Ayanna Howard

The noted robotics expert discusses the need for better communication to the public on the value of basic science

Collage style illustration by Max-o-matic showing different areas of science, government buildings, data samples and maps. — Max-o-matic

This article is part of “The Young American Scientists,” which includes stories of 28 extraordinary scientists poised to change the world, as well as a deep look at the past, present and future of science and innovation in the U.S.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Ayanna Howard is an American roboticist, entrepreneur and educator specializing in artificial intelligence and human‑centered technologies. A former NASA researcher and currently dean of engineering at the Ohio State University, she will become president of Spelman College in August 2026.

[This interview was edited for length and clarity.]

How would you describe the current state of American science?

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

American science is still on an upward trajectory, but it is not accelerating at the same rate as it used to.

What needs to change in American science?

Scientists need to be better at saying what the impact of their research will be, even if they know it’s 20, 30, 50 years out. I feel that we aren’t doing enough of the basic science now and the basic science for the next generation. So we need not only to be better at communicating what we have done that has had an impact that took 50 years to come around but also to do more of it.

What gives you optimism right now?

I do see a lot more applied science being rewarded in the academic community. It used to be that if you did anything applied, you had to work for corporate or industry, and now applied science in the universities is seen as a valid form of scholarship. So that makes me happy and optimistic that we will continue moving forward.

What’s your best advice for an early-career scientist?

My best advice is twofold: Figure out what you’re passionate about, the problems that might allow you to change the world. But you also need to figure out which things that you are interested in you can get funded for.

How has your field changed in the past few years?

My field has changed drastically. I am a roboticist, and when I started, it was considered a niche—people thought, “Robotics, it’s never gonna happen.” And now that has evolved into companies actually putting billions into investments in the field.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American