EBM Interview: Vuk Uskoković

Vuk Uskoković, PhD, MSc, MS, BSc, is a Serbian-Slovenian-American scientist, educator and multimedia artist, currently the Cofounder and Chief Scientific Officer at TardigradeNano LLC, a zero-profit biotech startup, think tank and educational powerhouse located in Irvine, California, a lecturer in engineering at San Diego State University, a visiting professor at University of Montenegro, and an adjunct professor of chemistry at Fullerton College.

Dr. Uskoković holds degrees in physical chemistry (BSc & MS), materials science and engineering (MSc), and nanoscience and nanotechnologies (PhD), and has completed postdoctoral trainings in colloid chemistry, fine particle synthesis,  biomimetics, tissue engineering and controlled drug delivery. Prior to his current appointments, he was a professor in the schools of engineering, pharmacy and medicine at the University of California in Irvine, Chapman University and University of Illinois in Chicago, respectively, where he ran research labs and taught a variety of subjects, including biomaterials, nanophysics, medical devices, biologics, bio-optics, and other. He was also a principal investigator and a research scientist at University of California in San Francisco, Clarkson University in New York, Jožef Stefan Institute in Slovenia, and the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Dr. Uskoković’s research, which resulted in over 200 publications, provided major contributions to the scientific understanding of a number of critical phenomena from physical and biological sciences. Many of Dr. Uskoković’s discoveries have originated from the enthusiasm to address the pressing medical needs of humanity, particularly in the domains of targeted drug delivery, bone tissue engineering, and next-generation antimicrobial and anticancer therapies.

Dr. Uskoković is the recipient of the prestigious Pathway to Independence Award from the National Institutes of Health and a prolific author of research papers, reviews and essays throughout his decades-long scientific career. In 2010s, he established himself as America’s number one expert in science of hydroxyapatite and other calcium phosphates. He is the founder of the field of astromimetics and the first person to have created a nanoparticle modeled after a celestial body. A true renaissance scientist, Dr. Uskoković has also been a lifelong advocate of the union between natural sciences, arts and humanities. A quintessential contribution to this interdisciplinary venture came through his pioneering work on treating scientific paper as a medium for combined displays of analytical rigor, scientific novelty, humanistic values and artistic expression.

Here is the interview we did with him:

1. Could you briefly introduce your current research field?

There is always a plenty of collaborative or solo research projects in progress lying around, but throughout the past couple of years I have been most absorbed in the pursuit of two fundamentally new approaches to science in (bio)materials and beyond. One of them is what I call science “of and for the poor”; it studies the ways to simplify scientific modes and methods to make them more accessible to the deprived. Industrialization of science and technology has been yielding ever greater inequalities and today we have broad populations, both domestically, in the United States, and globally, who cannot access high-performance medical devices and other scientific products. However, if these products could be made equally efficient as their complex counterparts but more primitive in terms of their chemistry, structure and synthesis methods, they would automatically become more affordable to everyone. I became motivated to explore this venue when I, myself, became poor and had all my research funds and income annulled. Yet, what I realized was that research one could pursue under such conditions of extreme deprivation tended to be more beautiful and inspirational than research run by people in charge of exorbitant resources. The second new approach to science I study intensely these days is that of science “of and for the children”. I have been greatly inspired by children and by their naïve, unworldly outlooks, which I believe the very much crafty scientific community of the day has a lot to learn from. Much of this science either appeals to children with a plethora of fancy ideas or directly engages children in research. In addition to these two new scientific disciplines in the making, I have been dedicated to the task of reinventing the structure of the scientific paper as a literary form. If you browse through any random paper from the present or the past, you will find out that its structure is very rigid and bound by convention. But it does not need to be so. We could write papers by flexing these boundaries and yet preserving the norms of good science. What we receive in return is a potential to inspire the readers and motivate them to understand and engage in the science that we, ourselves, are doing and promoting.

2. What obstacles or difficulties have you encountered in your research work? How did you overcome these difficulties?

The unconventional nature of my work has made my career path very difficult. Ours are the times when science, even at the academic level, has become insipidly entrepreneurial. Without satisfying formal expectations of the most superficial nature, one cannot hope to gain any support for one’s research ideas. Meanwhile, the peer-review system that defines which projects would receive the support and which would be rejected is broken in the sense that only the most blatant conflicts of interest are prevented in it. Any subtler ones, which often take on a more profound and pervasive role, are not kept in check, which allows tons of dirtiest politics to make their way into the system and define who will sink to the bottom and who will float to the surface. The fact that mastering politics is a far greater determinant of one’s success in science than scientific creativity and knowledge is the one that I could never swallow nor accept. Meanwhile, the absence of moral teachings to complement pure science has crept up on us and today’s scientific community has become devoid of the notions of loyalty, empathy and cordial, nor merely formal, respect like probably never before in its history, which is what has been making virtually every top research institution a site where a full-fledged war is between waged between ravenous, dog-eat-dog egos. Besides, when funding is limited, greed insatiable and humanness kicked out the door, no other outcome but that of toxic animosity between people can be expected to proliferate, like that between two hungry dogs thrown a single skimpy bone. In any case, the type of research that does not resonate with the funders because of the unorthodoxy of the ideas or the dissidence of the proposer of these ideas is destined for demise and can only be researched outside the mainstream institutions. When I was a part of these institutions, there was very little understanding for the novel territories in science that I had the urge to explore and novel forms of knowledge that I wanted to create. I often tell my students that they should find that one and only thing in the world that only they can do. I have found my niche and that has brought about a great sense of fulfillment. However, mainstream institutions prefer to support researchers who will continue the lineage carried by the predecessors instead of radicals like myself. On top of this, I never believed in hierarchy or authority of any kind, whereas academic institutions and the corporate world are both deeply rooted in these principles. I have treated everyone as equal, be it a janitor or an emeritus, and have constantly raised my voice against inferior treatment of myself and people I have known by those who deemed that some artificial rank and file that they became endowed with entitles them to be repressive without consequences. I was an adolescent during the decade-long civil war in Yugoslavia and the gang war in Belgrade, and a refugee during the NATO bombing campaign against my native country in 1999. As a youth, I was bullied, beaten up, held at gunpoint and threatened with death by people from all sides of the conflict, domestically mainly because I was an antiwar protester and internationally almost unequivocally because I was a Serb. Therefore, the unfairness of people’s treating each other differently depending on the twist in their last name, ethnic origin or race – superficial traits in all – is all but new to me. Yet, despite that, I find it difficult to swallow the massive inequalities that exist in today’s scientific community. On one hand, there is an array of powerful people in hold of a large research capital, profitable patents and contracts with industry, who run massive labs and reap most the awards, financial and prestige-related, while on the other hand is the procession of the exploited, offered only crumbs in comparison. These unfair disparities feeding on imperialistic premises of a small circle of people with an elite status (not elite scientific knowledge too, unfortunately) have only become magnified as the neoliberal economies have gotten wind in their sails in the digital age and this new “gig” economy where people are being routinely laid off after, ironically, successfully completing a project by pushing the research to a publication, a proposal to a grant, or a product to the market. The world of science and technology, in reality, has become more similar to one created by unscrupulous seekers for the treasure of the Sierra Madre than to that we would imagine some socially enlightened sentience would create. These unjust and excessive inequalities, of course, should not exist, but questioning them is not possible without stepping on the toes of many powerful people in science these days, and repercussions for this will be dire. I will give you one example only: in mid 2010s, as an institutional senator, I challenged the common practice of subsidizing professors at American universities with salary bonuses derived from their research grants. I have always found it inappropriate for federal research grants, which are funded by taxpayers, to end up partially in the pockets of grantees, without having any connection to the research. And so, I wanted to give an example by being the first to refuse to take such bonuses and insisted that they be used to support the research and the workforce performing this research. This, however, like most altruistic decisions performed in a system fueled by selfish ambitions, became perceived as an act of lunacy and turned into one of many nails on the cross I, a dissident and a troublemaker, carried upon my forced exit from academia. This sums up why my career in recent years has been in shambles and today, despite doing the best work I have ever done, getting a steady job has been a mission impossible. I have been mostly unemployed for the last six years and the amount I earned as a part-time lecturer or unpaid researcher has been miserable even for Third World standards. Doing high-quality science under such conditions is a challenge that is unthinkable to most people with regular scientific jobs. However, great science, as history has taught us, requires a great sacrifice. And when I look back at what has been done under these dire circumstances, I have a lot to see that delights me.   

3. What attracted you to join the BAM editorial Board team?

I was invited by a collaborator, Julietta Rau, whom I respect very much. We met at a conference in Rome in 2016 and since then published about a dozen of studies on various calcium phosphate materials. My favorite one is probably that where Julietta gladly provided data pertaining to the setting of the calcium phosphate cements; I supplemented them with similar data obtained in my lab and ran a thorough data analysis, showing that the solidification reaction is oscillatory, a type of phenomenon not recognized previously in the setting or hardening of any viscous materials. I am glad to be a member of the board but I do not think that I have had a pivotal influence on the growth that the journal experienced in the last 6-7 years. Other people deserve credit for it.

4. What are your expectations for the future development of Bioactive Materials and its promotion of related fields?

I do not foresee Bioactive Materials as a venue open for the innovative forms of scientific papers, which I have been pioneering in the recent years. However, there are many other great things that the journal can contribute to. What is often neglected is that authors create content but journals select it, thus having a major influence on how trends in science evolve. The role of editors of a journal such as Bioactive Materials is, therefore, essential in guiding where and how science in this field will grow. We have been witnesses to rapid turnovers of trends in biomaterials; there was the tide of additive manufacturing, then the tide of 2D materials and high-entropy alloys, then artificial intelligence, and so on. A journal as prominent as Bioactive Materials can mitigate and alter these trends. We need people to look beyond the trends and into original ideas in seminal stages. Therefore, focusing less on trendy topics and more on subjects that are conceptually innovative, even when they are methodologically still rather rudimentary, would be a great track for the journal to pursue. Other than that, I would like to see the journal board members tone down on the formal, self-congratulatory flattery a bit and help reinforce a less corporate environment, freer in spirit.   

5. What is your greatest hobby outside of scientific work?

Some people say that science is my hobby, but they know by now that I get greatly upset when I hear that. What they try to say, though, is that without a steady job, science can only be a hobby. However, I have never done science as a job anyway and certainly not to secure any monetary returns. This has freed my science from the servitude to materialism and things that bring professional prestige, and has had a positive effect on creative thoughts infiltrating this science. Beside that, science is all I know how to do and it preoccupies me day and night. There is art as well in my life and I have been a slave to both, all my life. In fact, I have always viewed science with the eye of an artist, which has been another reason why my work has been greatly misunderstood by my contemporaries in natural sciences.

6. How do you balance scientific research work and personal life?

 I do not. They are blended into an indissoluble whole. I derive my most precious scientific ideas from my personal life. In turn, this private life often makes its way into the content of my scientific papers. This is not for everybody’s taste, as I have learned, but I enjoy experimenting with these new forms of scientific paper. Once humanity becomes more broadly educated and better versed in science, art and philosophy, this new form of scientific paper, I hope, will become a mainstream literature for common people. Just imagine: you ride on the bus and instead of petty news filled with philistine politics and shallow showbiz info, the fellow passengers are reading scientific papers. It would be a dream come true. However, to have these papers appeal to the layman, we must first make them more lyrical, more inspirational and more resonant with the poet that is latent in every one of us, which are exactly territories that I have been trying to explore in recent years.

7. What do you think is the most important quality for researchers?

It depends. Researchers come in a variety of breeds and one major thing to sustain is the diversity of different styles. We should not promote a single set of qualities for everyone. Someone is a good brick-builder, someone is good at theoretically projecting building structures, and someone is skilled at toppling the old paradigms and conventions. Some people move more efficiently toward unanswered questions, others toward unquestioned answers. All these paths and skills are equally important to pursue and these complementary styles should be allowed to proliferate equally abundantly.

8. What advice do you have for young scholars who are determined to engage in scientific research?

Go beyond science. Listen to music, study painting, watch films, read books, dance and engage in art of every kind in addition to persistently studying science. Art can inspire us and speak to our hearts and make us better people. Also, understanding the pathways of evolution of styles in art can help us understand what constitutes novelty in science. In addition, studying history and philosophy of science thoroughly is useful because it puts research in a broader perspective, which could help us immensely on the quest for original discoveries. Needless to add, youngsters should strive for novelty and originality instead of trying their best to be the derivatives of their mentors or mere paradigm builders. We should not protect our ideologies and should be glad instead when scientists younger than us label these models as obsolete and get preoccupied with the effort to derive something different in their stead. This drive to go beyond the reigning ideologies is an instinct of all those who have the blood of discoverers running through their veins. We should do it all to foster and develop this instinct in the young scholars instead of forcing them to be conformists loyal to the establishment. At the same time, however, we should nurture humane values and teach people empathy and cordiality alongside passion for research. We must make sure that new generations recognize how awfully unjust and unkind the human culture pervading scientific institutions has become and be motivated to do something major about it. Those who come after us are the only ones who could save this ship from sinking. In other words, if we fail in good, solid, holistic education, the natural wonders we research will fail us too.