Spotlight Series: Cosmos Professors
Explore the expertise of COSMOS professors through our interview series. Discover their groundbreaking research and insights into why they are dedicated to teaching at COSMOS, a leading summer program in science and engineering. Gain firsthand knowledge of their inspirations, discoveries, and commitment to mentoring future innovators.
Dr. John Lowengrub
Dr. John Lowengrub is the Chancellor's professor at UCI, and the co-leader of the Systems, Pathways, and Targets program at the Chao Comprehensive Cancer Center. He completed his PhD in Applied Mathematics, and is now the "Mathematical Biology: Modeling of Tissue and Tumor Growth" professor at COMOS for Cluster 3: Tissue and Tumor Biology and Mathematical/Computer Modeling.
Interview conducted by Sarah Madden and Sharada Kittur
​
*This interview was transcribed, but edited slightly for clarity.*
Sarah Madden: So, our first question is: what is your research about?
​
John Lowengrub: Well, a bunch of different things. But I’d say that the biggest thing right now is mathematical modeling of cancer, and what we’ve been investigating are basically models of cancer initiation, both animal models and mathematical models. So we have a big effort in cancer systems biology here, and that is basically using the tools of engineering, computer science, math applied to biology, and one of the things we’ve been doing is exploring how cancer begins. It turns out that there are a lot of examples where cells behave completely normally, even when there are mutations that one would think of as associated with cancer. The question is, if cells have these mutations and yet are behaving normally, what would drive cancer to begin? We developed some theories about it, and in particular we believe that it’s a stochastic–or random– process. That can explain why cancer will occur only sporadically, and why you can have premalignant stages but only very few of them actually progress to cancer. Premalignant growths are much more prevalent than cancer, so it’s a rare event that a premalignant stage can progress to cancer. There’s no additional mutation, so there’s a lot of evidence for this, that there’s a lot of non-genetic but random processes that control cancer initiation. Using our models and our experimental systems, we are trying to get to the bottom of this, and it’s really cool because if it’s non-genetic, it could potentially be reversible. You could take a cancer–before it’s gotten too far and acquired a lot of mutations–you could try to reverse it or prevent it, if you can prevent the conditions that would be favorable to its forming. It’s super exciting and we now have a big effort in this area, which is the bulk of my research these days.
​
Sharada Kittur: What drew you to modeling cancer with math?
​
John Lowengrub: That started… about twenty years ago. So I’ve been doing it for a little more than twenty years, and it started because there was a mathematical model I read in a journal paper that was developed by a colleague of mine– I was in the University of Minnesota at the time, and I realized that I knew how to develop numerical methods to solve this model, and that had never been done before. They would look at equations, and they did mathematical analysis, but it always was with a lot of simplifications and not looking at the full, nonlinear behavior of the model. By solving the model numerically, we could investigate all the behavior of the model, and that’s what started it. I realized that these skills that I had developed early on in my career as a mathematician, as a computational scientist, as a material scientist–I could bring all those tools to bear in cancer. One thing led to another, I learned more and more, and now I’m here.
Sarah Madden: What were the best, worst, and most difficult parts of getting your PhD?
John Lowengrub: That’s pretty funny. So the worst and most difficult parts were passing exams. As a PhD student where I was, you had two sets of exams. The first set you would take in your first year, and those were written and midway through your first year. The second set was oral and between years two and three, or at the end of year two before year three–I think that was right. I was a grad student at NYU, and so I lived in New York City, and I got to New York in 1985. It was a while ago now and it was a bit more sketchy, maybe it’s kind of back to being a bit more sketchy, but it was a lot better than it was when I got there. So you’d see lots of homeless people, and so on. I used to have nightmares that I would fail the exams and be on the street and panhandle like the other panhandlers. That was the most stressful part of my PhD because once you got through those exams you would do research and focus on the problems that were interesting to you. I remember that in my third year, shortly after I started my thesis, we were moving to a new apartment and I was designated as the person who had to wait for the phone service. This was back in the days before WiFi was widespread, so you had to wait for phone service and if you wanted to use computers you had to kind of dial in. I was sitting in an empty apartment with nothing to do, so all I could do was sit there and think. So I just sat there and thought and I realized at that time that I knew how to solve my thesis problem. The next eight months was actually working out the details, but I had the idea then because I basically had no input and the only thing I could do there was sit there, and so I thought about it. That was the cool part of my thesis, and the rest was filling in details.
SK: What was your thesis on?
John Lowengrub: It was on a numerical method. The material science problem was really more of multiphase fluids, and I was looking at interfaces between fluids, so imagine you have oil and water. I was analyzing numerical methods that had been developed for solving for the interface dynamics between those two fluids–immiscible fluids, they don’t mix. So my job for my thesis was to take an old method and prove convergence of it; prove that it actually worked. What ended up happening is that as a byproduct to that proof, we realized that the current dogma at that time, in 1987-1988, people had thought that there was a particular method that could never work. There were very famous people going around the country arguing that that method could never work. One of the things I was looking at was that method, as well as other methods that these other famous people had developed. They claimed that you needed these more sophisticated methods that they developed, in order for you to accurately simulate the dynamics and how the interfaces changed over time. Well, it turned out, they were wrong. We were able to prove part of it in my thesis, that in fact, a very simple method actually worked, and people weren't implementing it correctly. That's why they all thought it wouldn't work. Then once you realized how to implement it correctly, it actually worked. It caused a big stir in the field, and the very famous people weren't happy with me, and a couple of my collaborators who worked on it with me. So it was a pretty funny experience.
​
SM: What are the best and worst things about academia overall, and would you recommend it for aspiring researchers?
​
JL: The best part about academics is that you can kind of follow your heart, and follow your interests. There are constraints, but generally you get to choose what you're going to work on. As a mathematician, you could choose to work on very esoteric things, or you could choose to work on applied things. You could choose to do things that are of interest by funding agencies, so that you could get external funding for your research — which would help you hire postdocs and grad students, and so on — or not! The fact that you have this flexibility, and job security, with tenure, is the most attractive thing to me. So you know, as an academic, you don't make nearly as much money as you would make on the outside, but you have a level of job security that you don't have anywhere else — at least nowadays, maybe tenure will go away in the future, who knows. But for right now, and up until now, it's been like that. I have a large family, and I can't really risk my career on the vagaries of the market. That's in part why you get paid a lot more in industry, because you better save your money, because you never know when your job's going to end. Whereas in academics, once you've gotten tenure, you're pretty much there. In order to continue up, get raises and promotions, you have to do research. For me, the best part is being able to research on the areas that I like, that I think are important, and the fact that you have job security.
The worst part? You are always stuck. My dad's actually a mathematician, and I remember that he was trying to discourage me from becoming a mathematician because basically, he said 95% of the time you're working, you're stuck. But what I found is that the 5% that you make a breakthrough is worth all of the 90% of being frustrated. It's more satisfying because you were so frustrated, and then you've figured something out that nobody else has ever figured out. The thrill of doing that is fantastic.
Another hard part is that in my field, we need to have students and postdocs, so you're always under pressure to secure external funding to fund the students and postdocs. You're continually applying for grants, and you have to be forward thinking about that. And that's the hard part, you're always feeling that pressure. You're typically applying for 2 or 3 grants a year, on average. That's a hard part.
Would I recommend it? If people are self-motivated, and you have a curiosity, I would definitely recommend it, for those reasons. For people that just want to be told what to do, and they're happy to do something but they're not as passionate about it, then I would say no. It's a hard life, because you're stuck a lot of the time, so you have to feel the passion, you have to really like what you're doing. You can't do it if you don't like it. So for me, when I take a student, I always look for the curiosity, because you can't teach that. You can teach the math, you can teach the computing, and so on, but you can't teach that. At least I haven't been able to do so. So it's that innate curiosity that would distinguish whether somebody wanted to go into an academic career or an industry career.
​
SK: Why did you decide to become a professor, and teach at COSMOS?
JL: Well, I had a great time at COSMOS. It's a joy to come teach you guys because you're very engaged, you ask lots of questions. That's the best part of teaching: the back and forth, having to think about things, explain things in a different way, and you get a new perspective. Everytime you teach something you learn new things. That part is great. Academics is all about learning. If you like learning, this is the field to be in.
I became a professor basically because… I had thought about going into industry. But at each stage of my career, I thought about it, I even interviewed for jobs; but in the end, I kept saying, "Well, if I want to go into industry, I can always go later. But if I want to stay in academics, I really have to follow an academic path now." So when I finished my PhD, I thought about taking a job in industry, but it's a lot harder to come back from industry into academics, than it is to go the other way. At every step, I just thought, "Well, let's continue," and then I ended up just liking it, and continuing on.
​
SM: What qualities do you look for when choosing Cluster 3 applicants?
​
JL: Typically, Cluster 3 applicants all have outstanding grades, and nowadays, lots of experience in doing research projects, and so on. I look at that, and it's very competitive. I've been doing COSMOS since 2004, maybe 2005 — a really long time. I've varied the courses, but the last few years has been Tissue and Tumor Growth, which I enjoy a lot, and we get really good students for it. Over the years, it's just become more and more competitive, for student applicants. So grades, and test scores — it's not so much test scores right now — but mainly grades and letters of recommendation are all really good, and very important. What I look for is students that have, at least in math, good grades, and understanding. Then I always look for something a little extra. Is there a connection to cancer? Is there a passion for that? That can often make a little adjustment for one person over another. Then I think it's important to have a diverse class, so I also take that into account; I just think it's important that the class should reflect the population, and so I think that's an important consideration. But it's not nearly the only one, more like a potential tie-breaker. I hate to do that, because everybody is so good, I'd love to admit everybody, but we just simply can't do it. We did, in 2021, just after the pandemic, when COSMOS was online, and then we could invite many more people. But then you really miss the experience of living in a dorm, going to the lab — you lose a lot by going online. So small class sizes, I think, are necessary. It makes it hard, though.
​
SK: So for our last question, what are the most important things needed to succeed in college?
JL: Strong work ethic, and self-motivation. And curiosity. Those are the most important things. You can go into a class, you pay attention, and you'll learn — the faculty will teach you what you need to know. But the question is whether you want to be receptive to the knowledge, and whether you're willing to work hard at it. If you are, then you'll succeed.
Interview with Dr. Jacqueline Huynh, Ph.D.
Dr. Jacqueline Huynh, an assistant professor in the departments of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at UC Irvine, is the founder and one of two professors of Cluster 5 of COSMOS: Sustainable Aviation Systems. She herself was an alumni of COSMOS and received her undergraduate degree at UC Irvine in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and did her graduate and doctorate degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Aeronautics and Astronautics.
​Interview conducted by Eva Palmeri and Harshini Sanjay
​​​
Q: What led you to pursue your career in aerospace engineering?
A: Ever since I was little, I liked the idea of flying. As a note, I didn’t realize it was an actual career choice to be involved with aircrafts beyond piloting. I did get a pilot’s license when I was young, but didn’t realize I could make a career out of it. I didn’t really want to become a career pilot; it was too much moving around. What actually got me into aerospace engineering, as a field, was - funny enough - coming here. I did COSMOS myself. At the time, the cluster I had applied to was called Robots to Rockets. I applied to it for the robots - and thought that “I like mechanical stuff, I’ve always liked building things, and mechanical felt really appropriate for that.” While doing the program, I got involved in an aircraft lab and realized that there were airplanes in the sky, we had to build them somehow. That really inspired me to combine aviation and building things and pursue aerospace engineering.
​
Q: What is your research primarily centered around?
A: It’s centered around the environmental impacts of aviation. I call my lab the Aircraft Systems Lab. Aircraft Systems is a term that allows me to broaden my scope for what I look at regarding the aircraft - but really, the focus is on the environmental impacts. All of our projects have a common theme of either reducing pollution-type emissions, noise emissions, or trying to identify ways we can enable new, up and coming technologies which can reduce those impacts into the national aerospace. Aviation is something that is incredibly difficult to change in the status quo. Through making environmental impacts the core theme, we can look at a variety of different systems to combat the problem - and it’s going to take a combination of a lot of things to deal with it.
Q: ​What is your latest project?
A: One of them is looking at fuel cell integration into commercial aircraft. We’ve actually been studying, in collaboration with the National FuelCell Center here at UCI, the integration challenges of putting fuel cell sacks and what that would imply for the aircraft design onto commercial blended wing body type aircrafts - trying to see what the tradeoffs and benefits would be for those systems. That is what the goal of trying to reduce the negative particulate emissions impacts, so we can see how much fuel we would need for one configuration compared to another. I have another project looking at reducing the noise of up and coming AAM or Advanced Air Mobility aircrafts. These are focused more on propeller types, electric vehicles. They’re electric, so technically they don’t produce particulates while they fly. If they are noisy, they are not going to be acceptable for communities to have these flying all the time. Integrating those in is really difficult from that aspect.
Q: Given all of the research in the aerospace field regarding alternative fuels and sustainability, how feasible or practical do you think it is for this to be implemented?
A: We’re talking about fuels that behave similarly to traditional fuels but are derived from sustainable sources. I’m talking about fuels that are generated from corn stalks or alcohols or something like that. I’m going to guess that those are going to make their way in first, because they don’t imply as much of an overhaul to the fuel systems we conventionally use that are certified for these aircrafts that we fly today. Aviation has to have a ten to the ninth failure rate, on average, compared to a car - which means that anything new that goes on an airplane has to go through a ton of checks. That’s why it’s really hard to modify anything. However, I think that there’s a lot of push on the industry to make that happen within the next ten years or so. It isn’t net zero carbon emissions yet, but it is a better system than what we currently have.
Q: What struggles did you face either in high school or college?
A: At least with the high school that I went to, it wasn’t a super high college readiness type of high school. There were students who would go to four-year universities, but it didn’t place the heaviest emphasis on it. In my program as well, staying at the appropriate level in math wasn’t super encouraged. So, I only got into one four-year University when I applied to college, UCI. I was also behind in math, compared to my peers in aerospace engineering. I had to make up for that time myself, and I did it by taking whatever classes I could on the side. Money was a huge struggle and was one all throughout college. I found that you had to work hard and you had to figure out things that not everyone is going to tell you necessarily. For example, something that helps with classes that not everyone realizes is visiting their professors during office hours.
The other that tends to be an interesting struggle is the demographics of engineering classes. When you don’t match those demographics, it might be a little discouraging. In my experience, when I took my first aerospace-related class, it was a class of seventy (70), there were five (5) women and the rest were males. It could make you feel like you don’t belong and that is what leads to Imposter Syndrome, which I would say it just… sucks. Imposter Syndrome is this thing a lot of people have and no one talks about. You really feel like you’re not even sure why you’re here, like you’re here and not supposed to be. The more you learn the more you realize you don’t know and how much you have left to learn. The best thing I’ve learned is to just acknowledge that it’s there and to talk about it with other people. And ultimately, if you actually and legitimately don’t know something, just accept it and try to learn it.
Q: What are some important life lessons or advice you have gained or learned from your years in this field?
A: I would say that good mentors are really important. Having a network of people is more beneficial than having good grades. Building a network, to me, is just introducing yourself in some way to someone, for example, your professors. It just puts you in their minds and is extremely helpful. Make a Linkedin account - every college student should make one. Your network is what can get you a position or a job rather than your grades, generally. Good grades are obviously important but the network to build off of that is what gets you the position. With the assumption of everyone being good, how do you pick? Also, do what you’re interested in. It really helps to do what you love. If you start college in engineering and you find that you don’t like it, don’t force yourself to do it. You won’t be happy. Doing something that you actually enjoy is going to make life more interesting.
Q: How has your path through science changed?
A: I decided I wanted to do graduate school when it kind of came into my mind that I enjoyed teaching, and that to me meant that I needed to get a PhD. I would say that I never felt confident throughout my entire graduate career. I went and did industry internships throughout graduate school because I didn’t realistically think I could get into academia. I’ve got to admit the industry, at least the one that I had tried—I don’t want to say a blanket statement for all companies— was so boring. I wanted to go home as soon as I got into the building every single day. I felt like what I was doing was not stimulating enough. I don’t like my time being spent that way. Again, it would be a really safe option. The salary was good. It would have been very stable, but I couldn’t do that. Academia was going to be a risk. Academic positions are hard to get and once you get in, not everything’s good. It’s kind of like running your own startup, which means you suddenly have to be a businessman, a manager, a researcher, a physicist, a scientist, a mentor, a teacher, a counselor, and a graphic designer because you have to make your own logos. What I found was that it’s risky, there’s a lot of uncertainties in the future, but every single day, I just wanted it to last longer and I prefer living with that mindset. One more thing is that where you start out doesn’t necessarily guarantee what you will do as a job. I started to have my eyes set on MIT for graduate school but I came to UC Irvine as an undergraduate. UC Irvine is ranked lower than MIT, although we are really pushing hard for it to be in the top 10 in the future. Is that the end? Does that matter? No. Where I ended up mattered a lot more as opposed to where I started. I know competition is a thing people think about. The key is you need to get into somewhere and make the best use of your time wherever it is that you are going.
Q: What’s your schedule as a professor and a researcher?
A: I don’t know if it was hinted at earlier, but it is quite busy. Since I’m still very young in my career, the work-life balance thing has not been perfected yet. However, something that’s nice about this position is that it’s very flexible. For example, I can choose when I want to set my own meetings, when I want to do my job, et cetera, as long as I teach during the classroom times. I would say that I spend 20% of my time in the classroom, 100% of my time doing research-y things, and 10% of my time doing service. I know the answers don’t add up to 100, but I just want to point out that it’s not a standard 40 hour workweek. One thing you do get to once you start building up a lab is that you work with graduate students and they do most of the legwork in solving the theories, doing the math, figuring out the novel concept, and what I end up becoming is more so the idea stimulator and I poke them every week to see how's it going. They figure out something new and just take it and roll with it. From there, your research web just expands that way because you can’t do everything by yourself. I do travel once every one or two months to other states. I’ve gone to other countries for presentations and whatnot. Then we spend a lot of time writing because you figure things out and then you have to report about it, kinda like the presentations you guys are going to be doing. You can’t just research and not show it off. You really get used to the writing. It just becomes second nature. I try to do outreach events a lot. I really like the outreach aspects.
Q: Why did you choose to be a part of COSMOS?
A: When I was lucky enough to get a position here at UC Irvine, the first thing I thought about was “I want to create my own COSMOS cluster” because it made such a difference for myself. I wanted to pay that forward and create a cluster that, inspired by the research I’m doing, was something I can use to directly outreach to high school students and hopefully even beyond that. Outreaching to the younger generation is important because it can give knowledge they would not have received otherwise. I typically see fourth year undergraduates. I can only do so much when their lives have been decided. If I want to make a difference bottom up, it really has to start here. It’s also making the issues start earlier and hopefully getting people to think differently about themselves and what they want to do in the future. I would love to have met a female professor earlier on. I think that would have helped me. What we’re hoping here for the male-female ratio is 50-50 or to be as representative of the actual population as possible because when you get up in the rankings, it tends to be a bit more homogenous.
Q: Do you have any advice for high schoolers and students in general?
A: Whatever your high school scenario is currently, just know this isn’t the end-all-be-all for everything. We actually have a lot of resources to learn beyond what we’re taught. Try to learn beyond what you’re taught and look beyond the possibilities of what actually exists. We have incredible access to information, tools, models, things we didn’t have, etc. Look into those things, do your own research, and find what you’re interested in. If you follow this, life will be a lot more exciting. Just don’t be limited by whatever your current situation is.
Dr. Huynh exemplifies how following one’s dreams will always work out, even if that seems the risky path. Thank you, Dr. Huynh, for your time and good luck with your research!