SG: Hi, my name is Sarah Goodwin and I'm here with Dr. George Langford,
who is a professor at Syracuse University also dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
And today he's going to tell us about his scientific career
and how he was influenced by E.E. Just.
What were some of E.E. Just's personal qualities that allowed him to succeed in science?
GL: Well, some of his personal qualities include that fact that
number one, he was a very bright individual,
but he was also persistent in pursuing his science.
He was determined to resist the kinds of discrimination that were being shown
toward African Americans and so in spite of his inability to get a position
at a major research university, he continued to pursue his science
and he found ways to do that both by coming to the Marine Biological Laboratory
but also by developing very strong collaborations
with scientists that would share information and provide feedback to him
as he developed his own scientific ideas.
It was an inspiring story because in spite of not being able to
actually get a position at a university where he could pursue his research
as a full-time research scientist, he continued to publish
and made extraordinary contributions. He was sort of part of what we think of as the Harlem Renaissance,
you know, the period when African Americans were having to demonstrate
that we could in fact make seminal contributions to science,
to literature, to art, to all of the, you know, the major disciplines
that had been, you know, unavailable to African Americans in the past.
So, he was one of the trailblazers, he was one of the first
to really both break the color line, to, you know, use his pursuit of science
as a way to show that African Americans could be, could contribute
to the scientific discipline.
SG: So, how has E.E. Just's life influenced your own scientific career?
GL: I felt fortunate that E.E. Just had come before me
because I didn't have to, I didn't have to deal with this issue
of whether African Americans could do first-quality science.
You know, that had already been demonstrated by Just
and so I could move on with my career, you know, without having that huge burden
on my shoulders.
So, I have really taken several strategies from the way in which E.E. Just was able to pursue his own science.
And one way was by working at the Marine Biological Laboratory
in the summers. The MBL is a unique place to work,
it's a place where it is much easier to establish collaborations and contacts
with scientists from not only the US, but around the world.
And that has been sort of the platform that I have used
to really become the scientist that I am
and I would say that my most important discoveries were made here
at the MBL as a summer investigator.
So, that has been a critical part of my own career
and, you know, it was something that I observed,
was the way Just was able to continue his research.
The other thing that I gathered from learning about the life of Earnest Just
is the fact that he relied upon collaborators from Europe.
And I found that that was also a very important part of my own experience.
It was much easier to develop collaborations and networking,
to get information about what was going on in the scientific field from my European colleagues
and so I have very strong ties with scientists from Germany,
from Italy, that I've worked with to develop my own scientific career.
And the third thing that I learned from Just was his use of mentors.
He was fortunate to have F.R. Lillie as a life-long mentor,
and I have also had the good fortune of having very, very good mentors.
Teru Hayashi from my graduate school, Shinya Inoue, my postdoctoral mentor,
and my MBL collaborator, Robert Allen,
all worked very, very, they were all very helpful in establishing,
helping me to both grow my own science, but also to help me with my own research,
both here at the MBL and back at my home institution.
SG: So, could you comment on, there still is a disparity
in the number of African Americans and other minorities in the scientific establishment now.
Could you comment on that?
GL: Yes, so it's really, I think everyone knows that in order for the US to remain competitive,
we've got to increase the number of individuals who are pursuing the STEM disciplines,
science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
And because of the changing demographics
I think right now, we know that the kids under 6,
the majority of them are the underrepresented minority groups.
And so, the demographics are changing,
we have got to find ways to increase the number of underrepresented minorities in the sciences
and even though we've made a lot of progress, the numbers are still very small.
I remain optimistic that we can improve the numbers,
but there are really has to be some major changes.
Racial bias still exists today and I think the scientific community has to be much more proactive
in understanding how racial bias exhibits itself
and how to really mitigate that problem.
There's also the problem of stereo-threat,
which is another issue that really compromises the ability of minority,
and it also applies to women, you know, in pursuing science.
Quite often when one is reminded of race,
in situations like when you're taking tests or when you're interacting with your white colleagues,
that compromises your ability to be your best,
you know, because it creates a threat
of whether you can perform at the same level or not.
So, that exists. And then, you know, we have, we need better advising,
we need advising for minority students and postdocs
that is culturally competent and we have to help mentors to understand
that they need to know how to provide the guidance that's really culturally relevant
to the individuals in the laboratory.
And if we can do that, I think we'll see that minority scientists,
that is the graduate students and postdocs who complete their degrees,
will have the same level of productivity as their white colleagues.
And so, those are the things that I see as real challenges
as we move forward in trying to increase the number of underrepresented minorities
in the STEM disciplines.
These are real things that we have to, you know, attack,
we just can't assume that it's going to resolve itself,
you know, and if institutions are not willing to really do that
then I think it's going to be a very slow process.
SG: Are there mentorship programs in place right now
to help minorities who are moving through the graduate student and postdoc track?
They are beginning to be developed.
I think both the NIH is interested in developing mentoring programs,
the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund,
I am currently on the board of the Burroughs Wellcome Fund,
and we are just beginning to put together a program,
a mentoring program, for underrepresented minority postdocs
and the idea there is to really help both the postdoc,
but also the mentor, understand how to better guide minority scientists
and to help them, both with their increasing publications,
but also networking within the scientific community.
SG: It seems like there also needs to be some more mentorship programs
at the younger age.
GL: We need to have at all levels, but what we found,
and when I was on the faculty at Dartmouth, for example,
what we found is if you ask students as they come into the institution,
what their interests are, we found that 50% of the white students
said they were interested in science,
and the same was true for the minority students as well.
So, they came into the university as an undergraduate
with an interest in science, but then if you look at the numbers who majored in the sciences,
there was a dramatic difference.
About 30% of whites majored in the sciences,
but only about 15% of the minority kids majored in science.
So, students have a strong interest,
but we haven't found ways to maintain that interest.
We really have to find better ways to provide content
to the intro level courses in the major sciences, in physics, in chemistry,
in biology, as well as in math,
because that's where you get a large number of students who drop out of the sciences
and there are much better ways now of presenting that material,
you know, with the kinds of smart devices that we all have
and that students are carrying around, I think there's a better way
to deliver content other than through the standard lecture or large-format classrooms.
SG: So, what are some mechanisms for becoming more culturally aware,
or educated?
GL: Well, I think, you know, we have to put up in workshops,
for example, I don't know if most scientists understand the idea of stereotype threat,
for example. It's a fairly simple concept,
but you have to be introduced to it and you have to be convinced
that it's real and that you are a participant in it, you know,
and then I think you can begin to develop strategies
to help students to get past it, for example.
And then, you know, they've done studies, like with physicians,
where, you know, if the patient is black versus white
what kinds of interventions are used,
and when physicians who are not, who would never consider themselves racist
are put in these situations, they prescribe less aggressive treatment for blacks than for whites
and so, there are those kinds of residual things that exist
that you are not even aware of, but you have to be exposed to this
so that you begin to understand that it isn't just the student,
it is really the faculty member who has, who's bringing issues
that make it more difficult for kids to be successful.
So, again, I think it's very important for mentors to understand this,
to be, I think the word is culturally competent,
to understand how they interact and how their actions can affect the activity of others
that they are advising in their laboratory.
So, it's a big issue, I think professional societies have a role to play in this,
I think again, the funding agencies can really help
by providing specific kinds of training workshops
that deal with these issues.
SG: So, how do you think that we as scientists can elevate the discourse
about increasing underrepresented minorities in science?
GL: Well, I think the one thing that we have to do
is somehow create a willingness on the part of scientists
to address these issues. I think scientists often think that
their interactions are not driven by, you know, sort of the soft activities,
the touchy-feely things, you know, we think of we are in our laboratories,
we're doing our science, and it doesn't matter who the individual is,
and we don't have to worry so much about the social setting of the laboratory.
And we really do, I mean, science is a social endeavor,
and so we have to really come to grips with the fact that even when you don't intend
to be, show a difference, that that does exist in the laboratory
and until people are willing to accept that as a real issue,
then it's going to be hard to do anything about it.
