Published online 25 October 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.560

News: Q&A

A former US science adviser says people can often achieve more than governments.

Nina Fedoroff says the United States needs more scientifically literate people in government. Anatoliy Romanko/CSPC

Nina Fedoroff is preparing to take up the reins of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in February next year. Having finished a three-year stint as science adviser to US secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton this July, Fedoroff is getting back to her roots in plant genetics by heading up a new centre for desert agriculture in Saudi Arabia. Nature caught up with her at the Canadian Science Policy Conference in Montreal last week.

What did you achieve as the State Department's science adviser?

The biggest impact I made was in bringing more scientists to our embassies — through my own travels, the State Department Jefferson fellowships and the AAAS science fellowships, as well as the new Science Envoys [six senior scientists sent by the State Department around the world]. People were enormously appreciative. Especially in countries where there are scientists in top government positions — they appreciate dealing with a government representative who's a scientist. We sought funding for the State Department to place more scientists in embassies. Will they get funding? I think so. But these things don't happen overnight.

You believe that genetically modified (GM) crops are needed to help to feed the world. Were you able to help speed their progress?

No. We started. It's a very delicate issue. One of the things that's really dispiriting is that countries have basically declared that it's necessary to start testing from scratch. There's no process by which the testing in one country can be accepted in another country.

What were the frustrations of being a science adviser?

The culture gap. For a scientist, the most compelling thing you can say is "the weight of the evidence is this". For a non-scientist, that simply isn't compelling. I understand that they're different mindsets. And yet, when you look at how important it is to recognize the weight of the evidence in areas like climate change, it's beyond frustrating — it's scary.

Did the administrations you worked with listen to you?

It's very hard for me to answer that in a global way. I found individuals I could work with. Part of the frustration of bridging administrations is that the relationships you built get swept away and you have to start all over. That's hard. I had formed a relationship with Condi [Rice] — she hired me — but I was never part of the inner circle with Hillary. Rice came out of an academic background. She was probably more attuned to how scientists work.

In India, in China, and in many African countries, there are scientists in the top ranks of government. I actually sometimes found it easier to deal with governments other than my own.

Were you free to express your personal views?

Well, I did, and nobody ever stomped on me.

Your first language is Russian. Did that help in your job?

“I actually sometimes found it easier to deal with governments other than my own.”



Because I grew up between cultures, I can more easily see the way the United States looks from the outside. I still see in our foreign relations the notion that the United States will 'come in and solve this problem for you'. That just doesn't work. Helping people to develop their own capabilities and skills is just not terribly much how we Americans work. In some ways it was better 25 years ago, when we had a lot of scientists in USAID [the US Agency for International Development].

Should the United States work harder to get more scientifically literate people into government?

Obviously it should. But in the end, thousands of people interacting can often do more than governments. You don't need to wait for governments and huge institutional changes in order to do something to build a better world. It can be university to university, professor to professor.

You sound slightly cynical of what can be achieved through government. Would you take on the role of science adviser again?

Yes I would. I'm not trying to be dismissive. But I am trying to acknowledge that governments don't solve problems, people do. Governments move slowly, and the problems we're facing are now. I'm an impatient person.

You're starting a new centre for desert agriculture at King Abdullah University (KAUST). Why?

To feed the world, we have to use science and technology to use water that's unusable and land that's unusable. There are forward-looking people in the United States, but our water policy is not conducive to developing desert agriculture. If there's a nation in the world that has the need and the resources, it's Saudi Arabia. KAUST is a young university with a real focus on global problems.

You are also incoming president of the AAAS for February 2011 to February 2012. What do you hope to achieve?

My interest is in making it a more global organization, starting with the annual meeting in 2012. I'm delighted that the AAAS has given a home to the Global Knowledge Initiative, a non-governmental organization I started to help build person-to-person contacts. That's what science organizations ought to be doing, and they don't need to wait for governments to do it.