Olufemi Adekunle Osonowo
Career Development Subcommittee
Dalhousie University

Research Interest

Metabolomics and genomics are two distinct but complimentary approaches that offer valuable insights into the underlying mechanisms of complex traits, such as feed efficiency in sheep. My current research, which involves sustainable livestock production and the application of bioinformatics and machine learning to livestock production, seeks to unlock those insights.

In addition, I seek to develop a standardized operational procedure for optimizing the feed intake test period to use limited test station facilities more efficiently and accelerate selection rate by testing more animals in sheep production. Through genomic signature selection, both metabolomics and genomics will enable the measurement and association of metabolites in sheep that are linked with feed efficiency while also identifying specific genetic biomarkers associated with feed efficiency in sheep.

As a PhD-trained scientist, you have many career options. What interests you the most?

As an MSc student, I have multifaceted interests, encompassing both academic and applied aspects of science. My primary focus is sustainable livestock production, where I aim to improve efficiency and productivity while minimizing environmental impact. This interest aligns with the growing global demand for sustainable agricultural practices and the necessity to feed an increasing population.

One of the most intriguing areas for me is the application of bioinformatics and machine learning to livestock production. These cutting-edge technologies offer immense potential to revolutionize traditional agricultural practices. By analyzing large datasets, we can uncover patterns and insights that were previously inaccessible, leading to significant advancements in animal breeding, disease management, and overall farm management. For instance, genomics and metabolomics data can be used to identify biomarkers for disease resistance or superior production traits, enabling more precise and efficient breeding programs.

Machine-learning algorithms can predict and optimize various aspects of livestock management, from feed efficiency to animal health monitoring. The integration of sensor data, environmental factors, and historical performance records into predictive models can help farmers make informed decisions, ultimately leading to more sustainable and profitable operations.

In addition to the technical aspects, I am also passionate about the translational impact of my research. I believe that bridging the gap between scientific discoveries and practical applications is crucial for advancing the field. This connection involves collaborating with industry partners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to ensure that innovative solutions are effectively implemented and adopted.

Moreover, I am interested in the educational and mentorship aspects of my career. As a scientist, I feel a strong responsibility to contribute to the development of the next generation of researchers through activities such as teaching, supervising undergraduate students, and participating in outreach activities to promote scientific literacy and enthusiasm among young people.

I am driven by the potential to impact both the scientific community and the agricultural industry. My goal is to contribute to a future where agricultural practices are more efficient, sustainable, and capable of meeting global food demands while fostering scientific curiosity and innovation in others.

In addition to your research, how do you want to advance the scientific enterprise?

By bridging gaps between different fields, we can develop innovative solutions to complex problems. In my work, I actively seek collaborations with experts in bioinformatics, machine learning, veterinary medicine, and environmental science. This interdisciplinary approach not only enriches my research but also opens new avenues for discovery and application. I aim to foster a culture of collaboration in the scientific community, encouraging researchers to look beyond their disciplines and work together to tackle global challenges.

Furthermore, researchers must be able to convey their findings to diverse audiences, including policymakers, industry stakeholders, and the public. I am committed to improving my own communication skills and helping others do the same. This outreach involves not only publishing in scientific journals but also engaging industry partners, writing for popular science platforms, and participating in science communication workshops. By making scientific knowledge more accessible, we can inspire public interest in science and inform evidence-based decision-making.

In addition, different perspectives and experiences can lead to unique insights and innovative approaches. I am dedicated to promoting diversity in all its forms within the scientific enterprise—e.g., mentoring underrepresented students, advocating for inclusive policies, and participating in initiatives that support diversity in STEM fields. By creating an environment where everyone feels valued and supported, we can ensure that the best ideas and talents are brought to the forefront.

Advancing the scientific enterprise requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond individual research endeavors. These initiatives not only enhance the quality and reach of scientific research but also ensure that science continues to serve society effectively.

As a leader within the Genetics Society of America, what do you hope to accomplish?

As a leader within GSA, I aim to foster innovation, promote inclusivity, enhance professional development, and advocate for science policy. By addressing these areas, I seek to strengthen the GSA community and make a meaningful impact on the field of genetics.

Innovation is at the heart of scientific progress. As a leader, I want to create an environment that encourages creative thinking and novel approaches to genetic research. Thus, by organizing symposiums, workshops, and conferences for collaborative brainstorming and interdisciplinary exchange, we can drive forward the frontiers of genetic science.

Additionally, a diverse and inclusive community is essential for the health and vibrancy of any scientific organization. I am committed to promoting inclusivity within GSA by championing programs and initiatives that support underrepresented groups in genetics—e.g., mentorship programs, scholarships, and networking opportunities. By fostering a culture of inclusivity, we can ensure that all voices are heard and valued, leading to a richer and more dynamic scientific community. Also, supporting the professional growth of GSA members is a key priority. Planning professional development resources—including career workshops, training sessions, and mentorship programs—will help members at all career stages to develop essential skills, navigate career transitions, and achieve their professional goals. Investing in the professional development of our members helps us cultivate the next generation of leaders in genetics.

I aim to advocate for policies that support funding for genetic research, promote science education, and ensure the ethical use of genetic information. Doing so involves engaging with policymakers, contributing to public discussions, and collaborating with other scientific organizations to amplify our voice. By advocating for supportive policies, we can create a favorable environment for genetic research and its beneficial impacts on society.

Overall, a strong and connected community is fundamental to GSA’s success. I will work to enhance member engagement and communication through regular updates, interactive platforms, and community-building events. By fostering a sense of belonging and shared purpose, we can strengthen the bonds within our society and create a supportive network for all members. We can make significant strides in advancing the field of genetics and addressing the complex challenges of our time.

Previous leadership experience

• Communication Officer, Dalhousie Agricultural Association of Graduate Students, May 2024-Present
• Globalink Mentor, Mitacs, April 2024-Present
• President, National Youth Service Corp; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Community Development Service, August 2019-July 2020
• Intern (Team Lead), Community-Based Farming Scheme, September 2016- July 2017
• Editor-in-Chief, The Source Magazine of Nigeria Association of Agricultural Students, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, November 2015-September 2016

Hector Mendoza
Communication and Outreach Subcommittee
University of Michigan

Research Interest

My research goals converge around the evolution of sexual reproduction. During my doctoral program, I investigated mitochondrial inheritance, a mechanism that ensures that mitochondria are only inherited from one parent. In the case of humans, children inherit mitochondria from their mothers, as the race to the egg during fertilization takes an important toll on sperm cells that damages their mitochondria. When this maternal inheritance mechanism is perturbed, rare mitochondrial diseases ensue, ranging from ophthalmic manifestations to muscular dysfunction. I decided to investigate the mechanism of biased mitochondrial inheritance from a fungal perspective. These organisms can reproduce sexually but do not differentiate into separate biological sexes. Instead, fertilization happens between two morphologically identical cells. Why would mitochondria need to be segregated appropriately? This fundamental question drives my fascination with the process of sexual reproduction and, accordingly, led to a fresh perspective as I continued my scientific training.

For my postdoctoral training, I decided to explore sex from a completely different lens, this time focusing on the mechanisms that allow for clear differences between biological sexes. Specifically, my current line of investigation focuses on the emergence and maintenance of sex chromosome systems. I am currently using the nematode C. elegans to model how sex chromosomes shape sexual dimorphism at both the genetic and developmental levels. This organism adds an additional layer of complexity to this work, as it comprises a hermaphroditic system in which males are naturally rare. Understanding and further characterizing the regulatory mechanisms behind sex chromosome can shed light on the evolutionary history of sex, in addition to potentially impacting the reproductive sciences.

As a PhD-trained scientist, you have many career options. What interests you the most?

I am interested in opportunities in academia, specifically in leading my own research laboratory and teaching both undergraduate- and graduate-level courses. As I transition into an academic position, I am still struggling with deciding what sort of institution I would like to join. While I would love to start my own research laboratory at a research-intensive institution and fully commit to training the next generation of scientists, I am very passionate about teaching and curriculum design. For this reason, I am exploring primarily undergraduate institutions, which focus on the education of undergraduates in a liberal arts context. I find this particular approach to post-secondary education quite impactful, as the undergraduate experience can be much more well-rounded and students can make the best decisions regarding their career paths. Additionally, I am quite excited to design and implement a research program that caters exclusively to undergraduate researchers, as their time in my lab will most likely be limited. The constant turnover in my lab, however, will mean that multiple students can contribute to a bigger project that can lead to a collaborative publication.

As an undergraduate, financial and time constraints prevented me from doing research and exploring how a biology degree could be used. If I am honest, I might reconsider my own decision to attend graduate school if I could turn back time. I thought it was the only logical path since I was not interested in a medical career. Thus, I want to make sure my future students are better prepared to make life-changing decisions. I am very interested in developing a strong mentorship philosophy both in the classroom and at the research bench. This interest has also made me consider administrative roles within academia and even secondary education.

In addition to your research, how do you want to advance the scientific enterprise?

I have been a non-traditional student for as long as I can remember, juggling schoolwork and multiple jobs to afford my education. I am also an immigrant, so the logistics involved in transferring colleges internationally turned out to be much more complicated than I had thought. These obstacles only made pursuing a science degree even more intimidating. I was constantly told that I was not putting in the hours needed to graduate or to move on to graduate school. Nevertheless, I persisted and completed my degree with flying colors. I will admit that I had a rough time getting to where I am today because I did not have anyone I could relate to. For this reason, I want students to realize that their paths towards their degrees will constantly evolve and will be shaped according to their own personal circumstances. I want to be part of my students’ journeys and be a guiding light when obstacles emerge.

I am also constantly educating myself on alternative science careers so that I am better prepared to provide advice and ensure students feel supported. For instance, I have experience in the clinical field, having worked as a Laboratory Clinical Processor during my doctoral training program. Though I acquired this experience out of financial necessity, I have come to realize that I can tell my students about these career paths, emphasizing that they are much shorter and inexpensive than medical or graduate school. It is still unsettling to think that the majority of STEM students go through their undergraduate careers fixated on one or two career options, even though demand is elsewhere. I want to emphasize that pursuing a scientific career can look so different for any individual. Its impact in society, however, will be rewarding and necessary.

As a leader within the Genetics Society of America, what do you hope to accomplish?

As part of the ECLP, I am thrilled to exchange ideas about effective communication and leadership. Accordingly, I am determined in establishing strong ties with colleagues in fields different from mine. As scientists, we can recite protocols from memory and perform intricate procedures with our hands. However, explaining why we do it is a creature of a different stripe. Programs like the ECLP take us out of our comfort zones, away from the bench, and challenge us to find the right word or visual to help an audience understand complex scientific concepts. During my tenure, I am hoping to venture out and explore opportunities in writing for non-academic settings and make science empowering.

Previous leadership experience

Instructor, Michigan Math and Science Scholars, University of Michigan (Summer 2024)

Editor and Translator, MiSciWriters, University of Michigan (2023-Present)

Instructional Peer Observer, Center for Academic Innovation, Schoolcraft College (2023-Present)

Executive Board Member, Multicultural Association of Graduate Students, University of Louisville (2016-2021)

Would you provide a general background about what your career path has been like to get you to where you are now?

Throughout my entire educational career, I did two things. One was like physics in the classroom, which led me to a PhD. But outside the classroom, I did a lot of political activism. In undergrad, I was very involved with the marriage equality movement in Massachusetts. In grad school at Brandeis University, they have a policy where you can take a year’s leave of absence, and my advisor agreed to let me do that. I spent a year running campaign offices during the 2008 elections. Afterwards, I went back to grad school because doing campaign work made getting a PhD seem easy by comparison. It was definitely the hardest I’ve ever worked. Towards the end of grad school, I was really struggling with how I could put these very different interests together. In my mind, I saw no overlap between the two. I went to a career panel at Brandeis that had one person on it who was from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and she started talking about science policy, and I thought, “What is this world?” It just opened my eyes to a whole possibility and gave me direction in my career in a way that was really exciting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists was launching a new Center for Science and Democracy, which seemed aligned with my interests. I went to their launch event. I actually applied to be the director of the program, which was humorous, but I applied to be the director, and I ended up being an intern. Shoot for the stars, but land with your foot in the door. Right after I finished my PhD, I went to DC. I interned with the Union of Concerned Scientists for a while, which was a really great learning experience. I had also applied for two big DC fellowships: the AAAS fellowship and the Mirzayan fellowship at the National Academy of Sciences. I got an interview with AAAS in my first year, and I bombed it. Luckily, I got the Mirzayan fellowship and learned all the specific ways that I bombed [the AAAS one] such that I was better prepared for the following year. I ended up doing the AAAS fellowship, and I worked in the office of Senator Markey. I learned more in that one year than I did probably the entire rest of my life, about all sorts of topics. It was the most fun professional year of my life. I’m going to say that was my entry point into science policy.

You said that the first interview you did with AAAS didn’t go so well. Are there any tips that you learned that you could give to an early career scientist?

Talk to somebody who went through the interview before. That’s the number one tip. One thing that they don’t teach you in grad school is networking and informational interviews. I think grad students are afraid to cold-email somebody and ask for advice, but it’s actually something people are very open to in DC. If you can go online and find some former fellows who may have worked in spaces that you’re interested in, find their email, and just email them and ask for advice.

The other thing is to get a basic understanding of what science policy is and what it isn’t. I would say I didn’t understand or appreciate the way science and policy interacted. I had a sense of what policy is from an activist perspective, but it turns out public policy is its own field of research. You might think you know everything about it, but you probably don’t know much. The Mirzayan fellowship was really helpful in that it taught me the specific ways in which science and policy interact. Knowing this enabled me to talk with some degree of expertise in the next interview.

When I was working at MIT, I created an online course called Academic Engagement for Public Policy. It’s free on edX. It was designed in two ways: to help get the faculty up to speed on a policy world and to provide all the information I wish I had before going into that interview. That being said, professional societies all have really good [policy] research. I was a member of the American Physical Society and didn’t even realize they had a whole policy arm. AAAS has some really great trainings. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a science network that people can be a part of that teaches a lot about community engagement around science issues. There are a lot of ways to kind of get that training and understanding while you’re still in grad school, so that way you’re more competitive for the fellowships.

Where does your career go after those fellowships?

I think this is the thing. A lot of grad students getting a PhD think that they have learned to do exactly one thing, whatever their research topic is, but don’t realize how broadly applicable the skill of doing research is—in particular, the ability to form a hypothesis and test that hypothesis. When I went to DC, for one of these informational interviews, I met with the senior congressional staffer, who told me that working in policy is a lot like working in science. In policy, you form a hypothesis, and you go out and collect data to support your hypothesis, which is how science works. People from AAAS go into government. For example, I worked in the Senate, a lot of my cohort stayed in the Senate, some of them went on to the executive branch. You could work in the State Department and foreign policy issues with a physics background. If you have an interest in a topic, you have the ability to learn it quickly and then you have the ability to do the kind of analysis and thinking that a lot of people aren’t trained to do. Some people go back to academia and think about how you can find the overlap between academically relevant research and public policy. Some people go into industry and consulting and all those need somebody with technical understanding and policy understanding. Somebody who can read a very technical paper but also communicate it to a senator—that’s a  special skill. Your PhD skills in general open you up to way more careers than you think, but a combination of a PhD plus a science policy fellowship gives you an attractive set of skills to a lot of people.

Would you like to speak more about your work at MIT?

After I left the hill, I went to MIT to start a program, a policy lab. The full title is The Policy Lab at the Center for International Studies. It’s a program that helps faculty engage and develop relationships with public policymakers to both inform public policy with the academic research being conducted at MIT, but also to inform the research with the interests of the policymakers.

Can we pivot a little bit to talk about your work with the scientific citizenship initiative?

The Scientific Citizenship Initiative is a program to teach scientists how to ethically engage with society. It’s a bit broader than science policy. Ethical research standards [are] fundamental, like how do you make decisions about deploying technology that can alter ecosystems? And how do you make decisions about even doing that research in the first place? It’s this broader look at the engagement in interactions between science and society as a whole. It breaks down into two different categories: classroom-style learning and experiential learning. Our classroom courses are workshop-style courses that are interactive and simulation-based and introduce students to concepts in short bursts so that they can do it without taking a lot of time from everything. Our flagship experiential learning program was the fellowship in the Massachusetts State House, similar to AAAS, but it placed STEM graduate students in the State House over the summer part-time. That way, they could get science policy experience and experience engaging with stakeholders, while still maintaining all of their academic responsibilities.

What kinds of communication skills do you try to emphasize on the fellows to communicate what they’re doing effectively to the senators?

Working with policymakers is more than communicating. It’s about how you engage and build relationships and dialogue. There’s this idea-deficit model of engagement. It’s a prevalent idea among scientists that, if policymakers only knew and understood what we knew, they would make the decisions that we would make, which are the “right” decisions. And one of the big things we teach students is that science policy recommendations inherently involve both scientific input and values input. You can’t make a recommendation without adding a layer of values to that recommendation. There’s no value-neutral policy recommendation.

There’s research that shows that, if you confront somebody who has a hardened belief system with just facts to try to convince them otherwise, they actually become more assured of their position. Scientists’ default is, “If I just present you with the evidence, you’ll agree with me.” That’s not how human psychology works. Before you can ever hope to sort of change people’s minds, something you have to do first is meet them where they are and be willing to understand their perspective.

Do you find it’s difficult for scientists to recognize their own values that they’re bringing to the table?

Yes, and one of the big reasons is selection bias. They’re surrounded by people who have a lot of shared values. You think that the world has those values, or that those values are the “correct” ones. It makes it harder to identify them because they seem so natural to you. In the same way, it makes it hard to identify your broader skill set because everybody around you has the same skill set. Everybody around you knows how to do research; therefore, the world knows how to do research. That’s not true. It’s confirmation bias. Everybody has biases, values that make them view some data as more important than others, etc. Scientists view themselves as being unbiased, and it’s true we do our best to eliminate bias and research. But we are far from unbiased when we think about how the world should work, right?

Could you tell us about your career path, and how you made science writing work as a career? 

I’ve always been interested in science. I was a biology major, focused on marine ecology. That was back in the 1970s. Over a period of a few years, the thrill kind of went away. I traveled around the world for a while, and when I got back, my friends told me that my letters were really well written and that I was a good writer. I’d never thought about writing before but decided it would be fun to actually write about science. I went back to school and got a master’s degree in journalism.

For 20 years, I was doing science journalism. It has a lot of the thrills of science without a lot of the hassles. I’ve always been amazed by all the parallels between journalism and science and journalists and scientists. I think both groups are very curious. Both groups want to get at the truth. Both groups demand evidence before they report on something. Being a science journalist allowed me to dabble in science and have the fun of learning something new every day, sort of like being in graduate school with no particular focus.

Journalism went through some tough times in the 1990s and early 2000s, and I decided to take a chance and leave the field. The next opportunity that popped up that looked interesting was science policy. I joined a think tank. Science policy was really interesting because you think about how science can actually inform decisions that affect lots of people through policies and laws and regulations, and things like that. 

Less than a year later, Obama had gotten elected. At that point, I got an invitation to join the government and do science communications work within the government. I wasn’t sure I really wanted to do that. I was sort of having fun in the think tank world but luckily made the decision to take the leap. It’s always stressful to jump into a new domain like, “Am I going to be terrible? And do I have the skills to do this?” I’m not a PhD scientist, but I’m a good communicator. This was a communications job in the White House Office of Science Technology Policy. Admittedly, I was not crazy about the idea of being a public affairs person. But I thought if I’m ever going to do it, I’m going to do it as a public affairs person for the White House.

Was that the first point where you were sort of a liaison between actual scientists and journalists?

Yes, exactly. I learned over time how to be a good communications professional, mediating the relationship between scientists and journalists and between parts of the administration in the executive branch and other branches of the government, like Congress. Unlike a think tank where you’re thinking about policy and putting out reports and hoping someone will listen and read, in government you actually have influence you can pull. You can make headway on regulations. You can have sway in executive orders. There’s ways that you can actually make change happen on a large scale, but there are things you got to do right to make that happen.

But I learned for all the talk about science that’s at the table, it turns out science isn’t the only thing at the table. You wouldn’t want to live in a world where solely science influences all the decisions because there’s other things that need to come into play. There’s all kinds of values and other stakeholders out there who have legitimate ways of looking at the world than how the cold science would look at it. Learning how to negotiate that process and make sure science, in its most important opportunities, has influence is important but not necessarily expecting to “win” so that science carries the day every time.

Finally, the administration ends, and I had this opportunity to get into the nonprofit world where I can do something that’s really mission-oriented: about science and about journalism. How about a service that helps connect reporters with the right kind of scientists to talk to for an interview and get the scientific expertise and context that would help them write or produce a better story? It was something that a few of us in journalism had thought about on and off for many years, but no one had ever found funding for a new program.

When you were a reporter, you covered many controversial science issues, including those involving genetics, like cloning, GMOs direct-to-consumer testing. How did you make sure that the scientist’s mission was portrayed properly to the public, but at the same time, the societal concerns about these new technologies were also addressed?

I have a peculiar attraction to science stories where the science raises societal or ethical issues. I think science journalism in general has evolved a lot over the last several decades, and I personally evolved as well. If you look at science writing back in the 1980s, it was like, “Wow, scientists have discovered this. Scientists have done that.” Gradually, science reporting took on a little bit more of a critical view, more of a trait of journalism generally.

I came into journalism, generally appreciating science as a way of knowing, learning, and making progress. It seemed like a responsible thing to do to address those things in a balance, and the way to do it is just to talk to as many people as possible. It’s all in the reporting. So, you talk to the scientists, who often are honest about the pros and cons but generally advocate for their science. Then you talk to the people who have issues with it. What you don’t want to do is end up in the false equivalence trap. It’s not just a battle of ideologies. It is a battle of evidence. I always felt like it was my job as a reporter to do sufficient reporting so that I felt like I had a pretty good sense of what the balance of evidence was out there and reflected that in my stories.

What advice do you have for scientists when they’re talking with the media?

You have to be clear who you’re representing. Are you representing yourself? Are you representing the agency you work with? I would hope scientists feel some responsibility to share with the public what they’re doing and why they’re doing it, if for no other reason than the self-interest of building public support, so the funding stream is there to follow their hearts. However, there are reasons that people want others to appreciate science that goes beyond your own self-interest and even goes beyond building support for evidence-based policy-making. It is a science. It’s a beautiful thing.

Why is it important for scientists to explain the complexities of their work to the media?

I think the journalists are the mediator. Who they really need to be explaining to is the public, and journalism is one way to do that. A lot of the public consumes news. Scientists should also, if they are so inclined and have the skills, talk directly to the public. Go to the public library, to schools. You can give talks. But journalism is a convenient set of practices that helps scientists make contact with the public. One way for those scientists to move the needle on public behavior is through journalism. Again, it is not the only thing. But when the complexities and evidence are missing, I think people are more likely to make bad decisions. Those decisions can be anything from something personal, like what to do about your health, to big things, like who you should vote for and what kind of policies you should support. If we could inject a little more evidence and complexity into the decision-making process at every level, I think that would be good.

What are the biggest challenges for science communication in the future?

I think one big challenge is the scientists. Scientists are going to be challenged with the time and effort it takes to actually explain their work in a way that’s useful to the public, whether it’s through journalism or through some other channel. It’s difficult. It’s a professional skill that journalists spend their lives honing. You, as a scientist, don’t have time to become an expert in that. It’s one reason to go through a mediator as opposed to just going out into the middle of the public square and talking to people straight out. Even in talking to journalists, it’s a lot of work to figure out how to say things free of jargon, free of oversimplification, and free of overstatement. One of the exercises we put scientists through when we train them in how to talk to journalists is to use the 100 most commonly used words in the English language and only use those. “A rocket is like a go-up machine” or something like that. You can’t even say the word “rocket.” It’s hard to do. It takes time and effort and a commitment to communication.

Anthony (Tony) Patelunas is an Early Career Leadership Program alum who served as co-chair of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee during his time in the program.  

The ECLP, which is currently accepting applications, teaches early career scientists leadership, writing, and networking skills, among other important tools that can be applied to careers in academia and industry. 

Tony gained many essential skills through his participation in the ECLP but one particular lesson stands out to him, “The most important skill I gained is learning to proactively manage my own career,” he shared. Through many conversations with mid- and senior-level professionals who started their careers from a similar place and pursued graduate studies in genetics, Tony was able to create a mental picture of how different careers progress, and envision what he wanted his own career journey to look like. “Spoiler: It’s often unexpected and serendipitous!” he pointed out. He started planning for the next two, five, and 10 years and was more intentional in considering and planning his own skill development and the positions he was willing to accept. 

Through the ECLP, Tony made connections that he maintains until today–his new network supports his decision-making as he consults these trusted colleagues before making big career moves. “The combination of a strong network and the opportunity to build skills and experiences beyond my research environment was irreplaceable to my success afterward,” he explained. 

As he continues to plan his career journey over the next couple of years, Tony hopes to pursue committee work and eventually a Board position with GSA and other professional societies. “The ECLP and the ECS Career Development Subcommittee highlighted the importance of building a strong network in my professional community, and the value of early leadership experience for long-term growth,” he shared. Tony sees serving on committees as another opportunity to continue building and expanding one’s network through regular interactions with individuals sharing a common mission. He also sees this as a chance to develop strategic thinking skills which are key to the growth of an organization, as well as an individual and their career. 

Like Tony, many in the ECLP chose to pursue a career in industry, while others have moved on to positions in academia. Through growing their network and skillset, participants can thrive in whatever career path they choose to take. Apply to the Early Career Leadership Program to gain the skills that will help you succeed as well. 

Applications are due October 16, 2024.

We’re taking time to get to know the members of the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Committees. Join us to learn more about our early career scientist advocates.

Irina Yushenova
Community and Membership Engagement Subcommittee
Marine Biological Laboratory

Research Interest

I love enzymes. And this is a very broad statement—just like saying “I love people.” There are eight billion people on Earth, and all of them are unique. We all have our personalities. We can be seen as good, bad, or even objectively terrible. Enzymes are just like that. They all have their own personalities in terms of what they do and how they do it. Just like with people, you can assign them into several categories, and as with people, some of them are more attractive than others. All of them, though, are non-static. Enzymes represent the molecules of life that perform some actions. They are not just present; enzymes change the environment around them. They, for example, can protect cells from various stresses, as heat shock proteins do by protecting other proteins from denaturation and eventually helping those affected proteins become “healthy” again. Heat shock proteins were my first scientific crush, and eventually they became the main focus of my PhD dissertation.

There is also another group of enzymes called reverse transcriptases, which build DNA using RNA as a template. The discovery of reverse transcriptases challenged the central dogma of molecular biology, which stated that the information in the cells follow the DNA-RNA-protein line only. In a sense, reverse transcriptases are the rock stars among other proteins—the ones who break the rules and go their own way. Again, some of them, like telomerases, are constructive enzymes that protect the cells. Some are rebels who can destroy essential genes and cause organisms to die, yet they also help evolution to create biodiversity, as mobile elements do. In very rare occasions, scientists are lucky to discover an enzyme that comes to the organism from another, even very distinct, species. It happens when genetic material from one species is transferred to another, making those genes horizontally transferred. If some gene were allowed to be a part of a new genome, the enzyme it produces would be nontrivial. In a prism of evolution, such travelers can allow the organism to create a completely new way to increase survival. So, my personal scientific passion are enzymes with “outstanding personalities,” whether in a good or offbeat way. Currently, I am focusing on domesticated reverse transcriptase-related genes and mobile Penelope-like elements.

As a PhD-trained scientist, you have many career options. What interests you the most?

All my life I wanted to be a scientist. It was love at first sight with both biology and chemistry. Working in a field of biochemistry and molecular biology was my childhood dream long before I learned what exactly it would entail in practice. But I was never disappointed. At age twelve, I was already planning to become a professor/principal investigator who runs their own lab in a research institution. I followed this plan for years, first getting a doctorate in veterinary medicine—to also fulfill my passion for medicine not restricted to one species—and then a doctorate in molecular biology. Then, I moved to the USA to do my postdoc and learn another culture. A couple of years later, I realized that something was holding me back from my initial plan. Although I still enjoyed doing research, mentoring students, writing papers and grants, and even performing administrative tasks, something was missing. More than once, I heard other scientists say how much they hate when somebody asks, “What is a practical implication of your research?” This question had never felt wrong for me. After five years of training for my doctorate in veterinary medicine, it is natural for me to say that discovery A could be helpful in area X maybe in ten years, and discovery B would potentially give humanity a tool to fight disease Y. I automatically think about how each scientific question I seek to answer could not just fulfill my curiosity and contribute to textbooks for future generations but also eventually help to protect the life on this planet. Recently, I started wondering whether, before committing to a life-long, tenure-track professor position, I should try a scientific position in industry. The more I talk to industry scientists, the more I see how happy people are, seeing the immediate results of their research. Also, the COVID-19 pandemic reminded us how important it is to control cross-species pathogens to save lives. Thus, while I am fully committed to bringing to success the most beloved research projects I am working on right now, I am also looking forward to applying my skills in industry.

In addition to your research, how do you want to advance the scientific enterprise?

As I mentioned already, I feel strongly connected to both basic life science research and applied medical fields. While working in academia, I have always enjoyed making more connections in veterinary, medical, or for example, food production sectors. It becomes obvious for me that people from these different sectors speak different languages. It is extremely sad if you think about it. The whole society misses a lot of opportunities to advance both basic and applied science. While scientists who work for government must learn how to speak to policymakers, other government officials, and manufacturers, the typical academic life scientist might struggle to talk to an economist. Nowadays, we all understand the importance of interdisciplinary studies. There are many great collaborations between data scientists and molecular biologists or microscopists and embryologists. Yet, it could be even more productive. Instead of saying “I don’t understand what you want to do” and walking away, let’s say, “Wow, I don’t understand what you are saying, but together we can get a full picture of the phenomenon we both care about. Let’s collaborate!” My background allows me to understand both basic life science and veterinary doctors’ languages. I work toward organizing more collaborations with animal caregivers (veterinary doctors, aquaculture professionals, etc.). I also work on bringing more people—students or teachers, who would prepare the next generation of students—from poor and disadvantaged countries into world-class science and industry. I believe that raising awareness about available opportunities and active outreach will help to ensure the future success of life science and applied fields. Being part of the Early Career Leadership Program at GSA greatly helps me to establish new connections and learn how to effectively communicate with people from different backgrounds.

As a leader within the Genetics Society of America, what do you hope to accomplish?

The Early Career Leadership Program gives us an amazing opportunity to embrace our creativity in the way we feel would be the most beneficial for the broad community. I would like to help other early career scientists to be more prepared for the often unspoken pitfalls along their research journey. We all come from different backgrounds, and we are not always lucky to encounter the right mentor for navigating the new environment. It can be a new country that is very different from our native culture and social system. It can be stereotypes attached to our national origin. It can be the lack of understanding from superiors and colleagues that might restrict us from advancing our career as fast as others. Perhaps our visa situation prevents us from travels, attending international meetings, or doing internships in some organizations. In some cases, people will sacrifice their freedoms in favor of doing some particular research. Sometimes, there are unspoken rules, which we need to know to become successful in a new system. I believe that science loses a lot of bright minds who must give up because of non-research-related struggles. As a member of the Community and Membership Engagement Subcommittee, I deeply enjoy working on various projects that aim to provide peer support for young scientists, raise awareness about new opportunities, help access information that might be crucial to advance careers, or learn how to be a good leader—which I would define as the one who inspires others and helps everyone on their team be successful. It is an exciting journey to lead a project when members of your team are located from one coast of the Pacific Ocean to another and have different points of view and goals in life. It is complicated but very rewarding at the end of the day. I am infinitely grateful to GSA for such an invaluable experience.

I also take full advantage of training courses offered for ECLP members. With English being my second language, I always feel that my writing—especially non-scientific—stays on the level of a high schooler. Thus, the variety of writing courses offered to us became a significant development for me. I hope to leave this program with significantly improved writing skills, in addition to solidified leadership skills.

Previous leadership experience

Research advisor for seventeen students (high school, undergrad, and grad school level), 2013-present

We’re taking time to get to know the members of the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Committees. Join us to learn more about our early career scientist advocates.

Rupinder Kaur
Career Development Subcommittee
Pennsylvania State University

Research Interest

I am a cell and molecular biologist interested in exploring host-symbiont interactions with relevance to human health outcomes. Mosquito-borne diseases, especially dengue, have become an emerging global threat to mankind. The existing vector control strategies—such as diminishing mosquito breeding sites, insecticide use, chemical spraying, and personal protective measures—have been found ineffective and do not confer long-term protection. Moreover, risks surrounding climate change have created an urgency for alternative vector control strategies. The prospect of using symbiotic microorganisms to save millions of lives with positive human health outcomes is highly promising. The bacterium Wolbachia is a prime example, which is human- and environment-friendly and can play a significant role in controlling dengue and other mosquito-borne viruses on the ground. Wolbachia expresses two key traits in these control strategies: virus-blocking, in which Wolbachia reduces virus replication in the salivary glands of virus-transmitting mosquito females, and reproductive manipulation called cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI), during which embryos die when Wolbachia-infected males mate with uninfected females, thus crashing the mosquito population.

In my research, I’m digging deeper into the mechanism of CI to better grasp how Wolbachia bacteria influence the genes and pathways governing insect reproduction. Using Drosophila melanogaster and Aedes aegypti carrying Wolbachia, I identified that CI-causing genes disrupt an evolutionary-conserved process of histone-to-protamine transition during sperm development. This transition is crucial for maintaining male fertility. When embryos are fertilized by these abnormally developed sperm, their nuclei fail to divide properly and embryos ultimately die. I am further keen on understanding the intricacies of the flip side of CI, known as “rescue,” where female insects infected with Wolbachia can prevent embryonic death. My goal is to enhance methods utilizing these bacteria to control mosquito populations, thereby making them even more effective and sustainable in the fight against diseases.

As a PhD-trained scientist, you have many career options. What interests you the most?

As someone who loves diving into the unknown to uncover new things, I find being a scientist incredibly rewarding. I enjoy brainstorming new ideas, formulating hypotheses, and troubleshooting experiments to bring them to life. Even though science can be tough and challenging at times, those moments when everything clicks and years of hard work culminate in a breakthrough are truly amazing. Each discovery feels like finding a missing piece of a puzzle. At that point, more than just a career option, it becomes a passion that keeps me curious and eager to share what I learn with others in the scientific community.

Moreover, I recently explored the intricacies of grant writing, a crucial skill for securing essential research funding. I learned that grant writing is not just about acquiring resources; it’s about articulating the potential impact of my work on the scientific community and society at large. I acquired the skill of translating my scientific vision into actionable proposals, ensuring that the future research direction is not only intellectually stimulating but also socially relevant. It bridges the gap between innovative ideas and transformative research outcomes, reinforcing my commitment to making a meaningful difference in the world of science.

In addition to your research, how do you want to advance the scientific enterprise?

Science advances significantly when diverse fields intersect, sparking new and creative ideas. In addition to my research pursuits, my vision for advancing the scientific enterprise is firmly grounded in the principles of collaboration, outreach, and mentorship. I work towards creating an environment where scientists from different backgrounds can come together to create ideas that address scientific challenges. I have shared my research through seminar presentations with several universities, companies, and scientific organizations in the United States. By facilitating dialogue and knowledge exchange, I assisted them in developing specific assays tailored to their research programs.

I am actively engaged in initiatives that expand the horizons of STEM education and promote inclusivity within the scientific community. For instance, as a judge in the ENVISION research competition, I play a pivotal role in evaluating the innovative project proposals generated by women and genderqueer high school students. I provide valuable feedback and recognition, foster their passion for scientific inquiry, and encourage them to pursue careers in STEM fields. Furthermore, I participate in mentoring initiatives aimed at bridging the opportunity gap for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Volunteering my time and expertise, I create research opportunities for these aspiring scientists by guiding them through the research process, helping them understand scientific articles, and assisting with formulating hypotheses for scientific experiments. I not only provide essential scientific guidance but also instill confidence and inspire a greater sense of possibility. By empowering young minds, recognizing and nurturing their talent, dismantling barriers, and fostering inclusivity, I am dedicated to creating a scientific community that reflects the diversity and potential of our world.

As a leader within the Genetics Society of America, what do you hope to accomplish?

As a member of GSA’s Early Career Leadership Program, I am committed to advancing the career growth of fellow GSA members. One of my primary objectives within this role is to establish a robust mentorship network. I aim to provide guidance, insight, and support by connecting early-career scientists with experienced mentors in their respective fields. By organizing symposiums, networking events, panel discussions, and virtual forums at conferences, I aim to facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations and encourage sharing of ideas and expertise to open doors to new opportunities. This collaborative environment will not only enrich the scientific discourse within GSA but also expose early-career scientists to diverse research areas, promoting a spirit of curiosity and innovation.

Further, I intend to organize targeted professional development workshops and training sessions. These sessions will cover a wide array of topics, including grant writing, science communication, leadership skills, and work-life balance. By providing access to these resources, I hope to equip early-career scientists with the skills and knowledge necessary for a successful and fulfilling career in genetics. Last, in line with my commitment to diversity and inclusivity, I will advocate for programs that specifically support underrepresented individuals within the GSA community. I aim to level the playing field and ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, has equal access to resources and opportunities for career growth. Through these initiatives, I hope to empower the next generation of geneticists, leaving a lasting legacy of mentorship, support, and inclusivity.

Previous leadership experience

1. Editorial Board Member, mSystems, American Society for Microbiology (2024-2027)
2. Early-career editorial board member, mBio, American Society for Microbiology (ASM) (2024-present)
3. Panelist in the Science Communication panel, How to have an accessible conference experience, The Allied Genetics Conference (2024)
4. Judge, Poster session at the One Health Microbiome Symposium, Penn State University, PA (2024)
5. Judge, Poster session at the Undergraduate Exhibition, Penn State University, PA (2024)
6. Elected member in ASM’s Future Leaders Mentoring Fellowship program (2023-present)
7. Member, Early Career Leadership Program, Genetics Society of America (2023-present)
8. Judge, ENVISION research competition for high school girls and genderqueer students (2022-present)
9. Mentor, Summer research program by Talaria Summer Institute, founded by the nonprofit organization ATHENA (2022-present)
10. Organized and moderated the virtual Career Exploration panel, the 64th Annual Drosophila Research Conference (2023)
11. Mentor to undergraduate and graduate students, technicians, and research staff in the lab
12. Active volunteer for national/international virtual and in-person science outreach programs

You can contact Rupinder via email at r.kaur at psu.edu, on Twitter, and on LinkedIn.

We’re taking time to get to know the members of the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Committees. Join us to learn more about our early career scientist advocates.

José Humberto da Cunha
Accessibility Subcommittee
University of São Paulo

Research Interest

My research interest is in human and medical genetics, specifically skull and face dysmorphology, teratology, and related syndromes. I like to research the genetic factors that lead to congenital anomalies in families of carriers and affected individuals. In addition to genetics, other factors associated with environmental exposure contribute to congenital anomalies. One of them, which is part of my study in teratology, is the disease of diabetes mellitus, which triggers many changes during the formation of the embryo. I am directly affected by this due to my mother’s insulin imbalance when she was pregnant with me. As a result, I have bilateral hearing loss, facial paralysis on the right side, neurogenic bladder, malformation of the fingers on the right hand, and heart disease. And with that, I intend to investigate how to reduce the risks of congenital anomalies in gestational diabetes in the next generations.

As a PhD-trained scientist, you have many career options. What interests you the most?

Diabetes mellitus is a public health problem in Brazil, as well as worldwide. Therefore, I consider it of greater personal interest to raise new questions and continue previous studies around it. The affected phenotype in diabetes mellitus stems from a wide spectrum that can be found in a mother-child relationship during the gestational period. The Brazilian population is heterogeneous due to immigration from Europe, Africa, and West Asia. This both makes the study of the disease interesting and suitable for comparison with others from around the world and also opens the conversation about lowering the risks of congenital anomalies.

My career interest is primarily research. Currently, I develop strategies to organize patient data, identify risks through clinical symptoms and patient family history, and, thus, verify the occurrences of genetic syndromes in the literature. To deepen my analysis, I also create tables with the data, apply the necessary quantitative formulas, and treat this research in a broader and more complex way, just as others in population genetics have done. I want to continue my study around diabetes mellitus in my master’s degree in rehabilitation sciences at the Hospital de Reabilitação de Anomalias Craniofacial in Brazil.

In addition to your research, how do you want to advance the scientific enterprise?

I aim to promote values essential for fostering a productive and harmonious scientific enterprise. This begins with prioritizing the assessment of social dynamics within research groups, ensuring that respect, empathy, and effective communication prevail. Additionally, offering support and resources, such as psychological assistance, I emphasize the importance of self-reflection to enhance personal conduct and professional relationships. In my interactions with fellow researchers, I advocate for inclusive practices, constructive feedback, and a collaborative spirit aimed at advancing knowledge for societal benefit.

Connecting with individuals from diverse backgrounds and disciplines enriches perspectives and fosters collaboration. I plan to share the significance of networking in science by leading through example and engaging in interdisciplinary communication. I aim to discuss my research projects and accomplishments with enthusiasm, stepping out of my comfort zone to interact with others passionate about various fields. By promoting networking as a vital aspect of scientific progress, I hope to inspire others to embrace collaboration and knowledge exchange across boundaries.

Ultimately, by embodying these values and promoting them within the scientific community, I aim to cultivate a culture where curiosity thrives, relationships flourish, and knowledge is shared for the betterment of society.

As a leader within the Genetics Society of America, what do you hope to accomplish?

As a leader within the Genetics Society of America, my main objective is to help researchers with disabilities from all parts of the world perform well in their research career. I want to understand the accessibility challenges faced by scientists and find solutions that would help scientists with disabilities reach their professional goals. I plan to accomplish this through social media and web outreach, social inclusion projects, and advocacy for a more accessible and equitable scientific community for all.

I also want to promote intercultural dialogue around disability in the scientific community. Since every region of the world has a different culture around disability, there are a lot of opportunities for people to not only learn from each other but also be inspired by one another’s unique personal and professional journeys.

Lastly, as a man with bilateral hearing impairment and other health complications from being the son of a mother who had diabetic complications, I was stereotyped as incapable in childhood by my classmates and teachers, as well as relatives and townspeople. As an accomplished scientist with international experience, I want to tell the world that anything is possible through dedication, respect, humility, and love for others.

Previous leadership experience

• Director of Sports, the Academic Center of Biomedicine at the Universidade Federal do Delta do Parnaíba
• Creative Director of Marketing & Advertising on social networks, the Academic League of Genetics at the Universidade Federal do Delta do Parnaíba
• Extension Project Developer,  “Conexão LiAGen”, dissemination of basic notions of genetics through social networks
• Senior Ambassador in the Health Sciences area in the science extension project “À Brasileirinha: Organização de eventos científicos, debates e aulas práticas em prol da divulgação científica para a população acadêmica e da comunidade local da cidade da instituição do ensino superior”

GSA is pleased to announce the recipients of the DeLill Nasser Award for Professional Development in Genetics for Spring 2024! Given twice a year to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, DeLill Nasser Awards support attendance at meetings and laboratory courses.

The award is named in honor of DeLill Nasser, a long-time GSA supporter and National Science Foundation Program Director in Eukaryotic Genetics. Nasser was regarded by some as the “patron saint of real genetics,” shaping the field through more than two decades of leadership. She was especially supportive of young scientists, people who were beginning their careers, and those trying to open new areas of genetic inquiry. For more about Nasser, please see the tribute from Scott Hawley, published in the August 2001 issue of GENETICS.

Anush Chiappino-Pepe
Harvard Medical School

I work at the interface of synthetic biology and computational biology, decoding and expanding genome functions to introduce new chemistries in cells.

Brenda Cabrera Mendoza
Yale University

I study the biological and genetic factors that contribute to suicide and addictions.

McKenna Feltes
Johns Hopkins University

My research aims to identify new genes involved in lipoprotein synthesis to better understand how genetics contribute to the development of dyslipidemia—a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death worldwide.

Leticia Magpali
Dalhousie University

My PhD research focuses on the evolution of acoustic genes and sounds of toothed whales.

Sylvia Durkin
University of California, Berkeley

My work focuses on how genetic changes and environmental conditions together contribute to thermally adaptive phenotypes in tropical and temperate house mice (Mus musculus domesticus).

Toheeb Oyerinde
University of Medical Sciences

I am studying how environmental exposure, specifically exposure to heavy metals, influences the genetics associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder using C. elegans as a model organism.

Ben Hopkins
University of California, Davis

My work seeks to understand how evolutionary change at the cell type level drives the evolution of organ function.

Darren Lam
Stanford University

I am studying the mechanisms and evolutionary reasoning behind microbial cell death programs.

Austin Daigle
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

I study how natural selection, demographic history, and genome architecture shape genetic variation in natural populations.

Ayawovi Selom Ametepe
University of Arkansas

My PhD project focuses mainly on investigating the functional importance of structural domains in the Drosophila Robo3 axon guidance receptor.

The following transcript is from my candid conversation with Daman Saluja, Senior Professor and Joint Director of the Delhi School of Public Health (DSPH) in the Institute of Eminence (IoE) at the University of Delhi. She is also the former Chairperson of the Research Council and two-time Director of the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Center for Biomedical Research (ACBR).

Please tell us a little bit about your career path and your current work.

I began my career as a botanist, completing my bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral studies in botany. My journey then took an exciting turn when I pursued molecular biology at NYU Medical Center in the U.S., transitioning from studying plant to animal cells. Since then, my focus has centered on gene regulation.

In 1997, I joined the University of Delhi as a faculty member, concentrating on diagnostics and developing molecular biology-based assays for prevalent diseases in India. I have taken on additional roles including the charge of Director of ACBR and Joint Director of the Delhi School of Public Health. Over the past year and a half, I’ve served as the Chairperson of the Research Council, focusing on policy development and enhancing research outcomes within the university. This role involves strategizing improvements to promote technology-driven projects and improve overall research output. 

In the last few years, how has funding for science changed in India?

From the start of my career, securing funding for my projects was remarkably seamless. I have been able to obtain substantial research funds. This success, I believe, stems from the clear definition of project objectives and the presentation of a robust project proposal. But now more than ever, there are multiple grants for STEM research in India. Funding agencies have started encouraging new and diverse frontline areas, creating more opportunities for researchers. Task-specific calls and team-based research initiatives have recently emerged, reflecting a trend toward increased specificity in thrust areas. Additionally, there is a notable preference for interdisciplinary projects that span various departments and universities.

Another noteworthy development is the emphasis on consortiums for larger projects, fostering collaboration beyond individual labs. This approach aligns with a broader goal of contributing to the nation rather than focusing solely on individual endeavors. Funding is readily available at varying levels depending on the nature of the project. Individual projects typically range from $30,000 to $60,000, while multi-institutional efforts or international collaborations can reach several crores or hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The introduction of consortiums for national initiatives opens the door to substantial funding. This funding landscape is instrumental in supporting projects aimed at nationwide development and societal benefit.

How do you think your research influences your policy work? Is there a mutual benefit of working in both sectors?

Indeed, when I first assumed administrative roles, my initial understanding of how I could contribute was unclear. However, I found that my experiences in research, particularly in areas like intellectual property rights filing and technology transfer, significantly helped me develop new, effective policies. These policies included the introduction of incentive-driven awards for publishing in reputable journals and university-support for article processing charges, which are often beyond our project budgets. The university, especially with the support of the new vice chancellor, proved to be receptive. I can now say that having a scientific background allowed me to communicate convincingly with the university authorities. I could share solutions based on our laboratory’s experiences, facilitating smoother discussions and implementation.

What aspects of the research ecosystem in India set it apart from the rest of the world?

The research ecosystem in India is fascinating–there are notable aspects that set it apart globally. Certain areas, such as ayurvedic and yogic research, are being pursued only in India, distinguishing it from many other countries. Moreover, each country’s uniqueness is evident across various disciplines, including political science, policy-making, and economics, but the Indian research landscape is exceptionally diverse.

India needs more resources in STEM research, especially in acquiring high-end equipment. However, our approach involves the shared use of centralized facilities in universities and research institutions, allowing researchers to gain access with a nominal fee while ensuring efficient equipment utilization. This collaborative structure sets us apart, providing a more organized framework compared to some countries with professional fee-based facilities and separate departmental and central facilities.

What are some of the challenges of scientific research and policy-making in institutions supported by public funding in India?

Over 90 percent of research in India is publicly funded, with only a limited number of private research institutes. Unlike their counterparts in the United States, most of those institutes primarily focus on teaching rather than pure research. The funding distribution is diverse, encompassing different tiers like central and state universities with allocations based on faculty and projects. Navigating this stratified system poses a significant challenge, requiring meticulously crafted and well-thought-out project proposals to secure funding from the government’s limited pool.

Despite the stress on domestic funding, there has been a noteworthy shift in recent years with many institutes now actively engaging in international projects. This development, which has gained momentum in the last decade, marks a departure from the earlier trend of population-based research. The involvement in international collaborations diversifies funding sources and influences policy adjustments, benefitting the research community by aligning policies with global standards and practices.

I have to say, though, that there is minimal government interference during policymaking; scientists and policymakers take center stage in this process. However, the government substantially influences policy implementation due to its role in research funding. Committees are formed with representativesfrom relevant ministries such as the Ministry of Electronics for artificial intelligence–related policies. As policies are crafted for various sectors like agriculture, health, and sustainable resources, guidelines are in place to identify expert committee members who are granted autonomy in policymaking. Government intervention occurs mainly during the implementation phase when feasibility and funding availability is assessed. At this point, the government plays a more active role in ensuring effective policy execution but refrains from extensive interference in guideline formulation, trusting the expertise of the involved professionals.

What is your advice for early career researchers, such as PhDs and postdocs, who are interested in science policy?

Science policy, I believe, is gaining prominence, fostering a deeper understanding among researchers. Previously, scientists were primarily recipients of policies but not actively engaged. However, the landscape is evolving. While I wonder whether a career in research policy is universally fitting, it may resonate with a select few who possess a passion for both research and policymaking.

Some researchers who were initially focused on their scientific pursuits later recognized the potential to contribute to policy formation. The trend is shifting, with more scientists being invited to collaborate on policy initiatives, marking a balance between government officials and scientific experts. While it may not be a predominant career path for all researchers, individuals are increasingly inclined to explore the intersection of research and policy for a more holistic impact.