Scientific program and abstract submissions 

With a scientific program like no other, the organizers are excited to see this year’s abstract submissions. Todd Nystul shared that for him, must-see sessions are always Stem Cells, Regeneration, and Tissue Injury and Reproduction and Gametogenesis, but this year, he’s really looking forward to Physiology, Metabolism, and Aging as well as Cell Division and Cell Growth. His lab is working on projects in these areas so he’s thrilled to get the chance to delve into the current state of science that he may not study in his day to day. “That is one of the great things about this meeting,” he stressed, “You can learn about the latest developments in your own field but there are also tons of opportunities to check out other areas you might not have thought much about before.” Meanwhile, Amanda Crocker approached her can’t-miss sessions list from a different but also important perspective, “As a faculty member at a small liberal arts institute, I am always interested in the education component and thinking about how to bring cutting-edge science to the classroom,” she said. Amanda explained that flies are a great model system for undergraduate students, and to keep them engaged, she looks forward to learning about new techniques, cool assays, or new flies for them to study. Michelle Bland is looking forward to Physiology, Metabolism, and Aging due to the increased sophistication of the use of Drosophila to study metabolism year after year and excited for Models of Human Disease as well as Techniques and Technology. Leila Rieder, a chromatin biologist, is a self-described “evolution fan,” so she’s looking forward to those talks—“Drosophila is so well suited for evolutionary studies for exactly the same reasons it’s well suited for all other fields,” she emphasized. See what we mean? This is definitely your go-to meeting for all things Drosophila! 

To make this scientific program as enriching as possible, the organizers are urging scientists of all career stages to submit abstracts in the many topic areas available. Todd sees it as a useful growing experience at any career stage. “There’s nothing like an upcoming presentation deadline to motivate you to organize your thoughts and data into the best story possible,” he remarked. He has some special advice for early career scientists though, “Getting exposure at a meeting like this is one of the most important things you can do as an early career scientist!” Amanda echoed the sentiment, “It’s a great time to network with more senior faculty—for grad students or postdocs, it’s a great way to highlight skills you might bring to the next step of your career.” And Todd shared several reasons why this is the case—first, you can get really insightful and constructive feedback on your work. He explained, “Drosophila scientists are generally very supportive of each other and get excited about good science. There’s a huge range of perspectives and levels of experience among attendees so, whether you’re looking for advice on the details of your next experiment or ways to frame the broader significance of your project, there’s a good chance you’ll get a lot of excellent feedback.” He added that getting the word out about your research results helps build excitement in the community and gives reviewers of your next grant or paper more context for your work, plus presenting your work is a great way to make new connections with scientists and broaden your professional network.

Todd mentioned it’s not uncommon for a presentation at the fly meeting to open doors for other professional opportunities, including invitations to meetings or to give a seminar, job offers, and others. Amanda explained the impact the meeting has had on her students, “There are activities and events where my students were able to network. They also felt very respected by the community when presenting.” She added that those experiences have helped her prioritize the conference when considering her own attendance as well as bringing her undergraduate students. Leila and Michelle commented on the benefits of early feedback for your research and urged scientists not to stress about having a publication-ready story. Leila mentioned many people are shy about presenting research before they have enough data, “when do we ever?” she quipped, “… or before they know the punchline. Sure, it’s so fun to be able to tell the whole story, but the GSA meetings more than any I’ve ever been to are opportunities to get expert help planning your experiments,” she explained, adding that “Everyone loves a good mystery, especially Drosophilists!” so you may get a rather unexpected “out-of-the-box” idea that takes your research to new heights. 

Collaboration and making connections 

Now, yes, learning about cutting-edge science across a range of fields and getting the word out about your work is very important for a researcher as are opportunities to advance the next stage of your career and improve your next paper or grant submission, but there are other benefits to attending a fly meeting—making lifelong connections. Todd highlighted opportunities to meet up with old friends and make new ones, and find your next mentor or trainee, sharing a story that exemplifies the importance of the human aspect of this conference. “About 15 years ago, I was at the meeting talking with several other young PIs I met there and we decided to go out to dinner together,” he recounted. The meeting was in Chicago so they followed a local who was also attending to an Italian restaurant she recommended. Some people in the group knew each other well but most had only just met or knew each other in passing. “But the dinner was magical,” Todd said. The group stayed at the restaurant chatting for hours about their science and the challenges of starting up a new lab and life in general, and most importantly, they stayed in touch after that. Now, the group continues the tradition of going out to dinner at the fly meeting every year and as the years pass, the group gets bigger and changes, “…but it has still retained the same spirit,” he stressed. “It is one of the highlights for me every year,” Todd shared, adding that this and similar experiences have created in him a strong loyalty toward the fly meeting, which led to his interest in becoming an organizer. “I want to carry on the tradition of showcasing excellent science and building community that has been such an integral part of this meeting for many years,” he stated. Leila’s fondest memory draws a parallel between her experience and her trainees’ – she shared that last year, she connected an acquaintance of an acquaintance with one of her lab trainees, both first gen and applying to graduate school. They ended up chatting for some time, creating a connection that made them feel less alone during the conference but also in the field. “I find this connection happens to me—and likely others—at almost every GSA conference I attend. The Drosophila field are my people,” she explained, adding that she sees deep consideration for mentoring and student wellbeing, which enriches the community and strengthens research.

It’s no surprise then that when asked what he’s most looking forward to this year, Todd responded “Do I have to pick just one?” explaining he loves this meeting for both the excellent science and the wonderful community. “I think this is the single best meeting for hearing about the latest developments in my field so I make sure not to miss any important talks. Additionally, I have made so many good friends there over the years, and I love that we have a chance to catch up with each other every year. Those annual reunions really help me stay grounded,” he explained. Michelle added, “This meeting has been my favorite science meeting since I started attending about two decades ago. The people, the science, and the ingenuity are unmatched.” And Leila shared, “I can’t wait to laugh with my colleagues and complain about grant reviewers—they’re the same people!” 

So, what are you waiting for? 

There’s still a chance to apply for travel funding through the Undergraduate Travel Awards, and to nominate someone for the Larry Sandler Award and the new Hugo Bellen and Catherine Tasnier Drosophila Neurogenetics Lecture (self-nominations welcome for the latter!). Make sure you register by the advance registration deadline of January 21 for discounted pricing. 

GSA and the Dros organizers can’t wait to see you in March in San Diego! 

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.

Andrew Kern
Senior Editor

Andrew Kern is an Evergreen Professor in the Department of Biology and the Institute for Ecology and Evolution at the University of Oregon. His research combines modern machine learning methods with classical probabilistic approaches and large-scale simulation to gain insight into population genetic and evolutionary biological questions. His lab focuses on methods development, creating new tools that empower the field to gain insights that weren’t attainable previously. One fundamental thread that has run through his entire research career is understanding the impact of natural selection on genetic variation in natural populations including models such as humans, mosquitoes, and fruit flies as well as non-model systems such as barnacles and octopuses.  He completed his ScB in Biology at Brown University and his PhD in Population Genetics at the University of California, Davis. Kern was an NIH Ruth Kirschstein National Research Service Award postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Santa Cruz where he studied Computational Biology under the mentorship of David Haussler. Before arriving at the University of Oregon, Kern served as an Assistant Professor of Biology at Dartmouth College, and both an Assistant and Associate Professor of Genetics at Rutgers University.

Thomas Hurd
Associate Editor, Molecular Genetics of Development

Thomas Hurd is an Associate Professor in the Department of Molecular Genetics at the University of Toronto. He earned his undergraduate degree in biochemistry from the University of Toronto and his PhD in mitochondrial biology at Cambridge University, where he studied under Michael Murphy. During his postdoctoral fellowship with Ruth Lehmann at NYU, he used Drosophila to uncover mechanisms of mitochondrial inheritance through the female germline. His current research continues to investigate this topic through genetic, molecular, and cytological approaches.

Why Publish in GENETICS?

Alexander Edward Lipka
Senior Editor

Alexander Edward Lipka leads a research team at the University of Illinois that applies cutting-edge statistical approaches to quantitative genetics analyses, resulting in more accurate quantification of genomic signals underlying phenotypic variation and prediction of breeding values of agronomically important traits. His lab also develops freely available software that enables the broader research community to apply these approaches to their own work. Here are some examples of publications from his lab:

Why Publish in G3?

Antonis Rokas
Senior Editor

Antonis Rokas holds the Cornelius Vanderbilt Chair in Biological Sciences and is a Professor in the Departments of Biological Sciences and Biomedical Informatics at Vanderbilt University. He also serves as the Founding Director of the Vanderbilt Evolutionary Studies Initiative, an interdisciplinary center that unites scholars from diverse disciplines with broad interests and expertise in evolution-related fields. Research in the Rokas lab focuses on the study of the DNA record to gain insight into the patterns and processes of evolution. Using computational and experimental approaches, their current studies aim to understand the molecular foundations of the fungal lifestyle, the reconstruction of the tree of life, and the evolution of human pregnancy. Rokas is a Guggenheim Fellow (2018), a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology (2019), and an American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow (2020).

Why Publish in G3?

There is no simple way to make a brain, even in a creature as small as a fruit fly. As an embryonic fly develops into adulthood, its central nervous system (CNS) expands almost 100-fold in mass. Neuronal, glial, immune, and vascular cells—in both the CNS and the peripheral nervous system (PNS)—must work in harmony to build the structures responsible for controlling movement and behavior. Since structure dictates function, the size and shape of the CNS must be tightly regulated, but the genes and pathways involved in the process have yet to be fully described.

In a recent study published in the September issue of G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics, Lacin et al. use the power of forward genetics in Drosophila larvae to identify genes controlling nervous system shape. Using the robust genetic manipulation toolkit available in Drosophila, they further identify a glial subtype-specific molecular profile that functionally subdivides glia along the peripheral-central axis.

Their screen used the classic mutagenesis agent ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) to randomly introduce mutations, generating more than 12,000 mutant lines that carried mutations specifically on the second chromosome. The authors screened for larval mutants with dramatically altered CNS shapes, sorting them into three categories: widened, elongated, or misshapen. Through a combination of genetic mapping, complementation analysis, and whole genome sequencing, they identified 50 mutant alleles across 17 genes that encode transcription factors, enzymes, signaling receptors, tumor suppressors, and basement membrane proteins.

Four of the mutant alleles were found in the senseless-2 (sens-2) gene, which encodes a zinc-finger domain transcription factor; these alleles caused massive elongation of the ventral nerve cord (the Drosophila equivalent to the spinal cord) that manifested very early in the first-instar larvae (see Figure 1). To understand the cellular basis for the mutant sens-2 CNS elongation phenotype, the authors generated an antibody against the Sens-2 protein and found it localized to most glia on peripheral nerves—but not in any CNS glial cells.

To determine whether sens-2’s role in determining ventral nerve cord length was specific to its presence in peripheral glia, the authors selectively knocked down its expression in those cells using the Gal4-UAS system. They found that sens-2 expression in peripheral glia is necessary to control CNS structure, and loss in those cells accounted for the observed elongation phenotype. Restoration of sens-2 expression rescued the elongation phenotype.

Lacin et al. were able to establish sens-2 as a marker distinguishing specific glial subtypes along the CNS-PNS axis with a profound impact on gross nervous system structure. In the future, the authors aim to investigate transcriptional targets of sens-2, which could help illuminate mechanisms governing glial development and differentiation in the PNS.

In recent years, the use of expensive -omics technologies to discover cellular heterogeneity at scale has become quite popular in neuroscience research, and the genes identified in these studies need validation and characterization. Here, Lacin et al. present a powerful demonstration that classical genetic studies in invertebrate model systems are still effective at powering neurogenetics and cellular heterogeneity research—at a fraction of the cost.