Did you always want to be a scientist?
Actually, no! No one in my family was a scientist, and I was more interested in business initially – maybe even starting a company one day. In China, however, the education system requires students to choose between science and humanities early in high school. I was performing well in STEM courses, and, at that time, there was a strong emphasis on promoting STEM education because of its perceived job security. So, I was placed into the science track.
When I was admitted to Beijing University, I initially wanted to study biology, but I was assigned to chemistry instead. (Ironically, that turned out to be beneficial because now I work at the intersection of chemistry and biology.) But it wasn’t until I joined Fred McLafferty’s lab that I truly became passionate about science. His infectious enthusiasm and dedication to research were inspiring – he embodied the ideal of a scientist committed to pushing boundaries. Working with him made me realize how powerful mass spectrometry could be in tackling health challenges, and that’s when I truly embraced my identity as a scientist.
What lessons did you learn from Fred McLafferty?
I always say Fred McLafferty shaped my career. I learned so much from him – and it was incredibly hands-on. When I first joined his lab, I did not expect him to spend so much time with me, especially given his stature – he was a pioneer in mass spectrometry and a Member of National Academy of Sciences, he had already officially retired, yet he still met with me every two weeks.
Fred taught me so much about being a rigorous scientist – how to have high standards, how to pay attention to detail, and how to always strive for excellence while pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in science.
Beyond his brilliance, what stood out to me most was his generosity – to his students, to young scientists, to collaborators. He truly believed in supporting the next generation – and he had an incredible energy for science. Even toward the end of his life, he was still working on manuscripts – that level of dedication and passion is something I will always carry with me.
Another major lesson I learned from Fred was about collaboration. He once told me: “You can’t be an expert in everything, but you should always find the right people to collaborate with to complement your expertise.”
That advice has shaped how I work today. My lab is highly interdisciplinary and collaborative – our trainees from different disciplines including chemistry, biology, and medicine, and we work closely with biologists, bioinformaticians, clinicians (cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, etc) and more. But true collaboration isn’t just about exchanging samples and data. It’s about learning from each other’s fields – really engaging in intellectual exchange to drive discoveries forward.
Fred also had an incredible ability to embrace innovation. He pioneered GC-MS and has spent decades working on small molecules and organic chemistry – he’s especially well-known for the McLafferty rearrangement. Yet in the later stage of his career, he made a bold and visionary switch when he recognized the potential of studying large biomolecules and pioneered top-down mass spectrometry, always asking: "What else can we do with mass spectrometry?"
He saw the future before others did. He was an early adopter of software and computational approaches – he encouraged students to develop tools for data analysis, and he saw the role of machine learning and software-driven mass spectrometry long before it became mainstream.
I consider Fred a true visionary – a legend who was never satisfied with what had already been achieved, always pushing forward. That mindset, that passion for discovery, is something I try to pass on to my own students today.
Are you more driven by the impact of using analytical techniques to make a difference – or by your own scientific curiosity and desire to answer fundamental questions?
My primary motivation comes from seeing patients suffer and recognizing how few diagnostic tools are available. Consider this: when you go to a doctor’s office, the basic approach probably hasn’t changed much in the last 30 years. They take your blood pressure, temperature, and run a few blood tests. The only major change is that patients’ records have switched from paper to electronic systems, but the diagnostic methods themselves remain somewhat limited.
At the same time, I see tremendous potential in the analytical technology innovations that hasn’t yet made its way into medicine – even into biology. Positioned in a unique position bridging chemistry, biology, and medicine, I witness firsthand how these needs aren’t being met. My lab is in an interdisciplinary research environment, and our neighbors are cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and biologists. We work directly with them. We experience the healthcare system by ourselves, and witness family and friends suffering from various kinds of diseases.
So my motivation stems from a fundamental question: How can we help patients? How can we improve community health, extend life expectancy, and enhance quality of life? How can we develop technologies that detect diseases earlier, enable better prognosis, and help track treatments more effectively? That’s what fuels me – translating scientific advances into real-world impact.
What’s your proudest career moment?
If I had to choose, I’d say one of the biggest sources of pride is training the next generation of scientists. Seeing my students succeed, watching them make their own discoveries, advance their careers – is incredibly rewarding.
Of course, being recognized for my work has brought proud moments as well; receiving the Biemann Medal from ASMS was definitely one of those moments. And then being honored with the HUPO Clinical and Translational Award was special because it aligns so closely with my passion for bridging analytical science and medicine.
But really, my proudest moments stem from seeing impact – whether that’s mentoring students, contributing to translational science, or developing technologies that could one day help patients and improve healthcare.
You mentioned that you were originally interested in business. Have you considered starting a company?
Yes – much of what we do has commercial potential – and we hold several patents. In fact, we’re currently in discussions with investors (I even have a name in mind for the company…). But I’m a very cautious person – I don’t rush into things until I’m fully prepared. Right now, I’m in the preparation stage.
What drives me isn’t just technology – it’s the opportunity to help patients. I understand technology deeply, but I also know the biology and the medical landscape. I’ve been fully integrated into the cardiovascular research community despite not being trained as an analytical scientist, not a cardiologist – I’ve learned a tremendous amount from my colleagues, attended their conferences, and now serve on councils for major organizations, including the American Heart Association and the International Society for Heart Research (North America section).
I often see silos between chemistry, biology, and medicine. People in these fields often don’t communicate with each other as they could, and that’s where I see my role as a bridge. I love immersing myself in different communities, understanding their unique challenges, and figuring out how technology can solve real-world problems.
In planning a company, my vision is to leverage these technologies for early disease detection and monitoring disease progression, making them clinically accessible. Delayed disease detection remains a major issue – there is still a critical need better biomarkers, improved diagnostic tools, and more effective ways to monitor treatment response. Many treatments come with severe side effects, and if we could monitor how a patient’s biological response in real time, we could adjust treatments more precisely and effectively.
I understand what analytical chemists can contribute to, what biologists need to uncover about disease mechanisms, and what clinicians need to treat patients effectively. My goal is to bring these fields together to drive significant advancements in healthcare. So, I see myself as an incubator, a connector, a catalyst, someone who can break down barriers between disciplines and push forward better diagnostics, better prognostics, and, ultimately, better treatment options.
One clear example is the significant gap between genotype and phenotype. Doctors often know a patient has a disease-linked mutation but can’t take action because they don’t know if or when the disease will actually develop. Some treatments are too aggressive to be given just in case. This is a real problem in hereditary cardiovascular diseases, where we see families with the same gene mutation but different clinical outcomes. We need biomarkers that bridge this genotype-phenotype gap to give doctors actionable insights.
I recently met a patient advocate who was a business leader before being diagnosed with serious hereditary heart condition. Luckily, he eventually received a heart transplant. Since then he started a foundation to support research and treatment, and it reinforced how urgent this need is.
What advice can you offer to the next generation of analytical scientists?
I think we’re entering a new era for analytical science – where we’re not just developing technology for the sake of developing technology. There has to be a bigger purpose.
My advice to the next generation of analytical scientists: don’t just stay in your comfort zone. Don’t get too narrowly focused on a specific technology. The world is full of real-world problems that need solutions. Reach out and understand them. Don’t just wait for someone to come to you and say, "Hey, I have this problem – can you analyze it and give me the data?" Instead, be proactive. Look into these problems yourself.
Working with the cardiovascular research community has helped me design better methods – because I wasn’t just thinking about mass spectrometry as a technique; I was thinking about how to apply it to solve real clinical problems.
To truly make an impact, though, you have to invest time in learning other disciplines. You have to understand their language – and, yes, that means reading hundreds of papers from outside your field. It’s a lot of work. But in the end, it makes you a better scientist. It makes you a better analytical chemist – because the more you understand about biology and medicine, the more impactful your contributions will be.
Could interdisciplinary working help combat the so-called “perception problem” in analytical science?
Absolutely. For a long time, analytical scientists have been seen as technicians – just the people who operate instruments and generate data, rather than those driving discoveries. When I was in graduate school, I remember my advisor had a bulletin board in our lab, where he would pin inspirational articles or quotes. One of them said something along the lines of "analytical chemists are not just technicians." That message really stuck with me.
If you look at Ivy League schools, many of them don’t even have analytical chemistry divisions – because they see analytical science as too technical. But the truth is, analytical science is foundational to so many discoveries. We are not just technicians – we are innovators and problem-solvers.
I’ve experienced this firsthand. In cardiovascular research, my colleagues don’t see me as an analytical scientist – they see me as a cardiovascular researcher. In my biology-focused project, they think of me as a cardiac biologist. So, the labels don’t really matter – what matters is that we’re using analytical tools to solve major problems in science and medicine.
Analytical science should not be defined by its tools but by its impact. We are not just developing instruments— we’re advancing diagnostics, transforming healthcare, and driving discoveries across biology, medicine, and environmental science.
So, if I had one final message, it would be this: analytical scientists should dream big. We should go beyond just measuring things – we should ask the big questions, tackle the biggest challenges, and make a real, lasting impact on the world.
Ying Ge is Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor, Department of Cell and Regenerative Biology, Department of Chemistry, and Director of the Human Proteomics Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Newsletters
Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
