[THEME MUSIC] For me, I think the spark really comes from most of the time engaging with the scientific community. That can be reading a paper. So I'm reading other authors work, and often in the discussion section especially, I'm thinking, what might the limitations be of that study that I could maybe add to or build upon? Or if they're talking about possible mechanisms, that might be helping to understand their findings. And then certainly, I think scientific conferences are often ideas and I love going to presentations in my area. But I also really have been trying to push myself to go to presentations and talks of folks outside my area. Because then I also get to introduce to different methods, different ideas that hopefully I can then leverage as I think about my own research as well. [THEME MUSIC] Typically, I am one who starts with the methods-- getting something on paper that seems-- generally, I find to be the easiest section to write and then the results. And that's often when if I have coauthors on the manuscript that I'll send them a methods and results. Because sometimes I think they might flag some things that I need to go revisit or add sensitivity, either analyses or other sorts of components to it. And then I go back to the introduction and really spend a lot of time thinking through what is the story that hopefully brings the reader to think that this is an important question, and then leading them to the data that we have before we get to the discussion. [THEME MUSIC] My first advice is that it's common. It's going to happen. It's going to be something that any writer experiences, whether it's scientific or other writing. I try to approach it of getting some words on the page. So I've talked to different colleagues who have different favourite sections of a manuscript as they're working on that paper. I love writing the introduction. I have colleagues who that's their least favourite section. My least favourite section is the discussion section. By that point, I'm like, all right, let's be done with this paper. The readers can read the results. They can interpret it as they decide to. But I have others who really love the discussion section. So when I get to a discussion section, knowing that that's my least favourite, I try to think, what's the time of the day. Probably in the morning for me, that I can actually maybe write and just try to get that first sentence down. And I really do find that as long as you can get through that first sentence or that second sentence, then it starts to flow. And more often than not, more sentences come out as well. [THEME MUSIC] Maintaining that balance requires a lot of commitment. I think it does require sniper The strength of all the different responsibilities I have in my role-- in any given week or any given season, whether that's throughout the year or throughout one's career-- what do I need to prioritise? So I personally-- at our institution, we map out our faculty goals each year, and I take that really seriously in terms of thinking through what not only do I want to get done in this year, but also what's the timeline within this year of what I think is reasonable to accomplish. Realising that signposts and deadlines can move as they need to. And I also-- I do a lot of grant writing. And so I'm often staggering my scientific writing in grants around-- for example, funding agency cycles and then interspersing manuscripts kind of in between them. So I find mapping that out in advance is really helpful. [THEME MUSIC] I think the main advice I would say is to trust the process. It can be a long, sometimes lonely road. Hopefully you have good collaborators and good colleagues and friends along for that ride. But there's a lot of rejection along the way. But there's also a lot of successes. And I think to trust the process early on is really valuable. To think what-- I'm going to get feedback. Some of that feedback, I'll agree with. Some of it, I won't agree with. Some of it will feel personal, but to realise that hopefully-- if the system is working as it's intended, all that feedback is designed with the intent to move science and to move the field forward. So I really try to trust that process. [THEME MUSIC] I think the advice that-- if I could go back to my younger self as a writer, I think probably would be to trust the process and to be able to handle the rejection and also to realise that each person's path in science or clinical care is going to be unique. And so, there's this-- a famous quote-- comparison is the thief of joy. And so to also my younger self, I wish that I compared myself less to other investigators or other researchers. And well, they have this amazing paper they published in the journal-- to really just trust that, you know, what, this is my own path. And that I'm going to trust the process to work out as it needs to. [THEME MUSIC]