16 Sep ITHS Profile: How a Two-Time Pilot Award Recipient is Advancing Bioengineering
The ITHS profile series is meant to shine a deserving spotlight on individuals or programs within ITHS doing critical work across the vast spectrum of translational science. For this installment, Teddy Johnson, the ITHS Director of Technology Development and Co-Director of the ITHS Pilots Program, sat down with the two-time Pilot Award recipient, Dr. Patrick M. Boyle to learn about the impact of ITHS Pilot funding in his research. Dr. Boyle leads the Cardiac Systems Simulation (CardSS) Lab in the Bioengineering department at the University of Washington. He received his first ITHS Pilot award in 2021 for the project Identifying Mechanisms of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Catheter Ablation. The second award, received in 2024, supported the project, AI-Powered Personalized Risk Stratification for Lethal Cardiac Events in Patients with Repaired Tetralogy of Fallot.
This conversation covers a broad range of topics — from how to choose the right grants, his dislike of the term ‘scientific speed dating,’ and of course, how the ITHS Pilot Awards changed his entire career trajectory.
Teddy Johnson: Welcome Pat Boyle! We are truly glad to have you here. Let’s start with, how did you get connected with ITHS?
Patrick Boyle: Happy to be here, Teddy. Starting as new faculty is like drinking from a firehose Prior to launching my own lab, I was a postdoc and later a research faculty member at Johns Hopkins. From the outside, you might think tenure-track faculty are walking on air. But once you are on the other side of the desk, you are met with a deluge of responsibilities. Suddenly, you are managing budgets, hiring, shaping lab culture, planning lessons, engaging classrooms, and still trying to balance your personal life.
Dr. Patrick Boyle
Within about a year at UW, I heard about ITHS. As soon as I did, I put together an application for the ITHS Pilot Awards. I connected with my primary collaborator at the time, Dr. Nazem Akoum, and together we applied for a $50,000 pilot award to kickstart our translational research. We carefully reviewed the RFA line by line, asking ourselves, what can we promise this research will achieve and how?
At the time, we were aiming for NIH R01 funding. We agreed that if the ITHS award worked, we would be R01-funded within about a year, and that is exactly what happened. You can draw a straight line from our initial ITHS funding to our eventual R01 award. I really believe the bonds we forged through writing that proposal, doing the science, and expanding our collaborative ecosystem were invaluable. Receiving that initial Pilot funding felt like writing our ticket into the scientific community, and it was the ultimate signal that we were established.
Teddy Johnson: How should an investigator decide whether to pursue smaller grants vs. larger grants when the effort to apply is the same?
Patrick Boyle: I would respectfully disagree with the idea that smaller awards are not worth it. For me, it is about building relationships. For example, my second ITHS Pilot Award proposal came together at the last minute while I was on vacation. I told my family I would need to set aside time, and I carved out six hours at a beach house in Maryland to finalize it with Dr. Babak Nazer. Although we had known each other for years, writing that proposal deepened our collaboration. You really get to know a colleague when you are writing together, and the process gives you excellent insight into what a long-term partnership might look like.
Dr. Boyle and Dr. Savannah Bifulco at the 2022 ITHS EXPO.
That experience was invaluable. Dr. Nazer was fully engaged, asking tough questions and even emailing to see what more he could contribute. When a clinician, whose time is so limited, shows that level of commitment, it means a great deal. Relationships like that are priceless. I highlight this to my undergraduate students, if you want to collaborate with clinicians, you have to go the extra mile. Not because they are superior or you are inferior, but because their professional world is fast-paced and demanding. Understanding that context and working within it is what makes collaboration successful.
Teddy Johnson: How do you determine whether the early collaborations with small grants were the right decisions and how does that influence your future?
Patrick Boyle: I am very cautious scientifically. I dot every “i” and cross every “t” before I say something is ready. We are still developing ideas we believe will be transformative and rigorous enough for the clinic. At my previous institution, I worked on a project that reached the FDA stage. One of my last meetings before leaving was with the FDA, where they were reviewing our Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) application. I expected it to feel confrontational; instead, it was one of the most memorable meetings I have ever had. They had brought in experts who knew exactly what questions to ask to better understand our research. They asked thoughtful questions about rigor, reproducibility, and preparedness, and the overall tone was very supportive. That experience really shifted my perspective. Now, even at the proposal stage, I ask myself if this gets in front of the FDA, will I have the receipts to prove it works? I never want to be caught unprepared. Publishing a paper is one thing. Sitting across the glass from a patient on the table, as I did during a pilot trial at Hopkins, is entirely different. That mindset shapes everything I do.
I am unbelievably appreciative for what ITHS is doing. It has been a huge catalyst in terms of setting me up for my career. Just the process of putting together the ITHS pilot application is an invaluable exercise because it helps collaborative teams put pen to paper, organize their ideas, and lay the groundwork for the next big step of pursuing extramural funding. I believe these exercises have the potential to be transformative and drive research forward!
Teddy Johnson: How do you decide when partial or null research results are satisfactory to move forward vs. when you need the level of certainty healthcare professionals seek for their patients?
Patrick Boyle: There are so many different pieces to that question. Part of it is that science advances iteratively, and medical interventions often build on early insights. Evidence-based care does not always come from randomized controlled trials. For example, computational simulations have heavily influenced how we use antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation to reduce the likelihood of arrhythmia.
Dr. Boyle’s Student, Matthew Magoon, presenting ITHS-Funded Research
One of the most remarkable aspects of the field, especially in electrophysiology, is the willingness of clinicians to build out new technologies while understanding the complexities of diseases such as atrial fibrillation. Another important aspect of practicing medicine is going beyond the written guidelines and synthesizing findings from basic science, translational research, and insights from colleagues across multiple disciplines. In short, successful medical interventions do not always wait for complete results; instead, many innovations have been built on findings from basic and translational science.
Teddy Johnson: What helped you become comfortable with focusing on succeeding in your role as an investigator and trusting the clinicians to do their best in their role to deliver the optimal solutions for the patient?
Patrick Boyle: For me it begins and ends with being there in the room. You cannot do translational research with clinicians as an engineer unless you are physically in the room and participating in their meetings, observing procedures, and paying attention to how they work. This is how you build trust. At the same time, connecting with the right collaborators is a complex process. For example, if I wanted to collaborate between cardiovascular and neuroscience research, I would have to dig for opportunities by asking colleagues, sending emails, and figuring out the right seminars.
Teddy Johnson: Finally, what could we be doing better to facilitate investigator matching and support collaboration, something like scientific speed dating?
Patrick Boyle: First and foremost, please do not call it “scientific speed dating”. For many scientists, myself included, we’d often prefer not to remember our dating years! But yes, intentional investigator matching could work if expectations are clear. I think the key is to establish mutual respect between the parties at the outset of these conversations, and to make sure both sides of the conversation are willing to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their approaches. As a computational modeler, I try to be transparent with my experimental and clinical collaborators about what our simulations can and can’t do. In turn, I expect them to be forthcoming about limitations and blind spots of their methodologies. By better understanding each other’s work, we create a strong foundation for transformative inter-disciplinary work.
Teddy Johnson: Fantastic! I appreciate our conversation very much. It is really helpful for us to learn more about our investigators’ journeys and learn more about where they came from and where they are headed. We are always trying to figure out how to best support you in your translational research career.
2025 CardSS Lab Members
Patrick Boyle: I hope I made this clear, I am unbelievably appreciative for what ITHS is doing. It has been a huge catalyst in terms of setting me up for my career. Receiving that first $50 grand award was not chump change. Just the process of putting together the ITHS pilot application is an invaluable exercise because it helps collaborative teams put pen to paper, organize their ideas, and lay the groundwork for the next big step of pursuing extramural funding. I believe these exercises have the potential to be transformative and drive research forward!
