This week, David Fidock, PhD, FASTMH, begins his term as ASTMH President. Dr. Fidock is the C.S. Hamish Young Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, and Professor of Medical Sciences in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. He leads the Fidock Lab at Columbia that has produced groundbreaking work identifying how Plasmodium falciparum malaria parasites develop drug resistance. Dr. Fidock recently joined science writer Matthew Davis on the cusp of the U.S. presidential elections to discuss, among other things, his priorities for his presidency, navigating today’s fraught political landscape and his favorite read of the last year.
Given all that you are involved with in your professional life, what prompted you to seek a position of leadership within ASTMH?
First and foremost is that I am a scientist deeply invested in malaria research and how that research can be applied to reducing the burden of disease in endemic countries. I have always loved academic research, and I chose to focus on malaria because I wanted to address global health challenges. I have been pursuing this work for 35 years. But I have learned that while the science is paramount, it’s also important to be part of the world that dictates policy, because that affects our ability to translate scientific research into solutions that can be implemented in the field.
I remember being in a meeting at the UN in 2007 with a room filled with people dedicated to combating malaria. But very few of them were scientists. It was striking to be with a group that had enormous impact on the implementation of malaria interventions and to see a notable gap in their understanding of the underlying biology that connects the parasites, mosquito vectors and human hosts. That made it clear that as scientists it is vital for us to increase our communications efforts and contribute to evidence-based policymaking.
The other tipping point was in 2014 when I received the Bailey K. Ashford Medal (an ASTMH award recognizing mid-career scientists for their work in tropical medicine). I was talking with (the late) Alan Magill, who was then ASTMH president. He suggested that I should consider running for ASTMH president. But he said I should wait about 10 years to gain the requisite experience. So about nine years after that I was asked to consider running, and I felt like it was the right time.
What are your priorities as president?
One is to help advance the science that is at the core of tropical medicine. ASTMH is a big umbrella. Our members are involved in many different areas of research. For example, there is the molecular group, the clinical group, global health and entomology, along with experts in parasitology, virology, insect vectors, epidemiology and public health. They all share a common focus, which is that good science and robust data are at the core of their work. That is the primary reason our attendees come to the Annual Meeting. I want to look for more opportunities to come together around our shared mission and investigate our most important scientific questions. That includes a focus on supporting and encouraging collaborations — across disciplines and especially north-south engagement.
Another priority is to look for ways to deliver more year-round content. For most members, ASTMH is primarily about the Annual Meeting. I think there are opportunities to provide webinars and educational content and engage in outreach with our members around the world — to make ASTMH more of a year-round society instead of predominantly one where we come together once a year for a week. That’s especially important because we want to grow the society domestically and internationally, and we want to see a greater focus on tropical medicine across academic disciplines.
We are speaking on the eve of a very consequential election in the United States, one that, among other things, could have enormous budget and policy implications for global health priorities. How does the society navigate such a challenging terrain, where you want to build broad coalition supporting global health, but you also want to hold fast to key principles?
When I previously served as an ASTMH board member, I would go to meetings on Capitol Hill every year. We were always strictly mindful of the need to be bipartisan and apolitical. For example, we would stress the fact that global health investments by the United States Government are vital to identify solutions to domestic and global diseases, as well as beneficial for our national security, job growth and working with partners across borders.
I am aware that while historically, funding for the National Institutes of Health received bipartisan support, that has wavered in recent years. As a society, we have to tailor our message to ensure that we are speaking to all constituencies who can help rebuild bipartisan support for science. I don’t think this is done with soundbites. It requires engaging political leaders and explaining to them why our work is important — and providing the data to back it up. I am hopeful that if we do this, we can overcome some of the current rhetoric that sometimes questions the value of empiric data.
We’re also concerned about some of the proposals (in the U.S. Congress) to make significant changes at NIH, particularly the proposal to split up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). We want to be constructive and non-partisan in our outreach. There are solid economic data that support the strong return on investments in the NIH. And we will advocate for increased support for NIH, because current levels are making it especially difficult for early career faculty to secure funding.
I wanted to finish with just a few questions inspired by the Proust Questionnaire.
Let’s start with: Who is a living person you admire?
I would say Bill Gates is right up there. He’s an inspirational humanitarian. His work has helped change the world. He is using his vast wealth for the public good. He’s incredibly smart and very science- and data-driven.
Who is the historical figure you most admire?
Louis Pasteur. I earlier had a faculty position with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, and it easily could have been a place to spend an entire career. What is astounding about Louis Pasteur is that he was incredibly impactful across a number of scientific disciplines. For example, he provided irrefutable evidence disproving a widely held theory that life could form spontaneously. He also found a way to fight a pathogen that was destroying the French wine industry, in work that led to the process of pasteurization that is used globally to ensure food safety.
What do you consider your greatest achievements in your malaria work?
Scientifically, it was discovering the gene that is primarily responsible for resistance to the former front-line drug chloroquine. Then, more recently, discovering mutations linked to piperaquine resistance and generating genetic evidence that mutated forms of the Kelch 13 protein in the Plasmodium falciparum parasite were the primary driver of artemisinin resistance. We’ve also played an important role in developing molecular tools to genetically manipulate malaria parasites and decipher mechanisms of drug action and parasite resistance. I am also proud of the fact that our lab has trained over 20 scientists who have graduated with PhDs along with 60-70 postdoctoral research scientists. Almost all of them have stayed in science — in academia, industry or a related field.
What is the best book you’ve read in the last year?
“Building a Life Worth Living,” by Marsha Linehan. She developed the theoretical foundation for dialectical behavioral therapy. It’s an approach that focuses on the fact that two people can have seemingly opposing perspectives, yet they are both right. So, she talks about how our emotional mind might say, “That’s total nonsense.” And then the rational mind would say, “OK, I’m going to deconstruct this a little bit.” And then what she calls the wise mind tries to fuse these two views together. This can be a really good way to understand people who are coming at things from a perspective that is totally different from yours and to build a constructive two-way dialogue.
###