Faster human evolution means better retirement planning - for chimpanzees!

I saw a most intriguing documentary this weekend focused on development of a more evolved understanding and compassionate treatment of some of our closest precursors - chimpanzees. These extremely intelligent and equally strong creatures have been used in biomedical and beahvioural research for almost 100 years now, and apparently the USA is the last industrialised country to do so. 

The creation of Chimp Haven stems from a revolutionary attitude and movement dedicated to extracting these hard-working ancestors of ours and to some extent humanising them - in terms of not only freeing them of their lives-in-service (i.e. in laboratory captivity) but actually planning for their retirement - which at the same time allows them to do perhaps for the first time what they are genetically designed to do - being chimpanzees!

At the crux of the story is a website that was set up by Professor Lori Gruen, Professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan University, that monitors the journey to sanctuary of the last 1,000 chimpanzees housed in the five main research facilities that still experiment on the species. Unquestionably, the AIDS crisis saw increased use of these animals in our rather fruitless hunt for an HIV vaccine, but at least two governmental reports have found there to be very little reason to continue to use them, today, and in fact the NIH has been instructed to retire hundreds of these chimps. 

Such retirement sadly does not mean a return to what we would call a totally free existence, in part due to the fact that these animals have been in captivity for several generations and would not have the skills required to survive unaided, but also due to the fact that their natural habitat erosion (guess who's also responsible for that?} has made them an endangered species. But you know, when their previous "existence" was being jailed in a cramped cage being subject to all kinds of medical experimentation, separated from social contact with their own kind, then being admitted to a chimp spa-like retreat with their gang doesn't seem like such a bad outcome!

The purpose of Chimp Haven is true rehabilitation of these animals who served, which is not entirely straightforward, as the creatures have to become socially integrated into chimp family life, perhaps for the first time, and this introduction to such a drastic change of life needs to be very carefully monitored and controlled. But it is possible, and there was something truly heartwarming to see a stressed, tired, traumatised older male go from looking on the very edge of death itself, to it actually becoming the alpha male in its new environment and family. 

I use the word "it" in the last sentence purposefully, because it relates to another major aspect of the "humanisation" that I referred to above - that these highly intelligent, socially and emotionally sophisticated animals should no longer be referred to by mere numbers, and that they must have names. This is an argument that goes all the way back to pioneering Jane Goodall, who led a 55-year study of these animals in Tanzania, and who resented the status quo that argued that such "animals" should have numbers, not names. 

Lori Gruen believes that these incredibly sophisticated animals, with their very individual personalities and identities, deserve to be recognised as such and be given names instead of remaining as mere research subjects with numbered tags. She has a point, not least given their many years in service to mankind and contribution to countless drug discovery efforts. All of us involved in research and drug development are aware that primates are extensively used as part of the process, but it's very easy to separate ourselves from that fact. We are able to go grocery shopping and basically never think about where that piece of chicken or pork or beef comes from, even in direct contact with the product, so you can see how easily we can distance ourselves from animal experimentation in biomedical research. 

The creation of Chimp Haven and the online presence of The Last 1,000 serve as timely reminders not only of the incredible advances that have been made at the expense of animals in general but that we owe them some years of rest and retirement afterwards. People like Lori Gruen need our support in their efforts to ensure that the last 1,000 are indeed transferred to their own safe haven, and it will be a real sign of progress when her website is historic in nature, with no chimps still on the waiting list for retirement. 

The fact that some chimps can live as long as 60 years happily means that for many of them, retirement is likely to be one very long holiday. Given that they had to work for decades in order to be fed and cared for and even to survive, just like ourselves, why should we deny them that "luxury"? Given how further we like to feel that we have evolved beyond primates, the fact that we are beginning to see them as more than "just animals" and incorporating some retirement planning into their lives might just prove how far we have come. 

As challenging as this rehabilitation is for many of the animals who arrive traumatised and wary of their new "captors", it was truly charming to see them settle into early retirement lying in the grass playing with streams of ribbon, or "reading" the magazines that were thrown to them by friendly hands, or surrounding a giant bucket-sized frozen popsicle on a hot sunny day. It looked like pineapple flavour and judging by their reaction it must have been delicious!

The good people caring for these wonderful animals at Chimp Haven might just be indicative of the benefits of evolution after all - even during one lifetime - because not every positive and beneficial change needs to wait for 1,000 years to transpire, and there's no time like the present. Let's just hope that it takes less than 1,000 days to retire the very last of the last 1,000, and once they are all safely in early retirement perhaps we can get back to planning for and thinking about our own!

One big old door closes, as many more swing open!

Few landmark institutions in Montreal have made as characteristic an imprint on the city's collective zeitgeist as the legendary Royal Victoria Hospital on Pine Avenue, which is finally closing down completely this afternoon. In what is the largest hospital relocation in Canadian history, today saw the transportation of some 154 patients (most estimates were considerably bigger - between 220 and 250) from the RVH down to the new MUHC Glen site. 

I live extremely close to the old hospital so couldn't resist popping up to grab a little slice of history on what turned out to be a lovely, sunny, spring Sunday morning. The first thing that I noticed was how little fuss being made, with no sign of police or traffic control anywhere, and ambulances slipping seamlessly and quietly in and out of the RVH driveway with apparent military precision and ease. It was actually more tranquil than a typical day, which is something I imagine that was intentional and benefited the patients greatly.

Many reports had the move slated for something like 7am until 3pm (or later if need be) but in fact, so smooth was the procession of ambulances up and down Atwater to-and-from the RVH that the last and 154th patient arrived safely at MUHC by around 12:30PM, which underlines what was an incredibly organised process for what could have been a logistical nightmare! That is probably down to the chosen partner for this move, which was Health Care Relocations from Peterborough - an outfit renowned for transfer of hospitals from one site to another. Kudos to them and Team MUHC for what was an undoubted success. 

  

On the picture at left above is patient #58 (there were already an impressive 57 patients safely arrived at the Glen site by 9:30am!) departing the RVH for their own very personal voyage and introduction to the new superhospital, while at right is the fleet of ambulances returning to RVH for their next pick-up. The pictures truly do tell the story of what was a very calm scene and if you didn't know better, you could have been forgiven for simply thinking that it was just a normal quiet Sunday morning at the hospital!

There was news from MUHC at the Glen site that became a perfect kickstart to the day just before the move commenced, and that was the birth at 6:55am of the very first baby born at the new site - a healthy 7.9lb boy. That may well turn out to be quite an historic birth, even if it might take a decade or two for it to sink in as far as he is concerned, but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a ward named after him some day!

There were 2,500 hospital staff and volunteers, various medic vehicles, and a fleet of 32 ambulances that were involved in the move, and there are already celebrations going on after a glitch-free operation and smiles from patients arriving to what appeared to be "like hotel rooms" in comparison to their previous premises up the hill. Even as healthy adults, moving home is considered to be one of the most stressful events in our life, and I can only imagine what that means and feels like when it necessitates being moved from your hospital bed into totally unfamiliar surroundings. 

  

As happy a day as it no doubt is, I am a huge fan of big old buildings like the RVH, and seeing it cleared out and closed down on a sunny Sunday after some 122 years in residence, perched on high above the cityscape, well, it was also a day tinged with nostalgia, memories and some pathos. Who knows how many lives passed through those doors, lives changed forever by illness and disease, many never exiting again, as well as the extended families who were transformed by events that transpired there. Over a century of medical and individual history swirling inside the corridors behind that greystone, as the big door gets closed and sealed for the very last time.

But you know, as one big door gets closed, so do many others swing open, which is exactly what happened at the new MUHC today, and collectively they represent one massive door opening on improved contemporary healthcare for Montrealers, for hopefully many generations to come. I just hope that as chic and modern as the new MUHC undoubtedly is, that the authorities demonstrate a desire to preserve the old hospital facade as a permanent reminder of its existence and service to the community, and don't permit its demolition and conversion into the pervasive and even seemingly inevitable installation of condominiums. 

But that's a question and a problem for another day, and right now it's best to just marvel at our new superhospital and the settling in of those 154 former RVH patients as brand new MUHC-RVH patients! I had the privilege of visiting the unopened hospital last December (as reported in an earlier post on this blog) and it's clear that they are going to be exceptionally comfortable and well taken care of there. On that note, I shall leave you with a photograph of that last patient arriving at the Glen site shortly after noon today. Bravo to all @MUHC!

Preying for predators - it's the key to survival!

  

I watched a fascinating documentary on the weekend about the African savannah, a grassland ecosystem that is home to the most diverse variety of hoofed mammals in the world. This exotic terrain is typified by hardy trees and shrubs and rolling grasslands that are the mainstay of the herbivore diet of the animal population living there, and it sprawls across some 25 countries in Africa. 

As natural as it may be to some (biologists), it never ceases to make me smile at how delicate even such huge ecosystems are, and how the balance between life and death can depend on factors that are not that obvious at first glance. As much as various species such as elephants and rhinoceros are always in danger of extinction at the hands of poachers, it is unquestionable that it is the presence of a very unnatural species there - mankind - that has had the greatest impact on the savannah. 

The predator-prey relationship is a fundamental to evolutionary biology and is how we got to where we are today; but we both impact it and insist on messing with it in ways that are generally destructive and upset the natural balance of things. To wit, the ongoing issue since the sixties of grassland erosion and gradual desertification of what were once fertile grounds thriving in what are warm, tropical wet-dry seasons. 

This desertification is disastrous not just to the indigenous species living there such as zebra, elephant, black rhinoceros and giraffe, but also to the cattle being grazed there today by Masai farmers. The savannah ecosystem works by nature of the trees and shrubs being rather sparsely spread out, such that abundant light and water reaches the ground facilitating cultivation of a slew of plant life that ultimately sustains not only the herbivores, but also scavengers and decomposers, and the feared carnivores that ultimately control the animal population beneath then in the food chain.

Decades ago, the policy was clear - conservationists actually culled elephant herds in particular because of an apparent overgrazing problem that was believed to be at the root of the observed desertification. The thinking was that due to huge herds of large mammals such as elephants trampling through the savannah, they were actually destroying their own pastures due to overpopulation. In terms of our negative impact on this situation, the key problem perceived by experts was that mankind was killing too many predator carnivores on safaris or via poaching, and this was the root cause of grassland erosion. 

However, the result of that misperception was that after many years of culling elephant herds to manually control their numbers, rather shockingly, it appeared that reducing elephant numbers had been of basically no benefit whatsoever, and man replacing lions and other big cats as top-of-the-food-chain predator did not work - clearing of the grasslands continued as before. So what the hell was going on?

It took some real out-of-the-box thinking and a load of observation to figure out why reducing large animal populations didn't do the trick, and in fact it was not the number of elephants that was causing grassland erosion, it was the fashion in which they were grazing and moving that was at the bottom of it all.  A real bright spark had a brilliant light bulb moment and hypothesised that it was natural selection (by animal predators) that was key; not unnatural selection by two-legged ecosystem-destroying human predators. 

Thus, large herds of animals freed of the normal level and fear of aggressive carnivores kind of became, well, too relaxed and stress-free. So what happened? Evidently, they sort of spread out and just grazed to their heart's content, enjoying long warm afternoons on the "lawn" and rarely having to rush off anywhere. A holiday from those evil carnivores, in effect. Well, whaddya know, it lead to more desertification. 

It turns out, just as the bright spark hypothesised and proved by testing it on cattle on his own grazing lands, that such relaxed and abnormal elephant behaviour hurts the environment. When predators or human herders reappeared, the animals would be relaxed and grazing one minute, then upon the growl of a few big cats, the herd bunched closer together and upon attack would stampede as a collective to escape the mauling that awaited them. 

So what, you say? Well, this thunderous trampling of the ground over compact areas actually has somewhat of a ploughing effect, exposing topsoil and trampling dead plants and grasses into the soil, along with faeces and urine and other "fertilizers", which, along with the work of decomposers, provides serious nutrients to the ground resulting in new plant growth over coming seasons. 

Therefore, the very thing that was thought to cause desertification was in fact grassland's salvation - and it all came down to the presence of predators around them - just not for the reason suspected! As much as we know about biology and evolution, we continue to be educated by it in action. It was not the removal of elephants by carnivore kills that was needed to save the grasslands, it was the herd's behaviour in the presence of that predator that changed everything! Incredible, huh?

There are a couple of lessons here, the most obvious of which is that we can never underestimate the power of natural selection and evolution, and how delicately the existence of so many apparently insignificant components of an ecosystem are actually intertwined together; in this case that comes all the way down to the critical role insects such as termites and scavengers play in fertilising and maintaining an ecosystem populated by huge mammals. 

Perhaps the most important lesson, not only in the African savannah but also in the modern jungles of the business world, is how the presence of predators is actually a good thing. Yes, there will be a few who will get eaten alive as part of the natural selection process, and I would argue that this is something that should happen more often in business - not less. Those who are under-performing should be weeded out and replaced with stronger candidates, not moved sideways endlessly, having learnt little and contributing even less. If you ain't essential to maintenance of the ecosystem which you live and work in then selection should dictate your fate. I mean, look at what happens to even grasslands when the population is allowed to wander aimlessly! 

The major single problem I see in business today is the shuffling around of the same set of local names in some kind of circle of incompetence, from one position to another, and one job to another, never appreciated enough to keep around for long, but always being given the reference needed to get the next position - i.e. to get rid of them. There is no more lethal (pardon the pun!) combination than a weak performer and a weak/weaker manager who is incapable of doing their actual job. This is how people mistakenly become overly (overtly?) cocky and begin to feel they have a right to their job, not that their continued existence in it has to be actually earned. Whether the value being created is by fertilizing grasslands or making the company lots of money is irrelevant - the outcome has to be a beneficial one, for all. 

In business and at work, in total analogy with the carnivores and the herbivores, a perceived threat or competitor or even office enemy is not so much a danger to your continued survival; rather, it is a positive, and it should impact your behaviour in a way that is more beneficial to the ecosystem you exist in. We all need to not get too comfortable in our padded swivel chairs in the office and the boardroom, and having our behaviour tweaked by the ongoing presence or proximity of a "predator" actually can keep us at the top of our game. 

I am convinced that many of those who reach "job for life" status become both bored and less productive; we actually need challenge to be "alive". In analogy with the elephants, it's not being eaten by a lion that benefits the ecosystem most - it is the mere presence of that carnivore and the fear of being eaten alive that modifies the herd's behaviour - beneficially. In other words, we need (more) competitors and predators in our life science ecosystem, not less, and if you don't want to compete then step out of the jungle and if you can't stand the heat then get out of the (jungle) kitchen. Both apply! 

Who would have thought that a weekend documentary about African grasslands and the daily struggle to survive could make me think of the city and its business jungle? Well, you know people, we are still animals after all and as advanced as we like to think we are, it is incredible how similar to animals we often are - particularly when threatened or in the face of stiff competition for rather slim pickings. It's a jungle out there my friends, quite literally, so - back to work!

DIY biology, anyone?!

I read a rather provocative article today that questioned the very validity of the apparently secretive and exclusive world of big time science, with the clear implication not hidden between the lines that it is finally time to take science back from actual scientists and put it back out there where it belongs - in the hands of Joe Public. "DIY" used to be reserved for the home renovation genre, but not anymore! Seemingly we are entering (or have already entered?) the era of DIY biology, where essentially anyone who wants to can let out their inner scientist and get to work on saving the world. 

There are a lot of equally provocative buzzwords being bandied around in that article, and elsewhere, including "DIY biology", "synthetic biology","bio hacking", "hacking science", "distributed science", "kitchen counter science", "citizen science" and even the somewhat radical-sounding "democratization of science"! I find most of these terms humorous at best, and downright hilarious at worst, but then again, I might be biased, being a fully paid-up member of that elite club known as actual scientists! 

At the risk of sounding trite, I would point out that membership of that club does not come on a whim, but rather is a result of a lifelong passion, a decade of post-secondary school education, and many years of higher-level training and 24/7 living in wonderful laboratories in four different countries in the world. That is how one becomes eligible to be called a professional scientist, as opposed to someone who got trained in an entirely irrelevant subject but who may have an interest in science. Perhaps unironically, most of the proselytising about the future of science being in peril and needing Joe Public's engagement comes from either non-scientists or amateur would-be scientists. I do have a solution for that predicament, but more on that later. 

Don't get me wrong, the sacrifice and dedication aspect is not unique to science - lawyers, doctors, dentists, athletes, musicians and a whole slew of other career choices all involve a similar paying-of-dues period that often takes many years, more dollars than that, and even more sacrifice, to get there in the end. But we do it ultimately because we want to, and the journey of getting there is actually a lot of fun along the way a lot of the time, not least because there is a goal in mind and we are working towards it. To hear radical rallying-the-troops hyperbole with the message that the future of science, drug discovery and medicine should now be in the hands of amateurs comes across as disingenuous, if not potentially dangerous. 

The very concept that it's 2015, people, and science can now become something that the untrained and under-educated can be let loose on, is something I find quite ridiculous on a bad day. My primary question for the DIY biology "movement" is - why?! Is someone truly saying that a bunch of enthusiastic kids (even if they were mentored by one or two established scientists) can take on the world of professional science and beat it at its own game - all from the comfort of the kitchen sink? It's quite a ridiculous concept, and essentially an impossible one. You can access all the software, hardware and wetware you want but when you don't have an understanding of even the basics - it's called tinkering, not science. 

Believe it or not, it takes more than one senior scientist to make major breakthroughs, usually. That senior scientist needs an experienced and skilled team to expand on his/her vision, and in the best teams, that vision comes from more than one person as well. There are technicians, research assistants, grad students and postdocs all contributing to the mix but they all have some key things in common at their respective levels - education, training and experience. There is a reason why they are present in a given lab, and the same progress simply cannot be achieved with a bunch of scientific neophytes even if directed by a genius.

So in my opinion, the mere idea that one can put together a whole bunch of "amateur scientists" (a kinder way of putting it!) around a country or even the globe, with one real scientist at the helm, and expecting to get somewhere fast is dreaming in technicolour.  Anyone who ever has been involved in real, hardcore research usually learns the hard way that the really hard questions are often excruciatingly hard to answer. And that's after two decades of schooling in the theory and practice of science. Ditto any other challenging profession for that matter. No serious scientist would even have the time (or patience!) to take on a challenging project, and populate it with a selection of amateurs. 

I can understand that it might be somewhat disappointing to suddenly wake up at 25 or 30, after hating science in school and avoiding it like the plague, to realise that it actually does appeal and it is what one should have focused on. I get that completely, it's something that essentially happens to us all at some point or another. But in correlation with the DIY biology "movement", if I wake up tomorrow and want to be a musician or a lawyer, I have to realise that I am lacking in both credibility and training. I cannot just suddenly create a DIY law practice or anoint myself as the next big thing - the DIY rock star - without actually picking up an instrument and learning how it works and how to play it!

But, as long as I restrict myself to being classified as someone who like music as a hobby, or as an amateur lawyer type, there is no harm in it. The danger arrives if I manage to persuade others to believe that I have expertise in it, and to part with their hard-earned cash either as an investor or as a fee for my services. Using the music analogy, there is one massive divide between someone who plays in a band with friends in the local pub on a Friday night and someone who gets contracted (and paid handsomely) by a record company to record and tour their music around the globe. 

One is a professional musician and one is an amateur with a hobby. Ironically though, the disparity in skill set and raw talent might not be as massive as one would imagine between the two, in music, but it is that massive in the case of science. If R&D and drug discovery was an easy thing, then we would all own pharmaceutical companies, or pharmaceutical companies would save even more money by hiring a few hundred DIY biologists at a cheaper price than hiring all those stuffy, expensive PhDs. Right?!

Things have changed; communication tools and technological advances have opened up the world to us all, and some of the barriers and walls have come crashing down, which is a great thing. Change is good, and it should be embraced. But change in and of itself does not allow us to break all the rules and it does not mean that the future of science is DIY biology. DIY car manufacturing or DIY aeroplanes, anyone? I can hear someone screaming that you can now print a car (yes, I saw it!) but I doubt that Ford or Ferrari are trembling in their factories.

For now, the DIY biology "movement" is a nice little hobby for non-scientists with an interest in science, nothing more. For it to gain serious traction, and to stop real scientists from snickering over it, the challenge is clear - beat us at our own game, do something spectacular (preferably three times), and you never know, we might just look up from the lab bench long enough to take notice. Until then, most PhDs probably will remain insulted by the very idea that someone who went to art school should be allowed anywhere near or let loose in any real laboratory. 

I have zero problem with enthusiastic amateur scientists, as long as they realise that's what they are, they are kept away from real laboratories in the institutions they dislike, and don't self-promote their agenda with outrageous statements claiming that virtualising the complicated process of R&D is the new way to find blockbuster drugs. Disruptive technologies are one thing, but disruptive claims are another, and if those claims cannot be backed up by data and examples (something real science relies on!) then credibility becomes the issue and they become destructive. 

But you know, there is a real solution to this burgeoning predicament that has arisen at least in part due to the popularisation and vulgarisation of science. Young people everywhere who went in other directions earlier in life are apparently discovering their "inner scientist", and want to get in on the action. I don't blame them, because I have always known that science was the best game in town, and we all do have one thing in common - I have also practised kitchen laboratory science - when I was 9 and got my first chemistry set for Christmas! 

Sadly, there is no shortcut to real knowledge plus great training, combined with seasoned on-the-job experience. For those considering the DIY biology trend, I have a better solution - go back to school and get a science degree, or three - like most current scientists did. The DIY thingy is just that for now - a trend; and although it may be cold comfort to some, a PhD is never going to go out of fashion, and it will remain the de facto passport into the real world club of high-level science. As much as the world has changed, and is changing, trends will come and go, but a great education and solid work experience will never be replaced by mere trends or by enthusiastic amateurs. Science and scientific research indeed make the world go round, but the term "scientist" has to be earned, not simply adopted. 

Elevator going up? Just remember, it can bring you down also!

Here we are approaching year's end, and rather inevitably, during some quieter moments in and around the various feasts and festivities, one finds oneself taking stock of life and career and one's level of success, and how lucky/unlucky one feels about it all. Of course, the only real viewpoint is how lucky we all are, compared to so many, even if it's human nature to find something to gripe about - but sticking with the positive is always going to take us further in the end. 

As nauseating as all the currently-in-vogue "paying it forward" and "teachable moment" armchair (make that chaise longue!) psychology psychobabble on the TV is, there is a lesson in there - somewhere - you just have to dig it out from within the often self-serving "How great I am to be sharing my wealth-wisdom-winning ways with y'all" self-promotion. Generally speaking, the celebrities or "winners" who do it on the quiet are the ones whose motives I trust (the most), while anyone having a bright light shone on them in primetime for all they do for others, apparently out of the blue, well ....you know. 

But as much as it gets people all watery-eyed and weak at the knees to see some rich, famous celebrity helping others "below" them, those very same people often go into work with a stellar focus on only helping themselves and their own career, even at the expense of others and being willing to trample over those "below" them as they see fit or deem necessary. There's an apparent disconnect here, as if somehow it's okay for a celebrity to care for those beneath them or thank the paying public who got them there, because they have made it and are untouchable now, so of course they can afford to give something back!

I don't think that's the point, at all. Each of us is (or can be) our very own (minor) celebrity; one who has made it to a large extent, and who probably does owe some people for where one climbed to today (irrespective of current job title or remuneration level), and it's not because one is not all the way there yet that one should exhibit no gratitude. Yes, it can be a dog-eat-dog world in the typical office or workplace, but it's not because others behave like dogs that you have to do the same to survive. On the contrary, the exact opposite stance may even help you stand out more and rise above the incessant, meaningless barking. 

But it is deemed somewhat acceptable to scratch and scrap one's way up the ladder, to fight to get to the top, and then one is expected to suddenly undergo a personality transformation and begin to go all warm and cuddly with a new-found desire to "give back" to others? This is extremely unlikely to happen in the corporate world. Those who trample people on the way up, are those who are gonna be an even bigger pain in the ass, once there. Conversely, those who got there the right way  (based on actual merit)  and the kind way (some would argue that's just a pipe dream) are much more likely to remain that way, once they achieve their success. 

One does hear the argument that celebrity X or executive Y did not get to  where they are today by being Mr. or Mrs. Niceguy, so one must stay laser-focused and ruthless on the way up, in order to get there, and then of course it's easier to breathe and think of others once you have reached your own individual goals. This is all fine and dandy, but it will take you years to climb that ladder, and you will have passed through the working lives of many, many others by then; frankly, if you are known as a total b**ch (or worse!) after 5-10 years of ladder-climbing, there will be almost nothing you can do to change that perception around town, later. It sort of gets written in metaphorical stone on your real career headstone, and for some it later becomes the tagline on their career gravestone, as they tumble back down the big game of snakes and ladders that is business and life. Or even the business of life!

The cool quote from actor Kevin Spacey (yeah, that other Kevin! ;) caught my eye recently and it works well in relation to today's topic, both in terms of comparison and contrast to what is being discussed. Yes, it is an extremely endearing thought and gesture to send the elevator back down, of course! However, at the same time, unlike ourselves,  having reached his level of success and wealth, it is unlikely that he will ever need to use that elevator down again. But that is almost never the case for the typical individual in the business world, where "fame" and power can be much more transient in nature. 

Thus in our case, and with the way the economic crisis impacted the business world after 2008, it is not uncommon to find ourselves back inside that elevator once more, going down, and you can bet that the doors will open on every single floor between the top and the ground floor, with a mass of instantly recognisable faces crowding the doors to have a good, long look at you on your journey down. It is not likely to be a pain-free process, and the level (or lack) of vitriol mixed with pure pleasure on those faces will be a direct measure of how you rode the elevator up in the first place!

Depending on just how high you may have risen, it could well be one extremely lengthy metaphorical descent back down to where you began your journey - on the ground floor, looking for a job. The metaphorical journey down may be a lengthy one, but being called into human resources and walking out with a box full of your personal effects can be over in what feels like a few seconds, simultaneously hitting the ground floor with as heavy a thump as the metaphorical elevator hitting the ground beside you. Yes, that's you inside that elevator, walking out on the ground floor in a state of total shock!

I personally don't believe there is anything to be gained by scratching your way up, and you actually get more out of people by encouraging them to help you get the most out of your tasks, while in turn helping them do so in return. One climbs based on merit and talent, not due to being loudest, scratchiest, or the type who spends more time doing politics than doing their job; the latter type always gets theirs in the end anyway, when people realize that they don't actually have the skills necessary to do the bloody job. 

It costs little to be a little more giving and a lot less selfish by collaborating with colleagues rather than being in endless competition for attention and promotion with them, and it can pay huge dividends in terms of what people really think about you, and will be willing to say about you, when your name comes up in both everyday conversation and in terms of being a promotion candidate. While again, there are those who would say nice guys/gals finish last, I prefer to think of it in terms of nice guys being finished (i.e. out of a job) last. 

As much as I admire Kevin Spacey's quote, I might just add-in that on the way up, it's not a bad idea to hold the doors open a little longer on each floor to allow a few others to jump in with you, or simply to take a few minutes to chat with the people that you meet on the ride up - it can make a massive difference not only to the likelihood of having to take that elevator down again, but also to how people react to that coming back down to ground - and a little extra cushion can go a long way on a darker day!