Technologists as policy advisors: A conversation

with Dr. Arati Prabhakar

Natalie D. Gehred1,#,∗ and Luke Petersen2,#,∗
Edited by Laura Shupp

MIT Science Policy Review spoke with Dr. Arati Prabhakar

about the role scientists and engineers play in public
policy. Dr. Prabhakar is the Director of the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), where
she works to harness “the power of science, technology,
and innovation to achieve America’s greatest aspirations”
[1]. In her current role, Dr. Prabhakar is the President’s
Chief Advisor for Science and Technology, a member of
the President’s Cabinet, and co-chair of the President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
Previously, Dr. Prabhakar served as the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA). Between Directorships, Dr. Prabhakar worked to
advance innovation in the private sector as an industry
executive and venture capitalist, focusing on early-stage
semiconductors and cleantech. In 2019, Dr. Prabhakar
co-founded Actuate, a nonprofit research and development
organization tackling issues in climate change, data security,
and health outcomes. We spoke with Dr. Prabhakar about her Figure 1: Director Arati Prabhakar
career journey to OSTP and how the White House guides U.S.
scientific and technological priorities.
in isolation; they happen because of how this ecosystem
Science Policy Review: What led you to your unique mobilizes and how the pieces play off of each other. That’s
position at the intersection of science and policy? What been the great joy of getting to participate in it from all these
thread have you been following in your career? different vantage points, and that was the reason I was thrilled
Arati Prabhakar: A lot of people have asked me if there the President asked me to play this role at the White House,
was a thread because it’s a lot of very different parts. But it’s advising him on science and technology and leading the Office
all different parts of a very interesting ecosystem of science, of Science and Technology Policy. This is the one place in
technology, and innovation. It’s a tremendous privilege to have the American system where you see the entire chessboard,
gotten to participate in that ecosystem from so many different that entire ecosystem, and I’m passionate about making it
vantage points, and the thread that links all of the pieces in effective and powerful for the problems we’re facing and the
that journey for me is always seeking impact from science and big aspirations we’ve got for this century.
technology and innovation. SPR: In a democracy, policymaking requires many
Over the course of that journey, I came to understand that different players. How do you view your role in shaping
our innovation capacity allows us to do really big things. The public policy as Director of OSTP and the President’s
core things that enable progress so frequently come out of advisor?
science and technology and innovation, but they never happen AP: The mission we have at OSTP and the role I play in
advising the President are focused on using, strengthening,
and advancing science and technology to achieve the
1
Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of
country’s aspirations. “Strengthen” means we have a powerful
California, Los Angeles, CA
2
Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, innovation capacity already – let’s make sure we never take
Cambridge, MA it for granted and that we keep strengthening it. “Advance”
#
The authors contributed equally.
∗
means that although there’s this powerful capacity, it was
Emails: ngehred@g.ucla.edu and lukep@mit.edu
built in the last century to meet the last century’s challenges,
The authors declare no conflict of interest. and we now need to get after the biggest aspirations of
© 2023 The Author(s) our current time. Aspirations like dealing with the climate

MIT Science Policy Review | August 31, 2023 | vol. 4 | pg. 3

https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.zvofsm6s3h
crisis, improving American health outcomes (which are not
acceptable for the world’s wealthiest country), making sure
the door to opportunity is open for every single American
(the most fundamental American dream that we have not yet
achieved), and dealing with our national security challenges,
which are different today than they were – it’s not the Cold
War, it’s not just a counterterrorism period, we’ve got other
geopolitical issues to deal with. That’s what’s on our plates;
that’s what we need to make the innovation system really
effective for. That’s how I think about our work, and there are
many branches and components to how we actually achieve
that, but that’s ultimately what it’s all driving towards.
SPR: How does your background as a scientist and
engineer help you put those pieces together?
AP: Many of the issues we’re dealing with have technical
and scientific ground truth, and if you don’t understand what
our current grasp of the facts is, then you can’t make good
policy. That’s true about measures we might take to restore
biodiversity, or deal with the climate crisis, or deal with these
very complex natural systems that we’re embedded in. It’s
true if you’re grappling with how artificial intelligence (AI) is
advancing today. It’s true if you’re thinking about the power of
biology, and the way we’re starting to harness it to do more
and more powerful things.
I’ll also say that a lot of my engineering training is a
way of thinking in systems. At the end of the day, if we’re
going to achieve these really complex, sometimes daunting
aspirations that we have as a society, it really does require
systems thinking because there’s no magic bullet that’s going
to address all these challenges. A way to understand the
complexity of the system and start grappling with it, start
figuring out where the leverage points are... those are skills
that I think are integral to the engineering mindset and
enterprise that I find extremely valuable in this much broader
context.
SPR: For a relatively small team, the OSTP
coordinates vast national initiatives. What does your work
on a day-to-day basis look like?
AP: If you ask people in my organization, you would get
very different answers. I’ve got a wonderful team of people
with deep expertise in many different areas, and they tend
to focus on their particular area of expertise. For example,
Danielle Carnival runs the Cancer Moonshot and leads our
health outcomes effort [2]. She spends 24/7 making sure
we achieve the President’s goals on cancer and change
outcomes for Americans.
For me, a lot of the richness and fun comes from the
breadth of the topics I work on because they’re each important
to how our future unfolds and we get to participate in shaping
that. I am frequently in conversations with lots of people,
including my White House colleagues and other Cabinet
members, about what’s happening with artificial intelligence,
for example, which is fast-moving with very broad implications
for many different areas. How do you bring systems thinking
to those areas? As another example, I recently got to speak
Gehred and Petersen
Interview
to a conference of people involved in driving biological
technologies and the next generation of bio-manufacturing,
about the potential for a bio-economy. I also got to speak about
work we’re doing on the oceans at a conservation summit
where the President made several exciting announcements,
some of which we have been a part of proposing and
shepherding through the implementation process.
"If we’re going to achieve these
really complex, sometimes daunting
aspirations that we have as a society,
it really does require systems thinking
because there’s no magic bullet
that’s going to address all these
challenges."
SPR: What role does the OSTP play in policy
formulation?
AP: Policy has many different facets. Routinely Congress
will be working on legislation, and they will turn to us to
get input on the legislation that they are crafting. There are
also other policy issues that aren’t yet at that specific point,
where our role is to step back, look at them as a whole,
and sort out: where are our strengths? What’s the competitive
position around the world? What needs to happen to let this
opportunity blossom?
I’ll use the work that we did last year that resulted in the
bio-economy executive order as an example (1). That was
an area where people who were working in technology had
seen the advances in our ability to design the first-generation
biotech pharmaceuticals, but now we’re starting to have a
much faster, much more robust ability to engineer biology
beyond diagnostics or medical treatments. Instead of using
dead dinosaur molecules to build the structures and materials
that we are surrounded with, we now have the potential to
design biology to build a much more sustainable future–and
even to build materials and structures that don’t exist today.
Our work on this very fertile, very exciting area ultimately led to
an executive order from the President, and its implementation
will include a whole set of policy actions. For example, we
need to provide funding to scale up bio-processes, which is
something we identified as a gap in the American innovation
system, but a lot of our work is actually framing to make sure
the policy work that gets done is the thing that really does
lead to the kind of scale and impact that we’re looking for. It
can be very specific or it can be that kind of framing work; it’s
quite a mix.
Although I mentioned that we’re working directly with
Congress on legislation, a lot of things happen within the
Executive branch itself. The coordination mission we have
allows us to be in daily contact with all the departments
and agencies that might be working in a particular area, and
because we’ve got people here that have expertise in that
area and really know what’s going on across the Federal
MIT Science Policy Review | August 31, 2023 | vol. 4 | pg. 4
https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.zvofsm6s3h
Government, we can drive to a place that we wouldn’t have
gotten to if everyone was just off doing their piece.
I’ll give you a really important historical example: the Global
Change Research Program, authorized in the early 1990s (2).
People were starting to be concerned about climate change,
but even the people who knew to be concerned about it didn’t
have the assessments they needed to be able to move out and
do things. There was still a lot of confusion. NASA knew some
information, the National Weather Service had other pieces,
but the components did not add up to a deep understanding
of where we were on climate and where things were going
to go. There wasn’t this interagency process. Now, we have
a handle on what’s going on with climate. We’re part of an
international community. There’s still plenty of uncertainty, but
there’s far less than there was. It is enough that we can all
start taking meaningful action, which is a very big deal. I think
that’s a great example of something more than the sum of the
parts.
"I would love for people in your
community who are already
passionate about policy issues
and science and technology and
innovation to step up. I’d love for
them to raise their hands and find
some of these paths."
SPR: There’s so much going on across the nation.
How do you choose what policy priorities or strategic
directions to put your muscle behind?
AP: Big changes happen in our country at the confluence
of two things: one is major societal aspirations, needs,
or challenges, and the other is innovation. Where are the
advances that can be really powerful for the challenges that
we’re facing?
I’ve talked a little bit about our major aspirations, ranging
from health outcomes, access to opportunity for every person,
dealing with the climate crisis, and our national security
challenges. On the opportunity side, in terms of science and
technology, we’ve already talked a little bit about biology
and the biological revolution. What’s happening with AI
represents the next chapter of the information revolution as
it’s unfolding, and I would also like to add what’s happening
in social sciences. We’ve tended to talk about the advances
in information, technology, social media, and AI as hard
technologies, but really the power that’s happening lies in the
confluence of technology and individuals, communities, and
society as a whole. Part of what that means is that our ability
to use social science, not just to understand but to be able to
steer and move things in constructive directions, is starting to
bubble up. There are many other areas of research that are
important, but I would offer biology, AI, and social sciences
as three particularly powerful areas.
Gehred and Petersen
Interview
SPR: How does your team reach out to other scientists
or experts across the country? How can scientists assist
with the process of policy formulation and prioritization?
AP: There are many formal mechanisms that we use –
from interagency coordination activities, the National Science
and Technology Council, and advisory committees – to get
input from outside voices. Every participant of my team is also
out picking up the phone and calling people, going out and
meeting with people, and making sure we hear all kinds of
perspectives, because we only work on hard issues. That’s
our daily work, and it’s very important that we do it actively.
It doesn’t work to just sit here in our gorgeous building at the
White House complex and wait for people to show up. We
have to be very actively engaged in it.
Who comes into the OSTP is also an important part of
that. Most of our folks are detailees: many from other parts of
government and some from nonprofits or universities out in the
world. It’s this wonderful blessing because it gives us a way to
get incredible talent and expertise, but it’s also heartbreaking
because they come for a little while and then they go on. So
not only do they bring great things to us, but they take great
things with them out into the world when they leave. That’s
part of our process.
A long time ago, I was a Congressional Fellow under
the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) umbrella [3]. That was 1984 – ancient history! That
is a one time-honored technique for people to have a stint in
public service, an amazing learning experience and a great
contribution.
I would love for people in your community who are already
passionate about policy issues and science and technology
and innovation to step up. I’d love for them to raise their hands
and find some of these paths. That would be wonderful!
SPR: You started your public service in 1984. What
changes have you seen in the way that science plays a
role in policymaking over that time?
AP: I’m going to broaden into science and technology;
that’s the better frame for thinking about this.
The biggest thing that has affected every single person
in the realm of science and technology is how information
technologies have not just grown, but exploded. In 1984,
when I showed up at the Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment, I got a word processor (people didn’t have
personal computers sitting on their desks yet) and an email
account, which was considered very avant-garde in 1984.
That’s the world as it was. In 1993, I was appointed by
President Clinton to be Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. I’d been at DARPA for about seven
years at that time. I started as a program manager and then
started a semiconductor office there. In 1993, I went to NIST
and I distinctly remember that no one had email addresses
on their business cards. People were just starting to get their
heads around this idea of the World Wide Web, and we were
building our first website when I was at NIST.
MIT Science Policy Review | August 31, 2023 | vol. 4 | pg. 5
https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.zvofsm6s3h
It’s really sobering when you think about how phenomenal
the growth in technology has been, how it’s pervaded
everyone’s lives. That has had enormous policy implications.
The frame I always have for thinking about these powerful
advances in science and technology is that these are raw,
powerful forces, and all of human history shows that they are
going to get used for good and for ill. Our job, our collective
job, is to make sure that we harness the benefits and that
we mitigate the harms. I’ve seen so many good things come
from these advances in technology, but I am also seeing
really shocking changes in how we communicate and the
polarization in our society. I think it’s our role as scientists and
engineers to be clear-eyed about the power of these forces,
and help our country make the wisest choices we can about
them.
SPR: You talked about looking for ways to harness
the benefits and mitigate the harms of technological
advances. What makes you hopeful about the future of
using science and technology to do so?
AP: First of all, managing the risks and harnessing
the benefits is a matter for much more than science and
technology, but I think we have some specific roles in the
science and technology community. Because we are doing the
research that allows us to glimpse into what the future could
look like, one of our responsibilities is to shed light on that, to
show it to people. Then, we must make responsible choices in
the research that we do because we’re making choices every
day about where we are going with, for example, synthetic
biology or artificial intelligence. So I think in a sense we’re on
the front lines because of our research role.
Sometimes there are cases where the technology itself can
be harnessed or shaped in ways that lead to better outcomes.
I’ll mention a couple of examples. One is privacy technologies
that allow us to garner the value of personal data without
violating privacy. I don’t think we’ve fully harnessed that, but I
think the potential in the technology is rich and it’s an example
of something we could use. As another example, when I
was at DARPA, Renee Wegrzyn started a program called
Safe Genes that was about making nascent gene editing
technology (CRISPR-Cas9 had just burst on the scene) more
precise, more controllable, and potentially even reversible [4].
It mobilized an early research community to build in that
kind of thinking and research. So I think there are places
where the technology, the research itself, can be helpful, but
technological advancements ultimately belong to many more
than just those of us in science and tech, and I think our job
is to be upfront, clear, and very active participants in those
conversations.
Gehred and Petersen
Interview
"The frame I always have for thinking
about these powerful advances in
science and technology is that these
are raw, powerful forces, and all of
human history shows that they are
going to get used for good and for ill...
I think it’s our role as scientists and
engineers to be clear-eyed about the
power of these forces, and help our
country make the wisest choices we
can about them."
SPR: You mentioned that your team reaches out
to scientists and experts, including those from other
agencies. What other opportunities exist for scientists
to contribute to policymaking?
AP: I would start by asking the question for an individual. I
would start by figuring out what’s really driving them. I should
say, for the record, that this is my first policymaking job.
Most of my public service has been leading organizations
that are driving technology, in the case of DARPA, or building
a foundation of measurement and standards, in the case of
NIST. That is policy implementation, but it’s not really policy
design. So I think for different people, the answer is going to
be different.
If you are really interested in how society will use the
research you’re engaged in, then there is a whole host of
things you might consider doing. You might consider learning
more about how the government actually works. You might
consider doing a Congressional Fellowship, which is a great
way to get engaged and start seeing science from the
legislative side or from different roles within the executive
branch. If you’re interested in how research is funded, either
because you think it should be funded in a different way or
because you want to drive in a particular direction, then you
probably want to learn about funding agencies, how they work,
and figure out a path into that. Ask yourself what kind of impact
or contribution it is that you particularly want to make.
SPR: What are some of the biggest barriers or
challenges you see for scientists who want to get
involved in policy work?
AP: I have found over many years that for many science
and engineering students, their journey into public service or
policy often starts with a question about why things are the
way they are, or a passion for having impact at a different
scale. And those are great instincts to follow, right? One of
the big barriers, however, is that scientists grow up in a culture
where science is the be-all and end-all, and in the rest of the
world, science is one part of a much bigger whole. So, getting
outside of your narrow domain and your specialty is absolutely
essential.
The scientific education process inculcates this idea that
MIT Science Policy Review | August 31, 2023 | vol. 4 | pg. 6
https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.zvofsm6s3h
we are deep experts, and we should go forth and bring our
expertise. I would couple that with a little humility, curiosity,
and willingness to learn because the rest of the world does
not work the way the world you just grew up in operates. The
people who really make a huge impact in the world are the
ones who want to make that impact so badly that they’re willing
to learn new things, talk to people that know things that they
don’t know, and work across boundaries. If you have those
characteristics, then you can really make a big contribution.
SPR: What advice would you give a young scientist
who wants to make an impact beyond the lab and
participate in the policymaking process?
AP: I think I find that for every individual, your entire
professional life is a journey, and you’re trying to find the place
where you get to do the work that lights you up. Often that is
the place where what you’re bringing to the table is incredibly
valuable. I have hit that resonance a handful of times in my
professional life. You should not go into your professional life
imagining that you’re going to have 50 years of that because
that’s not the way the world works. But when you hit that time
and that place where what you’re great at and what you care
about is what that organization needs and you can just go
forth and make your contribution, those are pretty amazing
times.
If you have the luxury of exploring and looking at
internships or fellowships, trying something that’s off the
beaten track, try it – you might find something you love. That’s
what happened to me; I took this Congressional Fellowship
and I just went off in a direction that I couldn’t even imagine
before I did that. Other people will come to try something like
that, and then they will just go back and do exactly what they
were going to do anyway. They saw it and they learned that
it wasn’t the thing that they wanted to do. There’s nothing
wrong with that. That’s a fantastic experience, you’re going
to take that learning wherever you go. So much of this really
is personal; it is about finding what lights you up, because
that’s going to be where you can make your contribution in
the future.
"The people who really make a huge
impact in the world are the ones
who want to make that impact so
badly that they’re willing to learn
new things, talk to people that know
things that they don’t know, and work
across boundaries. If you have those
characteristics, then you can really
make a big contribution."
SPR: Are there any parting words that you would like
to share?
AP: Well, maybe I’ll just end on a personal note. President
Biden loves to tell the story about America being defined in a
Gehred and Petersen
Interview
single word, and that word is “possibilities.” Every time I hear
him say that, it lights me up because I do think that is the inner
spark of what America is all about, but it is also what scientists
and engineers get to do. We get to create possibilities, and a
lot of the joy that I have felt in getting to work in this field is
that sense that we get to help shape the future.
With all the hard problems in the world, we come to work
every single day to try to create a better future. I think that’s
one of the most joyful things that we can do. And I would say
to anyone who’s in science and technology and innovation,
let’s enjoy that. Let’s embrace it. It’s a great responsibility, but
it’s also one of the most joyful things you can ever get to do.
So, I think we’re the lucky ones.
"With all the hard problems in the
world, we come to work every single
day to try to create a better future.
I think that’s one of the most joyful
things that we can do."
Citation
Gehred, N. D. & Petersen, L. Scientists as Policy Advisors:
A Conversation with Dr. Arati Prabhakar. MIT Science Policy
Review 4, 3–8 (2023). https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.
zvofsm6s3h.
Open Access
This MIT Science Policy Review article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and
your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/.
Legislation cited
(1) Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and
Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and
Secure American Bioeconomy. (2022).
(2) Global Change Research Act of 1990. (1990).
References
[1] Office of Science and Technology Policy (2023). Online: https:
//www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/.
[2] Cancer Moonshot (2022). Online: https:https://www.
whitehouse.gov/cancermoonshot/.
MIT Science Policy Review | August 31, 2023 | vol. 4 | pg. 7
https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.zvofsm6s3h Interview

[3] AAAS. Legislative Branch Fellowship. Online: https://

www.aaas.org/programs/science-technology-policy-
fellowships/legislative-branch-fellowship.
[4] DARPA. Safe Genes. Online: https://www.darpa.mil/
program/safe-genes.

Gehred and Petersen MIT Science Policy Review | August 31, 2023 | vol. 4 | pg. 8