Tell us a little bit about your career journey: How did you come to work in biotechnology policy?

My career path has been driven by the pursuit of impactful projects, particularly in national security. I just started looking for what was out there, and there are a lot more opportunities today than there were even five or ten years ago. My journey began with reaching out to In-Q-Tel (the US intelligence community’s venture capital arm), where I was intrigued by the interesting work being done on encrypted DNA database searching. Given my computational background, I completed an internship there, immersing myself in bio-related projects—the bio people at In-Q-Tel are so well-versed and connected that it was a great introduction for me to the biotech and biosecurity world. 

Through these connections, I eventually transitioned to a role at the Department of Defense as Principal Director for Biotech, where I became deeply involved in shaping biotech strategy and policy. I got this DOD role by happenstance, and that’s how many of these things happen: being in the right place at the right time. But this doesn’t mean you have no control over it if you surround yourself with interesting people and are prepared to seize opportunities as they come. 

There have always been roles related to pure biosecurity, but now there’s much more on biotech policy specifically. You don’t always find the right role first. So my big recommendation for everyone trying to get into any job is not to turn down opportunities, even if they’re not exactly what you thought you might want, because you have no idea what it’s actually like. It’ll likely put you one step closer to your goal.

What are some of the current bio-related policy challenges you’re working on?

As a commissioner on the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, I think about both (1) the ways we use biotech to improve national security (e.g. new materials, supply chains) and (2) how we can prevent misuse of these technologies (e.g. synthetic biology). I specialize particularly in the convergence of AI and biotech, which is where I currently spend most of my time. I’m also considering how we can design policy guardrails to enable beneficial applications of biotech while safeguarding against potential misuse.

It’s not an easy task since this field has changed so dramatically in the last 18 months that we need to adapt constantly—everyone’s trying to figure out what the new norms are.

What does a typical day look like for you?

As both an academic and a practitioner in this space, I split my time between conducting technical research at the AI-bio nexus and engaging in high-level discussions on national policy. This entails anything from debugging code to deliberating legislation for Congress. It’s about as microscopic to macroscopic as you could get, though this split is relatively recent for me.

My previous role at the DOD involved 50% meetings and extensive liaison work, facilitating understanding between decision-makers in government and industry stakeholders. The other 50% consisted mostly of thinking, often considering why my particular messages did (not) land and refining my communication to effectively convey complex concepts across every audience, whether they’re in industry, academia, or government.

What advice do you have for those interested in a similar career path?

It’s critical to be flexible and opportunistic. Don’t get too tied down to a specific vision of a particular path because your vision is most likely wrong in some key ways. Each of the roles that I have had at the intersection of biotech and policy didn’t exist before I was asked to take them. You can’t anticipate what specific opportunities are going to pop up, so being able to take advantage of any opportunity that comes your way is important. 

What I’ve learned across my different roles has dramatically enhanced my ability to be successful in the next role, even if it didn’t seem particularly relevant initially. I’ve spent a lot of time engaging with policy arguments, which has helped me better understand how to build technical systems—and vice versa—because of all of the concerns related to the technology that I’ve discussed from a policy perspective.

What skills do you think are important for success in biosecurity policy, and how could readers acquire them?

The number one skill is your ability to write and communicate. As I said, I spent a large portion of my time intentionally refining and adapting my messaging to different audiences—that’s the only way policy happens. Explaining biotech to a chemical engineer is different than explaining it to a mechanical engineer, which itself is different from explaining it to a policymaker or a business person. Many brilliant technical people don’t spend enough energy reworking their messaging based on their audience, frequently leading those messages to fall on deaf ears for people who see the world differently.

I’d also recommend reading as deeply as you can about the topics that you care about. You don’t have to be the one who can pick up a pipette or write the code, but if you’re just parroting the things that the community says without understanding why they’re said, then you risk spreading false assumptions. It’s really important for people to question and validate the premises widely held in their fields.

Are there any programs, resources, or books you’d especially recommend for those interested in biosecurity policy?

There’s a wealth of resources out there. The National Security Commission for Emerging Biotechnology produces informative white papers and has published its interim report. Platforms like Synbiobeta and the newsletter from the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins offer valuable insights. Networking through part-time fellowships, like the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Fellowship, can also be invaluable to anyone looking to work in this field.