoring andnot really he um not to just
benefit himself.
He was really interesting, butI think the scientific community
and it wasn't just thescientific community that
benefited from David.
Speaker 4 (23:14):
I've also heard other people come by and tell me more
clinical vignettes, so peoplewho have known him clinically
because David was a physicianscientist and I've never worked
with David personally clinicallybut I've heard that he really
took incredible care.
He was very meticulous,detail-oriented with his
patients.
Not surprised to any of us,obviously, who know him from a
(23:35):
scientific realm.
But I've had other specialistscome and share, you know,
anecdotes that they've had withDavid and so a lot of times when
, like generalists like referpatients to specialists,
sometimes they feel like, oh,they're done with this problem
and the specialist can deal withit.
But no, that was not David.
He would frequently read aboutthe problem first, he would try
(23:58):
to understand it and then posevery legitimate, thoughtful
questions to the specialist andthen after that he would
continue to manage the patientin collaboration with a
specialist so that it wasn'tjust that he didn't just push
things off his plate, he wastruly involved.
He took meticulous care of hispatients and it's not just his
patients that realized that, butalso other of his clinical
(24:21):
colleagues also had taken noteof that and shared that with us
after his passing.
Speaker 5 (24:36):
That's a great point.
Daniel at UCampus shared withme that David was one of the few
physicians that when they werethey were asked to go get a
tracing of the patient.
The patient was already in gownand ready to go and obviously
(25:00):
it's no surprise to all of usthat know him.
He also had clinic on the sameday as one of my other friends
and they shared with me thatDavid really had the team
approach on the clinical sidetoo, so he would want to discuss
cases.
You know run things by otherphysicians, kind of like the
outpatient version of doingrounds.
You know kind of he reallyliked discussing cases.
(25:23):
That's what was shared with mebecause I I I have not seen
david, um, uh, on the clinicalside before.
You know my interactions wereon there on the research side
but, uh, since his passingpeople have reached out and
shared these interesting facts,which are not surprising.
(25:43):
But it's just good to know thatthat meticulousness was seen in
every aspect of his life.
The ultimate physician scientist.
I think all of us here at UWwho have presented at research
(26:06):
faculty conference which Davidled, know that he had the last
slide.
He wanted to know how would myfinding change the practice of
cardiology and he was veryspecific about that and
obviously we have differentfields.
You know I'm more lab-based.
Daniel's lab-based DrKirkpatrick is, you know, doing
more patient-oriented typeresearch.
(26:27):
But all of us are hoping thatour findings would help patients
in the long term.
But he really wanted to makesure that we don't forget about
that site when we're presentingour scientific findings, because
it's easy to get lost in bargraphs, key values and whatnot.
But he really wanted to makesure that we remember that at
(26:49):
the end of the day, what we'reworking on should be helping the
patient, either now or in thefuture.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
No, it's funny you say that because when we
obviously the editorialsials, wedon't send the editorials out
for peer review, so the editorstook care of the editorials
ourselves.
We knew the papers super welland David was always one of the
editors that would chime in evenwhen, frankly, quote unquote he
didn't have to right but he did.
(27:18):
He would the paper.
And I can remember a fewcircumstances in the editorials
where he would come back in ourgroup chat or at the meetings
and he would say you know, theymissed a point about another
clinical, translationalinference of their work.
So he knew their work so wellthat he could point out to them
(27:43):
how to make the editorial betterby including something.
And that was like extraordinary.
The rest of us were like,what's that?
We've never even heard of someof these things.
So you are absolutely rightthat that was so important to
him, even so much as to helpauthors that really were in
(28:03):
different areas, you know, bringout some of the other important
aspects.
And of course, quite frankly,there were times that he
corrected their interpretations,which is okay.
You need that too, right, butalways in the spirit of we want
this to be the best possibleeditorial really jives with my
(28:32):
knowledge of David as well.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
He was so dedicated to things being as they should
be and really was so interestedin that and in multiple
different areas.
I also was very struck by thisconcept of what are we going to
do to change cardiovascularmedicine with this research,
because sometimes, and even,I'll tell you, even in
(28:55):
patient-oriented or populationresearch, you lose sight of that
because you get so excitedabout what we're working on.
These are interesting findingsand that sort of thing in the
science of discovery, but it'sall and not that discovery is a
problem.
Problem, but it's just that ifyou don't at least ask that
question, you may miss something.
(29:15):
Just like sounds like peoplemay have missed, in some of the
of their editorials that they'rewriting, the opportunity to
sort of extend this beyond andopen this up and be practical
about it.
And and he was a very practicalperson, I have to say-
Absolutely yes.
(29:37):
Well, one other thing that I wasalways struck with about him
and maybe you all could commenton this too.
So a lot of times for theresearch conference.
Well, first of all, he startedactually laying out what the
ground rules were for theconference.
(29:57):
It wasn't just people are goingto present their research, it
was the.
You needed to think aboutthings in a certain way.
And here's the type of feedbackactually that's going to be
helpful for these people.
So, no, good job.
Or, you know, liked yourpresentation.
No, no, you had to actuallygive some constructive,
(30:20):
practical feedback that's goingto help make this person better
and, to be honest, I have neverseen that anywhere in my
academic career that people haveemphasized that as much as he
did.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Absolutely, and he brought that to the manuscript
peer review process also because, even when he would receive so,
the way it would work is thathe would identify three
reviewers and then the reviewswould come back, and he was
absolutely not shy.
This is not really correct andI would like to add the
following.
(30:56):
And he really took the time,energy and effort, which, of
course, everyone has.
Time is a very preciouscommodity, right?
Never stop David from makingsure that he edited those
comments If he disagreed, if hefelt that they were wrong, and,
most importantly, to add his ownsuggestion about how to really
(31:18):
make this paper better.
And he was so fair.
He, even with all of his, youknow, factual knowledge and
ability to, you know, integratewhat he knew into their research
expertise area.
He always was so fair andunderstood that, okay, this is
one manuscript and really, whatshould be encompassed within
(31:42):
this one manuscript?
Really, in the spirit offeasibility, just is this
possible to do five more yearsof research for this one paper?
And so that element of judgmentand ability to really gauge how
much more they needed was avery unique and critical aspect
(32:03):
of David, and it's no surprisethat.
You know David had served inassociate editor roles in
journals such as atherosclerosis, as one example, and it's
absolutely clear to me now whyhe was so sought after because I
think people respected thatreal interaction with the author
(32:25):
in terms of getting the bestyou can out of what you're gonna
do in this manuscript, and alsothat element of fairness.
Speaker 5 (32:37):
Right, yeah.
All of us that have givenresearch conference here know
that David would give feedbackand he would ask for the
audience to give feedback andthen after your talk, maybe a
week or two, then you get asummative summary of what the
(32:58):
feedback was, which there's somequestions that are numerical
and there was comments andusually there are one or two
comments and I think usuallyDavid was at least 50 percent or
more of the comments, was atleast 50% or more of the
comments, and then he would also, in the email that he would
send out, say well, if you'dlike to talk about your
presentation, I'm happy to meetwith you, and he was serious.
(33:23):
He did meet with me a few timesbecause I wanted to hear how I
can improve things and again, hewas all about giving
constructive feedback and thatwas really important to him, I
think, to make presentationsimproved, and I really used some
of the techniques that hetaught me to improve how I give
(33:46):
talk or how I communicate.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
What were?
Speaker 5 (33:50):
some of those.
Oh, go ahead, Daniel, and thenFarid, I'm going to ask you what
were some of those?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Oh, go ahead, daniel.
And then, fred, I'm going toask you what were some of those
things, those practical thingsthat you gained?
But go ahead, Daniel.
Speaker 4 (33:59):
Oh yeah, I was always struck by those, although those
summative feedback are alwaysanonymous.
He always knew which one wasDavid because he would write
like paragraphs and it would beso involved.
It always struck me me likehe's not even in my field.
How is he so like insightfuland knows my side so well that
he can give me, you know, someuseful pointers about which way
(34:19):
I could pursue my science orwhich angles it might make more
sense?
And, and it was just incredible, it was like I was getting like
like I had another mentor, um,on my team and it was just truly
.
I was always so struck how likea, how well of a Renaissance
man he was in science Like it'snot in the basket botany field,
(34:39):
but he was well versed in thisto be able to provide me some
very sound advice, and I thoughtthat was very unique and that's
why I graduated towards him, asI kind of started my lab the
last few years.
Speaker 3 (34:57):
In particular, that you learned.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
So some practical things are make sure your slides
are not very crowded.
Make sure that the title sayssomething about the data, not
just describing.
And then, if you have datapresented in a chart, you should
(35:26):
walk through what the axes are.
And those are some of thethings that David taught me when
I was a fellow that I continueto model and try to teach to
folks in my lab.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
He always told us the title of the slide is the most
important part of the slide.
And then, even more nuanced, hethen told me that if your slide
is two lines, you should breakit up in a way that makes sense,
like by phrase or something, sothat the phrasing of the slide
titles.
So he was so meticulous anddetail oriented and he paid
(36:04):
attention to things like thisand it made sense.
So I take that into account now.
So when I make my titles, Iwill try to break them to
phrases so that it reads andmakes sense to people.
Speaker 5 (36:16):
Yeah, I was fortunate enough to get my first R01 a
couple years ago and rightbefore the submission of the
grant, maybe about two weeks, Isent the newest version of the
grant to David.
I mean, he had made comments afew weeks earlier but the last
(36:41):
edits he made were reallyhelpful in the significance and
innovation part.
You know, that's the part thatwhen you're not experienced it's
kind of very difficult tocommunicate and David had kind
of broke down the significanceinto areas and suggested I make
things bold and it was veryhelpful.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
You know it's interesting.
You made that comment about howhe was a Renaissance person in
science.
I probably shouldn't admit this, but it took me three years to
figure out what his scientificspecialty was, because I knew he
did something in basic andtranslational, but I didn't
really know what that was,because every time in
conferences he did seem to knoweverything about everything and
(37:28):
it didn't really matter.
He could comment universallything and it didn't.
It didn't really matter, hecould comment universally.
Well, uh, I want to turn us nowto to some of his pastimes.
Um, I understand that he wasquite the bicyclist, as as many
people in seattle are.
Um, was that a consumingpassion, and I imagine he did it
very meticulously.
Speaker 5 (37:51):
Yes, he would go every summer and take his bike
to Europe and he would go withhis family at times and they
would bike.
And then I've been told thatpeople have seen him biking on
(38:11):
two campus often, and I believethat one of the bikes had a name
, a French name, francois.
Speaker 4 (38:23):
I know you guys can't see it, but Brie and I just
attended his funeral the otherday and the family gave everyone
one of these to commemorate.
David Biking was definitely avery big part of his life and he
apparently I think the bike wasfrom the 1970s or so he's taken
to take care of this bike.
(38:44):
He apparently does all therepairs himself.
He apparently goes to therepair shop where you pay the
repair shop to be able to usethe tools so that you can repair
yourself that's how he did thisand how how careful he was with
this bike, and and so I thoughtit was quite fitting that that
that's what the
Speaker 1 (39:02):
family, all of us, yeah, I think last summer
actually, I remember he was gonefor two weeks in the late
summer and he had gone to France.
So now I'm actually wonderingif he took his bicycle.
I know he was going bicycleriding, but I wouldn't think
you'd win your own bicycle.
Speaker 4 (39:27):
That's really incredible yeah, yeah, and
classic David form.
This is another anecdote that Iheard someone else has shared
with me.
They had Randy David actuallyon the bike trails in France and
you know this person had goneto more as a vacation.
(39:48):
And so had kind of broadoutlines of what their plan and
bike trails were, but not notplanned out quite as
meticulously.
But david, classic david hadeverything planned out, all the
routes planned out, exactlyeverything pre-planned, and and
so he, he took everything to thefullest.
He really didn't leave thingswith a chance to make the most
of it right.
Speaker 3 (40:08):
Exactly that's david, I want to throw out another
word that that struck me abouthim and that is courageous.
The reason that I bring that upis that my experience at least,
is that david would always besomeone to comment.
(40:30):
Whether it was a clinical casepresentation or whether it was a
research presentation, he wouldalways be the one to raise his
hand and sometimes eveninterrupt and say something and
comment, and he didn't reallycare what people thought about
that.
And in Seattle I don't know, drSchmidt, in Seattle we tend to
(40:53):
be a little reserved and peopledon't do that as much and we
always try to be very polite.
But he had the courage to standup at all times to say what he
thought and to correct anythingthat he thought was wrong.
Do you agree with that?
Speaker 1 (41:11):
I certainly do Because, as I said it was, we
had a large editor group rightand you're not always going to
have, you know, everyone, butDavid would always have his hand
up.
Many of the people rarely hadtheir hand up, you know, because
they just didn't or they wouldput it in the chat box.
David never put anything in thechat box.
(41:33):
His hand was up and he wouldgive his opinion and you know,
the honest truth is thinkingback on it after he would speak.
Even some of the people thatmay not have agreed, at least
they would have acknowledged.
That's a very good point and Ithank you for proposing this
(41:53):
interpretation.
So, without a doubt, he was notafraid to let how he felt.
I think he also thought of someof those experiences as
learning experiences too, thatyou would be able to elicit more
from the person that perhapsyou didn't see things exactly
the same way you know, throughthat dialogue.
(42:14):
So it's amazing how someonecould pretty much 24-7, you know
really embody that desire toimpart knowledge and also be
flexible and to receiveknowledge and then, of course,
integrate it into a new entity.
So I think courageous is a verybeautiful way to put it.
Speaker 5 (42:38):
Yeah, that's a great summary and you know our
institution, similar to others,have struggled to get people to
come back for conferences.
You know there's a Zoom optionin most things, but not David.
David was in person for everyGrand Rounds and every
conference that was offered asan in-person.
(43:00):
So he would again similar toyour experience here.
He would ask questions, hewould ask comments, he would ask
for clarification, reallywanted to make sure that what
(43:20):
was presented was accurate andmake sure that he understood
what the speaker was trying tosay.
Speaker 4 (43:27):
One more thing maybe I could kind of share with
everyone is also humanism side.
So, like Jim's aware, so mywife works in the UW ECHO lab
and usually when, when, whenshe's reading other you know
attendings, other providers,clinical providers, would come
up to her and usually they'rewanting something right there,
want to review an ECHO case.
They're wanting to review hey,what are the imaging modality?
(43:49):
I can do to answer thosequestions, generally something
that they need, and so that'swhy they're coming up to ask
when you're in the echo lab.
Well, apparently one day Davidcame in and now my wife has
actually never really interactedwith David much.
I never communicate with himbecause she's not in the science
field and their paths generallydon't cross.
But David came up once and sheasked him how can I help you?
(44:13):
How can I help you?
And he was like oh, nothing.
I just wanted to saycongratulations.
I heard that you and Daniel gotmarried recently and I just
wanted to pass on mycongratulations and that's it.
And then he walked away and shewas so like strapped like that,
because usually people arecoming for a particular thing or
two to ask, but he's justcoming to congratulate us really
(44:34):
.
And apparently he found outthat she was in the echo lab
because he was in clinic In abusy clinic morning.
He had saw that she had justread an echo by her and so knew
that she was in the echo lab.
So he took a few moments out ofhis busy clinic to go to the
echo lab just to saycongratulations, because he had
heard from you that we gotmarried recently.
And then he went back to hisbusiness.
So that's the type of personDavid is.
(44:56):
That's a great point.
Speaker 5 (45:01):
My wife and I had spent many Christmas holiday
parties talking to David and hiswife and you know, since I've
been around for at least 15years, so multiple times I've
got to really know both of themand both very lovely people, and
(45:22):
really David was interested toask about my kids and how
they're doing and he reallywanted, he really cared and
wanted to know about us beyondjust colleagues or even
scientists.
Speaker 3 (45:43):
He also did for our division and Freed has now taken
over this role and will beabsolutely fabulous in it.
But at every faculty meetingDavid was in charge of
collecting all of theaccomplishments from the
division and then going throughthem and sharing the ones that
he found most interesting andasking us if we had gotten a
(46:05):
grant or if we had published aresearch paper, something like
that, actually saying a fewwords to describe it and really
broadcast those other people'ssuccesses to the group.
I was always so impressed withwhat he chose because obviously
there were more than we couldget through, but he always chose
very interesting, maybe evenhumanly interesting things and
(46:29):
gave us a real chance to seethat and to begin to understand
and know each other within thedivision.
I think that was such a greatservice and I'm really glad that
that legacy will live onthrough Freed taking that on for
our division.
But I always found that toprobably be the most no offense
(46:50):
to everyone else who was on theschedule normally, but that was
my most favorite part of thefaculty meetings that took place
.
Well, thank you all so much forbeing here loved and admired
and appreciated David and hiscontributions in so many
(47:11):
different ways internationally,nationally, locally to science
and clinical care, education,mentorship, teaching and
humanism, and we're all going tomiss him terribly.
He is, as you said, dr Schmidt,completely unreplaceable, but I
think that he worked very hardto raise people up, not to
(47:35):
necessarily to replace him, butto accomplish the same things
that he did and to contribute toall of these different fields
that he loved so much.
And I just want to leave us withone more Shakespeare quote, and
it's obvious why I'm doing this.
He also, I believe, received adegree in Shakespeare and loved
(47:58):
Shakespeare.
He did not go around quotingShakespeare all the time, at
least not to me than I ever was,but I think his life is such
that it is wrapped up.
I think and I referenced thisearlier about courageousness,
(48:19):
and in Julius Caesar, in Act II,howards die many times before
their deaths, but the valiantnever taste of death but once.
And David was valiant.
David was courageous and I hopethat all of us can live out his
legacy in proportion to theways that he's contributed to us
(48:43):
and influenced our lives.
So again, thank you so much forbeing here.
Thanks, john Michael, forputting this all together, for
being here.
Thanks, john Michael, forputting this all together and if
anyone has further interest,please do contact the division.
There will be a celebration ofhis life later on and I'm sure
that there will be opportunitiesto be able to contribute and
(49:04):
learn from that.
But again, dr Schmidt and DrMusavi and Dr Yang, thank you so
much for being on today.
Take care.
Speaker 1 (49:16):
Thank you very much, bye-bye, bye, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!