This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships. You can also search for fellowship opportunities in the GSA Policy Fellowship Database.

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships (STPF) give scientists and engineers the opportunity to apply their knowledge and analytical skills to the policymaking process.

These US-based fellowships are predominantly located within the Executive Branch of the federal government, such as the National Science Foundation. However, there are over 30 opportunities in the Legislative Branch and one in the Judicial Branch. Fellowships last one year, though some Executive Branch agencies can opt to extend their Fellows’ terms for an additional year.

I spoke with Reba Bandyopadhyay, PhD, who was a Legislative Branch Fellow in the office of Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), sponsored by the American Physical Society*, from 2014–2015. To broaden her training, she also completed a AAAS Executive Branch Fellowship from 2015–2017.

For information on Executive Branch Fellowships see our previous interview.

What is your current position?

I’m a science policy analyst at the National Science Foundation in the office of the National Science Board, which is the governing body for the Foundation. This is also where I did my AAAS Executive Branch Fellowship. My job includes drafting and presenting policy products and communications and handling legislative affairs for the board. I keep track of what Congress is doing, assist Board members when they talk to Members of Congress about science and technology issues, and give technical assistance on legislation if requested.  

What were your favorite aspects of the two fellowships?

The Congressional Fellowship is very fast paced, so if you like a fast-paced environment and you’re good at moving quickly, you’ll enjoy it. The Executive Branch Fellowships are slower paced because it takes things longer to develop.

One of my favorite things about the fellowships is feeling like you’re actually making an impact on something, even though you won’t immediately feel like that. You figure out what you’re doing first, and then you realize, “Oh, actually this is a good fit”. I enjoyed meeting really great people. Both of the offices I’ve been in have been extremely functional, good teams with good rapport, where people trust each other. That environment allowed me to be more independent and take on more responsibilities.

Can you describe the most common duties of a Congressional Fellow?

There are no typical days as a Congressional Fellow, though functionally we are policy staff for our Member of Congress. A common responsibility of policy staff is meeting with individual constituents, interest groups, lobbyists, unions, and organizations like teachers’ federations. These visitors usually come in to talk about a particular upcoming bill. Another frequent task is doing background research for upcoming legislation to help our Member decide what position to take.  

Do you ever directly contribute to legislation that comes from your Member’s office?

Yes. Sometimes we come up with suggested ideas for legislation or policy objectives for the Member. We help develop plans for carrying out the policy goals of our Member— so when they tell their staff, “I want to do X,” we figure out how to accomplish that and what the constraints are.

Do the legislative constraints ever require any political strategizing about how best to go about passing bills?

Yes, it does. Part of the policy staff’s job is finding co-sponsors to a piece of legislation or amendment. There’s a lot of alliance-building involved. Sometimes there are also political directives from the leadership of the party, such as working to support a particular person because that Member’s going to be up for election in the following year. You also help build partnerships across the aisle, which requires finding where the mutual interest lies. For instance, Senator Schatz’s office has worked productively with Republican offices on health care issues, like expanding access for rural communities.

Other than advising and strategizing on legislation, what else do Fellows do?

There are lots of public briefings on the Hill, which Fellows and other staffers attend. These briefings are where experts from fields related to upcoming legislation or active policy discussions give their professional analysis to inform congressional staff about issues relating to that legislation or policy. Also, Members will sometimes ask their staff a specific policy question. Our job is to find out the answer, and then brief them in staff or personal meetings about our findings. We may also brief the Member about content ahead of hearings, write questions for them to ask, and attend hearings with them. We’re some of the people you see on TV sitting behind them, alongside their professional legislative staff.

What did you learn about the process of making and implementing policy, especially the interaction between Congress and agencies, or interagency interactions?

There’s a back-and-forth between the Legislative and Executive Branches in policy-making. A Member of Congress will decide to write a bill and can ask the Executive agency charged with dealing with that piece of legislation to provide feedback. Agencies may not love everything that’s in every bill, but they provide the technical information for Members of Congress to help ensure the legislation would be feasible to implement. There’s also work between different Executive agencies on issues that fall under the purview of more than one agency. One example of that is STEM education, where the different science agencies get together and talk about their programs, share best practices, and look for opportunities to coordinate or collaborate.

Were your activities driven more by your interests, by current scientific trends, or issues already being considered by the legislature?

There can be a relationship between your research expertise and what you’re assigned to help with in the office. I was a black hole observational astronomer, so it’s tricky to find which population would most benefit from having my expertise. I’ve spent a lot of time in Hawaii because that’s where many of our telescopes are, so that background helped make me a good fit for Senator Schatz’s office. While your interests do factor into your placement to some extent, you can’t come in asking to work on a specific issue. It’s helpful to have examples of issues that are of interest to you, but it’s not good to expect to definitely work on one thing. Any given member only has so much control over the agenda in the first place.

What professional skills do you need to succeed as a fellow?

To be successful as a fellow, you need really good communication skills. That includes written, not just verbal, communication, people skills, and good teamwork. You have to check your ego at the door—that’s a big one. Another useful professional skill is being a generalist, meaning having a wide range of interests and being widely read, and not being laser-focused on one problem. It’s helpful if you’re adaptable.  

What’s something that scientists working in policy struggle with?

One thing that’s hard for scientists is that we always look for more data, and we’re never completely sure about a conclusion, so we don’t necessarily want to take a stance on an issue right away. But in policy you can’t always hedge. You have to be ready to use the available information to make a recommendation, and sometimes the available information is what you were able to get in the last three hours.

What advice would you give to prospective applicants?

Experience comes in a variety of forms, and it doesn’t have to be policy experience specifically. Applicants should show how they work in a collaborative environment and that they can understand and navigate through different competing issues or desires or strong opinions. Talking about mentorship experience, like teaching undergrads in a lab, or public outreach, is also a good option. Also, even if applicants don’t have direct policy experience, it’s good to demonstrate that they’re keeping abreast of policy news and they’re aware of how scientists can contribute to policy work

*Fellowships sponsored by partner scientific societies such as the APS may have different eligibility requirements and deadlines than the regular AAAS S&TPF. The APS-sponsored Congressional Fellowship application is due on January 15th, 2019. AAAS S&TPF applications close each year in November. For further guidance on how to apply, read our recently published article with tips from former AAAS fellows on the application process.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of Dr. Bandyopadhyay and do not reflect an endorsement or contribution by Senator Schatz, the National Science Board, NSF, or any other organization.

About the author:

Jo Bairzin received her PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley in 2018, where her graduate research focused on the genetics of cancer and development in fruit flies. She is a member of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee of the Genetics Society of America, which aims to help scientists access policy careers and engage with policymakers. She is also passionate about improving graduate training to better reflect the current STEM career landscape.

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships.

Rebecca Osthus

The Early Career Advocacy Fellowship (ECAF) is a two-year program to engage early career scientists (ECS) in advocacy activities while they continue their academic work. All members of the American Physiological Society who live in the US and are within 10 years of receiving a PhD are eligible to apply. The application deadline for this cycle is November 16.

Rebecca Osthus, PhD, is the Associate Director for Government Relations and Science Policy at the American Physiological Society. Rebecca oversees the fellowship program and told us about what the fellowship offers.

What does the Early Career Advocacy Fellowship involve?

The fellowship is a two-year term that fellows undertake while they continue their lab work, postdoctoral fellowship, or faculty position. Fellows work with the Society’s Science Policy Committee (SPC) members to develop their advocacy skills. For fellows who attend the Experimental Biology meeting, there is an orientation session where incoming fellows can interact with fellows from the previous year along with SPC members and APS staff. We go over basic advocacy information, but the process is mainly about having a conversation and giving fellows a chance to ask questions before they go to Capitol Hill. Fellows join the SPC and attend the annual meeting in the DC area, during which we ask them to schedule meetings with their members of Congress. We go with them, which allows them to have meetings with someone else in the room —helping them get over the initial hump that might seem daunting. They can be involved in the SPC as much as they wish, but they can also continue on their research path. In their own time, fellows also work on a policy or advocacy-related project of their choosing, with support from a member of staff or the SPC.

What kind of topics does the SPC work on?

Some of the issues the SPC is currently working on include looking at how peer review is done at the National Institutes of Health—whether this process is progressing smoothly or whether there are topics that the community wants to comment upon. Another topic is how to increase advocacy efforts for the National Science Foundation. We look at agency funding policies, specifically the policies that apply to researchers who secure funding. For example, NIH is changing the way they classify clinical trials so that research with human subjects will be classified as a clinical trial, which comes with a host of new regulations. We take a look at policies to give input on how to make them work well for basic researchers.

What kind of projects have fellows worked on over the years?

We purposefully keep the requirements for the project very informal so that fellows can follow their interests. Fellows have done a wide range of things, for example, written an article for the APS newsletter on a policy issue or given a seminar on advocacy at their home institution to share their skills and get more people involved. One person even came to DC and participated in an advocacy event for NSF to showcase her research and demonstrate to members of Congress and NSF leadership what kind of projects get funded and why their research is compelling.

What have previous fellows gone on to do?

Several have continued in their academic career and some have stayed in academia but added extra administrative responsibilities, such as tech transfer. Two fellows joined the SPC as regular members because they wanted to continue their advocacy activities. Others have left academia: one person became an AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow; one person joined a patent law firm, and we even have one fellow who joined the astronaut corps at NASA!

Why did APS decide to fund these fellowships?

Prior to establishing this fellowship, we engaged some of our members in advocacy through our two policy committees—one on funding policies and one on the humane use of animals for research—both committees engaged their members, but that was a limited pool of people. We had people come to us asking us for advocacy opportunities, but we had no formal mechanism in place. We decided to launch the Early Career Advocacy Fellowship for ECS to develop their skills and take those forward, hopefully through sharing their experiences with their institution and their future trainees. The fellowship is a way for our members to be involved in advocacy and for us to develop a larger pool of scientists who have the skillset to be involved in advocacy as part of their professional service.

What do you look for in ECAF applications?

The biggest thing that we look for is a clearly articulated interest in advocacy—have the applicants thought about what advocacy means and what issues they are interested in? The application letters are reviewed by members of the SPC, and they look for ideas of how prospective fellows will use these skills in their future careers. If somebody can articulate their interests, it speaks to their communication skills and their ability to communicate their thoughts to non-scientists. Most members of Congress and their staff don’t have that background and so we need fellows to be able to adjust and explain their research and its importance so that somebody else can understand it, even if they don’t have that same technical background.

What do you hope fellows will take away from the program?

One of the biggest things we hope they take away is that it isn’t as daunting as it might seem! It isn’t as scary as people think to call a member of Congress and arrange a meeting. Fellows will go through the experience with support from SPC and the APS staff, who will demystify the whole process. We also hope that fellows share their experience with others so that we can develop even more scientists with advocacy skills!

About the author:

Giovanna Collu is co-chair of the Early Career Scientist Policy Committee and a postdoctoral fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Giovanna’s goal is to increase advocacy opportunities for early career scientists with a focus on diversity and inclusion.  

Guest post by Giovanna Collu

Are you interested in applying for the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships (S&TPF)? Applications are now open and to help you prepare we have compiled some tips we learned from current and former fellows Cara Weismann, Maryam Zaringhalam, and Avital Percher. To learn more about the fellowship experience, read our previous interview with a fellow.

Written application (deadline November 1)

The initial application materials consist of a CV (5 pages maximum), a brief description of your extracurricular activities (500 words), and a candidate statement (1000 words) about your career goals and qualifications for the fellowship. You will also need three references. Applications are evaluated using these criteria.

The candidate statement is a unique opportunity to highlight the reasons why you want to apply and the qualifications that make you particularly well-suited for success. This is the place to include your policy areas of interest and how you might be able to apply your expertise—whether you gained it at the bench or outside the lab—to make meaningful contributions to the scientific enterprise. It’s important to also include details about your career goals and how the fellowship will help you achieve them. Here are a few tips to guide your writing:

• The application statement requires a unique style of writing; it is very different to writing as a scientist. You must be tactful, the author of policies you are critiquing might be one of the reviewers!
• Get feedback from a former fellow; you can find a list of former fellows here.
• Be deliberate about the kinds of evidence you put forward to demonstrate your policy interest and expertise.
• Be consistent with your messaging and have a common narrative across all your application materials.
• Highlight any public communication experience you may have, including items you’ve written for general audiences, mentorship and outreach projects, and speaking to the public.
• Explain how your journey is unique and include details that will make you stand out —consider using the narrative arc of where you are now, what got you there, and where you see yourself going.
• Be clear about you would get out of the experience and what you can contribute to the community. Don’t explain why the fellowship is a great opportunity (they know this already!), rather explain what makes you the right match.
• To make sure references are consistent with your message, share your application materials with your referees and give them examples of times you accomplished specific goals or worked in specific areas.
• Above all else, make it easy for application reviewers to see your potential!

Semi-final interviews online (February–March)

If you successfully pass the first round, you will be invited to write a one-page briefing on one of the designated science topics. You are asked to pick a topic unrelated to your field of expertise. Previous examples have included lethal autonomous weapons, Zika virus, and the Flint water crisis. You will be writing for a specific agency or person, for example, the Director of the National Institutes of Health testifying to Congress. Here are some tips to consider:

• Find out what has been in the news on your topic and whether current affairs impact the content of your briefing.
• Look for historical precedents on similar issues and try to apply lessons from them.
• Give alternatives; outline which other agencies could complement the agency for which you are writing and what is happening in the field.
• Know your audience. Understand that you must keep the current administration’s priorities in mind as you write recommendations.
• Overall, consider what information you would want in that situation to feel prepared.

You can also find examples of how to write a policy briefing here and here, as well as a list of things to bear in mind as a scientist writing to policy makers

The deadline for your briefing memo will be 7–10 days before the online interview. You will present the briefing to an evaluation panel as part of the 30-minute interview. The panel is comprised of 6–8 people, including policy experts, as well as people from the fellowship program. You will have five minutes to deliver your briefing to the panel, followed by five minutes of questions. During the presentation, you are expected to be able to deliver the briefing without reading directly from notes. You cannot use any visual aids, such as PowerPoint, and there will be a countdown timer displayed on the screen, so you will not be able to see the audience as you present. There are then 20 minutes of questions and discussion of your application materials. Some tips include:

• If the situation has changed in the intervening time include updates in your briefing.
• Practice delivering your briefing beforehand.
• Role play ‘typical’ interview questions ahead of time, such as who has influenced you and why or describing a challenge you’ve faced and how you overcame it.
• Refer to your application materials to make sure your practiced answers are consistent with what you have already provided.
• Reinforce that you will bring something unique to the process and get something unique in return that will then shape your future.

Finalist Interviews – on site in DC (April)

For executive branch fellowships, in-person interviews take place over one week in April in Washington, DC. You will learn how to navigate DC and the surrounding sites such as the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, and the National Science Foundation in Arlington, VA. You will have anywhere from 5–20 interviews at different host agencies during the week, and you will receive the schedule the previous week. The matching process depends on which agencies are interested in you, and which agencies you are interested in. Reviewers from the agencies have to look through hundreds of applications, so having a focused and consistent message in your initial application materials will make it easier for everyone at this stage. You may also be asked to send an additional writing sample to certain agencies about why you want to apply there and why you would be a good fit. Don’t be concerned if you are given only a small number of interviews on day one—you will also have the opportunity to schedule your own. Some other things to consider:

• Using key words in your written application becomes helpful at this stage. For instance, if you are interested in the National Human Genome Research Institute, ‘genetics’ and ‘genomics’ should feature in your written material. If you want to explore areas such as science diplomacy, make sure you include those key words and that you are open to international travel.
• Figure out what is important to you and mention your aspirations in each interview.
• Bring up policy issues that you are interested in working on.
• Find out what that particular office does specifically in the agency, so that you can ask informed questions.
• Make sure to check that the office knows a portion of your time is to be directed towards career development.
• Red flags are red flags—do not ignore issues that come up in interviews that make you question whether you would enjoy working in that particular office.
• Don’t overshoot with the number of interviews—if you arrange too many, you risk entering a meeting fatigued and distracted.
• Keep an open mind. If you so choose, the fellowship is an incredible opportunity to work in an office and on a portfolio that may seem totally outside the realm of your expertise.

The application site can be found here. Many of these tips also apply generally to other science policy fellowships; if you would like to look for other opportunities, check out our fellowship database. Good luck!

About the Author:

Giovanna Collu is co-chair of the Early Career Scientist Policy Committee and a postdoctoral fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Giovanna’s goal is to increase advocacy opportunities for early career scientists with a focus on diversity and inclusion.

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships.

Research!America sponsors a 3–6-month science policy fellowship for those with a PhD or other terminal degree. The Research!America alliance is made up of over 400 science organizations: from research institutions like Johns Hopkins to scientific societies like GSA to drug development companies like Merck & Co, Inc.

Sara Chang

Based in Crystal City, Va, this fellowship focuses on biomedical and health services research, while giving fellows the opportunity to monitor policy issues, partake in self-directed projects related to science policy, and gain first-hand experience in policy-making by attending briefings on Capitol Hill.

I spoke with Sara Chang, who is the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Research!America, about her experience as a Program Officer for this fellowship. Sara previously worked for the Lupus Foundation of America as the Director of Advocacy and Government Relations as well as a Legislative Correspondent for Representative Tom Osborne.

Q: What does the application evaluation process entail?

We receive over 40 applications each cycle, and we only take one fellow at a time. We ask the applicants to submit a resume, a cover letter, and a writing sample. We don’t expect applicants to have extensive policy experience already; instead, we are looking for people with an in-depth passion and experience with science and research that they can convey to others in the policy space. We prefer writing samples aimed at the general public on science or policy, rather than in-depth scientific pieces in order to get a holistic view of the applicant.

The most important part of the application is the cover letter – we really want to get a sense of the applicant. Over the years, I’ve become intrigued by all the different reasons that lead scientists who have mostly trained at the bench to come and learn more about advocacy. We look at their interests and aim to understand why they want to become an advocate. A passion for advocacy and learning are the most valuable qualities in a fellow.

Q: How long do the fellowships last?

Some fellows are with us for three months and others closer to six. It really depends on the mutual needs of the organization and a fellow’s individual needs. They initially sign a three-month contract and then depending on what they garner from this time, we can discuss extending their contract. One of our goals is to help fellows go on to the next stage of their career.

Q:  What kinds of topics do the fellows work on?

We aim to offer a broad experience for the fellows all while working toward our mission to elevate the priority of medical and health research. Fellows track relevant policy issues, including budget and appropriations legislation. Often, we are going to Capitol Hill to hold meetings to share the value of scientific research and of young investigators’ contributions with policy makers. If Congress is working on something of particular relevance, such as the Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriations for example, then we will work on background materials for the various Congressional meetings.

We also take a deep dive into what’s happening in the science policy landscape to address areas not currently being covered on Capitol Hill. This allows us to provide important information to our membership, for example, our factsheets that showcase the benefits of research by state. We have specific issue factsheets that can be used broadly outside of Capitol Hill and on social media to highlight the value of innovation and how research can save lives and money.

Q: Do fellows have an opportunity to advocate for something they’re passionate about?

The topics generally follow the current policy landscape as well as Research!America’s current needs, but we do allow our fellows and interns to look deeper into topics of interest to them. A recent fellow was interested in public health and helped with our Public Health Thank You Day campaign. During the month-long campaign, she had the opportunity to interview many prominent public health professionals  This is an example of how the fellowship is mutually beneficial — allowing Research!America to learn from the fellow’s skills as well as for Research!America to teach about policy and advocacy.

Q: What are the features of this opportunity that prepare fellows to transition into policy?

This fellowship gives researchers access to relevant policy experience both on and off Capitol Hill. The experience of attending meetings with agency officials, as well as briefings with health and patient advocacy organizations, is valuable. Fellows are given the responsibility of representing Research!America in specific meetings on the Hill, so that they gain practical experience of meeting dynamics. Fellows also learn a different kind of research in finding the data for the factsheets and writing pieces for newsletters and our website. Each fellow has their own project, such as addressing how we could build a stronger grassroots advocacy network. From their projects, the fellows develop a set of deliverables that they can use to apply for their next position. The fellowship gives each participant an understanding of the particular kind of advocacy they want to focus on.

Q: What do fellows do afterward?

One of our goals is to ensure that our fellows are able to choose their own career path. We hope that they learn enough from this experience that they can determine whether they want to either go back to science or continue to pursue their career in policy. We’ve had some fellows who have gone to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because they really found a passion for public health. Others have gone to Capitol Hill, patient advocacy organizations, or scientific societies. We’ve had one go to NIH to go back to research and advocacy. We’ve even had the opportunity to hire some of our previous fellows!  

Q: Is there much interaction between previous and current fellows?

Since we are only are able to have one fellow at a time, most of our previous fellows, whether they’re with us or somewhere else, are willing to reach out to the current fellow to act as a resource. They often catch up over coffee or a phone call. Previous fellows also make available to the incoming fellow the toolkits that they’ve developed as well as their independent projects.

To learn about a previous Research!America fellow’s experience, read our interview with Daniel Pham.

About the author:

Thomas Clements received his PhD at Rice University in 2018 and is currently a Lecturer in the Biological Sciences Department at Vanderbilt University having started in Fall 2018. He is also a member of the Early Career Scientist Policy and the Education Committee at the Genetics Society of America. His research centers on improving CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in zebrafish, but he is also passionate about science literacy and inspiring the next generation of scientists to pursue careers that align with their passions.

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships.

The Science & Technology Policy Fellows Program of the California Council on Science & Technology (CCST) places ten PhD-level scientists in the California legislature for one-year appointments. Fellows work hands-on with policymakers addressing complex scientific and technical issues as well as assuming other responsibilities of full-time legislative staffers. By embedding scientists directly in the California state legislature, the CCST Fellows Program helps inform policy discussions with scientific perspectives and expertise.

To get more insight on the fellowship, I interviewed Bish Paul, PhD, about how the fellowship impacted his career. Bish received his degree in Molecular and Cellular Biology from the University of Washington in 2016, and participated in the CCST Science Fellows Program in 2017. Bish currently serves as the State Policy Manager for TechNet, where he coordinates their 50-state advocacy program.

Q: How did this fellowship help you transition into your current career?

This fellowship was critical for obtaining my current position. Prior to the fellowship, I had no policy experience beyond groups I volunteered with as a graduate student. And I didn’t really understand how the process of crafting and implementing legislation really worked. The experience taught me how to write policy briefs and analyses and gave me a hands-on understanding of the legislative process.

Q: What is unique about the CCST Fellows program?

Something that really stands out about the CCST Science Fellows program is their intensive boot camp model of training before you start your stint in the legislature. When you first arrive in Sacramento, every fellow participates in a 30-day training that lasts all day, five days a week, with homework assignments and reading every day. We are taught how to read bills, analyze issues, network, meet with stakeholders and legislators, and write and talk policy. We also participated in mock interviews, mock legislative receptions, and most importantly, mock policy committee hearings to prepare us for our appointments. In addition, the fellows meet every Friday in the CCST office for additional informational briefing and career development.

Q: Can you describe a typical day as a fellow?

Every day I would spend 15–20 minutes checking in with my advisor, the Chief Policy Consultant in the offices of Assembly members Marc Berman and Evan Low. They would give me guidance on relevant legislation and help me to identify whether I was exploring the right path. I would spend about 4–5 hours researching the pros and cons of a piece of legislation or policy that I was assigned. Finally, about 3–4 hours of my day was spent in meetings with staff or stakeholders to collect information relevant to the proposed legislation or persuade people in one direction or another about the legislation. Like graduate school, you go home when your job is done, and often times you work late or on weekends since you want to research an issue more thoroughly and a policy deadline is looming.

Q: How independent were you allowed to be?

The amount of independence you have is determined by which advisor you are paired with. I was fortunate to be assigned to an advisor who gave me a lot of autonomy. We are assigned an advisor through a matching procedure at the end of the boot camp in November. In my year, each of the fellows interviewed with 15 legislative offices and each office, as well as each fellow, ranked who they would like to work with. At the end of the boot camp and interviews, there is a match day, where each fellow is matched with a legislator to serve as their advisor.

Q: How did your expectations about the fellowship differ from your actual experience?

I expected to not be heard, and that policymakers might not be open to scientists weighing in. But in reality, the legislators do want to hear evidence-based ideas. I thought I would only work on maybe one or two pieces of legislation during my time, but I officially analyzed 16 pieces of legislation over just seven months and was the primary staff for five different bills, taking them through the legislative process across the two houses and various policy committees (two became laws). For example, I worked on a bill, which has since passed, to move the California presidential primary elections from June to March, to increase prominence and attract more engagement from candidates.  If you demonstrate that you are capable, people give you more work, which can be great if what you want out of the fellowship is a broad understanding of the process and lots of experience in a short amount of time.

Q: What advice do you have for potential applicants?

Talk to prior fellows before you apply to make sure it is a good fit for you. Don’t treat the application like a postdoc application where a lot of emphasis is on your publication record. The personal statement and interview are a huge part of getting offered a fellowship, so make sure that you demonstrate what motivates you, as well as prior experience in leadership, organizing, and science communication. Focus on your story in the application. Why do you want to do this? Give concrete examples of your initiative. Can you communicate complicated technical information clearly? Show examples of political engagement, even if it is just at the local or university level. They are especially interested in examples of program creation that show leadership potential.

You can learn more about outcomes of the fellowship from articles that highlight metrics associated with nine fellow cohorts and emphasize the importance of scientific involvement in the political decision-making process. More than half of CCST fellows were hired directly into state legislative or executive branch positions in California within one year of completing the fellowship.

http://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/1952

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/9.full

About the Author.

Laura Taylor received her PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology from the University of Washington in 2018 and will be teaching high school biology and chemistry this upcoming Fall. She is a member of the Early Career Scientist Policy and the Education Committee with the Genetics Society of America. Her graduate research focused on understanding what early molecular changes contribute to neurodegenerative disease progression.

[wysija_form id=”1″]

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships.

Research!America sponsors a 3– 6-month science policy fellowship for recent PhD graduates. The Research!America alliance is made up of over 400 science organizations: from research institutions like Johns Hopkins to scientific societies like GSA to drug development companies like Merck. Based in Crystal City, Va, this fellowship focuses on biomedical and health services research, while giving fellows the opportunity to monitor policy issues, partake in self-directed projects related to science policy, and gain first-hand experience in policy-making by attending briefings on Capitol Hill.

Daniel Pham

I sat down with Daniel Pham, PhD, who was a fellow with Research!America. Daniel received his PhD from Johns Hopkins University and now works as the Public Affairs Manager for the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB).

Q: What drove you to pursue this fellowship?

It began with my passion for science communication. When I was a grad student, I tried to explain my research to my partner, who was an artist. After three hours of trying to explain what a neuron was to him, it left me feeling like I was bad at science communication. Through speaking with friends in my program, we realized this was a prevalent problem, and so we decided to start an organization called Project Bridge. This is an outreach group that connects scientists to the community around Baltimore through science cafés and demos at the farmers market. These experiences really drove my passion to communicate science and its importance not just with the public but also with policymakers.

Several staff members from Research!America came to Johns Hopkins to give a presentation on science advocacy, and we ended up creating a joint event with Project Bridge. This allowed me to develop a relationship with them before applying for the fellowship. I knew that if I wanted a career in science policy I needed more training, which is why the Science Policy Fellowship at Research!America seemed like the perfect opportunity.

Q: What was a typical day like as a fellow at Research!America?

A lot of it was spent learning what it meant to do science advocacy and science policy. During the fellowship, we spent a lot of time representing Research!America at events, briefings, and conferences. Beyond that, I helped research fact sheets that Research!America distributes to its members. These fact sheets show how research impacts society and improves health—they have to be updated annually.

This fellowship introduced me to some of the players in science advocacy, such as ASBMB, SfN, ACS, science research universities, and patient advocacy groups like the Lupus Foundation of America. It taught me about the techniques and tools that are used by advocates and policy professionals, including Hill briefings, member fact sheets, and meetings with congressional offices. It also gave me a good understanding of which are the important relationships we need to develop to make a difference, for example with lawmakers sitting on oversight and appropriations committees, governors and legislators acting at the state level, as well as university leadership and the federal agencies themselves.

Q: Was your work driven mostly by your own interests or by scientific trends and pressing legislation?

The work is mostly driven by current events. When I was a fellow, the science community was trying to address the opioid crisis. I attended many meetings and ended up developing that as part of my portfolio; I became the ‘opioid czar’. For the first time, I could truly see the whole spectrum of what it takes to do research, treat patients, and then make policy to influence treatment. That was a big learning experience for me because my PhD work was centered more on basic science research, and it was really interesting to shift gears to learn about improving health at the national level.

Q: How did your expectations differ from your actual experience at Research!America?

I didn’t expect it to be so fast paced! Many people I had met before coming in said that policy is really slow and you can shepherd a bill for a year, and even then nothing is guaranteed to happen. But when I was a fellow, it seemed like there were things happening all the time. I did not expect to learn so much right away!

Q: How do you recommend preparing for policy fellowships?

One thing I highly recommend to people who are interested in doing science policy is to find avenues to practice even as a graduate student, because it’s hard to grasp without any experience. There are multiple ways of doing that, such as reaching out to the government relations office at your institution or creating your own advocacy activities. Make phone calls, send emails, ask questions, and even just go on Twitter. Now is the time to start making and building connections!

About the author:

Thomas Clements received his PhD at Rice University in 2018 and will be transitioning to a career as a Lecturer in the Biological Sciences Department at Vanderbilt University starting in Fall 2018. He is also a member of the Early Career Scientist Policy and the Education Committee at the Genetics Society of America. His research centers on improving CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in zebrafish, and he is also passionate about science literacy and inspiring the next generation of scientists to pursue careers that align with their interests.

[wysija_form id=”1″]

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships.

Tara Borland

The Alaska Sea Grant State Fellowship Program is an opportunity for recent graduate students to spend a year working at a state or federal agency in Alaska on projects at the intersection of marine science and policy. Fellows are matched with agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) or the United States Geological Survey (USGS), where they pursue impactful projects ranging from drafting fisheries regulations to monitoring beluga whales.

I spoke with Tara Borland, Program Manager of Alaska Sea Grant, about the application and selection process and the types of projects that fellows take on.

What makes for a successful application?

We’re mostly looking for people who either have strong backgrounds in policy or marine science. It’s nice to have a wide pool of backgrounds to draw from. We gravitate towards folks who are interested in multiple options for their career and are open to any of the positions that we have available. The fellow might end up in Juneau, Anchorage, or Fairbanks, so we like to see that potential candidates are willing to live in any of these locations. We’re looking for strong candidates who’ve done well in school, who have a good work record, good references, and in their personal statement show some passion for being a part of this fellowship.

Q: How many applications are received each year?

This year, we had 25 applications—that’s our largest pool ever. We interviewed ten candidates and out of those, we had six finalists. Each potential candidate tells us which agencies they rate the highest. Using their ranking and background, we decide where they’re going to interview. We like to have each agency interview multiple candidates and each candidate interview at multiple agencies. After all the interviews are done, the fellows reevaluate their rankings. Nine times out of ten, they change, because candidates get a better feel for what each position offers. We also have the agencies rank the candidates that they met. From those two ranking systems, we find the best possible matches and then start offering the fellowships to candidates.

Q: Do you provide financial support for fellows to relocate?

It’s mostly their responsibility. Alaska Sea Grant provides some fellowship funds, but most of it comes from the agency in which the fellow is placed. In each budget, there’s $3,000 for travel. It’s up to the agency whether they’re going to need all of that money for the fellow to travel to different locations or whether they can use some of it to relocate.

Q: How many of the applicants already live in Alaska?

When we first started the fellowship program, it was only open to Alaskan students and residents. In our third year, we decided to open it up to other students throughout the country because we wanted to broaden our candidate pool. Of our current fellows, three of them are from out of state.

Q: What are some projects that fellows have taken on?

This is a marine policy fellowship, so it’s a blend between marine science and policy. A lot of the positions involve quite a bit of both because the science will drive the policy in the end. We have fellows every year that are in NOAA positions. This year we also have fellows with Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), the North Pacific Research Board, the Alaska Ocean Observing System, and the USGS. Our current AFSC fellow is doing a genetics project on juvenile chum, as well as an Arctic ecosystem monitoring project. Her first week on her fellowship, she went out on a research vessel to collect samples. Another fellow is working with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor in the climate adaptation group. A fellow with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is reading through fisheries regulations and guidelines and helping write new regulations. Another fellow is working with volunteers on a beluga whale monitoring project.

Q: How does this fellowship prepare fellows to transition into policy careers?

One of the great things our fellowships offer is the networking and the connections that fellows can make. They’re going to meetings, working with professionals, and being interviewed by the media. It’s not an entry-level job or an internship where they’re just doing busy work. They’re actually working on meaningful projects, and they’re treated as professionals. They get to be a part of the team.

We also require a professional development plan from each fellow. It’s something that they create with the agency when they start. They update it after six months and then at the end. It has their personal goals, career goals, what the agency’s goals were for this fellowship, and then shows how they progress, how those goals have changed, and what goals they’ve met. We found that a lot of our fellows are recruited directly out of this fellowship either into the same agency or into a different job working on a similar project.

Q: How do alumni interact with current fellows?

We do monthly or bimonthly teleconference calls with the cohort of fellows around the state and we talk about what everybody has been up to and any questions they might have. I have had previous fellows join us on some of those calls. The new fellows coming in can talk to some of the ones finishing up. They meet up with each other, and because they’re connected with similar agencies, they also bump into each other when they’re at meetings.

Q: What are some of the alumni doing now?

One of the fellows was with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council and is now working with the Bristol Bay Native Corporation on fisheries quotas. One had a NOAA fellowship and now is managing fisheries with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Another was working with the national parks and has remained with them as an employee. One of our current fellows is working with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and they are trying to hire her immediately. This is all about providing opportunity and bringing great folks to Alaska and retaining them to work here.

About the author:

Emily Lescak is co-chair of the Early Career Scientist Policy Committee and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Her goal is to increase diversity and inclusion in the sciences while pursuing a career focused on science education and outreach.

The Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship Program has provided fellows with a 12-week immersive science policy experience for 20 years. Based within the National Academies in Washington DC, Mirzayan alumni are now found throughout the science policy realm in the United States and abroad.

We spoke to Ben Krinsky, PhD, a 2015 Mirzayan alum, about his experiences as a fellow and how they helped him in his current position at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology(FASEB), of which GSA is a member society.

Q: What is your title and role at FASEB?

I am the Senior Legislative Affairs Officer. One of my primary responsibilities is to be an advocate for basic research and biomedical science, which means trying to persuade Congress to increase funding for basic life sciences research. I am a registered lobbyist, although week-to-week I don’t spend a huge amount of time directly lobbying lawmakers. Most of my time is spent on background work coming up with talking points, gathering information and developing arguments in favor of science funding. As an organization, FASEB is very focused on the NIH, although my efforts focus other parts of the federal government such as the NSF, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Energy Office of Science.

Q: How do you feel the Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology fellowship opportunity differed from other programs?

Unlike the many year-long fellowships, it only lasts three months, and so it is, in essence, a crash course in science policy. Another major difference is that fellows specifically work at The National Academies, which provide the government with scientific advice and expertise. The National Academies were chartered as an independent organization but have very close ties to federal agencies and Congress, So, while the Academies resemble think-tanks, they have a unique and long-standing role in Washington.

Q: What was a typical day like as a Mirzayan fellow?

As a fellow, you’re paired with a mentor who is a staff member for one of the Academies’ boards or committees. While you work on the Academies’ ongoing projects fulltime, the fellowship program organizes a series of its own activities. For example, roughly once a week, all the fellows would get together to hear a speaker from an outside organization, or participate in journal clubs about science policy issues. The day-to-day experience is specified more by ongoing projects, but that being said, I was given a fair amount of leeway to explore aspects of my project that were of interest to me. In addition, fellows are encouraged to explore Washington as much as possible. There is flexibility to leavethe office and attend events such as congressional committee hearings, professional networking functions or informational interviews with people in Washington. That is especially important if you’re looking to stay in DC after the fellowship.

Q: How did you interact with stakeholders as a Mirzayan fellow?

The Academies brings in outside experts to serve on boards and committees to produce recommendations in particular policy areas. They also bring people together for workshops and other activities. As a Mirzayan fellow, I interacted with both academic and industry members of the Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy. I also interacted with people who had been brought in specifically to work on a report about postdoctoral fellows. Through my mentor’s professional network, I also met with people who worked for non-government or non-profit organizations. It was through networking events that I met someone at FASEB, which was how I obtained my current position.

Q: How did your expectations compare to your actual experience?

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. Though it was very different from what I was doing as a grad student, it turns out that what we say about transferable skills is true. You can bring a lot of the experience and knowledge you gain in grad school and apply it in different contexts. I had an amazing and gratifying experience. I think the Mirzayan fellowship gave me insights into how the Academies work, and also a better sense of all the different kinds of organizations that work on science policy issues. It was really enlightening.

Q: What professional skills did you gain from your fellowship?

Like a lot of organizations, the Academies are driven by elaborate internal policies. It’s a large bureaucracy, and you need to be able to manage people, boards, and committees. I’ve found that fellowship experience very useful here at FASEB, where we have a similar policy process; if we want to put out a statement or a letter, it has to go through one or more committees, be approved by our board, and so forth. In general, the policy world is made up of a lot of small tasks on different timescales. For example, if we want to get the word to Congress before they vote on a bill, that might happen in a matter of days or hours. Other things are longer term. At the Academies, it might be convening a committee to write a report that takes six months or a year. At FASEB, it might be crafting materials for an advocacy campaign over weeks or months. It’s different from your thesis, which has an overarching focus. Instead, you have a panoply of different things to keep track of. These are skills I fleshed out at the Academies and that have been very helpful in my current job.

Q: What advice would you give to prospective applicants on how to prepare an application to the Mirzayan fellowship program?

My impression is that they aren’t necessarily looking for people who have extensive policy experience. I think that’s because the fellowship is designed to be a learning opportunity. You’re not supposed to show up and know everything about policy. I had done a couple of small things as a grad student that leaned towards policy, for instance volunteering as a student representative to a GSA public policy committee and participating in a Capitol Hill day visit. I think it really helped just to express the idea that this was something I wanted to engage in further.

Q: What motivated your decision to do a science policy fellowship?

Midway through grad school, I started thinking that I didn’t want to continue on a traditional research career. It’s not that I wanted to totally get away from science. I still loved science, but I was getting interested in politics. Towards the end of grad school, I started thinking more concretely about getting into policy. A science fellowship is one stepping-stone that is commonly used these days to get your foot in the door in Washington. That being said, I worry sometimes that the path is being too tightly circumscribed. I’d say that before the proliferation of fellowships, scientists could just be hired directly into federal agency or nonprofit work. While my impression is that doing fellowships is becoming much more common, it’s important not to see there being just a single path. There are lots of ways to be engaged in this world.

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships.

About the author:

Lacy Barton is a member of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee and a postdoctoral fellow at New York University’s Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine. Lacy’s goals are to give back to the GSA community that has been instrumental in her scientific training and to support our common interest in sustainable, inclusive, and rigorous basic research.

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships. You can also search for fellowship opportunities in the GSA Policy Fellowship Database.

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships (STPF) give scientists and engineers the opportunity to apply their knowledge and analytical skills to the policymaking process.

These US-based fellowships are predominantly based within the executive branch of the federal government, for example the National Institutes of Health, although there are several opportunities in the legislative branch working with lawmakers, and one place in the judicial branch.

We spoke to Cara M. Weismann, PhD, a AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow, about the application process and her experiences as a fellow.

Q: Tell me about your position.

I am the Special Assistant to the Director of the Division of Policy, Communications, and Education at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). I work one-on-one with the Director, Laura Lyman Rodriguez, PhD, who manages a team of approximately 30 people in four branches:

• Policy and Program Analysis Branch
• Education and Community Involvement Branch
• Communications and Public Liaison Branch
• Genomic Healthcare Branch

Q: How would you describe your position?

Having this position is a great opportunity—I get to work with the director constantly. My role includes some ‘gatekeeping’ in terms of scheduling and monitoring information flow to and from the director. It is exciting because I participate in all four branches of NHGRI and gain insight into the role of the branch chiefs and the director in terms of budgeting, planning, and training. I work with a wide variety of people from communications to education and community outreach. I’ve also had the opportunity to further develop leadership skills, for example in designing and leading training sessions.

Q: How much interaction do you have with people outside your division?

My boss is an expert in genomic data sharing and has played a huge role in the genomics data sharing policy, so she is always in demand. This means we communicate with a wide range of parties from program officers, to intramural investigators, to other institutes that work on genomics, and agencies like the FDA and CDC. We also work hand in hand with the NIH Office of Science Policy to achieve many of these goals.

We try to be both proactive and reactive, working to implement the best policy but also getting feedback on how that affects people on the ground. We put out Requests for Comment, hold webinars, and go out into the community to get information and craft policies to better fit people’s experiences.

We also co-sponsor roundtables at the National Academies and I was able to witness the recent Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health, and Genomics and Population Health Action Collaborative, which brought together people from all over the US, including industry, academia, professional associations, and government agencies.

Q: It sounds like they keep you busy! How do you manage to keep all these projects on track?

It is a lot to fit in, but that is why a team approach is so important. One person can’t do it all alone—plus teams bring additional benefits, such as a range of feedback. It is like being in a lab, you need everyone to give input to get a broad perspective.

Q: What was the application process like?

The application process is intensive and takes many months. The initial application consists of a CV, a short explanation of your extracurricular activities, and a 3000-word essay on why you want to apply for the fellowship and what you hope to achieve. It is imperative to get feedback on your essay from a current or former fellow, because the essay is a unique piece of writing that is unlike anything we have been trained to write as scientists. For example, you have to remember that the people reading your essay may be the ones who crafted the policy, so diplomacy is important. You’d do well to avoid very critical statements of the type one would use to describe scientific data, for example.

Q: What are the next steps in the process?

If successful, you will then be invited to submit a one-page briefing memo on one of three-five science topics that might be in the news. For example, I applied in the 2015-2016 application cycle and I wrote a briefing on Zika virus. You would then have a 30-minute online interview, where you would present your briefing and then answer questions on the briefing and your application materials. Throughout all these steps, it is vital to ensure a consistent message; make sure you can articulate what you bring that is unique, what you will get out of the process, and how the fellowship will shape your future.

The final in-person interviews in DC take place over a week. Agencies can pre-select candidates whom they wish to interview, and when you arrive in DC, you can also schedule interviews with particular agencies and offices who are taking fellows that year. Remember that the interviews are a two-way process; you are also interviewing the agencies to make sure you will thrive. You need to understand what makes you happy: having a direct supervisor that you see every day or having less frequent oversight; working on a distinct project or being open to finding new opportunities; how do you like to receive feedback? The week is also a chance to learn to physically navigate DC and surroundings; you might have meetings at NIH in Maryland in the morning and have to travel to NSF (National Science Foundation) in Virginia in the afternoon.

Q: How did you make the decision to stay for a second year of the fellowship?

Prior to the time that interviews with prospective candidates are being scheduled, your agency has to decide whether you are staying or whether they need to interview for a replacement. In my case, it was easy. My boss and I have regular check-ins and she was happy with me and I was happy to stay! I wanted to develop the work products that I could use as evidence of achievement for my future job search. I also wanted to expand my experience and use the opportunity to achieve things in the field; having a second year gives you multiple opportunities to have an impact. Plus you only have this opportunity to be a AAAS policy fellow once, so I wanted to make the most of it.

Q: Finally, how easy was it to connect with people in DC?

People come to DC thinking that they won’t know anyone, but you have over 200 of your best friends who just moved here too—you just haven’t met them yet! There are many opportunities to build meaningful connections with your colleagues. One avenue is through fellows’ “affinity groups” that are based on shared professional interests, and social groups such as the “food exploration” group that I co-chair. I feel so grateful to be here, and I try to share that experience with as many people as possible.

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships.

About the Author:

Giovanna Collu is co-chair of the Early Career Scientist Policy Committee and a postdoctoral fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Giovanna’s goal is to increase advocacy opportunities for early career scientists with a focus on diversity and inclusion.

For early career geneticists who would like to transition to a policy career, the Genetics and Public Policy Fellowship provides a 16-month training experience designed to bridge the gap. This unique fellowship includes three rotations: time spent at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the executive branch, a staff position on Capitol Hill serving elected officials in the legislative branch, and experience working with the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) in the non-profit science advocacy sector. The fellowship is co-sponsored by ASHG and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) of NIH.

We sat down with Cristina Kapustij, MS, Chief of the Policy and Program Analysis Branch at the NHGRI and Derek Scholes, PhD, Senior Director of Policy and Advocacy at the ASHG to learn more about this fellowship. Both Cristina and Derek are former recipients of the fellowship and now serve as mentors for their organizations.

Q: Early career scientists often lack opportunities to engage in policy-related activities. Can you help us understand what you’re looking for in a potential fellow?

Derek: We’re looking for early career geneticists with an interest in transitioning from a research career into one that’s focused on health science and policy. We’re particularly impressed with individuals who have in some way tried to get involved in policy, such as those who have sought out policy-related opportunities on their home campus or authored policy-related pieces online.  

I think it’s important that we work to change the culture within science so the research track is not considered the only legitimate path for an early career scientist.

Cristina: Having a scientific background can be versatile and used in different ways. You can take your scientific background into a policy environment, and there are many benefits to having that experience.

Q: Most policy fellowships place the fellow in one office, whereas the Genetics and Public Policy Fellowship allows the fellow to participate in three rotations that provide exposure to different career options. Can you describe how the activities differ during each rotation?  

Cristina: At the Policy and Program Analysis Branch in the Office of the Director, at NHGRI, the fellow might attend Congressional briefings or hearings on the Hill and write up briefs for the leadership within the Institute. They may also spend their time building resources. These resources may be public, such as educational materials on genome editing,  or internal, such as a database consisting of historical and current materials on genomics topics that impact the institute. Finally, the fellow is tasked with identifying offices they can work in on the Hill.

When the fellow is searching for a Congressional Office and/or Committee and interviewing for a position on the Hill, they look for an Office that aligns with work that they’re passionate about. What’s going on in the current moment influences their work, but if the fellow is particularly interested in a specific area, we’ll make sure to highlight particular briefings or topics they can work on. In this rotation, they have the opportunity to meet with constituents and interested parties.

I worked in an office where I had a healthcare portfolio. I would meet with people about all kinds of healthcare issues. I drafted questions for hearings and helped draft statements. It’s always very interesting because you never know exactly what you’re going to get!

Derek: Or, you might be involved in a bill that is being considered by a Congressional committee and helping to negotiate the language with its sponsors.

At ASHG, we ask the fellow if there’s a topic they’re interested in pursuing during their rotation. If we can accommodate it, and justify it as contributing work to the office, then we seek to do that. There’s a certain amount of essential work that needs to be done regardless of a fellow’s particular interests, but we are very keen to accommodate any special passion they might have.

At ASHG, fellows often work on developing policy, crafting statements, and writing memos to leadership to update them on policy developments. There are opportunities to be involved in policy and advocacy events related to meetings they are asked to attend. For example, a fellow might attend a briefing on Capitol Hill and then report back on the event. Our previous fellow worked on a statement about Kuwait’s new law requiring everyone in the country to submit to DNA testing.

Q: Mentoring is an important aspect of training. Can you speak more about the network of support available to new fellows?

Derek: We have one fellow a year, and we are now in our 16th year.

Cristina: Mentors work with fellows to help them transition into and be prepared for the office. We meet with them regularly to ensure the transition is going well. Throughout the arc of the fellowship, we provide resources to help them, such as understanding how life in the policy shop differs from life in the lab and how to find an office on the Hill. We are also working on resources to aid them in finding a job afterward.

Derek: We see our role as helping them understand the differences between the culture of a research lab and a policy environment. There’s a strong sense of community within the fellowship. All of the previous fellows know each other, and the vast majority are still working in Washington, DC. We communicate with each other regularly, both professionally and socially, and are willing to help each other out. When a new fellow comes along, everyone helps to orient them to the DC scene. When it comes to picking a Congressional office or providing advice, everyone is open to helping.

Cristina: We’re a tight-knit group and we always make sure we’re supportive of each other.

The fellowship is a lot of fun! It can be stressful at times, but it’s just because you’re finding your niche. Being in an office on the Hill with your scientific background makes you a unique individual, and that’s really enjoyable!

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships.

About the authors:

Thomas Clements is a member of the Early Career Scientist Policy Committee and a PhD student at Rice University. His research centers on improving CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in zebrafish, but he is also passionate about science literacy and inspiring the next generation of scientists to pursue careers that align with their passions.

Emily Lescak is co-chair of the Early Career Scientist Policy Committee and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Her goal is to increase diversity and inclusion in the sciences while pursuing a career focused on science education and outreach.