Past, present and future: Academic life from the lens of Dr. Freda Miller

Introduction by Santanu Sasidharan from the Tokuriki Lab, Michael Smith Laboratories

Behind every success and research breakthrough lies a story of curiosity, persistence, setbacks, and moments of discovery. In today’s academic science, success is often portrayed through publications and presentations. However, the personal journeys that shape those achievements are just as important.  

We bring you the four-part faculty series ‘Past, Present and Future’ where we explore the professional trajectories of four amazing researchers in our department whose work not only advances their respective fields, but also exemplifies the dedication and creativity that drives meaningful research.

Each feature offers a window into the evolution of their scientific thinking, the challenges they have faced in building a research program, and the impact of their work both within and beyond academia. We also asked them to reflect on emerging and undervalued areas in their fields, where they believe science is headed in the next decade, and what advice they would offer to the next generation of researchers.

Whether you are a student considering a future in research, a fellow academic looking for inspiration, or simply curious about the people behind science, this series aims to bring you the often-invisible side of science researchers. These conversations reveal not just what these faculty members study, but also why and how their passion continues to evolve over time.

Writing by Deepesh Panwar from the Brumer Lab, Michael Smith Laboratories

For the first article of this series, we spoke with Dr. Freda Miller. Dr. Miller is a professor at the Michael Smith Laboratories and the Department of Medical Genetics at UBC. She moved here in 2020 from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, where she was a Senior Scientist and Professor at the University of Toronto. Dr. Miller is best known for her work on dermal and neural stem cells, and on mechanisms that regulate neuronal survival and growth. Her discovery of dermal stem cells provided insights into the mechanisms underlying skin maintenance and repair, and helped provide the conceptual basis for using skin as a major source for genesis of human stem cells. At the same time, Dr. Miller discovered new mechanisms determining whether nerve cells live or die, findings that have implications for our understanding of neurodegenerative disorders.

1. How has your research evolved and impacted your field?

That’s a fascinating question. In some ways, my research has evolved broadly, but in others, I’ve found myself returning to the same fundamental questions that initially inspired me. For example, I initially trained as a molecular and cellular biochemist, focusing on DNA structure and protein-DNA interactions during my PhD. Later, during my postdoctoral work, I transitioned into neuroscience, a field that had significantly lagged behind others due to the brain’s complexity and the lack of adequate molecular tools at the time. Most of the work back then was anatomical or electrophysiological, with very little focus on molecular and cellular mechanisms.

I became deeply interested in the ideas of neural regeneration and circuit plasticity — how the nervous system rewires itself. As Wilder Penfield famously said, “The study of the brain is the study of man himself.” I found this both philosophically compelling and practically urgent, especially given how few treatments exist for brain injury, degeneration, or damage.

When I first opened my lab in 1988, we began studying regeneration in the nervous system. However, after a few years I realized we lacked the tools to truly answer the questions we were asking. Fortunately, the field evolved, especially with the advent of single-cell sequencing, and many of those classic questions suddenly became approachable again. I thought, “Wouldn’t it be amazing to revisit these questions using modern techniques?” That’s exactly what we did, and it’s been incredibly rewarding.

Throughout my career, I’ve studied how growth factors, particularly the Neurotrophin family, signal through receptors to regulate neuronal survival and growth. These were classic cell biology questions, which eventually led us to broader questions about stem cells and tissue repair.

Over time, we have realized that some projects reached a natural conclusion. For example, after years of dissecting the pathways involved in Neurotrophin signaling, we knew it was time to move on. Sometimes it’s wiser to step away from what’s well-studied and instead pursue new, less conventional areas. One of those for us was digit tip regeneration — something I had no prior experience with, but it was a fascinating and poorly understood process.

In a way, it’s come full circle—from molecules to cells to tissues and back to understanding how intrinsic mechanisms respond to extrinsic signals, all with the hope of developing new therapeutic approaches.

2. What major challenges have you encountered during your research career?

The scientific work has always been the fun part for me, and I found my real challenges in navigating academic culture, managing people, and dealing with the emotional weight of leadership.

One of the biggest challenges I faced early on in my career was simply learning how the academic system works, especially when it comes to some of the ‘unspoken rules’. I’ll never forget when an editor of a high-profile journal told me, “When we send a rejection, it’s not necessarily a real rejection, we expect you to revise and resubmit”; that absolutely floored me. Navigating those nuances is hard when you’re starting out, and that’s why having good mentors at every stage is crucial.

Another major challenge I’ve faced is lab management, especially mentoring people effectively. Most people in science are self-motivated and passionate, but occasionally someone will join the lab for the wrong reasons. As a young PI, navigating these conversations is emotionally difficult and not something you’re trained to handle. In my experience, it’s often harder on the supervisor than the person involved.

On a personal level, being a Canadian woman from a working-class background made it especially tough to find my place in a research culture that, at the time, was very male-dominated and heavily influenced by the U.S. I had this idealistic belief that science should be about sharing knowledge, collaborating, and moving the field forward together, but in reality, this is not always the case.

3. Are there any research topics in your field that you believe are currently undervalued? Where do you see these areas heading in the next 5–10 years?

A section of a regenerated mouse digit tip, where red shows tissue regenerated from cells originally from the bone, and green shows mesenchymal tissues. Credit: Freda Miller

Throughout my career, I’ve gravitated toward understudied areas, often on purpose. I never wanted to work right in the mainstream, and when a project did become mainstream, I often felt we had taken it as far as we could and it was time to find something new.

Instead of saying ‘undervalued’, I’d say many questions are ‘understudied’. Sometimes the most promising directions come from revisiting old questions with new tools. That’s exactly what happened with our work on digit tip regeneration. The dogma was that mammals don’t regenerate, but there are exceptions, like the tips of fingers and toes. When we started looking at this in humans and mice, we realized we could ask questions that few were exploring. At the time, there was just one lab in the world working on this, using traditional methods such as basic transplant experiments. Now, it’s a growing field because it offers a unique lens into tissue regeneration and repair. It turns out, regeneration in these contexts can reveal answers we might not find elsewhere.

Looking ahead, I think tissue regeneration will remain a key area of growth, particularly if we can harness these natural abilities to develop novel therapies. These topics might not be undervalued anymore, but they’re still not studied to their full potential.

4. What advice would you offer to someone beginning their research career in your area?

Just go for it.

At every stage of my career, I’ve had moments of deep uncertainty and self-doubt, but I’ve always come back to this: you won’t know what you’re capable of unless you try. I took my first faculty position when I had a very young child, and while hesitant, I realized that if I didn’t take the leap, I would regret it.

Everyone will have their own metric for success, but for me, the most important thing is being able to look back without regretting missed opportunities. Take risks, follow your curiosity, and trust that even if your path isn’t linear, it can still be meaningful. I believe that if you choose meaningful questions, especially in areas that are understudied, you’re likely to make a difference. Curiosity-driven science has a way of finding its relevance.