Dr. Kathie Sollweck, Senior Medical Affairs Manager for Oncology at Thermo Fisher Scientific, joins the Absolute Gene-ius team to explore how liquid biopsy, sequencing, and PCR are transforming precision oncology research. The conversation spans unmet needs in cancer research, MRD monitoring, and a candid look at career paths beyond academia.
In this episode of Absolute Gene-ius, the hosts dive into the evolving world of precision oncology, where detecting rare molecular signals can make all the difference.
Dr. Kathie Sollweck brings deep expertise from her work in medical affairs and oncology to explain how modern molecular tools are reshaping cancer research. She breaks down liquid biopsy approaches, including cell-free DNA and circulating tumor cells, and explains why sensitivity and pre-analytics are critical when working with low-abundance targets. Kathie also clarifies how sequencing acts as a wide-angle discovery tool, while digital PCR serves as a laser-focused method for ultra-sensitive monitoring of known mutations, therapy resistance, and minimal residual disease (MRD). Together, these technologies enable more personalized, precise, and less invasive cancer researh strategies.
The episode wraps with a fun and refreshingly honest Career Corner, where Kathie shares her non-linear journey from an aspiring actress to botanist to oncology expert. Her advice? Don’t fear sales roles, stay open to unexpected opportunities, and let curiosity guide your career because you never know where it might take you.
Jordan Ruggieri 00:00
Never date a geneticist. They'll always find flaws in your sequence.
Lisa Crawford 00:04
In your sequence?!
Lisa Crawford 00:17
Welcome to Absolute Gene-ius, a podcast series from Thermo Fisher Scientific. I'm Lisa Crawford.
Jordan Ruggieri 00:22
And I'm Jordan Ruggeri. We're excited to welcome today's Gene-ius Thermo Fisher's very own, Dr. Kathie Sollweck.
Lisa Crawford 00:30
Kathie has been with Thermo Fisher since 2022 and currently serves as a senior medical affairs manager working with oncology. We loved learning more about innovations at the forefront of oncology research and how Thermo Fisher technology is advancing the field. Thanks for joining us, and we hope you enjoy our conversation.
Jordan Ruggieri 00:50
Kathie, thank you so much for joining us today on our episode of Absolute Gene-ius. Really, really excited to have you. Could you maybe give us a little bit of background and what you work on and where you work?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 01:03
Yeah. My name is Kathie. I work as a medical affairs manager for oncology at Thermo Fisher. Yeah, I used to start as a sales rep, actually in Thermo Fisher, and I sold the Absolute Q for a while. And I was a technical specialist for digital PCR, before moving over to medical affairs, and that's where I'm at.
Jordan Ruggieri 01:23
That's awesome and working with oncology seems like a really exciting field. Can you talk a little bit about your, just your involvement in research with customers or scientists around oncology?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 01:36
Yeah, I started out with oncology right after my PhD. Worked in a clinical lab, and that's kind of where I actually had my first contact with oncology and all that surrounds it, and yeah, that got really close to my heart and sparked my interest, let's put it this way. When I moved to Thermo Fisher, I was kind of naturally drawn to those customers, just because they fascinate me. They interest me. I feel they're doing such important work. And so, from the very start, I was very close to them, very close to our pathology, oncology, hemato-oncology labs, but also anything microbiology or just in the, let's say, oncology space. And obviously, with the Absolute Q that kind of naturally brought me direct in oncology, because the instrument is kind of a natural fit to that segment, let's put it this way, since, yeah, the precision is very much needed in precision oncology, personalized oncology, and that is where I got really close to that field within Thermo Fisher, and especially field of liquid biopsy, breast cancer testing, disease resistance monitoring and all of that.
Jordan Ruggieri 02:50
Absolutely incredible. Really, really, really interesting to hear. From your perspective, what are, what are some of the most pressing unmet needs in oncology research or some or monitoring, or really anything of scientists in the field today?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 03:06
When we're talking about unmet needs, we really want to make it as easy as possible for the affected people. So what research is kind of focusing on is then, how can we have the biggest impact for anyone out there who could be affected by any type of cancer and without, you know, having any compromise on therapy. So, what is really needed is easy methods to access these cells, basically these tumors, and then easy methods to classify them and identify therapy selections that we can use for these, for these people, essentially. So obviously, the field of molecular oncology has been moving a lot, and that brings a lot of benefit to the field, since we can genetically classify a tumor, and then that will give us a lot of information about how we can respond to that. And I think what is mostly needed is easy access. So there's a lot of research about, you know, liquid biopsy, blood or identification from urine, also stuff like fine needle aspirates, or all these things that tend to be easier to access than a big surgery and tend to be also easier to classify the tumor of some sort.
Jordan Ruggieri 04:25
You talk a lot about, you know, access and liquid biopsy. What are liquid biopsies?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 04:32
Liquid biopsy can be blood. It can be cell-free DNA. It can be circulating tumor cells. It can also be urine or ascites, or even like brain fluid. So a liquid biopsy just means we're not taking a solid piece, or a chunk of cells, but we're taking something liquid that is usually a lot easier to access from the body, and therefore a lot easier to access, also for the people who are affected. If you have to come in for surgery every time you want to see what happens if you're there with therapy response or not, that's obviously a lot more intense and painful. And also, these people might not be in the best state when they have to come in, so it's definitely a lot easier to look at anything liquid. And then obviously from these entities, there's different types of analyses that you can do to kind of observe what is going on, what happened, or where we have to go.
Lisa Crawford 05:27
Are there certain kind of cancers that lend themselves better to liquid biopsy testing? Or is that still kind of under study? Or can you use it for most types of cancer?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 05:37
So that's a big, big study field. So far, liquid biopsy is very common for lung cancer. We've been doing that for, I don't know, at least 5 -10, years to follow therapy resistance and lung cancer and liquid biopsy. And now the newest, yeah, the newest kind of stories that we follow in liquid biopsy is breast cancer. And we're moving ahead there a lot. And yes, we can definitely classify cancers in shedders and non-shedders, so cancers that shed DNA to the blood or anywhere else a lot, or cancers that don't really do that. But we also have to be aware that we always have cell-free DNA, for example. So there is always a baseline, and that baseline also can tell us a lot about the health status of a person. There is some, we call them signature mutations, that you will always have. And then you can even compare between these mutation levels and you can try to understand how big is the burden, or, yeah, well, how is the person doing in general.
Jordan Ruggieri 06:43
That's amazing. I think it lends directly into my question was, can you talk a little bit about some of the challenges of using liquid biopsies? I mean, I can imagine, if you're taking from blood, for example, or taking a blood sample, that there's, there's a lot of stuff in there, right? Is it easy to detect some of the shed DNA or circulating DNA, or is it, or is it quite difficult?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 07:09
Actually, I wouldn't say it's difficult. The challenge that we have is the quantity that's in there. Obviously, there's not much. So, and that's, again, where digital PCR also comes into play. We need methods that are highly sensitive to be able to analyze this type of DNA. Because imagine your breast cancer sheds a lot, majority of that DNA will still be a normal, healthy, wild type DNA. So even though you might have okay amounts of DNA in there, I don't know, 20, 40, nanograms, your mutational burden, and is usually pretty low. So you still have to have, find a method that is able to detect those low level of mutational burden. So that is definitely a challenge. And also we have to be aware that with anything liquid, we have to be very stringent with pre-analytics. So we have to make sure that the general amount that we find is actually cell free DNA, and not some, you know, blasted blood cells that shed all of their genomic DNA in there.
Jordan Ruggieri 08:10
I actually want to talk a little bit about some of the workflows and technologies utilized. You mentioned a couple, even in our conversation so far with digital PCR and NGS and sequencing. Where do those two methods, I mean, we love dPCR, we love sequencing here at Absolute Gene-ius, Where do they fit in those two when it comes to oncology workflows?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 08:35
Well, we can look at NGS as kind of our wide-angle lens. We use NGS to look at thousands and thousands of genes and kind of get a glimpse of the situation that we have. So we use that to genetically classify our tumor. And we might use NGS for identifying certain types of mutations that either cause a certain type of pathway to stop or maybe even enhance a certain other pathway, something that might lead to resistance against certain therapies. But also to identify new biomarkers, for example, that might be needed for future clinical trials, anything like that. And then we have digital PCR that is kind of like the laser pointer. Like once we identify a mutation or an alteration that is important for us, we have now digital PCR to follow that up with a very high precision and a very high sensitivity. So, we will use digital PCR to monitor the disease over time, to look at progression or at relapse, but also to look at resistance mechanisms that might come with a certain sort of therapy. And that's how these two methods work very well with each other.
Jordan Ruggieri 09:56
You're seeing like NGS would be more along the discovery, right? You're trying to, to find certain biomarkers, or you're looking at a whole sequence to help classify versus digital PCR is more along the like quantification element? Is that, is that correct?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 10:17
Yeah, both of that. But also you can quantify with NGS, just not at these low levels. So let's say we take NGS, and I would say the most precise NGS methods can maybe achieve a sensitivity of 0.1% mutational burden. And that means that I have, you know, 99.9% wild type and 0.1% of my mutation. Whereas with digital PCR, I can go down a lot further. So, yes, NGS can give us also a quantitative result of some sort, but not in those very, very low abundance regions that we often have if we have to monitor or assess resistance and all of this.
Jordan Ruggieri 10:57
Ah, okay, makes sense. How do researchers decide when they need to move from like NGS into a digital PCR? Is there a decision point that comes from there? Or, I don't know, is there a threshold on NGS, whereas actually I might need to use digital PCR to help get more accurate?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 11:18
So, well, the first question that we have here is definitely, “What is it that I want to do?” Obviously, NGS can be used for most of the things, but it's also very expensive. We have to think about that as well, also in research, that doing an NGS, if I'm actually only interested in two, three mutations that might cause and effect something is absolute overkill financially, but also from the workload. You know, and NGS, it does take overnight at least, whereas the digital PCR you can do that in 60, 90, minutes if you want it. But so real cut off, we have to differentiate a little bit of the fields that we're looking at. So if we say we look at solid tumors, for example, then there is not really a cut off that we need to achieve. There it is more a practicability of things. Let's say I find some sort of mutation that I need to follow up. There's no need to do the whole NGS every time. If I look at liquid biopsy, once I identify something in my tissue, and I want to see the liquid biopsy of it, I will move to digital PCR, just to be more confident in the precision and in the sensitivity. If we look at the hematological space, anything leukemia, we will always need the NGS, because those kinds of blood cancers they are so heterogeneous, there's so much going on that in this first instance, we will never think twice if we do a targeted method, we won't do that. It's impossible. But then once we found the culprit, kind of, we can go and use also that more sensitive method to follow up on how the disease is progressing or if the therapy is working or not.
Jordan Ruggieri 13:03
Is there a particular workflow, or particular order, that these are used in NGS, dPCR, qPCR, when a researcher is looking at a sequence, validating they have, you know, the right sequence, the right primers, probes in order to move from an NGS into something like digital PCR?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 13:22
That's a tricky question, because, again, that is very heterogeneous, okay, so that really depends on the cancer type we're talking about. So I think a very good example for this, again, is hematological diseases, because here what we do is identify something with NGS, and that can be very person specific. Here what we do is we will find something with NGS, and then what we'll do is we'll design primers and probes for that exact thing that we found to be able to follow that up. And that might not only be one, that can be up to 15 different things that we follow. Then there is other cases where, let's say there's only a specific set of activating mutations that are activating a certain pathway and that are interesting in that segment. And in that segment you wouldn't need to kind of verify. Do I have to right primers and probes? Because I do, but when I found it in NGS, I can pick and choose the right one and follow that one up. And if we're saying we need to cross check certain things. Yes, we do, but that wouldn't be done with the PCR method. We have, for example, in NGS, there's things that are tricky, which are like large deletions, large insertions, or if we have a ton of repeats of the same thing, and then you would actually come in, for example, with the Sanger sequencing method to kind of check, “Okay, this looks weird. It looks off. Like the copy number might be weird, or I might see certain drop offs,” and then I might confirm that with an orthogonal method that would not be though, digital or qPCR, that would be something different. So I don't think we need to cross check with the digital and the qPCR and the NGS, because essentially, if we think about it originally, it's the same thing. It's all the PCR, and we're kind of either looking at every single base that's in there, or we're looking at a specific kind of point mutation or exchange with a probe.
Jordan Ruggieri 15:24
Makes sense. I've, that's what I was looking for, was that tie, it's some of that tie in with the with the Sanger sequencing. So awesome. I just didn't it didn't cross my mind it was Sanger sequencing. But, yes, makes total sense. Kathie, you talk a lot about MRD. Can you elaborate? What is MRD?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 15:42
MRD is minimal residual disease. It is, again, especially important in hematological diseases, but that is also a very fast-moving field. Now there is also big interest for MRD and solid tumors that is coming more and more and MRD can look very different. MRD can be I look at very low-level amounts of baseline mutations that I find, or I look at methylation patterns of a tumor, and that methylation pattern might indicate to what level I have residual disease in there. Let's say the most classical description of MRD would be the hematological one where we have to be super, super stringent in following up during therapy, or let's say, after a transplant, because if we have one single cell left in there that carries that specific activating mutation or effusion, whatever it is. That one single clone, if we miss it, the whole circle starts again. So that is the very original description of MRD. We want to make sure we find every single cell or clone in there that still carries the disease, making variants, or whatever that is.
Jordan Ruggieri 16:59
That's really, really interesting. Kathie, a lot of things you're talking about as well, it seems very personalized, very, very specific to a subject or to the research or to an individual. How are scientists and researchers managing this data and managing some of these workflows as they come in?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 17:25
Yeah, so obviously we have a big move, also direction AI and everything connected to that. We have to mention that for sure. So there is some labs, they don't even do the microscopy, like under the microscope anymore. They just have digital slides, or, you know, doctors, they used to dictate into a microphone what they're seeing under the, under the microscope. And that is also taking, AI is taking that over slowly. But obviously, if we speak about the molecular data, we also speak a lot of whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing. Biggest challenge here is the storage, because obviously you have to store that data for a long time. And so every institute has to find solutions, servers, clouds, and then also that depends a lot on the bureaucracy of that specific country. So it's really, really hard to save and store, yeah, data like this big amount of data, so definitely that is a challenge, and that is also one of the big questions of the field. “How are we going to handle this type of data, since it's only going to be more of that in the future?”
Jordan Ruggieri 18:38
Especially it's not like it's one size fits all, right. If you're sequencing every single sample that comes in, man that is, that's a lot. What drives adoption of new technologies in oncology research? Is it very heavy on kind of the published validation and kind of the published findings? Is it more internal pilots? Is there anything that really drives adoption?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 19:10
In my own point of view, in my opinion, adoption in daily life is mostly driven by new therapies that are coming out. So the pharma industry is kind of largely deciding with the therapies they get approved and what is going to be tested and how, because obviously, for a healthcare system, it all has to make financial sense as well. So if I have a drug that's being approved and it's really working very well, obviously, that will be prioritized in adoption for testing, let's put it this way. But also now, many countries have, like more specialized cancer centers, called centers of personalized medicine, for example. And these centers, they are able to also implement testing methods, therapies that are only you know from clinical trials, maybe, or also just research that has been done. So there are possibilities if someone was to need something that is not in the approvals and not in daily life yet, let's put it this way.
Jordan Ruggieri 20:18
Are you looking to precisely quantify rare targets in your sample? Are you always struggling with standard curves or measuring limits of quantification? If so, Applied Biosystem’s QuantStudio Absolute Q dPCR system is for you!
Lisa Crawford 20:33
With the Absolute Q, reliable and precise digital PCR can be as simple as preparing your samples, loading them onto the plate, and running the instrument. The system helps consistently generate more than 20,000 micro reactions with a low %CV and provides results in as little as 90 minutes!
Jordan Ruggieri 20:50
That’s right Lisa! And the Absolute Q utilizes more than 95% of the sample input, so you won’t have to worry about missing rare targets due to dead volume. You can learn more at thermofisher.com/absoluteq or visit the Absolute Gene-ius webpage. The Absolute Q is For Research Use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.
Lisa Crawford 21:11
Okay, let's go back to our guest.
Jordan Ruggieri 21:16
All right. It is time for the Career Corner of the episode. Passing it over to you. Lisa.
Lisa Crawford 21:23
Thanks, Jordan. So for the career corner, what we like to do is talk a little bit more about you personally and how you got to where you are today in your career. Did you always want to be a scientist?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 21:31
No, actually, no, it's not. I wanted to be an actress for most of my young years. So no, not at all. That changed a lot, then, I would say, in my teenage years. I wanted to be a vet, actually, for most of that time as well. And then for some weird reason, I was into plants a lot, and I wanted to become a botanist, and that's why I actually started studying biology, which is wild, seeing where I ended up now. I have to also, as a disclaimer, I have to say I'm a very go with the flow person. I am not someone who is a planner. I am not like saying, “I want to be there and there in like five to 10 years.” Not at all. So, um, I'm much of a no pressure, let's see where this goes, kind of person.
Lisa Crawford 22:19
Especially for science, I feel like there's a lot of you kind of have to follow where it takes you, as opposed to you dictating where it goes. Was there a moment you remember that kind of switched on your interests, specifically into oncology, and kind of led you into your higher education and your PhD?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 22:35
So I have to say my PhD has nothing to do with oncology. So my PhD is in bioanalytics. I actually looked at antibiotic resistance in water, and that was already very industry tied. So I actually always knew I did not want to stay in academia. So that is why I chose a PhD that was very real-world industry related. And the way I ended up in oncology was actually just after my PhD, it was the first job I applied to, and it was the first interview I had, and also that was successful. That is kind of how I ended up in oncology. So I didn't even know until after my PhD that I would like that so much. I thought I was more often still like medically related, you know, all the pathogen and antibiotic resistance and but I was, I thought I was going to be more of an like environment kind of person, but sometimes you just have to do things to see that you like them.
Lisa Crawford 23:36
Well, I always think that means that this is where you're meant to be, because something intervened and pushed you onto this track. Have you had any mentors that you've interacted with that have really helped shape your career and your interest in your path?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 23:53
Yes, definitely. But I would say most of the mentors I'm super grateful for I had within Thermo Fisher. So when I moved from the clinical lab into Thermo Fisher, I discovered a whole new world of very, very supportive people. And I also have to say, all these people, everything, everything that I have done ever since I'm with the company, I've had wonderful mentors, usually my colleagues. I had one colleague in particular; she brought me into Thermo. She was my mentor for my first year. And then after that, I had my managers. And also we usually in Thermo, we always have to choose a mentor, so we have the mentoring program, and that is also really good thing to do, because you have someone who pushes you to reflect on yourself and where you want to go and what you want to do, what your passions are, and all of that.
Lisa Crawford 24:54
Now that, you know, you've achieved what you have in your career. Do you have advice for other people who may be wondering about your path as an option? Because I know, you know, a lot of researchers on call it, you know, they go into academic research. Like you said, that wasn't your path. But any advice that you would have for someone interested in kind of going the same direction you had, and maybe going a little bit more towards, you know, the company side of things, as opposed to academic.
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 25:20
So the first thing I want to say, “Don't be scared of being a salesperson.” Sales is often an entry point into companies, and it has a really bad stigma somehow, and I do not understand why it's the best job in the world. Really, I did not leave sales because I wanted to leave sales. It was just a natural next step that evolved that really interested me. If you are a sales rep, or if you're a technical sales specialist, you are at the forefront of all these scientists. You support them. You provide them with the best technologies that they can use. You can be super interested in their projects. You can collaborate with them. That's the first thing I would like to say, because many people, when they hear that I started as a sales rep, they're like, “Oh God, no, I could never.” I'm pretty sure you can. And also it makes you grow so much you have suddenly, you have to speak to strangers every day. You have to make connections. You have to, yeah, talk to people who are probably way smarter than you are, at least in the beginning. And that is my first step of advice. And also, secondly, you have to start somewhere. And I don't think the place where you enter a company or the corporate world is the place where you're going to end up. It will never be. So even if that job that you have offered there right now is not your dream job, just you know you have to start and open the door and meet the people within there and prove yourself, somehow. And from there on, you can definitely also develop in different roles. I did never think I was going to end up in medical affairs. One and a half years ago from now, I did not know that existed. So is this how, how things evolve, yes.
Jordan Ruggieri 26:59
It's always interesting to see. I love the advice as well. But I think what people don't understand is, especially when you're going into industry, you as a salesperson, you're talking to scientists, so you still need to know the science, and you're advising them on, you know, what challenges they're having and what technologies might be able to help. So I think, you know, a lot of, a lot of people who are in the lab, they think going to a sales role is being removed from science, right, and from research. But it's, it's not the case is that, is that also your experience?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 27:33
That and also, kind of, if your customers are scientists, if you don't know anything, they'll not take you seriously. So you have to actually know your stuff, otherwise you're lost. And also, secondly, it also has the stigma of, well, if you just show up and talk to people, they're just going to be annoyed. I don't think there ever was an annoyed person during my time in sales. There was nobody being like, “Oh, you know, close the door or go away,” or never. I think that is also like a prejudice that you have. Usually, people are really grateful to have someone they can talk to. You know, any anything that comes up for them, “I need a new extraction kit, because I have these weird cells, now, who do I ask?” And that's good if you're the person they think of. And that's also really exciting, because you're going to also have to think about which extraction kit do I give these people now. So there is a lot of thinking involved, obviously, also a lot of numbers, a lot of quoting, a lot of pricing, but also that I didn't know any of that when it came to the company, that's a lot of good things to learn too. You know, business wise, and you know how to make price models. How to, how to decide on pricing, how to negotiate, for that matter. Those are all good life skills that I don't think don't hurt anyone.
Lisa Crawford 28:45
Yeah, I think sales is kind of a four-letter word, I guess, especially culturally in the United States too, because you have no offense to car salesmen, but, you know, that's kind of where everyone's mind goes. But you can kind of reframe it as you're less of a salesperson and more of a bridge between the scientist and our company and really just helping them get what they need and accomplish what they need, rather than giving them things they don't need, which is why I think a lot of people associate negative things with sales so. But now even you talking about it, I feel better about salespeople already. Just a fun little question for you to, you know, kind of wrap this up here is, do you have a most embarrassing moment that you maybe have experienced in, you know, your career journey? And then a proud moment just to balance it out?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 29:33
Well, I think most embarrassing moment I met a very important customer once, and he has kind of a funny last name. I don't want to mention it here. But I was like, “No, that's not your name.” And it was kind of laughing, because I thought they were joking, but they were not joking, and that was a very important guy. So yeah, that was probably my most embarrassing moment that was already within my role now, so supposed to be very serious person, so no. Most proud moment was probably during my last year when I was a technical specialist for the digital PCR, because we, together with one of our most important customers, we managed to build a whole kind of testing pipeline that was adopted throughout all the territory. Lots of people adopted that for a new drug that was launched. And so I feel very proud of that, to be able to build something like this from scratch, just with the help of our beloved customers who supported that, yes.
Jordan Ruggieri 30:39
That's awesome. Really cool.
Lisa Crawford 30:41
This has been a really fascinating conversation. I guess a question would be, because we don't have hours and hours to go into everything with you as much as we would like to, is there anywhere that someone who's interested in learning a little bit more about the sort of things you talked about can visit and get some more information and do their own research?
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 30:59
Of course, there's a lot of resources. You can look things up. There is a really great resource that I like a lot, it's called OncoWeb, because it has everything. It basically has for every type of cancer. It has biomarkers. It has which mutations, fusions are important. It has therapy-relevant things on there as well. But obviously we also have Thermo Fisher resources, like our oncology research website (thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/cancer-research.html) that has all the methods on there as well. So if you're ever wondering, how does one extract cell-free DNA? Or how do I do pre-analytics? Or what instrument can I do fragment analysis with, and which one does the Sanger sequencing? Or what's the portfolio of NGS I can use? Or what are my assays I can use in digital PCR? They would all be there. You can click through the single methods on there.
Lisa Crawford 31:53
That's awesome. I know those questions keep me up every single night, so I will make sure for our listeners as well that we put those in the show notes, and that everyone can have access to those and read through them and hopefully learn a little bit more.
Jordan Ruggieri 32:06
Kathie, thank you so much for joining us on today's episode of Absolute Gene-ius. Really, really interesting stuff, and really glad that we were able to talk to you.
Kathie Sollweck, PhD 32:15
Thank you so much for having me. I hope it's not too messy. It might be a little messy, right.
Jordan Ruggieri 32:21
All good.
Lisa Crawford 32:23
That was Kathie Sollweck, Senior Medical Affairs Manager at Thermo Fisher Scientific. This episode of Absolute Gene-ius was produced by Sarah Briganti, Matt Ferris, and Matthew Stock. With more great conversations around the corner in upcoming episodes. Stay curious and we'll see you next time.
Lisa Crawford 32:37
If you're happy. I'm happy.
Jordan Ruggieri 32:42
I don't know. I tried to make a joke about transcription, but it didn't translate well.
Lisa Crawford 32:47
Lord, okay, I'm done. So we can make him stop now.