Jennifer Doudna on what it takes to be a good scientist

Introduction of Jennifer Doudna

0:00Hi, it's Ira, and you're listening to Science Friday. Over the years, I've talked to thousands of researchers on this program, and while their findings, advances, and inventions are interesting and important, I'm also interested in a deeper personal question, and that is, what does it take to be a good scientist? Is it creativity, good ideas, diligence, luck, or all of the above? Then, whom to ask? Well, in 2020, Dr. Jennifer Doudna shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry

0:33for the development of the gene editing technique CRISPR. CRISPR and related techniques have become essential tools in genetics. It's an advance that has changed the game in biology. Dr. Doudna has spoken or written about the challenges and rewards of science. So, I wanted to get her take on my what does it take to be a good scientist question and the path she followed. Dr. Jennifer Doudna is a professor of biochemistry, biophysics, and structural biology at the University of California,

1:05Berkeley, a 2020 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, and most recently, recipient of the 2026 Priestly Medal, the American Chemical Society's highest honor. We couldn't connect right after the Nobel in 2020. She was just a bit busy. So, the Priestly Medal is as good an excuse as any to have her back. Dr. Doudna, welcome back to Science Friday, and a belated congratulations. Well, hi, Ira. Great to be back. Thanks for the congrats. I'm looking forward to the conversation.

1:37Great. Well, you know, in doing my research for this interview, I noticed that you get asked this question a lot. What is good science and how to do it? Why do you think you get asked this all the time? I think when you have science that is in the public eye, the way CRISPR is, there's sort of a natural curiosity about how it came about, how the people behind the scenes were involved in the science as it was developing. I think it is a fascinating question. What does it take to do

2:08interesting science? And how do we think about it now, especially in this era of AI and AI scientists? Yeah, I hope to get into this because I know you seem very eager and happy to talk about this all

Early inspiration and mentors

2:21the time. Whether I want to or not, Ira. Well, let me go right to the beginning. Do you remember the moment when you decided you wanted to be a scientist? Well, I sort of do. It really goes back to when I was in 10th grade in high school. Really? Yeah, because we were given a standard aptitude test that for me came back saying, well, the thing you're probably best at is being a civil

2:52engineer. I had no idea what that was. But it was kind of the first, I guess, data point for me that suggested that there could be a scientific angle to my interests and that maybe that was something I could consider for my future career. And that made me start thinking about what areas of science I might find most exciting. And frankly, I got really interested in the question of chemistry underlying

3:24the evolution of life and understanding modern biology from a more chemical evolutionary perspective, if that makes sense. And so, I went to college with that goal in mind. Had no idea, really, what I wanted to work on. But I've been very fortunate that over the years, I've encountered a number of great mentors who have exposed me to different kinds of science. And I think through that process, I've really had the chance to observe some wonderful scientists up close. How do they think

3:57about science? How do they pose a question? And then how do they go about addressing it? And I think each of us has our own personal approach to science. And yet, we absolutely benefit from observing what other people have done so successfully. Yeah, that was my next question. Because when I talk to scientists, a lot of them say, you know, I had a mentor somewhere along the line who kept me going. And did you have anyone in particular? Because you didn't grow up in a family of scientists, did you?

4:28Didn't, no. Nobody in my family on either side was a scientist. And it made me, you know, sort of have to break out a bit on my own. I was lucky that my father, who was a professor at the University of Hawaii, exposed me to science through his good friend and colleague, Don Hemis, who was a professor of biology at the university, now emeritus. And Don gave me the opportunity to do some research in his lab when I was still in high school. So, that was my first exposure to what it might be like to work

5:03in a real research lab, where there wasn't a cookbook set of experiments with a defined answer like you get in a lab course, but where you were literally asking and trying to answer a question that maybe nobody had ever answered before. Okay. So, then walk me through the backstory a bit of how you came

Path to discovering CRISPR

5:23to be working on CRISPR in the first place. Where did the idea come from? How did you decide this was something that was for you? It was an indirect path, to say the least. I started off in graduate school working on probably one of the, you know, biggest questions you could imagine in biology, namely, how did life evolve on our planet? And I was working with a fantastic advisor, Jack Shostak, whose question about the origin of life boiled down to, could we come up with ways of, in the laboratory,

5:58testing how molecules could perform both the function of carrying genetic information and copying that information? So, doing both of those things, but within the context of the same type of molecule. And that was, frankly, the beginning of my interest in how RNA functions across biology and in different ways. So, when I eventually started my own lab at Yale University in 1994, I was at that time building off work I had done during my postdoctoral research in Colorado with Tom Check to figure out

6:33how RNA molecules are structured three-dimensionally to give them the ability to potentially, at least, serve as a replicating enzyme. And then, when I moved my lab to UC Berkeley in 2002, I, again, was sort of taking my RNA lens to my thinking and sort of projects that we were starting to work on there, including understanding how the machinery in the cell that makes small RNAs that are involved

7:04in a process called RNA interference, are using RNA to control the way that proteins are expressed in different cells. And it was, frankly, that line of work which led me to CRISPR because that led me to my initial meeting with Jill Banfield, a colleague here at Berkeley, who was one of the first researchers to discover that bacteria have what looked like an RNA-guided immune system, an adaptive immune system

7:35that allowed them to acquire sequences of genetic material that could be used, in turn, to defend themselves against infection by viruses that bore those sequences. And so, that was the basis of CRISPR and how we got interested in investigating how it might be working as an RNA-guided system. What is it, though, about your personality that actually got you through all of this? I'm pretty stubborn.

8:05It must know. That's an important ingredient, it sounds. Well, you know, I think there's that. I think it's also, I do think back to my upbringing in Hawaii because I felt a bit like an outsider in the culture there. You know, being a haole or white girl there in the 1970s, I was kind of by definition an outsider. And also being, you know, as we discussed earlier, growing up in a family of non-scientists and a girl to boot, I felt like there wasn't any

8:42particular expectation put upon me to, you know, to go in a particular direction professionally. And in a weird way, I think that gave me a sense of freedom, too. I didn't feel like I had to please anybody or, you know, perform for somebody's expectations. I could literally just explore ideas I was interested in. And if they didn't pan out, well, you know, that's just how the ball would bounce. And that's kind of how I've approached my work, I think, throughout my career is that I really try to focus on questions that I think are really exciting and interesting. And I

9:19try to always have the thread of evolution underlying our projects, because I do think that is truly the foundational aspect of biology on our planet. On the Nobel page, it says, quote, embrace your interests, your passions, and really give it your all. Is that your philosophy of research? Oh, 100%. You know, I think you really have to be willing to take risks. I think you have to be willing to try things that maybe other people say are a bit crazy. I think you have to be interested

9:53enough in a project to be willing to work through all the tough times that are going to come, because that's how research is. There's lots of experiments that fail or ideas that don't pan out. And you have to be willing to work through that to, you know, to answer a question that you are driven to address. Yeah. Let's talk about failure, because whenever I talk to scientists, I'm always impressed by the role that failure plays in their work, that failure is an absolute necessity. But, you know,

10:24it's something that's hard for the public to embrace, I think. It is, isn't it? Because it's sort of counterintuitive. You look at a, you know, a project that has had success, and it can look from the outside as though it was an idea conceived brilliantly somehow, and that, you know, every experiment went as predicted, and that led to the outcome. But I think that's probably rarely true, if ever. In my experience, I don't think I've ever worked on anything that didn't have, you know, a series of failures associated with it.

10:57Did you have that on the way to CRISPR also? Yes, because, you know, when we started working on CRISPR, one of the first things that we were doing in the lab was trying to figure out how this enzyme, a protein called Cas9, how it could use a molecule of RNA to grab onto a particular DNA sequence and cut it, much like you might cut a rope, except this is occurring at a molecular level. And all of the initial experiments just

11:28completely failed. They just didn't work. And so we thought, well, either our hypothesis about how this protein is working is completely wrong, or we're missing something in our experiments. And that really led to a whole wide-ranging set of efforts, both in our lab and our collaborator's lab, Emmanuel Charpentier's lab, to figure out what that missing element might be. And that led to the discovery, in fact, that the RNA used by the Cas9 protein in bacteria comes in two segments, not one.

12:07So we were in one of the segments, but we were missing the other one. And as soon as we had the other one present in our reactions, suddenly we started seeing DNA cutting and things started working. We have to take a break. And when we come back, continuing the conversation and looking at the role of science and scientists in society. Stay with us.

Teamwork and handling failure

12:39One of the ingredients, it seems to be, that you need to be a good scientist is to have courage through uncertainty, right? Not to give up. You talked about you being stubborn, and this sounds like some portion of that. Right. And it is. And I think, to me, one of the biggest challenges in science is knowing how stubborn to be. You know what I mean? You sort of have to decide, you know, at what point, you know, because certainly we've had plenty of projects in the lab over the years where we eventually realized that we're kind of barking up the wrong tree. And, you know,

13:13we need to move on or we need to pivot in a big way. And there's often that question that will come up in a project is, you know, am I just sort of one experiment away from this starting to click? Or am I really on the wrong path here and I need to redirect or even, you know, drop this project and work on something different? And I still struggle with that. I think it's always a judgment call. Do you have to have a team that believes with you to keep going instead of throwing up your hands and saying, we're wasting money here? Definitely. And science is a team effort. It is. And there

13:50often are differing points of view. And we often have this discussion in the lab. People are not entirely in agreement sometimes about, you know, should we keep going on this project or should we pivot? And, or should we try a different approach? And so it's often a, you know, a debate and a discussion. And you have to have people that are willing to, you know, take a risk and try things that they might not be fully on board with, but are willing to try because they're ultimately interested

14:22in answering a question together. That's my next point about how important is being open to different perspectives, different minds being surrounded in your work by these people? Oh, incredibly important in my view. I, I couldn't, I couldn't emphasize that enough, really. It's, I think that, and this is, I've just seen this over and over again. It's, it's really exciting, actually. This is one thing I love about research and I love about running an academic lab at a, at a major university with great students coming in the door every day. It's that you never know

14:58where the next great idea will come from. And in my experience, it, it often comes from unexpected directions. It's often, more often than not, it's, you know, it comes from people who are perhaps not yet very experienced in a field, but they have an idea that they want to pursue, or they're linking together ideas that come from other fields, other labs, other experiences that they've had that are seemingly unrelated and yet end up being, you know, oddly connected to the project that you're trying

15:32to, to work on together. I find that really fun. Yeah. Yeah. And, and is fun a necessary ingredient to have fun with what you're doing? I feel it is, you know, I do. I always, I emphasize this a lot in the lab. I want people to, to have fun. I'm not saying that every experiment is fun or that every day in the lab is fun. They're like we were saying, there are frustrations for sure. But I do think that overall there has to be a feeling of joy in one's work. I think it makes the work better in the end. I think

16:08it makes us more creative and inventive with what we're doing. I think it makes us more resilient when we have failures is if ultimately we have a sense of joy in the discoveries that we hope are going to happen. But you also need a bit of serendipity, as you were mentioning, luck coming into play, be perhaps being in the right place at the right time, right? Yes, I do think that that's true. And it's always hard to grapple with that in a way because it makes it sound as though there's some unpredictability

16:42to our work. But I think that's the reality is that things are a bit unpredictable. There are opportunities that come up, discoveries that come up. I think there's a timeliness to science. I've often thought with CRISPR that in a way it came along at the right time when there were a lot of genome sequences being presented and posted publicly right around the time that we were working on CRISPR. Hence, there was a desire to have technologies, tools that would allow manipulation

17:15of that code of life. And what CRISPR did was to provide that kind of a programmable, readily accessible toolbox for manipulating genomes right at the moment when there was a need for that. You know, I love Louis Pasteur's definition of luck when he was asked about luck. And he said, luck prefers the prepared mind. Yes. In other words, if you're looking for it and your mind is there, you'll find it, right? You'll be lucky. Yes, I think there's a lot to that. It's certainly been my

17:46experience. You know, the PR people like to talk about a breakthrough. Can you point to any one thing that was an actual breakthrough moment in your career? Or is that term just something for press releases? Because you're really standing on the shoulders of other people?

18:05Well, certainly science is built on the shoulders of other people. There's no question about that. That being said, I do think that there are certain moments that happen in research where you kind of have a feeling or a recognition that you've just made a very interesting discovery of some kind that might have, you know, broad impact. And I think for us with CRISPR, it was really twofold. I think it was the moment, as I mentioned before, where we had the found the missing component that suddenly,

18:39you know, activated our Cas9 enzyme and we could see DNA cutting going on in our test tube, which was great, very exciting. But the other sort of component or aspect of that work that was also equally important was recognizing that those two segments of RNA that are the guide for Cas9 could be linked together artificially by us in the lab to form a single segment of RNA that would have all of the

19:12functions that we found in bacteria, but be much easier to manipulate as a technology. And I think that was really also an important moment for us realizing that we could control the activity of Cas9, but in a way that was a lot easier to manage than what nature has done. I hear what you're saying. So looking back and looking forward, I mean, has CRISPR given us the fruits of your labors that you had expected or predicted? Are you happy at how it has worked out?

19:43I mean, it's just incredible, isn't it? Who would have thunk that just over 10 years after that original publication with Emmanuel's lab that we would have an FDA approved therapy for people that have sickle cell disease using the same enzyme that, you know, we had worked on. I mean, that, you know, no way I could have predicted that. But I have to say that, you know, from the very beginning, it was pretty clear that having a readily programmable tool for manipulating DNA sequences

20:17with precision in cells was, you know, was going to be, there was no question that that was going to be a very powerful way to advance science. And of course, you recognize then that there are ethical moral limits to the use of gene editing. Indeed. I mean, this is, you know, this is an ongoing challenge in the field is to figure out how do we manage the risks with a powerful technology that clearly has capabilities that go beyond what I think we have the current infrastructure socially

20:50and societally to manage. And I guess I'm thinking in particular here about two things. One is germline editing, meaning, you know, making heritable changes in human beings. And the other is environmental challenges, whether we are going to be comfortable allowing CRISPR to be deployed to control populations of mosquitoes and things like that. It sounds like maybe a great idea, but we clearly have to manage it carefully. Right. You created the Innovative Genomics Institute, which adds planted earth to your

21:25portfolio, bringing CRISPR not only to medicine, but to agriculture, microbial ecosystems. What inner thoughts drove you to do this? Well, when I started thinking about what kinds of impacts CRISPR would have, especially when we think very broadly, globally, in terms of large grand challenges that we're facing as a species, really, I, you know, kept coming back to the idea that having a technology that allows manipulation of

21:58microbes, of plants, and of their ecosystem in the environment would be incredibly impactful when we think about the challenges we're facing with climate change and with population growth. And so our institute from its beginning has been focused on not only human health, but also planetary health and specific aspects of planetary health where I think CRISPR can make a difference. And then in particular, we're focused on methane emissions, how to reduce those from cattle and other agricultural applications of CRISPR, and also

22:33thinking about carbon sequestration.

Artificial intelligence in biology

22:38Are we seeing advances past CRISPR? Are there new CRISPRs out there that are possibly even better? Well, there's lots of people looking. There's no question. And now there are, you know, our AI tools to help look for new things that maybe nature hasn't even discovered. So there's lots of efforts on that front. Talk more about the AI tools. Right. So, yeah, I mean, I think, you know, there's clearly going to be an ongoing evolving toolbox of

23:10tools that allow genome manipulations. That being said, you know, CRISPR is pretty good. And, you know, nature's been experimenting for a lot longer than any of us have been around. So it's hard. I think it sets a high bar. I'll just say that. But look, you know, I think it is very exciting to think about the way that AI could advance some of this. These AI tools are as good as the data they're trained on. And so this, what we're seeing in the lab, at least so far with our, in our experience is that

23:42it can be very effective at doing things like obviously predicting protein structures. That was also a Nobel prize winning piece of work, as you know, and, and even starting to help predict new kinds of proteins that have particular functions. I think that's very exciting. And predicting the ways proteins interact with each other or other kinds of molecules, that's also moving forward with AI assistance. These are all great, but it's, I think we're not at a stage right now, and maybe not in

24:19the foreseeable future that I can see, where AI will really be taking over in terms of coming up with those kinds of ideas and hypotheses that, as we discussed earlier, really, in my view, kind of drive new breakthroughs. Why not? Well, because I just don't see the, I don't, I don't think these AI tools are thinking, you know, they're, they're, they're great at analyzing data. They're great at pulling together disparate pieces of information. That's very helpful. They're not, though, able to generate

24:52something completely new that they've never seen before. And I think that's partly because, you know, biology is extraordinarily complex. It's very hard to predict lots of things in biological systems today. And I don't think we're going to be able to get the data to do those kinds of predictions easily or, or anytime soon, again, due to the complexity. We don't even, in many cases, we don't even know how to collect those types of data. And speaking of collecting data, is it getting more difficult to find support for basic science these days? Well, it is. And I think it's unfortunate that

25:29that's happening at a moment when we're arguably on the verge of seeing a real acceleration in the way that we can make breakthroughs because of the, you know, the assistance with, with AI and other associated technologies. And I would just like to point out that, you know, I think a lot of the work that's been done, certainly in my lab and many of my colleagues over the years and by all of our students and trainees, a lot of that work has been funded by taxpayers in different ways. That's really

26:03how the United States research enterprise has been working for several decades, really since the end of World War II. And to pull away that support at a moment when we're on this incredible, you know, technical trajectory, I think is, is there's a, there's a sad irony there to me, you know, I think it, it really, I hope we can turn that around because I do think that it will, if it continues, it will,

26:36it will really impact the, the pace of science in, in a negative way. Do you think that scientists should then speak out? I know that scientists in general, Carl Sagan aside, and other prominent scientists have always been reticent about speaking out. Do you think we need more scientists talking about what needs to be done? I think we need better science communication. I mean, I love, I love Science Friday because I think that's, that's a very important role that you play is explaining what science is all about and what

27:09are scientists all about? Like, how do we do our work? And why do we do our work? How do we do our work? I think that's incredibly important, but it's challenging because, you know, scientists are, we're geeks, you know, we, we like to be working away in our labs for the most part. And so I do think that there's a real need for more open discussion about science and why, why it's valuable and why it matters in our country. Any advice for young people looking at a career in science?

Advice for young scientists

27:40I always tell my students, I think science is a wonderful career when you're starting out. I think it's a, it's a career that allows you to make the kinds of, of discoveries that, that really can change the trajectory of, of life on our planet in principle. And it's not necessarily one breakthrough, it's the whole collection of, you know, the data and the knowledge that comes from it that I think

28:11builds a, you know, a future and a new picture of what our biology is really all about. I think that's what's so exciting about doing science is making those, those new discoveries, even very small ones are, there's sort of thrill to it, you know, and it's, it's a, there's also a real joy to working with other people who have an aligned interest in a question or a problem that you're working on together. There's something very special about that. And I think this is a career that encourages that kind

28:43of fundamental investigation with our fellow humans. Well, Dr. Doudna, I want to thank you for taking time to be with us today and good luck to you in the future and anything that you do. Thanks, Ira. Real pleasure. You're welcome. Dr. Jennifer Doudna, Professor of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Structural Biology at UC Berkeley, 2020 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, 2026 winner of the Priestly Medal.

29:16This podcast was produced by Charles Berquist. And if you like Dr. Doudna, have joy and curiosity and discovery, why not share this episode with your friends? It really does help. Thanks for listening. I'm Ira Plato.

29:36I'm Ira Plato. I'm Ira Plato. Thanks, Ira Slough.