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.

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.

In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Care­er Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

The following transcript is from my conversation with Dr. Adriana Bankston, a Senior Fellow in Science Policy at the Federation of American Scientists, who is also the Membership Engagement Chair with AAAS Section X, and immediate past CEO & Managing Publisher for the Journal of Science Policy & Governance (JSPG). Here we discuss different traits commonly­ found in successful policy and advocacy fellowship applicants, various approaches for building one’s network, ways to transition into a policy and advocacy role from an academic background, and the importance of a dependable leader in any discipline.

One of the major takeaways I’ve learned from other interviews of yours is that your Society for Neuroscience (SfN) Policy & Advocacy Fellowship was a major door opener for your interest in policy and advocacy. Many international societies offer similar fellowships. What types of traits are necessary for an application to get a candidate to that next step and be selected for these programs?

Having an interest in a specific policy area and following that passion can be a good strategy. But you also have to be flexible once you get into the fellowship, as you may work on projects that you didn’t anticipate, and you need to think on your feet.

In preparation for applying, engaging in activities that show your commitment to a career in science policy is important, such as writing for a non-academic outlet and organizing policy events.

When I applied for the SfN Policy & Advocacy Fellowship, I had advocated for research policy for several years. I had a good story to tell, since I had previously engaged in advocacy activities, and could articulate why the fellowship was a clear next step for me to build upon these experiences and advance my career.

So when applying for policy fellowships, you need to be able to say why you want to go into policy, how the fellowship will help you move forward, and what your career goal is. Your goals or policy interests may change, but having a direction at the outset can go a long way.

In the “Beyond the Thesis” podcast, you share the importance of getting involved and gaining momentum by building your network early. But not everyone may have that network innately. What soft skills were necessary for you to reach out and start building your professional network?

Honestly, you learn by doing it. Because scientists don’t tend to be very social, and policy is a very people-oriented field, you have to get used to the idea that you will always be talking to people. Start small, such as with your peers, and present on your policy interests in trusted circles.

If you can find a specific policy area that you are passionate about, it will likely make it easier to talk in front of people. That’s how I came out of my shell and forced myself to get out of my comfort zone. If somebody invited me to speak, I would accept and figure it out later. So, sometimes you just have to say yes to an opportunity. While I’m generally pretty shy, if they asked me to talk about the future STEM pipeline, I would do it anytime because that’s what I’m interested in.

Relatedly, when meeting with science policy professionals for informational interviews, start with your current network and build on that. When requesting these meetings, have clear goals and know what you want to get from the conversation and be respectful of their time.

So your recommendation, from what I’m gathering, is that if an opportunity comes just rip off the band aid and go full force right into it?

That’s correct. When I was starting out, I wouldn’t say no to any opportunity. And even if it was a small opportunity, I would take the time to do it well. I believe that the more you do things well, the more people see you, and you build your reputation on that. It feeds on itself. I started small, by talking to graduate students about policy topics and speaking on these topics in spaces that felt safe. I would recommend giving a couple of talks within your circle and seeing how it goes, but also don’t be afraid to take on larger opportunities if they come along even if you don’t feel ready. But always be prepared to do well in even the smallest event because you never know who is there. And you want to do a good job for yourself too. So it’s like everything else— practice your talking points beforehand.

How can a science writer transition to a more policy-oriented style of writing?

One avenue is to educate yourself by getting practice in policy writing and submitting to journals like JSPG which provides training components. Writing policy publications is a good exercise in thinking and formulating arguments on policy issues within a larger societal context. This is why I think more academic style outlets like JSPG are valuable. I would also think about this from the audience standpoint. If you’re giving this to your legislator, what would they want to read about that is timely and relevant? And how do I make it easy for them to understand my main points and asks?

Another avenue is to consider policy implementation. If you’re writing for a magazine and want to get the piece in front of your local representative, developing non-academic writing skills comes in handy. Your message needs to be very concise and often delivered within a short timeline, so you have to be ready to push out a message to Capitol Hill, for example, possibly even within 24–48 hours. Learning to develop a written paragraph or longer piece on the spot on an issue that legislative staff will care about is a good skill for mastering policy writing. 

What insights have you gleaned from your mentors, and as you have become a mentor yourself, that you could distill down and share with other individuals who are now stepping up into a mentorship and leadership role?

I think the most important thing for a supervisor or mentor is to support people in what they want to do, and not what you want them to do.

This is not always an easy thing to do. As a supervisor, you need to make sure that things are moving forward in the best interest of the organization while making sure that individual needs are getting fulfilled. It is a balance between elevating organizational priorities while building people up at the same time. Those people will appreciate working on something they are interested in while building their resume and serving multiple interests.

I like to believe there’s a certain degree of tenacity and altruism shared amongst all individuals pursuing a role in policy and advocacy. These individuals will strive to bolster their cause and do everything in their power to support those sharing the same set of values. Do you agree with the sentiment? And if so, what other traits or qualities of an individual are necessary to succeed in the realm of policy and advocacy?

Going to medical school was my childhood dream because I wanted to do something for other people, and to serve the greater good. I realized that working in science policy fulfills the same needs for me. Policy making as a field is very collaborative and every person’s contribution matters, and a lot comes down to your own accountability. Moral integrity is key, so if say that you are going to do something, then do it. Be dependable and a good team player. When you have a section of a letter to the Hill assigned to you within a certain timeframe, that needs to be done in order for the letter to be sent on time. If you are part of a good team, your work will be valued and be part of the final product. But you have to do the work yourself and do it well to show your contribution to a collective endeavor.

I also want to make a point about adaptability. Sometimes you have to quickly write a statement for your organization on a recent policy development on the Hill which can be exciting. I think that keeps it interesting, that adrenaline rush, but also you have to be able to adapt and realize that your day is not in your control. You may have to drop what you had planned for that day if required and help with an urgent task to serve your organization’s needs.

Do you have any closing remarks?

I want to encourage young people to get your voice out there and into relevant spaces. Just because you are an early career scientist, it does not mean that people do not care about what you have to say. On the contrary, ou bring a lot to the table, and most policymakers and their staff like to hear from you. So don’t be afraid to speak up on policy issues that you care about and you think they should address for their constituents.

In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

Today, as part of the ECLP Policy and Advocacy Interview Series, I’m with Maria Elena Bottazzi, current Senior Associate Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine.

Could you tell us a little bit more about your career path and your current work at Baylor?

I am an Italian-born, Honduran-raised microbiologist. I received a microbiology and clinical chemistry degree from the National Autonomous University of Honduras. In Honduras, as is the case with most Latin American countries and other low-middle income settings, training at the bachelor’s-in-science level rarely involves experience within molecular biology. So, in order to further understand the molecular and biochemical basis of host-pathogen interactions, I moved to the United States to complete my PhD at the University of Florida, [studying the] molecular basis of pathogenic disease. As I was completing my postdoctoral work at University of Pennsylvania, I realized that my true calling was using all I have learned in the biomedical field to create solutions and develop new interventions for tropical and emerging diseases. So, I decided to enroll in a Master of Business Administration program to hone my business management and organizational skills. Shortly after, I met Peter Hotez (the current Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine) and realized we were both interested in the same goal: developing global health technologies and translating them from the academic laboratory to the world. We have since worked together with an emphasis on vaccine development and accessibility for developing countries and for diseases that are typically ignored.

You have worked with vaccines and neglected tropical diseases for a while. What has been your own level of involvement in the policy area around these issues? Do you have any advice for young scientists interested in science policy?   

I have been around tropical diseases my whole life. Growing up in Honduras and studying microbiology there, I have always been observing the devastating effects they have on people. But to be fair, my interest peaked around the time I was finishing my higher education. This coincided with the turn of the century, when there was a re-emerging interest in global and tropical health. As I started my professional career, I saw all these policy frameworks being developed around poverty, hunger, education, and other health factors. Yet, as I moved forward with my scientific path, we started seeing how several diseases were being ignored, especially those that affected only tropical countries. I found myself part of a drive towards open science and creating partnerships and collaborations that would make research in tropical diseases accessible and transparent. Very early on, Peter Hotez and I realized that we needed to go beyond the bench: we had to be capable of developing robust products, like vaccines, that would be able to directly help people. Besides our scientific language, we also had to learn policy, business, ethics, and legal languages to serve the community in the best way possible. As scientists, it is difficult to be properly trained on these other dimensions: you are usually focused on the science and presentation skills. Peter Hotez was a great role model for me. He was really interested in the behind-the-scenes of policy making, so I ended up tagging along for the ride. Eventually, I realized I was very interested in scientific policy, so I applied to and got selected for a fellowship with the Leshner Leadership Institute in the American Association for the Advancement of Science. There I got formal training on how to integrate academic sciences and business practices. It is not all about the formal training, however. During my personal time, I also took several courses and met with different people to learn more about pharmaceutical economics, licensing and intellectual property laws, and even how to write legal contracts. This is something I recommend to every early career scientist: make sure that you take advantage of all the resources out there. Branch out from your bench, and learn about things that will help you engage the community and your own science in a much more efficient way! In the real world, you are always surrounded by so many more things than just your science. Always try a holistic approach when it comes to preparing your own career path.

You and Peter Hotez developed a COVID vaccine. Can you tell us more about it and how any regulations impacted your work?

As Peter and I started working on neglected tropical disease vaccine programs, we realized a pattern: funding for these programs dramatically increases when the disease emerges, but then it rapidly decreases as other priorities arise. We decided to take advantage of all the knowledge created during the “golden years” of funding for these rare diseases, and in 2011, we were awarded a grant to tackle a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) vaccine in case of future outbreaks. Between 2011–2014, we were incredibly successful: we developed and manufactured a candidate for a SARS vaccine and were close to moving into human trials. Then, the 2015 Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak happened; the NIH asked us to use the rest of the funding to develop a MERS vaccine instead of moving the SARS vaccine into toxicology trials. By the end of 2016, we had already come up with a prototype vaccine for SARS and for MERS as well; we were ready to start a pathway towards the clinic for these vaccines. Then, suddenly, coronaviruses were not that important anymore; our direct funding for these vaccines stopped as the agencies believed they had other diseases to deal with at that point. Internally, we decided to keep the program alive with some intramural money so all the scientific knowledge wouldn’t be wasted.  

To our surprise, the 2020 pandemic was being caused by a coronavirus family virus with a sequence similar to the SARS virus: we were ready to hit the ground running! Instead of 4 years, it only took us a few months to figure out the COVID-19 prototype vaccine. Since the world was in a state of urgency, we decided to not patent our COVID-19 vaccine technology and offered it as open source for manufacturing to different companies. Sadly, no company in the US or Europe was interested. This was mainly due to both scientific and policy misunderstandings. Our vaccine was based on the spike protein’s receptor binding domain and was produced in yeast, so it was easily scalable. At the time, both pharmaceutical companies and policy makers worked under the false assumption that the whole spike protein must be used, and they would rather fund new technologies such as mRNA-based vaccines because of their perceived speed to develop although they were not nearly as scalable at that time. Although we had pre-clinical trial data proving the high efficiency of our vaccine prototype, big pharmaceutical companies had no interest in it due to both policy and scientific mishaps. Eventually, we received interest from companies in India and Indonesia since they were having a hard time getting access to the mRNA vaccine technologies. These manufacturers shared our same vision to make scalable, affordable, and equitable vaccines for the public. We now have administered more than 100 million doses, making our vaccine one of the most accessible ones out there. Thankfully, we were able to surpass initial hurdles and make the vaccine accessible to those who needed it the most.

As a vaccine expert, do you think we are prepared for the next pandemic? What do you think needs to change regarding current vaccine policies?

One of the main issues during this pandemic was how countries with lots of resources decided to over-stock vaccine doses and disregard the needs of other countries. Nationalism plays a big part in this; everyone wants what is best for their own people first. Yet, as we clearly saw with the failed response to this pandemic, this is not the correct way to go about public health. Even if you vaccinate all your citizens, you will still suffer the downsides of a pandemic if your neighbors and trade partners cannot do the same. We learned the hard way that to get completely out of a pandemic, we need the whole world to work together and help each other.  

I think we learned a lot during this pandemic that will be useful in the future. For example, regulators around the world realized that many steps of the process could be done in parallel instead of sequentially, so we now know that the pipeline to create and manufacture vaccines, or other drugs, can be shorter and more efficient. Yet, we still face a terrible monster: inequality. With high-income countries overstocking vaccine doses, many low-income countries were left without the opportunity to order vaccines. Even after some countries started donating doses for children and senior adults, many low-income countries had their whole health system collapse due to how long it took to access vaccines. In the long run, this deeply affected high-income countries since the world was not able to truly go “back to normal” until most countries had regained control over their health systems. By not making vaccines equitable, we kind of shot ourselves in the foot and prolonged the pandemic far beyond what it could have been if we had made vaccines readily accessible to everyone since the beginning. We learned some lessons from this pandemic; however, we still have much work to do if we want to be prepared for another one. It is not only vaccine accessibility that needs to be more equitable but also vaccine research and regulation. There is a common belief that anything that is manufactured in middle- or low-income countries is, by default, of poor or dubious quality. If we want to be ready, we need to trash that old mentality. Worldwide regulators, like the World Health Organization, should work harder to improve vaccine research, manufacturing, and regulatory enterprises in low-income countries. With COVID, we clearly saw how economic power bought you a ticket to the discussion table. We need to move forward and show that you do not need economic power to have a voice regarding the world’s public health.

Thanks for being with us today. Do you have any final words for prospective scientists in developing countries who think their dream of being a researcher is far-fetched?

No dream is too far-fetched. I would like to tell them that, although it can be hard, they need to leave the impostor syndrome behind. It does not matter if you graduate from your country’s national university or from Harvard. You don’t need a prestigious degree to do great science. You need dedication, passion, courage, and consistency. You have been exposed to very different life stories than the average scientist. You need to take advantage of that cultural intelligence and let it propel you to success. I believe those of us who come from low-income countries are well suited for science; we are accustomed to surviving crisis after crisis, and our resilience is beyond that of anyone else. Our culture, our language, and all our lived experiences are strengths that prepare us for a bright future. Be proud of who you are and where you come from and leverage that to increase your skills. Do a self-evaluation, identify your weak spots, and use all that resilience to move forward. You have all the potential to become successful scientists. Never stop working hard and aiming for the top!

In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

Today, as part of the ECLP Policy and Advocacy Interview Series, I’m with Manuel Elias-Gutierrez, a senior researcher at El Colegio de la Frontera Sur in Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Could you tell us a little bit more about your career path and your current work?

I started in the National Autonomous University of Mexico in 1980 as an assistant, worked there for 18 years, and became a full professor. At some point, I was invited to work on sabbatical leave here in Chetumal for six months, but six months turned into several years. Doing science here felt like another dimension, far away from the distractions of excessive bureaucracy known to academia. When my wife and I moved our labs here, people said it would be a career-ending mistake, but here we are years later and still going strong. Here, I have been able to develop all my research in freshwater biodiversity. Mexico is one of the most biodiverse places on earth, and we are applying modern techniques, such as DNA barcoding, to understand the ecology and diversity of freshwater zooplankton and fish species like never before.

How has public funding for science changed in Mexico in the last few years?

Let’s start from the beginning. In the 1980’s, the government realized there was a big “brain drain” happening, where most scientists were leaving the country to work overseas. They then started a fellowship known as the National Investigator System, popularly known as SNI. Nowadays, being part of the SNI is a must for any researcher in Mexico; for many, it can account for half of their income. In order to keep our SNI fellowship, we have periodic evaluations. Depending on the level, you were evaluated every three to five years. The evaluations are a mixture of the peer-review and tenure-review systems: if you are not producing papers, not graduating students, or grants keep being rejected, you can be turned away from the SNI and lose that economical supplement. Imagine suddenly losing half of your income! On the other hand, this system is what makes science in Mexico so productive. The scientific community is small; there are only about 41,000 members of the SNI, but because of the constant evaluations, we are a very active community with constant publications. It is basically the same publish-or-perish mentality as in the US or Europe. You must be productive, or you are downgraded or expelled from the SNI.

Besides the SNI fellowship, most researchers keep their labs running through grants from the National Council for Humanities, Science, and Technology. Funding from the council has been traditionally stable. I got my first grant in 1990 and continued with granted projects every year until 2017. But since 2017, things have changed drastically. Cuts to science funding started during the previous president of Mexico, and although we thought things would change under the current president, we are still gravely suffering from deep cuts to our funding. The national council and other government agencies started funding fewer grants, and the few proposals that are accepted are only funded partially, at 70 percent of what is asked in most cases. Funding has never been as good as in the US or elsewhere, but at least it was consistent. Most labs were able to build a good infrastructure before the deep funding cuts happened. It is a very complicated situation right now. I can only speak from personal experience, but I know that many colleagues are in the same boat. We have PCR and other machines that have been running for more than 10 years, but since we do not have enough funds, we end up paying for repairs from our own pockets in several cases. And it’s not only repairs. Lately, we have had to use our personal funds to pay for publication fees and travel expenditures for conferences and meetings. Many even use their own money to pay for gasoline and pickup trucks for research field trips. And insecurity in the country has increased: in the past, we never had an issue. Recently, several colleagues were assaulted on a sampling trip. With the new rules, it’s also harder to get funding from exterior entities for trips and collaborations. It is so complicated now that the number of international collaborations I had has been severely impacted.

Even when you secure funding from outside sources, the government can also interfere with that. For example, a couple of years ago, we got a grant from the United Nations, but we were not able to use it completely. When we received any external funding, we were forced to deposit it in a centralized institutional trust. With those funds, we started the construction of a new room for our labs, but then the government said all institutional trusts would be over, so everything was stopped. Because of the new rules, we cannot use any non-government funding for equipment, like PCR machines or even computers; this “work” computer I am using to talk to you was bought with my personal money. Things were not perfect before, but they have not gotten better either.

Is there a concrete reason behind these changes? The Mexican government seems to constantly accuse academics of only doing “neoliberal” science. What is meant by using this economic term in the context of science, or is it just being used as an excuse?

There does not seem to be convincing logic behind it. One of the strongest proposals from the new government was to save money, which they have accomplished in other areas. But they have tried to apply the same logic to scientific funding. I am not entirely sure why they keep using the term “neoliberal science.” I believe they are referring to the accusations that, during the previous government, the Council of Science was giving too much money to enterprises and private companies. I have not seen the financial documents myself, but it is agreed upon by many colleagues that the Council was only using six percent of its funding for these private companies. I am not sure if you can really say that it is an excuse, but whatever has fueled these changes has led to surprising alterations to how we do science. For example, even if you get a grant rejected, you could request the peer-reviewed evaluation, which I have done in the past. But for one of my latest rejections, I was not given a peer-reviewed evaluation. Out of the whole country, less than 50 grants for a particular call were being funded that year. There has been an extreme cut to scientific funding, which is extremely sad.

Mexico is one of the top five most biodiverse countries in the world. We used to have a special government entity dedicated to supporting biodiversity, the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity. It was even well-regarded by the international community, but it has been reduced to almost nothing. For example, lots of colleagues have voiced concerns for biodiversity regarding the “Maya Train,” a new government project that runs through the Mexican South. But the government has disregarded those concerns and avoids doing any independent risk-assessment projects that I am aware of. Personally, I know those areas have very fragile ecosystems. In one of my projects, we are currently working on how a tropical storm turned Lake Bacalar—the most beautiful lake in the world in my opinion—from blue to a brownish color that could lead to an ecological collapse in the area. The train might greatly increase the transportation efficiency and the economy in the south, but no studies have been made about the tourist impact on these extremely fragile ecosystems, some that even contain hidden biodiversity. Sadly, science seems to have become a low-importance, secondary-level issue in Mexico. Nevertheless, my colleagues and I concentrate on our work and our science, and we will always keep working to move our projects forward. We do not let ourselves be defeated by external factors.

In previous interviews and articles about this topic, you seem concerned about academic freedom and the future of science in Mexico. Are you still worried? What does the future hold for Mexican principal investigators and graduate students?

There is currently a discussion in the Mexican Congress regarding a new law on humanities, sciences, technologies, and innovation. It is basically trying to centralize all science in Mexico. Many colleagues fear it will turn into an excuse for the government to make unilateral decisions regarding science policy. The new law proposes government officials across several agencies will be responsible for advising the national council about the decisions on science. No representative from the scientific community is being considered. Right now, we still have academic freedom, but lots of colleagues and early career scientists feel too much uncertainty for the future. Lots of academics are not sure about their job stability anymore. People with families and kids are not sure whether they should be planning to leave soon. I talked with several of them before this interview, and the consensus was to underline how much uncertainty we are dealing with here in Mexico.

Regarding the students, it boils down to the same: the future is too uncertain to take on such long commitments as a PhD or a long-term project. In the last years, I have had a hard time getting students to come here, and now I know for a fact that our program has decreased its class size almost by half since the pandemic because students are not trusting the future of science in Mexico as much now. On a positive note, I see the younger generation of students as being more willing to collaborate with each other and organize. I grew up and made my career with the old system, where individuality and small-sized collaborations were praised. We have a hard time coming together against all this uncertainty, but early career scientists now are organizing, so there is hope in the future. Yet, it is not easy to publicly voice our concerns. The rules can be changed at any time and make our job as researchers harder. For example, a few years ago, a new rule came into effect that for researchers to leave the country (even for a conference), they needed to ask permission from the government first. That only changed after a big scandal broke out in the local newspapers.

Sometimes not even scandals are enough. Coming back to the topic of the “Maya Train,” lots of scientists voiced concerns about the damage this will do to the local flora and fauna, and the national council even commissioned a report. Yet, they did not like the findings, so they decided not to promote it. It was eventually published, but no government agency was allowed to participate on the report and its publication had to be privately funded; the findings were effectively censored. In my whole academic life, I have never seen such an attitude from our authorities. It deeply shocked me. All my life I have been away from politics. I have tried to avoid it and concentrate on my research. I cannot stay silent anymore. For the future of Mexican science and the future of all early career scientists, we must speak up. All that I have talked about today is based on my personal experience. These are the things we are currently dealing with as Mexican scientists. Funding is scarcer than ever, and I am concerned Mexico will go into another large brain drain. I hope our authorities will see the light and understand our true needs as researchers. Seeing young scientists still interested in this career and fighting for academic freedom in Mexico and abroad keeps my hopes high; I certainly believe we will overcome these hurdles and Mexican science will continue!

In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

We interviewed Vence Bonham, who is the acting deputy director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and the head of the Health Disparities Unit in NHGRI’s Social and Behavioral Research Branch. He provides leadership for the Institute’s health equity and workforce diversity programs. As an associate investigator, Bonham’s research focuses on the social implications of genomic knowledge​​ and the use of social constructs, like race and ethnicity, in biomedical research and clinical care. In addition, Bonham studies sickle cell disease.

I wanted to start with a question about your career path. As someone who started his career with a Juris Doctor degree, what sparked your interest in pursuing an academic career in genetics? 

I came to genomics through my interest in health disparities. I always wanted to be an advocate, particularly to address inequities in our society. I saw my role as a lawyer as an opportunity to address those issues. So, I made a decision to go to law school at Ohio State University with the expectation that I would work on legal and equity issues around education. I later became a healthcare lawyer as my interests grew in health equity. That brought me to medicine and to my engagements in medicine and research. I started doing research with several faculty members, and I loved it. After a well-established career as a university attorney at one institution, associate general counsel at another, and being on the board of the National Association of College and University Attorneys, I decided to make a shift. I went back and did a Health Services Research Fellowship at the American Association of Medical Colleges. Because my real passion was around issues of health disparities, my research interests as a faculty member gravitated to work around that, and I gravitated to people who were scholars and experts in health disparities research. That’s what brought me into genomics.

As an investigator, much of your work explores the use of race and ethnicity data in biomedical research. Racial and ethnic categories are very commonly used to recruit participants in genetic and genomic studies. How do you envision the future of bringing people into studies if we no longer use race and ethnicity as a way to diversify the data? Do you think individuals would know their ancestry prior to being in studies? 

How do we identify individuals? We all have so many different identities, including genetic identities. How do we help scientists, the participants in studies, and the general public understand the nuance of identity? I believe that for the foreseeable future, we will use race, in a variety of areas, in our society and in science because race is real and has an impact on people’s lives. If we didn’t have information about racial and ethnic differences, we would be missing important information, and that includes the issue of who’s participating in studies. Now, as geneticists, I think when you’re designing your study, and you’re describing your populations, it doesn’t have to be the same as NIH inclusion reports. If your study is studying an issue about genetic variation and a specific disease, where it’s really much more about understanding ancestral background, then it may be important that you frame and talk about your study populations in a different way than an inclusion report. So I think that’s the key message with moving beyond race in genomic studies. 

Will people start to know their ancestry? I actually think we already see examples of that with large companies like 23andme and ancestry.com, where people are seeking more information about their background. Receiving that information gives people exposure to their genetic ancestry. So I expect that there will be more understanding that individual participants have about the complexity and the richness of their background. What’s really important right now is that the scientists do a better job with regards to how they describe the populations in their studies, because of the implications it has, both for their own studies and the implementation of new knowledge in healthcare and medicine and for the general public’s understanding of findings within studies.

With descriptions of four categories of race and ethnicity, I do still think that they are limited, right? Because people are a lot more nuanced than one category of something. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on that as well with other social constructs like gender. Do you also think that is where the future is moving away from?

I think the answer is definitely yes. And I think the complexity of our identities is so evolving in our ability to talk about it in a way that we used to be so binary, and we’re no longer that. I think it’s important for people to understand those complexities.

How do you think your research influences the policy work that you do? And vice versa? How does that relationship work?

I believe that my research informs my work as an administrator and policymaker. It really enhances my ability to look at issues. I see my research really helping me to understand issues, to be able to communicate examples, and to talk about issues that are important around equity. I see my research being really informed by that. But then, it also flips around. What I’m hearing and what I’m learning from a policy perspective gives me an opportunity for new types of questions to ask in my research. So, it’s really a cycle, but that also makes it fun! 

It seems like science policy in the US is in constant flux, depending on who is in power. In your opinion, what do you think are some of the challenges that we’ll see in the United States? What advice would you give an early career scientist interested in policy?

I would encourage people, while they’re in their fellowships, in their trades, in graduate school, or postdocs, to get exposed and be an engaged citizen. From there, you can determine whether a policy shift is what you’re interested in. Your expertise as a scientist is important to policy making, and there is recognition of that. There are always talks and engagement activities. Each district has a congress member, the state legislators, so get involved. I think that also shows the sincerity of your interest in policy to show that you’re spending your own time getting engaged in the process.

Any concluding remarks?

What I hope came across in this conversation is that careers are not straight lines. People can make different decisions along their careers. There are ways to bridge your knowledge to help your next step in your career. 

By Daniel J. Gironda

In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

Here I sit down with Lance David Miller, Professor of Cancer Biology, Director of the Breast Cancer Center of Excellence, Associate Director of Basic Sciences, and Co-Director of the Cancer Genomics Shared Resource at Wake Forest School of Medicine. We discuss generating interest in research for up-and-coming academics, the resources available to young scientists, and how policymakers have helped direct funding for young investigators.

Dan: Tell us, what brought you to your career today?

Lance: I’ve always identified myself as being a scientist. Even as a kid, I had these tendencies to want to know how things worked. I loved the natural world. I think I get it from my father, who was a plant pathologist. He used Mendelian genetics to breed tobacco back in the 70s and 80s, when nobody was really doing this. That was always interesting to me and probably has something to do with why my work deals a lot with genetics and genomics today. But I didn’t have my sights set on cancer research or genomics in college, so I decided to go for a master’s in biotechnology at East Carolina University. I really liked the idea of maybe working for some company that develops molecular tools for research. But after I got the degree, my career plans changed. And I thought if I’ve come this far, why not apply what I know towards a major health problem? And why not cancer? Because it affects so many people and it’s something that we should be able to figure out. So, I interviewed at UNC Chapel Hill for a position in their PhD program in Cancer Genetics and Molecular Biology. I started doing cancer research and never looked back.

I became very interested early on in genetics and genomics and some very new technologies that were just coming into play at the time, like microarray technology. The whole revolution of printing DNA microarrays and studying how genes are expressed on the scale of 10s of 1000s at a time, simultaneously, was brand new and being pioneered out of Stanford. And it turned out that my mentor had a connection with the lab at Stanford who was really making microarray technology happen. So, he arranged it so that I could go out there, learn that technology, and bring it back. And that really shaped my career in a huge way because it was a very new technology—the first “omics” technology. So that became a launching pad for the rest of my career. Right as I was completing my PhD research, my mentor was recruited to Singapore. Singapore was putting a lot of money into health sciences and biosciences and wanted to develop basically a version of NIH in Southeast Asia. I then went to Singapore right after receiving my PhD and was there for seven years. As a scientist employee of the Singapore government, I worked with a team to establish the Genome Institute of Singapore, and we had lots of great funding to do real cutting-edge genomics work in cancer.

Dan: On that end, I know Singapore was willing to shell out resources to start these new programs and promote new technologies so that you could open that door to start the cancer genomics research institute. After coming back to the states and having this academic dogfight for grants, is there anything policymakers or advocates can do to help promote funding for prospective research over here?

Lance: I think policymakers have done some really good things. When I came back [from Singapore], I was still a young to mid-level career scientist. It was very competitive to get grants, particularly for someone like myself, who had not been in that environment. I was like an animal raised in the zoo being put out into the wild and having to survive on my own—because in academia you have to learn to survive. Most institutions require that young faculty have a timeline for getting R01s and then hold you to it because, these days, basic dollars from the institution alone are unable to fund researchers and their labs. When I was applying for grants, federal grant funding was on a multi-year decline, as opposed to now, where available grant dollars are on a multi-year climb. So back then, less than 10% of big grants like R01s were getting funded. In that competitive environment, there was a lot of job dissatisfaction. How do you survive and stay passionate about your work? This was a big question and chased a lot of people away from academia and into the commercial sector.

Dan: For young scientists starting their careers, that’s one of the biggest concerns to us—that consistent battle, always scrounging for grants and just trying to survive.

Lance: It is apparent that mechanisms were needed to attract young scientists to academia. Policies were enacted that created funding opportunities for early career investigators specifically so that they were not competing against senior scientists. New policies extended those pay lines dramatically for early career investigators, even doubling them in some cases. So now, early career investigators regularly receive a score boost to help them compete with the more senior researchers. This has been very valuable for keeping young blood in the game. Also, I mentioned earlier that grant pay lines were on a downward trend at one point but recently are on an upward trend. This, too, is due to changing policy: the results of lobbyists and a change in thinking among policymakers that more funds, not less, should be put into science and human health. In 2020, there was a significant push in government to really increase NIH and other government research funding over the coming years, one example being the 21^st Century Cures Act. So now, there’s sort of a promise and commitment to increase funding year after year so that the pay lines keep going up to fund research and to fuel the passion for people like myself and my students.

Dan: To wrap up, what would you want to see from policymakers, scientists, and individuals in the research community moving forward to promote Policy and Advocacy changes to generate more funding for prospective research?

Lance: Policies designed to support and promote visibility of the importance of research and its financial needs are going to be valuable. One thing that impressed me, as an example, was a movement called Stand Up to Cancer. This movement had a lot of celebrities and sports clubs and other high-profile organizations involved. When popular culture backs a movement, society responds, and wheels start to turn. When you have students in their late teens and early 20s, who are trying to make career decisions, how do you get the message to them that academia is not a place of struggle and that you have an opportunity there to guide your own research and to make big strides? I think there continues to be a need for the development of tools for students to not only appreciate what can be accomplished in cancer research but also what that life would look like and what the options are on the career level. In all scientific disciplines, there are pros and cons, there are tripping stones and fast paths all along the road to a highly satisfying career, or even the road to greatness. An important question moving forward is how can new policies move this information into the hands of young people today?

By Daniel J. Gironda

In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

Here I speak with Graça Almeida-Porada, Professor of Regenerative Medicine and Director of the Fetal Research and Therapy Program at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine. In our interview, Graça and I discuss her draw to science, her current research with prenatal gene therapies, how public perception can persuade policy changes at a national level, and how young scientists can get involved in policy.

Dan: I thought we could start off with a little bit of background about yourself. Where do you come from, and how did you get into the field of stem cell research and gene therapy?

Graça: I was born and raised in Portugal. Since I was a kid, I have wanted to be a scientist because I loved to read books about the lives of scientists such as Madame Curie, Albert Einstein, and others like Florence Nightingale. They were kind of my superheroes. After finishing medical school, I did my residency, and then I completed a fellowship in hematology/transfusion medicine. I always had this dream of doing research, but in Portugal at the time (over 20 years ago), there weren’t a lot of opportunities to do research, especially for a clinician. During my last year of my fellowship in hematology, I applied for and was awarded a scholarship from the Portuguese government to come to the US to do my PhD, focusing on the impact of cytomegalovirus in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. In the lab next door, there was a pioneer in the field of in-utero hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and I absolutely fell in love with the concept. I thought that it would be absolutely the best thing in the world if you could treat someone before they were born, so they could be born healthy and have no problems afterwards. During my clinical work, I often felt that I didn’t have the tools to treat many of the benign, hematological conditions that I saw on a daily basis—there just weren’t any real solutions. I remember the kids with hemophilia—small kids that we had to poke their veins and put catheters through to give clotting factors. The current state-of-the-art medical treatments just couldn’t offer solutions to these patients. It was this realization, coupled with my desire to do research, that motivated me to come and do my PhD. 

Dan: Given that your work with gene therapies is performed prenatally, there’s probably some pushback. In terms of a conversation with a policymaker or some greater institution, how would you have that conversation with someone saying that you’re playing with their genetics and that it was a higher power’s intention to give them their disease?

Graça: These are very important ethical issues to consider. I want to make it very clear that although we do gene therapy and cell therapy, we do these procedures at a time during development that is ethically acceptable. We don’t ever perform procedures during the embryonic stage; everything we do and are proposing to do is performed during the fetal stage of development, at a time when all the tissues are already patterned and developed. However, this has been a difficult point to get across not just to the general public but also to other colleagues—first, because they are not aware that these procedures are actually quite straightforward from a technical standpoint. Since all fetal therapies involve two individuals, the mother and the fetus, our first concern always has to be the well-being of the mother and her safety, and any procedure we consider cannot ever place the mother at risk.

To go back to your prior query concerning “playing a higher power” by treating these diseases before the child is born, this doesn’t seem to be an issue at all if we treat these diseases after birth. Wouldn’t it be far better to treat these diseases prior to birth and thereby enable the child to be born healthy and reach his/her full potential? As a scientist, I, of course, will always uphold the strictest ethical morals. We are trying to offer a treatment option. We’re not saying everyone should undergo this treatment. This must be the mother’s or the parents’ choice. If people want to try it, fine; if they don’t want to try it, there are other possibilities for treatment after birth. We just have to clearly and accurately communicate the potential benefits and risks to the parents, so that they can make an appropriately informed decision. As such, fetal transplantation is like everything else in science and medicine; the community needs to work together to try to develop these treatments.

Dan: And that’s the beauty of autonomy—the patient’s right to choose comes first. To shift, I think most scientist-politician relationships all begin with communication or lack thereof. How can we best illustrate the efficacy of our work?

Graça: I think that as we (scientists) transmit our results to the scientific community in meetings and conferences, it is imperative to be aware that we must translate the knowledge to the public in general and to clarify questions that the public may have. As I am sure you are aware, policy is intrinsically associated with science, because all scientific funding ultimately comes from the policymakers who allocate funding to the NIH. To create awareness in the community—not just within the general population but also within the scientific community and with the policymakers—is crucial because we can’t develop these therapies without funding. If foundations and institutions, such as the NIH, think that it’s not a good approach to treat the disease, they won’t provide funding, the field dies, and then these potentially transformative treatments never see the light of day. It is vital to appreciate that all these therapies—be they for adults, children, or even for a developing fetus—take time. So, I think policy in sciences is essential because the people in the government who are in charge of making the budget should understand that the country needs to be at the cutting edge of science and be capable of developing new technologies, not just in the field of medicine but in other scientific fields as well. To stay at the edge of innovation, money is needed. If policymakers can facilitate and promote scientific funding, that is certainly something from which the US and every other country would benefit.

Dan: How or what would you recommend for young scientists, such as myself and your students, to help minimize the distribution of misinformation, and how can people get involved?

Graça: Maybe explore alternative career paths in science policy for young people who understand the science and who have worked in a lab. These are the people who can help to bridge multiple different fields and make a huge impact. Young scientists need to be the ones driving and leading science policy and the decision-making process with the lawyers and politicians because scientists understand the science. So that would be a way of ensuring that people who truly understand the issues would be able to use media to reach large groups of people, defend science, and serve as advocates for any type of science, but especially for genetic disorders. Groups like this are essential because science policy is as important as science itself, and such groups enable scientists to help steer science policy and thereby take the future of science in their own hands.

Dan: I agree. We need a greater team effort between the scientists and the policymakers. To understand both the language of science and the language of policy helps push policymakers to actually implement those changes through active communication.

Graça: I think people should be aware that scientists spend their lives working really hard to find solutions to problems that plague humanity. Scientists don’t do things to harm people. We try to develop new tools to get us to a better place, to a healthy state, at least speaking for the people who do biomedical research. At the end of the day, people in science are always happy to speak about their work with anyone who is willing to listen, and they are just trying to make a better world for us and for future generations.

By Sharifu Tusuubira 

In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

We interviewed Dr. Sonia Hall, the President and Chief Executive Officer at BioKansas, a non-profit organization that fosters and supports the regional bioscience ecosystem. Sonia is also a board member of the Council of State Bioscience Associations, and she previously worked as the Director of Engagement and Development for the Genetics Society of America. During her career, she developed numerous educational outreach activities, including co-founding Kansas DNA Day. Sonia advocated for policy change to modernize graduate education and designed communication projects to highlight the important contributions of scientists with diverse life histories. Here, we talk with her about her non-traditional undergraduate experience, how her background in business helped her succeed, and what early career scientists can do to get the training they need for a successful career. 

As someone who started their career in business, what sparked your interest in becoming a science policy champion?  

I was a non-traditional undergraduate student with a decade of work experience in business, two children, and a husband. This made the inequities that exist within higher education and the subsequent opportunities that people get to pursue, very pronounced. I was fortunate to land a really wonderful undergraduate research lab experience with Rob Ward at the University of Kansas. I also received a travel award from the University of Kansas that allowed me to attend my first national conference as an undergraduate. These opportunities altered my trajectory. I applied to the molecular, cellular, and developmental biology program at the University of Kansas and was accepted. The business experience that I brought with me helped me realize that there was a disconnect between the training that was being provided to early career scientists and what was actually needed to succeed in the workplace. This realization allowed me to carve out a unique opportunity to create programming both at the institutional and national level through service with my professional society, the Genetics Society of America. I never lost sight of the inequities and systemic constraints that make it challenging for individuals with diverse life histories to be successful in higher education. 

What role do you see investments, such as attending conferences, having in terms of guiding scientists? 

Sometimes, they’re an access point to opportunity. I likely wouldn’t have been able to go to that conference as an undergraduate without that support. I wonder if there’s sufficient funding to enhance equity within the sciences. Looking at the levels of endowments, at different academic institutions, you’d see some disparity. At an institution like the University of Kansas, which has a lot of international and first-generation students getting a PhD or those coming from rural communities where access to science and scientific training isn’t always as available as it is in an urban core, it is critically important to have those types of travel grants at a high enough frequency.

What role did you play at the GSA to support early career scientists’ access to opportunities? 

When I was working at GSA, I founded the Early Career Leadership Program (ECLP). The inspiration for this program was the need to demonstrate that early career scientists have valuable contributions that they can make to the scientific enterprise, even if they haven’t completed their degree or their postdoctoral work. In the ECLP, students had the access to develop these skills, build network connections, and create deliverables that they could then take out onto the job market to demonstrate that they could successfully do this type of work. This raised their visibility and demonstrated the valuable contributions early career scientists can make toward equity and inclusion. Furthermore, this helps make sure that they get that robust professional development training that they need while preparing them to enter a variety of different positions in any of the career pathways that they pursue. 

At BioKansas, that is still integrated into a lot of our programs, but there’s an additional layer that we have here within the state. The midwest is really challenged by its retention of technically trained scientists. We’re such huge exporters of technically trained scientists, and so there is the need to figure out ways to be able to keep them here. If we utilize a community-based approach to raise our academic institutions to better support our early career scientists, that’s a really great way to share the responsibility, while also leveraging the unique strengths and competencies of those different groups. 

What can early career scientists do to get involved or get the supplementary training that they need? 

Students should get involved in professional societies and associations. The Genetics Society of America has a lot of really fantastic opportunities. Whatever your scientific discipline, find your professional society or association. In every single state, we have a BIO affiliate. They provide a great way to explore opportunities in industry and get industry-specific training.  

Science entrepreneurship is the heart of innovation and commerce. How should we encourage scientists to go into entrepreneurship?

Our academic institutions are a great source of new discoveries and innovations. It’s a difficult path to go from that point of discovery into commercialization. However, that is how we increase the economic capacity and the innovation capacity of our world. For many students, there’s a lack of understanding of what that entrepreneurial pathway looks like and what that process is, so early on in graduate school, it would be useful to get students to think from within an entrepreneurial mindset. 

The first step is stepping outside your academic walls and thinking about the individuals who understand the space. There are a lot of nonprofit organizations that work to support entrepreneurs. Learning about who they are and the support structures that are available is extremely important. As an early career scientist, you shouldn’t navigate the pathway alone. Let us help remove the barriers. 

How should early career scientists handle mentorships as they transition out of grad school to postdoc to working?

It’s absolutely critical to have a mentor at all career levels. The number one thing is to know we don’t ever think that it’s a problem to not know something. We should be learning continuously. That’s one of the strengths that we, as academics, bring into the business community. We have that lifelong learning that we undergo, and mentorship is a way to obtain that learning. I have met some important people in my life as a professional since I’ve taken this role that I depend on, and they provide me with a lot of knowledge and background information as well. Mentors will help you decrease the energy and effort that you have to put into identifying each and every resource because they already have knowledge and expertise far beyond what you have. 

Any parting words?

Going into higher education I realized that the system wasn’t built for people like me. I took the policy and advocacy pathway because I found that the way to disrupt systems and constraints that create inequity is by changing the policies and the processes that exist to keep the inequities in place. So, when I was an undergraduate, I committed to myself that I would do everything I could to change those systems so that other people didn’t encounter the same challenges that I did.  

I think the most important thing that early career scientists need to do is to believe in themselves—when they start to get that feeling in the pit of their stomach that they could be making the wrong decision, they need to evaluate it. Sometimes that’s an opportunity knocking. Sometimes you have to explore that opportunity. I just think that there are so many times that early career scientists feel like they need to fit into the box that somebody else built when all they have to do is put their hand in or their foot. You don’t have to climb all the way in: you can create your own opportunity, build your own box, and make sure it has lots of windows.