Q&A with Penn State alum and nanoscience pioneer Chad Mirkin
Penn State alumnus Chad A. Mirkin, director of the International Institute for Nanotechnology and the George B. Rathmann Professor of Chemistry at Northwestern University, presented the Harold Kohn Endowed Distinguished Chemistry Alumni lecture. This lecture was established by alumnus Harold L. Kohn and his wife, Carol K. Kohn, to honor and celebrate contributions made by distinguished Penn State alumni.
Mirkin is world-renowned for pioneering spherical nucleic acid nanoconstruct-based biodetection and therapeutic technologies, inventing dip-pen nanolithography and colloidal crystal engineering with DNA — groundbreaking scientific advancements — and making significant contributions to supramolecular chemistry, nanoelectronics, nanooptics, and materials discovery. He received his bachelor's degree in chemistry from Dickinson College in 1986 and a doctoral degree in inorganic and organic chemistry from Penn State in 1989. He was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology before becoming a professor at Northwestern University in 1991.
He is consistently ranked among the most highly cited researchers in chemistry and nanomedicine, reflecting his impact on the field. He has authored over 910 manuscripts, is listed as an inventor on over 1,400 patents and applications, with over 450 issued, and has founded multiple companies, including Nanosphere, TERA-print, Azul 3D, Flashpoint Therapeutics, and Mattiq. A recipient of over 250 national and international awards — such as the Kavli Prize in Nanoscience, King Faisal Prize, IET Faraday Award, and Dan David Prize — Mirkin has also served on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and is among the few scientists elected to all three U.S. National Academies and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
We had the privilege of speaking to Mirkin about his time at Penn State and his career as a chemist specializing in nanomaterials and nanotechnologies.
Q: What do you find most rewarding in the work you do? What keeps you motivated to continue pushing the boundaries of your research and finding novel application-based tools?
Mirkin: I have the best job on Earth. I work with super-motivated people whose age remains constant as I get older. We have built a group that is driven by trying to answer critical scientific questions in a variety of fields that are united by the theme of nanotechnology. Developing tools to miniaturize structures and study them is enabling in fields spanning inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, or biochemistry. As our group moved down this path in nanotechnology, we began to see how the materials and tools we developed could impact different aspects of science and the world. We kept building expertise and drawing in people who wanted to contribute, which made the environment even better. We have a research group where, hopefully, the students learn not only from me, but I learn a tremendous amount from them. Many come from different disciplines and bring a diverse array of skills — the postdocs come from various training environments, and it feels like having an institute within a group. This is something that I think is an interesting and unusual thing in science that allows us to ask big questions and do things that most small groups can't do.
Q: How did you develop such an interdisciplinary research program? Do you have advice for scientists who want to branch out?
Mirkin: At Penn State, I was trained to do synthetic organometallic chemistry, an interesting subject, but a relatively small subset of science. At the time, organometallic chemists were "the cowboys" of inorganic chemistry, and I liked that. This experience taught me synthetic skills, which became a real theme of what I did after Penn State. I moved to MIT and worked in a lab focused primarily on surface science, materials chemistry, and electrochemistry. Many people there were primarily physical chemists. When I came in with my skills in synthesis and could make molecules that they needed or wanted to answer the questions they were trying to ask, I realized that making the right molecules to ask and answer important questions could propel you ahead of the game.
At Northwestern, I started my research group in organometallic chemistry by beginning to design challenging-to-synthesize structures that could form conducting polymers that could be used as rheostats to control catalytic chemical reactions. My interests shifted to nanotechnology as I learned about atomic force microscopes and scanning tunneling microscopes, which people used to see atoms for the first time. When they became commercially available, I decided that at least a portion of our group would focus on becoming proficient in the use of such tools. We initially went to centralized facilities that had been acquiring these types of tools and began to train ourselves to use them, spurring other ideas that led to the invention and development of dip-pen nanolithography, polymer pen lithography, mega libraries, and so much more. These inventions have become the most powerful synthesis tools on the planet. Through this experience, I also learned that there is an opportunity anytime there is a new tool that changes analytical capabilities. The introduction of new tools spurs real scientific opportunity.
You don't have to be trained in everything to learn a new area. Enter it a little bit cautiously and surround yourself with people who have the expertise, either by hiring people into your group with that expertise or through collaborations. However, you need to aggressively check and challenge what you're doing to make sure that you get it right.
Q: What drew you to pursue graduate studies at Penn State?
Mirkin: I did a Research Experiences for Undergraduates term at Penn State during my third year of college, where I worked with Professor Greg Geoffroy in organometallic chemistry. My experience in his lab was game-changing. During my REU, I learned two things:
- I had incredible success, not because of me but because of my graduate student mentor, Greg Williams, who gave me a lot more credit than I probably deserved. As an undergrad, I ended up on three papers, and it felt like, "Wow, I'm pretty good at this."
-
I got to experience life as a graduate student, and I really liked it. The people I worked with were fun, worked hard, and were engaged and passionate about their work. At first, I planned on being a medical doctor, but my REU at Penn State changed my interests and led me back to the Geoffroy lab, where I ultimately earned my Ph.D.
Q: How did your time at Penn State shape your thinking and approach to science and your transition into your independent career?
Mirkin: When I came to Penn State, I was looking for what I needed to do to succeed here. I was thinking more like an undergraduate student. When you’re an undergrad, you're thinking, "What do I have to do to get an A?" Or "What do I have to do to get that confirmation?" But research is different. I tell people, "Books are no longer your main resource when doing research." What matters more is what happens in the lab and how you perform there. Something clicks if things are going right, and you begin to think independently, which comes from taking ownership and immersing yourself in the ideas you are trying to pursue and the questions you are trying to ask.
I remember running around the track at a gym at Penn State. I found myself running and running and forgetting how many times I'd gone around the track because I was also thinking about the chemical reactions I was trying to develop. I started to make connections I had seen in the lab that neither my boss nor my mentor had made, and I had ideas to take my research in new directions. Self-confidence, and my lessons from grad school, motivated me to think I could drive my own research and work independently.
Q: What advice would you give to current Penn State students?
Mirkin: When I came to Penn State, I thought of Professor Geoffroy, my advisor, as my coach. He was very motivational and fired you up about what you were doing. It is the people that you run into that make you successful. I call these occurrences "collisions and connections." It is important that when you have a "good collision," you make a "strong connection." Many people don't take advantage of all the great things they encounter, so I advise everybody, especially if they are just starting out, to meet people. This means engaging with graduate students, postdocs, and other faculty and making the most of the environment that you are in.
Specifically for the chemists, you should have a portion of what you do focused on synthesis and understanding how you make things that haven't existed before, because that alone is an enabling capability.
Q: What is the most common question you get related to your research?
Mirkin: When I used to fly on airplanes and strike up a conversation with the person sitting next to me, they would ask me what I do, and I would say, "I'm a chemist," and they would cringe telling me that their chemistry course in high school or college was the worst experience of their life. I now talk to them about chemistry in the context of nanotechnology, and they talk my ear off. There is an interesting connection between science and the public regarding nanoscience and nanotechnology that is not found with other fields. Once people see that this field can impact so many different areas, they are drawn to it, especially when you talk about some of the medical applications of nanotechnology.
Q: Where do you think the nanotechnology field is headed?
Mirkin: I think nanotechnology is going to be here forever. It is redefining how we make medicines with true impacts coming in the short term. The mRNA vaccines are a nice example. They have shown us the power of nanomedicines, but we have a long way to go. I firmly believe the new field of structural nanomedicine will underpin drug development over the next couple of decades. The community has spent a lot of time understanding how to treat disease with relatively imprecise nanomedicines. However, we also know that, historically, in the development of small molecules drugs, for example, chemistry and molecular structure has played a huge role. Applying that lesson to nanomedicine, we are now moving towards incredibly well-defined, molecularly precise nanomedicines that are extremely efficacious because they can integrate multiple medicinal components within and on them in the most potent and safest configurations. This is a grand challenge, that if appropriately met, will transform the lives of many.