Scientific Research to Public Discourse: Andrew Moore on Science, Society, and Sustainability
Dr. Andrew Moore is a man of many talents. He first and foremost is a great scientist whose career reflects an unwavering commitment to curiosity and the societal role of science. He is further a fantastic writer and master science communicator who thoroughly enjoys deep dives into research originating from different scientific fields to broaden his knowledge and share his findings with the general public.
Recently, Andrew’s deep dive into sustainability cumulated in the creation of his first book. In “The Decarbonization Delusion,” he advocates for carbon-based circular economies that are inspired by biological systems rather than mineral-intensive technological solutions. This book is a work of art that is well worth reading.
In his free time, Andrew enjoys mending things (e.g. cars, grand pianos, etc.) and playing music. Together with Mannheim-based singer and songwriter Aga Maj Luczynska, he plays the most beautiful tunes, and their concerts are highlights that should not be missed.
I caught up with Andrew on a sunny Californian day to hear all about his latest endeavors.
What inspired you to pursue a career as a scientist?
I was just very curious to know how things work, and I loved experiments. I might even have turned into an engineer, because I also like knowing how physical mechanisms work and how to make things.
How did your studies and early experiences in academia shape your career trajectory?
They made me realize that not enough attention is given to thinking and reading. There was far too much emphasis on simply producing results when I was an editor of BioEssays. I wrote an editorial entitled “Have we produced enough results yet, sir?” Here’s a quote from that editorial “I think you've probably done enough reading now; you should start producing some results.” The PI smiled at the neophyte, who dutifully closed her laptop and reached for her lab notebook. And so the rampant pathogen Dataproducus compulsivans claimed another victim. I also realized that not all researchers are true scientists – many of them are data machines – very dangerous in the era of A.I., because A.I. is a machine, so the more that one works like a machine, the more likely it is that one will be replaced by one. For that reason, I became rather disenchanted with research, but I continued to think like a scientist. I decided to make my trajectory in a way that satisfied my creative urge: to create things and answers to problems that involved thinking, whether that be in working out how best to create an effective communication interface between scientists and non-scientist, or how to analyze a societally relevant development or challenge, and communicate it well.
What advice would you give your younger self at the start of your scientific career?
Do not ever fall into the trap of doing research like a “job” that “produces something”. That is not the value in research: rather it is the deep thinking and analysis. I also think I should have switched my PhD as soon as I had the “gut feeling” that that particular topic/area was not right for me. Early in your career, you have unparalleled flexibility: use it, because it only gets smaller as you progress.
When and why did you leave research and go into science communication, scientific editing and writing?
This happened after a period of postdoctoral research in which I realized that I should use the flexibility of career direction that I still had to explore something else. In concrete terms, I wanted to help solve a variety of problems. I even seriously considered studying medicine, and made many applications to medical schools, which I then withdrew. I first went to work for a CRO, as an analytical scientist. Then one evening, after a very frustrating day trying to interact with high-level medics at some hospitals in which we were running clinical trials, I was browsing Nature. There, I happened upon the advertisement for Manager of the Science & Society Programme at the European Molecular Biology Organization in Heidelberg Germany. I applied, and the rest is history, so to speak. A very important point to make is that I never left science. I had already seen how it was actually possible to do research without being a true scientist, but I ended up remaining a scientist without doing laboratory research.
How was your experience as journal editor?
It started very well, because I was enormously fortunate to have such an interesting journal to work on (BioEssays). I also decided to write an editorial every month (topics ranging from the science in a particular article to science communication/writing or science policy and politics). The company did not stop me (even right up to the end). Unfortunately, the journal did not “fit” with the rest of the company’s portfolio. It became ever harder to devote the time and resources that I wanted. Then the tension between quality and quantity got the better of me, and I decided to leave. I resolved to work at a point in the scientific knowledge chain before the editorial desk, i.e. the place where young researchers are considering their results, forming them into a “good story”, writing the paper and trying to get it published. There, I conclude, I can have more influence on quality of science rather than working as an editor. I became entirely self-employed under my company name “WordKraft”.
You recently wrote and published your first book. What is the book about?
It’s basically a plea for us to seriously embrace the sustainability of carbon-based energy and material economies, because these are what made biology sustainable on our Earth for 3.5 billion years. However, we must get free of the fossil stuff as quickly as possible! Biology does not churn up the Earth’s crust to extract minerals to make solutions for energy storage and portability. It thereby avoids massive pollution and problems of recycling that we currently see with batteries. Instead, it runs energy and material economies with carbon compounds, but – very importantly – in a completely net-zero circular system: no net CO2 emissions, but also – even more importantly – no troublesome non-organic mineral wastes and pollution!
Why did you choose to write about this particular topic?
At a certain point I started thinking about whether to continue driving a conventional car, or instead to switch to an EV. Being very curious, I simply had to do the analysis, and what I saw really shocked me. That then developed into a much larger idea to inspect the impact of human energy and material economies on nature. I concluded that literal “decarbonization” would been extremely foolish thing for humanity to attempt. Carbon is our greatest hope, if we understand it and use it properly. Carbon is an exceptional element: it possesses enormous flexibility and potential for transitions from energy to material and back again: up-cycling, down-cycling, recycling at its best. In very practical terms, my thinking about my own car led me ultimately to have a very old car that has “written itself off” multiple times in terms of environmental impact of manufacture: it’s a 1979 Volvo 245 (wagon). It is seldom driven and even when I bought it four years ago, it had only 147,000 km (around 90,000 miles). So my reasoning was if I can continue to drive a car that has covered, and continues to cover, low mileages, and has survived several average car generation spans, it is preventing the production of a new car. If driven sparsely, which is the case, it continues in this vein, having a low environmental impact during its use phase, and providing service across decades without the need for the production of a new car.
How did you approach the research and writing process?
First, I built a number of numerical models to see what the result would be: comparing mineral-based solutions to carbon-based ones – to put it very crudely. The surprises I got were truly mind-blowing, and that gave me enormous energy and resolution to write the book. I simply could not let these things pass without critique.
How hard was it to find a publisher, and is there anything you particularly liked about the publishing process?
Cambridge University Press (the publisher of my alma mater) turned it down summarily – they did not even read the proposal properly: it is not a book about climate change at all! Oxford University Press then jumped at the opportunity to publish the book, put it through peer review and then invited the submission of the final revised version. In hindsight, it was not as hard to find the publisher as it could have been. What really surprised me is how hard it was to work the book through the typesetting process. All newbie authors should know that this is the hardest part. The best part was simply having a commissioning editor, Jeremy Lewis at OUP, who clearly saw the potential and market-spot for the book. My production editor, Michelle Kelley, was extremely helpful, understanding and supportive. That support is invaluable, but such editors are becoming ever rarer.
What do you see as the most important qualities for success in science today?
Unfortunately, it is far too much about politics, understanding politics, and the ability simply to get money any which way one can: often by impressing people who don't have time to understand results and recognize their potential or lack thereof. There is far too much short-termism and superficiality in science these days. So, to be successful, one must know how to play that game. If you want a more heart-felt and long-term-career answer: it is the same qualities as it was 100 years ago: Multidisciplinarity! We are losing “old-school” polymaths, i.e. people who could think broadly as well as deeply, and really understand several areas well enough to bring out synthetic insights that are much more than the sum of the parts.
In debates, ranging from science right up to international politics, a mind that can hold at least two concepts at the same time, weigh them up fairly, and come to a reasoned, scientifically-founded conclusion, even if it’s a preliminary conclusion, is incredibly powerful.
The interview was conducted by Nicole Kilian and has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Image sources: Andrew Moore.
Follow Andrew:
EMBO building
Editorial written by Andrew
Andrew's drawing (Decarbonization Delusion)
WordKraft page
Andrew's green Volvo