[Alice S. Huang, a distinguished virologist now at the California Institute of Technology, took office as president of AAAS on 22 February 2010. AAAS Senior Writer Edward W. Lempinen recently interviewed her by phone.]

Dr. Huang, so that people can get to know you a little bit, I wonder if you could describe how you came to be a scientist. Was there a particular moment or insight that inspired you?

I had several wonderful teachers—they were all women because I went to women’s schools until I went to medical school. So in grade school and high school and college, there were women who encouraged me to express my own curiosity. They built a certain sense of confidence that I didn’t think that I had and pushed me to be better than what I thought I was capable of doing.

As far as getting into this particular career, I’d always set my heart on being a doctor or a physician. And this I mentioned to my father when I was about 7 years old. At the time I didn’t completely understand what that profession entailed. When I went to college I discovered there were these early entrance programs into medical school that admitted students with only 2 years of college. I was very eager at that point to get on with my life. I left Wellesley College and entered Johns Hopkins’ 2/5 program.

That’s when I first discovered what research was all about. There’s something terribly exciting about having made a discovery, being the first one to see the results, be able to interpret it, and understanding that it has significance much broader than you had ever imagined. That’s what happened to me. Working with one particular faculty member and finding that I was able to make a discovery was new and different and exciting. Of course it traps you into wanting to do that again and again. It’s almost an addiction that research scientists have.

You want to be able to make some sort of prediction or test of a model and then to be able to do the experiment to show it’s correct or not correct. You follow your nose in that way. You never really fully answer a research question. You’re always moving on to the next step; you’re always led to ask another question.

When you can advance a step—rather than just having an experiment that totally messes up and you can’t take any steps at all—that’s exciting, no matter how small that step might be.

That’s how I got sidetracked from becoming a physician. Although I’ve always maintained close contact with physicians—the majority of my career was spent at Harvard Medical School, and a large part at Children’s Hospital [in Boston], where I headed up infectious diseases. So it was a wonderful experience to be able to be a bench scientist and be surrounded by people who were involved in delivering clinical medicine and care to patients.

Was you father a doctor, or your mother?

What explains a lot about where I come from—my father was orphaned at age 12. He was adopted by American missionaries who were in China at the time. So he ended up going to the University of Pennsylvania and then the Philadelphia Divinity School, following in the footsteps of his adopted father. He eventually ended up back in China, where he married and had a family. He had often said that if he had not chosen to go into the ministry, he would’ve wanted to be a physician. In part that must’ve given me the idea, I’m sure. Also I wanted to please him. Much later, when we came to the United States, my mother became a nurse in order to help support our family. Before that, she was a homemaker. Even though my father was a bishop of the Anglican Episcopal Ministry in Southwest China, covering Yunnan and Guizhou provinces, when he left China and became a refugee in the United States, of course there wasn’t another diocese for him to just take over. He had to make a living by asking his old classmates from divinity school to give him an adjutant bishop’s job so that he could make a living in this country. It was a tough time for him.

Along the way, did you encounter any unexpected challenges?

I have to admit that, when I was being educated, I was pretty oblivious to what was going on around me. Obviously I knew that I looked different and sometimes I was kidded about it by children on the streets, but otherwise I think I was extraordinarily lucky. I received a scholarship as soon as I came to the United States. I attended Episcopal girls schools. Since I went to private schools, I was associating with children from families in the United States who were brought up to be polite, liberal and accepting of diversity. And I had some wonderful teachers, as I said before. They really helped me. They understood why I was curious about things and gave me the tools to realize the answers to my curiosity.

In your statement of candidacy for the AAAS presidency, you mentioned that it’s important for AAAS and the journal Science to convey the “passion and positive aspects of a life in science.” Why is that important? And is the U.S. scientific community conveying that well enough?

We so often focus on the financial aspects and the difficulty of getting grants that we turn off a lot of young people from science. I just described why I was so excited about science and how by doing it, and being the first to understand the influence of a discovery and seeing the results—that’s something that’s really hard to describe. We don’t focus on that when we first talk to people. When I see young people coming to me and asking for advice, I find that they’re very focused on, ‘How do I get ahead, and how to get to the position I want?’ Somehow they’ve forgotten why they’re even trying to get ahead and what it means to their life, and the joy that they have from living a life that’s passionate one. I think every scientist I’ve met who is successful is indeed passionate about what they do.

Many people, myself included, are not excited about talking in public and being examined in any great detail. Therefore, we don’t pass along our passion for science. But the ability to communicate effectively can be learned, even by people who don’t feel that they can communicate those ideas.

Can it be conveyed not only to young scientists, but to the public?

I’m seeing more and more of the realization in this country, especially, that we need to attract and retain more of the younger scientists and also to attract more young people to go into science. When you see the numbers of people who are excited by sports figures and entertainers and how they become idolized, you wonder: Where is the scientist? I’m always looking at listings for the top 10 people of the year, or top 10 contributions of the decade, and I’m always looking for the scientists. It is not in the public’s mind that science as a profession can be exciting and very rewarding and a lot of fun!

When I was in Beijing recently, there was a survey being done among the students as to whom they thought were the heroes of the 20^th century. And many of the students said Einstein. And yet when we ask our students in this country who they would like to be invited as their graduation speakers, they often will name an entertainer who has played the role of a scientist. And this is even at a technical university like Caltech.

You’ve been a strong advocate of women in science, and in your candidacy statement, you expressed concern about the lack of women in scientific leadership positions. The numbers of women in science decrease as they move into mid-career. In your view, why is this happening? And when it does happen, what’s lost?

It’s a tragic loss of individuals who have the talent and capability to contribute to our society. I see it as a much larger problem. Throughout my career, I’ve been very much focused on women, but lately I’ve looked more closely at minority groups in the United States—there are now more studies involving Latinos and blacks and Asian Americans. When you look at those numbers, you see the same things as with women. Although we’re a much more open society now than we were 20 years ago and despite the hiring of many more minorities in the professions, they’re not promoted in proportion to the numbers who are there. This can be very discouraging to people who have worked hard and realize they’re capable of doing the job, and yet they’re never tapped to do it.

There are a whole variety of other reasons that women and minorities drop out of science—and of course the reason for each group might be quite different. But there are some common threads as well. I don’t purport to know all the answers. I think it’s easier to look at the numbers that say: ‘Hey, there’s something here that tells us that we’re not using all the brainpower and all the capability that we have in this country.’ The world is more and more competitive and if we’re to maintain our leadership status in science and technology, it’s important that we make use of every available intellect that we have.

When the Nobel prizes were announced last October, some articles crowed that U.S. was still in the leadership position in terms of the number of Nobel laureates that are being newly minted. It was actually Alan Leshner, the chief executive officer of AAAS, who said, ‘However, we know that Nobel Prizes are given many, many years after the discoveries.’

What can be done to address this issue—and particularly, what can an organization like AAAS do to address issues involved in recruiting and retaining women scientists and scientists form minority groups?

I think AAAS has staked out a very positive position for many years now in trying to attract women and minorities into science and provide them with all the tools that they need. We know that people from diverse backgrounds may not have all the inside knowledge in order to know what is available, what are the opportunities, where to go for them and also how to successfully apply for support. I think that the career advice in Science, especially the online part, does a wonderful job of providing the tools that young people are seeking.

Another positive aspect that the AAAS has taken is the educational initiatives. I’ve watched it over the years and participated in some efforts on STEM education. What are some of the new things we should be doing? There can be more articles in Science that highlight the problems and present the data and discuss them and bring the issues on women and minority scientists to the fore for policymakers.

We know in past few years we’ve improved hiring of women into academic positions, including the sciences. That improvement, in the past three or four years, has really accelerated. However, when you look at the rate of improvement, it becomes apparent that even at these hiring rates, there still would be three or four generations before there would be real equity in the numbers of women and men in professorial positions. And yet we do produce those women who could be hired—so it isn’t the lack of women entering the field.

It’s the lack of promotion?

It’s the lack of promotion. It’s the lack of hiring.

I’ll give you a soft number—if you look at the top universities in the United States, the percentage of women science faculty is generally at 30% or lower, and most are hovering in the teens. If you look in biology—where I know the numbers a little better—we know that the number of Ph.D.s produced is nearly equal for males and females.

I think in part, many women are discouraged; they don’t see that many women in leadership positions. They hear complaints about lack of funding, they see political infighting—these are things that a lot of women who are idealistic and excited about their profession don’t want to put up with. I also see a lot of very capable women who have been sidelined or ignored professionally until they finally can’t be ignored anymore.

Looking at United States domestic politics and the domestic policy environment, and the world situation, what priorities do you see for AAAS during your presidency?

Let me be more general: There are many issues in science that individual scientists and individual universities cannot accomplish for one reason or another. Some being that they may draw too much attention onto themselves and suffer undue consequences for it. AAAS in a way has very little to lose. It has the clout of a huge membership, and it is not totally dependent on government funding like many individual scientists. And it represents science across-the-board, on issues that are important to different interest groups among scientists. Those are the areas that AAAS needs to look at in the future. We’re certainly entering an interesting environment with a government that looks on science favorably and expects science to help solve some of the country’s problems. Our government is openly trying to make science more attractive to the population—I think those are all good things that we certainly should support.

But there are also issues AAAS can work on that would help reduce the cost of scientific research. It’s not just the expense, but also the burdens of scientific research, unnecessary burdens—I think those are issues AAAS need to take a look at. One of them is the amount of paperwork. The difficulties of getting grant monies, and the short periods for which grant monies are given out, especially to young scientists. I always remember a Yale colleague of mine saying he only did the chancy experiments when he became tenured. He was afraid to do them when he was untenured because he had to publish every year and so he could write another grant application in two or three years’ time. It was only when he had the security of being tenured that he felt he could he could do the more exciting and demanding types of experiment.

That’s an example of how we are inhibiting our own ability to do the best science by insisting that science has to follow a predictable pattern. As we know, science is not that predictable.

Other examples are nitty-gritty and they come out to be small in some ways, but there are so many of them and they end up being very costly to research—not just financially costly, but costly in terms of the time and energy and drive that could have gone into science rather than into paperwork. There’s also the necessity of logging hours, monitoring animals that one has on a daily census, and other things like that. We need strategies for making science more easily done and enjoyable.

After President Obama took office almost a year ago, there was great appreciation in the scientific community for the fact that he understands and values the role of science in addressing key issues. But in considering his first full year in office, it’s clear that he faces a difficult political environment. And a number of experts have warned that science funding may be in jeopardy in the years ahead as elected officials try to close the federal budget deficit. In this environment, how can the science and engineering communities be most effective in engaging with the government on science policy?

If I had that answer…[she chuckles]. It’s a problem, we all recognize it. We have a wonderful collection of scientists within the Beltway. As individual scientists, we should support them as much as we can if they ask for help or advice, and obviously in terms of time. How we can get around this financial conundrum—I’m constantly surprised at what can be accomplished, given the circumstances of a government that is as divided and a country that seems as divided as it is.

I was reading an article[link: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23519] recently that struck me—it was written by Tony Judt, in the <i>New York Review of Books</i>. He was saying: How did we become so materialistic in this country, where we judge everything by its dollar value? How have we allowed the dollar to—‘dollar’ meaning those who are wealthy, and companies that are wealthy—begin to dominate our political life? We have to realize the reality of the situation and regain some of the idealism.

AAAS could well be a bully pulpit. We used to have presidents of universities who wrote wonderful editorials about the moral issues of doing this or that, and casting questions in a moral tone that not many of us think about on a day-to-day basis. Of course I don’t mean the people who are so religious that they feel everyone should behave like them. There are some basic human principles of morality that, in doing science and promoting science, cause us to face some complex issues, especially ethical choices and dangers that advances in science can bring. I think AAAS, as an organization, can take on some of those issues, fostering discussion and forging consensus for the decision makers

Let’s talk about international science, an area where you’ve been engaged for a long time.

Science diplomacy is an important issue for AAAS. I’ve always believed in science diplomacy per se, and I’ve been especially interested in science diplomacy with Asia, partly because I’m Asian and I have some knowledge of the societies there. It seems that interacting internationally through science is one of the most powerful tools we have toward working for peace. Science is international. It provides a common meeting ground.

But scientific exchange and interaction can offer more. What do I mean by that? When I see how scientists actually work and how successful scientists function, they have to be in an open society where ideas are shared and they are free to test their ideas. If we value curiosity and inquisitiveness, freedom is necessary to be able to do good scientific research and respond to one’s curiosity in the most effective way. If there are controlling influences or if there is a fear of questioning authority, then habits of inquisitiveness are not developed.

So I see science diplomacy not only as a way to make life better for people in other countries and providing opportunities for individuals in those countries to better themselves, but it’s also terribly important in promoting science as a culture, a way of doing things, a way to a free society.

You’ve spent a lot of time in Asia, a lot of time working in Asia. Right now, there’s so much interest in scientific cooperation, on all sides. How can science diplomacy in Asia—with China and other countries—create positive impacts?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this because I’m writing an article about the future of biological research in Asia. I think the doing of science and success in science offers a challenge to those countries that want to copy what the United States has done and want to be successful in innovation. I’m beginning to recognize that some countries probably will never be able to, because the society itself is not one that promotes openness and curiosity.

In Singapore, for instance—it tries extraordinarily hard to become part of the new knowledge society. And yet, because it’s not a completely open and free country, the individuals who grow up in that society are always hampered in certain way. They don’t think in that free-wheeling way that children in this country do. And in countries like China it’s even harder because society can appear to be very open but then at times becomes extraordinarily repressive.

In this country we have as close to a meritocracy as we can get in terms of supporting science and scientists. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it’s largely merit-based. In many countries, scientists find that support is based on whom you know, your connections, who your family is. A person who is really smart and capable also has to have the right family and the right connections to be successful. All this hampers the successful development of science.

Just by our showing how we do science and how we support our young people to be free to do science, that’s an object lesson in itself.

Have you said this to people in Asia?

I’ve said it gently. I’ve said it to them without making all the connections. That’s what I’m trying to do in my own mind now, and in writing this paper. In a way, it’s a subtle way of supporting democracy as we know it, even though I don’t think we have the perfect system. But I don’t see how really, truly innovative science can be done in a closed society that’s run from the top down.

You look back and see when German science was most productive, but they had this Herr Professor structure in which junior professors were hired to work on the projects of the older professors. And that was for a career, not just as a postdoc. German science may have been even better if their system had not taken hold. It’s a bad development in our own country that we’re actually making the training period longer and longer. Young scientists who do two or three different postdocs, they’re working on projects that were initiated by their professors. That’s not the best way of utilizing the talents of these individuals.

Out-of-the-box thinking comes from young people but they have to be free to use their time to think about those issues rather than fulfilling responsibilities to their older professors.

How would you assess the relationship today between science and the American public?

It’s a complex one. I still see a lot of admiration among the public for scientists. There’s a certain amount of awe they have for it. I also see a sense in which some people think, ‘Well, it’s fine for those people to be doing science, but I don’t want my children to be doing that.’ Public Agenda[link: http://www.publicagenda.org/], whose board I sit on, did a study and discovered that most American parents with kids in public schools believe that the schools teach enough science and they don’t think the children need any more. There’s a disjoint here. Scientists recognize it’s going to affect the lives of everyone—you need it just to figure out your own health care, not to mention the big questions of technology and how those will affect your life. But the public certainly doesn’t think they need to study it. I think we have to just try our best to keep explaining this to people we know and see.

Is there any line of communication that could be especially effective? What should be done to keep it strong, or make it stronger?

I’ve always thought that television has a special pull for young people—it shows them what’s possible, what careers are out there. We see a tremendous interest in forensic science—I think that’s due to television, much of it is through these detective and police series that are very popular. That’s better than nothing, but I don’t think we’ve gotten the right tools yet to really reach young people and excite them. I think that there are many possibilities out there. Some of the work in outer space, with rockets, and understanding satellites and how they work with GPS, and the excitement of sending people to the moon, are very interesting to the public. We need to find and promote those aspects that are appealing to the general public so that they will want to know more.

Return to the article, "Alice S. Huang: In Research, Passion and Freedom Are Crucial to Global Progress"