And with her discovery of another kind of snRNP particle, small nucleolar RNPs (snoRNPs), she proved that the term junk DNA was a misnomer. Introns, the so-called noncoding regions of DNA, sometimes code for the small nucleolar RNA found in a snoRNP. These molecules (pronounced snow-RNPs by Steitz) chemically modify ribosomal RNA and are essential to its function.

Currently, Steitz is exploring viral snRNPs as well as the welter of effects splicing has on the downstream life of an RNA message. "For instance," she says, "we know that proteins are put on RNA in the process of splicing that are important for getting the RNA out of the nucleus to the cytoplasm."

While her work is on the bench side of science, others are translating her findings in the clinic in ways Steitz finds "absolutely amazing." A recent paper in Science details a way to use aberrant splicing to prevent the ravages of muscular dystrophy in dog models. "Basically, they designed a snRNP to undo the drastic consequences of a mutation," Steitz marvels. "I think that is just extremely cool!"

Apart from the official kudos Steitz has received, including the National Medal of Science, postdocs and graduate students in her lab say it's a genuine pleasure to be there. They rave, for example, about her "really great parties." At their most recent Halloween bash, Joan was the Statue of Liberty and Tom was Uncle Sam. And Doudna recalls delightful afternoons spent sailing with Steitz and her husband, drinking wine, discussing science—or the wind. "Working as a postdoc under Joan was such a fantastic experience," says Baserga, "that I spent the first several years on my own wishing I were still there."

While science itself is clearly Steitz's first priority, education is her second. "I adore teaching undergraduates and consider it a privilege to interact with the fabulous students at Yale," she says. Her recent participation in a committee that wrote the National Academy of Sciences report entitled "Bio 2010" inspired her to completely revamp a course for advanced undergraduates that teaches them, by group participation, how to read the literature. "Almost every time I lecture at another university, someone comes up to me and says, 'I took your biochemistry course back in 19xx, and it was terrific.' What more can one wish for?"

Another passion is a desire for women scientists to be appreciated as men's equals. Steitz stands firm by her 2001 comment in The New York Times that a woman scientist needs to be twice as good for half the pay, although, Thomas Cech points out, she doesn't picket for change but rather leads by example. Steitz spends time on oversight issues to remedy remaining inequality problems—time she would far rather devote to her science.

She bristles when asked about Harvard President Larry Summers' recent suggestion that women have less innate scientific ability. But she's certainly circumspect in her reply: "What he said, and the sequelae at Harvard and throughout the nation, is the best thing to happen for women in science since the MIT report." She is referring to the report out of MIT in the late 1990s that found women scientists at that institution suffered significant discrimination in terms of pay and stature. After that report was made public, remedial changes were initiated at many universities. Steitz says she is optimistic that Summers' comments will again prompt positive change for women in science. Regarding his continuation as Harvard's president, post-gaffe: "That's something I find very interesting," replies Steitz without expression.

It's not hard to imagine how she would respond to Dr. Famous today if he questioned her place in and dedication to science. She might show him her weighty CV and invite him sailing with her beloved son and husband to remind him that a career in science does not exclude a happy family life—even without the station wagon.

	PAGE 5 OF 5	Go Back