In conversation with Scientific Advisory Board Member and Evolutionary Biologist Harmit Malik

Whitehead Institute’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) convenes regularly to learn about the Institute’s latest research and engage with its scientists and leadership. 

Members of the SAB are some of the leading external scientists in their fields, bringing expertise from institutions across the country. These experts serve as thought partners to Whitehead's leadership, offering outside perspective, identifying new opportunities, and helping the Institute continue to foster an environment where ambitious, groundbreaking science can thrive. 

By engaging deeply with the Institute’s research and community, the SAB members advance a culture of scientific excellence, collaboration, and discovery. One of those advisors is Harmit Malik, member and co-associate director of the Basic Sciences Division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and affiliate professor of genome sciences at the University of Washington. 

An evolutionary biologist known for his work on rapid evolution in genes, Malik joined Whitehead Institute’s SAB 5 years ago. We sat down with him to learn more about what his role as an advisor entails and why he decided to engage with Whitehead Institute in this way. 

The interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Whitehead Institute: What does your role as a member of Whitehead Institute’s SAB typically involve?

Harmit Malik: We visit the Institute regularly to hear about ongoing scientific projects across Whitehead. We attend research presentations, meet one-on-one with faculty members and fellows, and spend time with postdocs, graduate students, and core facility managers. We also rotate who we meet with each time so we can gain a broad perspective on the Institute’s research and culture.

Our role is to advise Whitehead’s leadership on issues that may be emerging before they become larger challenges, whether they’re related to supporting trainees, strengthening the community, or other aspects of the research environment.

One thing I’ve especially appreciated is how proactive the Institute’s leadership is. Concerns are taken seriously and addressed whenever possible, and people know they can raise issues with us confidentially. That creates an environment where researchers feel heard, which helps make Whitehead not only an exciting place scientifically, but also a great place to work.

Another important aspect of this role is that we’re not serving in an evaluative capacity. At some institutions, advisory boards are involved in promotion or tenure decisions. That’s not the case at Whitehead. Because we’re purely advisory, researchers can have candid conversations with us without worrying that the person offering advice will later be evaluating them. I think that leads to more open, honest discussions and allows us to offer constructive guidance as colleagues.

WI: What have you learned from being on Whitehead’s SAB??

HM: One of the reasons I joined Whitehead’s scientific advisory board is because it’s an institute devoted to basic science. That’s becoming increasingly rare. Visiting Whitehead gives me the opportunity to learn from an institution that’s operating at the highest level of scientific excellence and think about what my home institution can learn from it.

Over the past five years, we’ve all had to navigate enormous challenges, from the aftermath of the pandemic to today’s uncertainty around federal science funding. Watching how Whitehead has responded to both of these challenges has been an education.

WI: Why are SABs important to research institutions and to science more broadly?

The Institute benefits from having people who can offer an outside perspective. When you’re inside an organization, you naturally get used to doing things a certain way. Someone from the outside might ask, “Why do you do it this way? Have you considered another approach?” Those aren’t dramatic changes — they’re small course corrections that are easier seen from the outside than from within.

WI: You’ve spoken about the importance of being intellectually fearless — not being afraid to be wrong. What type of environment allows that kind of science to flourish?

HM: Intellectually fearless science flourishes in an environment where people are encouraged to take risks, ask ambitious questions, and know they’ll have the support they need even if the idea doesn’t work out. As my chair Sue Biggins says, “You cannot really plan for a breakthrough, but you can create the groundwork for a breakthrough to happen.” 

Whitehead does this exceptionally well: it encourages people to make bold moves while providing a strong foundation and the mentorship they need to succeed. It’s not simply giving researchers resources and saying, “We'll see you in five years.” There’s a constant conversation.

Something else that stands out is how connected the faculty at Whitehead are. They genuinely enjoy talking to one another about science, and some of the most exciting ideas emerge not within a lab, but in the grouting between the labs. People approach the same problem from different perspectives and end up collaborating because each brings something unique. 

We’ve also seen how quickly new approaches and technologies spread through a collaborative environment. At Whitehead, for example, we’ve seen researchers incorporate AI into many different kinds of projects. Not every lab is or will adopt AI in the same way, and I think that’s healthy. But they’re all working towards the goal of accelerating biological discovery using AI together. 

WI: Could you share a moment in your own career when you have had to practice this kind of intellectual fearlessness?

HM: During my postdoctoral training, we were studying centromeres — regions of chromosomes that help control how genetic material is passed on when cells divide. They were evolving extraordinarily rapidly, which seemed paradoxical because they play such an important role; the genetics of essential parts of the cell typically remain very stable so mutations don’t break them. We came up with a model rooted more in evolutionary than in cell-biology principles. There were definitely moments when we thought, “This is kind of crazy. Are we really going to put this into print?”

My mentor, Steve Henikoff, wasn’t afraid of being wrong. As long as an idea was well-motivated and grounded in evidence, he believed it was worth putting forward because even if it turned out to be incomplete, it could still move the field forward by allowing people to think differently.

That’s the mindset I also see at Whitehead: researchers are willing to pursue bold ideas while recognizing the burden of proof that comes with challenging existing assumptions.

WI: You’ve trained across disciplines, beginning in chemical engineering before moving into biology. How has that shaped the way you approach scientific questions?

HM: I realized pretty early that chemical engineering wasn’t what I wanted to do for my career. Then I discovered molecular biology through a fantastic professor, and around the same time I was reading the book The Selfish Gene. Those experiences have shaped the way I think about biology now. 

Some of the most exciting discoveries happen when people bring different ways of thinking to solve a problem together. I see this value reflected in Whitehead’s scientific culture. There are projects that simply wouldn’t have happened if a trainee from one lab hadn’t started talking with someone from another. To me, that’s almost the perfect endorsement of Whitehead’s size. It’s large enough to bring together remarkable scientific breadth, but small enough that people don’t end up in silos.

I’m also a big believer in Whitehead’s second-mentor program, in which trainees working under one faculty member also get paired with another advisor. Having a scientist outside your own lab who can offer career advice and scientific perspective — even if you only meet every six months — can make an enormous difference.

WI: Looking ahead, what excites you most about Whitehead’s future?

HM: Science is facing real headwinds right now, particularly around funding. What has impressed me is that Whitehead hasn’t responded by becoming more conservative. The leadership has remained committed to supporting ambitious basic science while making sure researchers have the support they need. That’s important because we need both the steady work that moves a field forward and the blue-sky thinking that opens entirely new fields.

The pressures are real, but what excites me is that the quality of the science and the ambition behind it hasn’t diminished. That has been wonderful to observe.