How would you describe the mass spectrometry landscape in 2025?
I would say the current landscape is very strong. Walking around ASMS in June this year, I came away – as I do each year – with tons of new ideas and inspiration for new experiments. It’s a testament to the quality of research happening in the community; there are thousands of posters, thousands of attendees, tons of talks – and the quality is just amazing.
The sheer quality of both the research and people – it’s impossible to not come away impressed by both.
Looking back at the past year – ASMS 2025 in particular – what stood out to you, thematically or technically?
On the technical side, I’ve been really impressed by the sophistication and integration of the experiments being performed over the past few years. One of the major themes is the concept of multimodal and multiomics-type approaches, which can provide increasingly detailed views of complex biological systems. This line of thinking really holds the potential to revolutionize research in molecular pathology and related fields. It’s something that’s been both fascinating and exciting to watch – and to participate in.
Another impressive technical focus has been on structural characterization. There’s been a surge of new tandem mass spectrometry and ion chemistry research that’s improving our ability to identify complex molecules. Furthermore, we’ve seen a lot of focus on resolving chemical isomers, and the degree of innovation and sophistication in how we characterize chemical structures has been remarkable. It’s an area I’m personally very interested in, so it’s been a lot of fun to follow.
Thematically, I was really drawn to the sense of collegiality and togetherness that seemed to pervade the conference atmosphere this year. There are a lot of challenges right now in the national climate around scientific funding, employment, and research in general. But there was a real feeling of togetherness at ASMS this year – a strong sense that the integrity and ground truth of scientific research will prevail. It was really heartwarming to see.
At times, running a research lab can be strangely isolating. Your job is to mentor trainees, secure funding, and manage a wide range of responsibilities; you're not necessarily interacting with your contemporaries every day. Engaging with colleagues at conferences not only stimulates new science, but also reaffirms your commitment that you really can make a positive impact in the world and to people’s lives.
Overall, I think our mass spectrometry community has done a great job of supporting one another, which is needed now more than ever – or at least, just as much as ever.
What would you say are the most pressing challenges currently facing the field?
I believe the most pressing current challenges facing our field – and science more broadly – aren’t necessarily technical. I do think there are some technical challenges, but even then, I wouldn’t call them "challenges;” rather, they speak more to how the field is evolving. Perhaps this is partially because we, as scientists, are so well-trained at dealing with technical issues. Most of us are probably pretty adept when it comes to replacing a circuit board or repairing an instrument; what we’re less comfortable with is lobbying a lawmaker or advocating for public policy.
I think the current trends of downsized scientific workforces, reduced federal funding, and the increasing politicization of science are undeniably concerning. Scientific policy and politics have always been intertwined – and they should be, to protect the public good and public investment. But what we’re seeing now is an increasing encroachment of politics onto basic scientific research itself – not just scientific policy. That kind of pressure will inevitably be detrimental to independent investigation.
I think science is at its most impactful when it’s interdisciplinary. When ideas are coming from a diverse group of people, with each bringing their own perspective and new approaches to solving problems – that’s when we’re strongest. Of course, science isn't perfect; nor is peer review, or scientists themselves. But transparency in publishing, availability of data – all of these things are meant to be self-correcting. Over time, old hypotheses are disproven and new ones are generated – it’s the cornerstone of how we work.
So when it comes to the most pressing challenges, it really remains to be seen how permanent some of these proposed changes to funding and job cuts will be – a lot of it depends on legislation, budget approvals, lawsuits, executive orders, and so on. But if the cuts are enacted, I do think they would have a catastrophic effect on health research, fundamental science, and especially on training the next generation of scientists. Furthermore, the US’s role as a global leader in science and technology would certainly be diminished.
On the positive side, though, science – and running a research lab in particular – is a challenging endeavor. As scientists, we’re comfortable with risk, and we’re not deterred by frequent failure because it’s a part of experimentation and progress. That tends to produce a pretty resilient type of person.
With this in mind, it’s my hope that we can rise to the challenge as a scientific community – that we use this moment as an opportunity to strengthen our collective voice and improve public understanding of why what we do matters. These aren’t technical problems, but I think they’re the biggest, most existential challenges facing science right now.
Are there particular application areas or sectors where you think MS is evolving in interesting or unexpected ways?
The increasing availability of multiomics approaches in biomedical research is really exciting. I think it's well poised to influence areas like personalized medicine and biomedical research in general. With regards to technical challenges, the biggest right now are probably in data integration. There are all these data streams coming from different types of experiments – some from mass spec technologies, some from others – and integrating them into a cohesive framework to push forward personalized medicine is unexpected, interesting, and challenging, all at once.
In terms of speed and innovation, I would say mass spec research is moving at an excellent pace. Innovation seems to be trending toward these exciting new applications and integrations with other mature technologies. There’s still a good amount of research on fundamental instrumentation and methods – you definitely still see that at ASMS – but the technology has matured to a point where it's more broadly accessible, even to practitioners who may not have deep expertise in mass spec. That’s really promising, as it broadens the influence of mass spectrometry into other fields, which has been exciting to watch.
What kinds of external influences – economic, regulatory, or otherwise – do you think are having the biggest impact on the field right now?
When answering this question, I try to put on my “scientist” hat rather than my “advocacy” hat.
From a technical perspective, the field of mass spec has matured tremendously over the past few decades, which has been incredible to witness and be a part of. This maturity has allowed researchers without fundamental training in mass spectrometry to access the technology, leading to exciting new discoveries in orthogonal fields like molecular biology, immunology and infectious diseases.
Instruments have become more sophisticated to enable these types of studies, but at the same time, they’ve also become more turnkey to facilitate ease of use by less experienced practitioners. I think that’s great, but it’s also a double-edged sword. It’s a bit like what we’re seeing with modern cars: as onboard computers become more complex, it’s become nearly impossible to work on your own vehicle. Similarly, the sophistication and integration of new mass spectrometers make instrumentation development or modification in your own lab increasingly challenging. There are fewer labs – or at least a smaller fraction of labs – working on instrumentation projects than there were, say, 20 years ago. On some level, that's to be expected as the technology matures – and it's great to see mass spec spreading into other areas – but I think it's still important to maintain access to the technology at a fundamental level, so we can continue to enable new innovations.
From an instrumentation perspective, we certainly don’t have all the tools that we’ll ever need. With that in mind, it remains important that we continue to push technological boundaries.
Looking towards the future, what do you think needs to happen (or change) to enable more meaningful progress in mass spectrometry?
I’m a big believer in fundamental training. When graduate students join my group, I tell them: “We’re a mass spectrometry group, so when you leave, you’re going to be an expert in the technology.” On some level, we want to ensure that – despite all these really exciting applications and the increasing sophistication of the technology – we’re still training experts in the fundamental science of mass spectrometry.
I think that the more thoroughly and fundamentally you understand a piece of technology, the more creative you can be in exploiting it – the more creative you can be in designing new experiments and pushing into new areas. If you understand things at a really basic level, you can do more with them.
What is your outlook on the future of the field?
It’s hard to pin down a precise forecast for the field over the next 10 or 20 years because mass spec is so diverse, but overall I think the forecast is really bright. There are so many varied and promising areas of research happening right now. Each leader in the field has their own perspective: some speak about having a mini mass spec in every home, or a mass spec in the clinic doing real-time personalized medicine; others might talk about sending spectrometers to Mars, and the Moon. You have all these really exciting applications, and I think it’s all on the table – which is part of what makes the field so exciting.
Boone Prentice is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Florida
Newsletters
Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
