Interview Directory 

SCIENCE

Name: Dr. Marilyn J. Roossinck

Occupation: Scientist and author

“In the USA, I don’t know what the future of science looks like because a lot is changing, but the more people understand what scientists do, the more likely they are to support us.“

What was your inspiration for this book?

I was asked to write it, but I’ve always been interested in popular science communication. As a scientist for many years, I think we don’t communicate well with the public. In the USA, I don’t know what the future of science looks like because a lot is changing, but the more people understand what scientists do, the more likely they are to support us. Also, I love writing—I’ve been a writer my whole life. Writing popular science books was a logical step.

When did you write your first book?

My first book on viruses came out in 2016. My other works were for scientists—20 books as an editor, some monographs, many articles. I wrote a lot as a child, too. Now, in retirement, I’m trying my hand at fiction.

You mentioned the changing political landscape. Has the Secretary of Health, Robert Kennedy, changed anything for you?

He recently said at a conference that he’s not a scientist or doctor and people shouldn’t listen to him. Does that mean he’s leading health policy without expertise? That could bring negative changes to science and healthcare. Not everything he says is wrong, but he speaks emotionally, not scientifically. Decisions about science need rationality. He’s trying to push through changes that don’t make sense. CDC funding has been cut, COVID research stopped. That means we can’t learn from the pandemic. Recently, they said only high-risk groups should get COVID vaccines, but that seems illogical.

What’s the most striking example of the benefit of viruses?

Oh, my favourite virus is a fungal virus from Yellowstone National Park. It gives the fungus and the plant it colonises heat tolerance. These plants grow in soils above 50 degrees Celsius, which is only possible because of this virus. We tested it on tomatoes, and it works everywhere when the plant, fungus, and virus are together. Viruses are more complex than people think and influence ecological relationships. We found viruses that provide drought or heat tolerance. For decades, they were considered “uninteresting” because they don’t cause disease. Research focused on disease-causing viruses, but slowly we’re seeing that many are beneficial.

Why did you become a virologist? Was there a moment in your childhood?

Not in childhood, but in college, when I encountered my first virus in a microbiology course—love at first sight. I found them fascinating, and that never changed. Maybe I love beneficial viruses because I didn’t like their bad reputation.

You chose the life of a scientist, including at university.

Yes, my career was varied. I did my PhD on hepatitis B, then switched to plant viruses because plants are simpler hosts. You can do experiments with identical plants. Viruses want to replicate—a healthy host benefits them. I call that virus ecology. Disease-causing viruses were overrated; most interactions are harmless. I did my postdoc at Cornell, worked 20 years in Oklahoma—great job, odd place—and the last ten years at Penn State.

Why was Oklahoma odd?

I shouldn’t say “odd,” but I didn’t fit in. It’s very conservative, the “buckle of the Bible Belt.” My town of 25,000 had 80 churches. The religious, southern culture was tough for me as a Northerner. But it was nice—cheap land, I bought a mini-farm. There were positives, but the culture was hard.

Did you travel a lot as a biologist?

 Yes, a lot. In retirement, I travel less. I had a visiting professorship in Australia; research took me to Costa Rica, Yellowstone, the San Juan Islands—there we studied salt tolerance in plants. But mostly, I was in the lab, the greenhouse. I’m not a true field biologist; I just pretend!

Field biologist versus…?

Lab rat, I suppose! Fieldwork is observational, lab work experimental.

Was it okay to always be in the lab?

Oh, I loved it. The lab was great. My job was diverse. I supervised students, postdocs, gave trainings, taught virus ecology at Penn State, travelled for talks. I wasn’t stuck in a box.

“As a scientist, my contribution was seeking knowledge. I was curious, not applied. Without basic research, there are no new technologies.“

What’s your most important achievement and contribution to you and society?

That’s tough. In retirement, I volunteer at a museum. I help dying people in hospice. In the USA, nobody talks about death, though we all die. Those conversations are needed. In my Oregon coast community, average age 65, we organise support so people can age at home. As a scientist, my contribution was seeking knowledge. I was curious, not applied. Without basic research, there are no new technologies. I trained many scientists, but I did it for the love of science.

“The virus was changing fast; vaccines were the best protection. I stand by that. RNA vaccine technology was a breakthrough—a vaccine in a year was incredible.“

In The Conversation, you wrote about booster shots. Can you summarise that, share your opinion, and say if it’s right to stop research in the USA?

The article came out early in the pandemic to show how little we knew. The virus was changing fast; vaccines were the best protection. I stand by that. RNA vaccine technology was a breakthrough—a vaccine in a year was incredible. Now there’s little support for research. The government wants a permanent flu vaccine, but their approach doesn’t seem thought through.

What technology was that?

RNA technology. The COVID vaccine is an RNA molecule. They want to revert flu vaccines to killed viruses—not wrong, but we should use all technologies. Pharma companies don’t want broad-spectrum vaccines because they sell less. It worries me that no research is being done to find the best option. Funding is tough—a friend lost a 59-million-dollar grant for climate research because “climate change” was in the title. I have no confidence in the future of science here. Vaccines were lifesaving: vaccinated people didn’t get severely ill, death rates dropped.

„AI can aid research, but saying it cures cancer is silly. Cancer is hundreds of diseases; AI needs data and basic research“

I heard they’re developing an AI programme in the USA to cure cancer.

AI can aid research, but saying it cures cancer is silly. Cancer is hundreds of diseases; AI needs data and basic research. I’m not an AI expert; I find it scary—I grew up with Isaac Asimov’s crazy robots! But AI can be useful if research continues.

“Deeper understanding could manage pandemics, but without funding, nothing happens. As a young researcher, I’d go to Germany or Canada—the future here is bleak.“

What advances do you expect in virology, especially regarding evolution?

In the USA, I see little because research is restricted, unlike in Germany. Viruses help us understand evolution because they evolve differently. COVID, influenza change quickly; some RNA viruses stay stable for millennia. Comparisons could show what drives evolution. COVID is adapting, becoming less dangerous. Influenza, with humans for centuries, comes from waterfowl—we’re not a natural host. Deeper understanding could manage pandemics, but without funding, nothing happens. As a young researcher, I’d go to Germany or Canada—the future here is bleak.

-------