An Interview with Scientist Dr. Cindy Jo Arrigo
Dr. Cindy Jo Arrigo discusses her decision to become a research scientist, why she got involved with the National Postdoctoral Association, challenges facing female scientists, solutions to this challenge and more.
Published March 1, 2004
By Eric Staeva-Vieira
Academy Contributor
What/who influenced your decision to become a research scientist?
I’ve been looking under rocks since I was a little kid. Discovering new things, following leads, and learning about how things work has always thrilled me, so science and then research were natural choices. What influenced me to actually go into science were my experiences as an undergraduate student. At New Jersey City University, where I studied, I didn’t learn how to do research. Instead, I learned about science, how to think and how to go after what I wanted. Science was what I wanted and the rigorous undergraduate training I got there and at graduate school allowed the rest to happen.
It was also during my time as an undergraduate that I had my first “celebrity scientist” experience: I met Dr. Richard Smalley of Rice University at an American Chemical Society meeting. Smalley, who later went on to win the Noble Prize in Chemistry for his work, was the first to describe a new form of carbon. His “buckyballs” and stories stayed with me long after the memories of the banquet had faded. My most recent inspiring “celebrity scientist” moment took place in the halls of The New York Academy of Sciences, where I got a chance to talk with the Academy Chair and Nobel Laureate Dr. Torsten Wiesel.
Can you tell us about your story?
I was born in the Great Midwest to parents who would eventually carry their children all around the world following military directives, my father being a non-commissioned officer in the United States Air Force. Following my father’s lead I joined the Air Force, where I met my husband. We later settled in New Jersey to begin our family.
There was never a question about whether one of us would stay at home with our children – the only question was which one of us. I won and was a stay-at-home parent until our two, now college-aged children were in school fulltime. The idea was that there would be plenty of time to “catch up,” but very little time for the children to be young. Catch up I did, first with a BS, a significant milestone since I am the first person in my family to graduate from college, then with a PhD, the entrée into the academic research world.
Very quickly I was able to secure an individual postdoctoral National Research Award Training Fellowship from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). Since that time I have worked with Dr. Michael B. Mathews, professor and chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at New Jersey Medical School, on a project that combines viral research with proteomics technologies.
Emerging technologies are essential drivers for scientific progress, and the coupling of proteomics to virology has the very real potential to open up new avenues of understanding about not only viral progression, but also the innate antiviral response. At the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) and in the Mathews lab we share a rich scientific and mentored environment. My own experiences in science have been all that I would have asked for and more.
How did you become involved in the National Postdoctoral Association?
UMDNJ, where I am a postdoctoral appointee, was progressive about postdoctoral issues very early on. Dr. Henry Brezenoff, dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and director of the UMDNJ Office of Postdoctoral Affairs, was eager to facilitate grassroots postdoctoral association efforts on our campus. He had distributed promotional material on the 2003 National Postdoctoral Association Inaugural meeting in Berkeley, California. He also sent along best wishes and the promise of matching funds for any successful NPA travel award recipient. I received the travel award and UMDNJ finally got its postdoctoral association.
What moved me though to become active in the NPA was the climate for national change that was evident at the Berkeley meeting. I joined the NPA Policy Committee and helped author the NPA White Papers to the NIH – a milestone document containing the NPA’s recommendations for national postdoctoral policy. The NIH listened and, if the Advisory Committee to the Director meeting that I recently attended in Bethesda is any indication, it’s a great time both to be doing science, and to be a postdoctoral scientist.
The NPA 2004 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., April 16th-17th, promises to be as exciting and momentous as was the Berkeley meeting. Naturally, all postdoctoral scientists, their allies and even their foes are invited to participate in Envisioning and Creating the 21st Century Postdoctoral Experience. Who knows, a travel award might even launch the next future NPA leader.
What are the biggest challenges facing female scientists?
The biggest challenge facing many new scientists, regardless of gender, is how to respect accelerating family commitments at the time when, as a scientist, the greatest is also expected. Balancing career and family has never been easy, but the demands on research scientists in the early part of their careers make it especially challenging. For the biomedical postdoctoral scientist the issue is more nuanced since our field has, in the recent past at least, been characterized by very, very long training periods often spent in low-pay and insufficient-benefits situations. Women, especially, may well ask, “How long are we supposed to wait to start a family?”
Another important and historical challenge has been to find appropriate mentors at all levels for female scientists. We know that those claiming to have been mentored fair far better than those who say they did not have any mentoring. The bottom line is that mentoring is essential for all new scientists and may be especially important for women scientists in academic research, a place where gender inequity is often strikingly marked.
Any solutions in mind?
Transitioning to independence is a huge feat and one that must happen more quickly than it has in the recent past if the U.S. research enterprise is to remain able to attract and retain the best and brightest new talent. Real progress in this area has already begun: Funding institutions are smartening-up their existing transitions awards and crafting new ones that will more effectively ease the transition to independence. Shortening graduate and postdoctoral training periods, providing respectable salary and benefits (including decent health care and retirement), and offering part-time postdoctoral options are strategies that also may keep new scientists from having to make the choice: family or independent science.
Significant disparities exist in the quality and quantity of mentoring within the sciences in general – we already know this. Real solutions are to train faculty not only to be good researchers, but also good mentors, and to supply opportunities for institutions and renowned scientific societies to participate in the mentoring process. Case in point: the Academy’s Science Alliance. When mentoring is valued at the national and institutional levels it shows. And as for more women mentors in science at all levels: We are getting there, one postdoctoral scientist, one faculty, one department chair and one university president at a time.
Where do you want to go from here?
There are still a lot more rocks to explore. I intend to continue to make good use of my postdoctoral experience and the investment that NIGMS and UMDNJ have made in me; to hone my research skills and to make my mark. Only time will tell if I am selected to stay in the game of research science – but in my case at least, time has always been on my side.
Also read: Women Rising: The Science of Leadership
