Dr. Lanre Morenikeji received his PhD in animal genetics at the Federal University of Technology in Akure, Nigeria. With a strong interest in genetics and immunology, he pursued a pre-doctoral program at Cornell University and a postdoctoral fellowship at the Rochester Institute of Technology. As an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh, he focuses his research on understanding the mechanisms that regulate immune response during infectious diseases. He’s been working on noncoding RNAs associated with disease susceptibility and tolerance. In addition to research, he is passionate about teaching science to his students.

How did your academic background prepare you for your present position?

I had a background in genetics, where I started as an animal science student. I liked the health aspect of my course because I did stuff like immunology, parasitology, and genetics, which sparked my interest in molecular genetics. During my Master’s, I signed up for some courses in immunology due to my interest in health, even though they were not required for my graduation, and I did quite well in them. My interest in integrating genetics and immunology informed my decision to do a postdoc in immunology. Because of my love of biomedical science, combining my genetics and immunology background positioned me well for what I’m doing now.

What barriers did you have to overcome, having envisioned your future career in biomedical science?

I’m originally from Nigeria, where we have minimal resources to conduct research. Although we can access the theoretical aspects through reading textbooks and taking courses, doing hands-on work is limited. I started looking for opportunities to further my studies abroad early on. During my Master’s, I did molecular characterization of some proteins associated with feed efficiency and some growth parameters in pigs. Performing protein analysis, gel electrophoresis, and PCR were difficult, but I leveraged a professor who studied in India and brought some equipment to his lab. Most of my professors considered my PhD research proposal ambitious except one (who had gone abroad and done some work in genetics). The latter said, “Let’s give him the opportunity. He said he wanted to do it, let him do it. We’ll be here.” He encouraged me, and I brought him on as my co-advisor for my PhD to benefit from his mentorship and experience. Funding is a major problem when conducting research in Nigeria, so I started looking for scholarships. I received many rejections and once received an admission offer with a partial scholarship to a university in the U.S., but I couldn’t attend because there was no further funding support. So, I kept on doing my research and didn’t limit myself due to limited resources. Because of my interest in doing my PhD in the U.S., when I got the opportunity, I moved to Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, to do the most important part of my PhD research and returned to Nigeria to graduate with a PhD.

Also, the language or accent barrier was a challenge when I came to the U.S. We speak English in Nigeria, but it’s different from how it’s spoken in the United States. Sometimes, it isn’t easy to communicate with colleagues, and I have to repeat things multiple times to aid comprehension. So, it’s something that I had to overcome over time by watching videos, listening a lot, listening to the news, and practicing my communication. Likewise, I think the pace of work is another challenge. The pace is a bit faster. The volume is much higher than what I had in Nigeria. And, of course, the resources are available, so I just plug into it and then keep moving.

How did your pre-doctoral program experience spur your interest in a postdoc in the U.S.?

When I came to the U.S. for my pre-doc, the first time I resumed my lab, I looked at everything and said a statement to myself because I like to speak to myself a lot. I said, “Lanre, you have everything now. Become whatever you want to become.” I needed to learn a lot and work independently when I got here. As soon as I resumed in the lab, they gave me my bench, and I met with my advisor on Fridays to give reports of what I’d done and discuss progress. We also had lab meetings, but everybody in the lab focused on their research, so I had to work independently on my research. This attribute helped me and positioned me well for my postdoc because I learned a lot of techniques. During that time, I attended meetings, met many other scientists, and made friends, including my postdoc advisor, whom I met while I was at Cornell University. Most of my collaborators today were people I knew at Cornell. In fact, a professor called me after a presentation and commended me on my presentation. Since then, we’ve been friends and collaborators and won some grants together. So, that experience helped me to transition into my postdoc research, especially doing my pre-doctoral fellowship at a prestigious institution like Cornell University, which also influenced my postdoc offers. When I came for a postdoc, I had three different offers, two in the United States and one in India, and I chose one in the U.S.

How do you navigate research expectations as a scientist from a minority group while training your students?

As I love research and discovering new things, I exert myself a lot beyond an average person. If you want to be outstanding, nothing comes cheaply, and you need to exert yourself to do more than an average person will do. As a minority scientist, you compete with people around you and have to extend yourself to do more, to get a lot done. Sometimes, I had to stay in the lab until night. It requires a lot for you to be able to do many research projects and publish multiple papers. Currently, I have four students doing research with me and I also collaborate with other professors in my school and other universities. So, collaboration also helped me to be able to get more research output. Also, I read a lot to understand current research trends, identify gaps, and then try to create something novel to fill the gaps. As research results come out, I take students to conferences to present and prepare papers for publication afterward. I believe there is time for everything, so I maintain a work-life balance. I have time to spend with my family, visiting places and spending time playing with my kids. I just have a principle to focus on whatever I need to do and attend to other things later.

Part of the reward is recognition of my work, like the Excellence in Research and Teaching Award I received in the overall Pitts system, which is great and highly competitive. Also, my campus shares news and publishes my successes with my students.

As a professor, how do you mentor students, and what is your mentorship philosophy? How do you measure mentorship success?

First, mentoring is work, as it requires time, patience, and applying different methods and pedagogy to train students. My goal is to be able to communicate science to my students and give them a platform to become what they want to be. So, it’s always exciting for me when my students can take the techniques, the spirit of excellence, and commitment and it reflects in their work. That will position them well for whatever they want to do, either going to medical school or graduate school. Also, honesty is the first thing I require of students who come to my lab. This is because honesty is required to be a scientist. Therefore, they don’t need to manipulate or make things up but report whatever results they get from an experiment. I also teach them to work hard and not be afraid of making mistakes. Because they are undergraduate students, I train them through examples and demonstrations and allow them to try it out even when their hands are shaky. My goal is to transform them from being dependent to independent. After they are gone, many of them send thank you emails for the training, and I write them strong references when needed.

One of the ways I measure my success is to see my students being successful by fulfilling their goals in life and being where they desire to be. This brings me joy. Sometime last year, I visited a lab at West Virginia University, where I met a former student from Nigeria who is now a postdoc in that lab. Seeing my students succeed brings me joy, which is how I measure mentorship success.

Any final words for Black students and early career scientists?

To Black students and early career scientists: Be strong, courageous, and believe in yourself. You have the best in you; therefore, be confident in expressing that and reaching your greatest potential by acting it out. Disprove any labels or stereotypes by doing your best to shine. Also, mentorship is very important. Seek opportunities to connect with mentors and climb on their shoulders to reach your goals. Lastly, explore opportunities directed toward minorities and take advantage of them.

About the Author:

Blessing Olabosoye is a member of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and a Graduate Student and Graduate Assistant at Iowa State University.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee. 

Although training in genetics is highly transferable, transitioning out of academia can present a lot of challenges. We interviewed Dr. Tara Zeynep Baris to discuss her transition out of academia and into a career in data science. Dr. Baris received her PhD in Evolutionary Genomics at the University of Miami. Desiring flexibility and a diverse workload, Dr. Tara Zeynep Baris pursued data science through a postdoctoral training opportunity with Insight Data Science. She then transitioned to a position in research and development for Nielsen, an audience data analytics company for media platforms. Dr. Baris is currently a Senior Data Scientist with the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution–Ocean (C4IR Ocean), which operates under the World Economic Forum. Tara shares her experience working in the world of data science and how her PhD training in genomics prepared her for this career path.

How did you decide to transition out of academia?

It wasn’t an easy decision. I love research and having the freedom to explore something to the end. However, I wanted flexibility in where I would live and the ability to try different opportunities until I found the right fit. In contrast, most academics have to follow open positions and become experts in one research domain. Of course you can always learn new things and change slightly, but there isn’t a ton of flexibility as you won’t get a full-time position in an area of research that is completely different from your background. 

What were the biggest challenges in transitioning to industry?

In academia, especially as a PhD student, you’re in a learning position. So, when you make mistakes, you aren’t usually held responsible for the financial implications. You just move on and learn. This isn’t always the case when you work for a company. You could potentially cost your company an important client or contract. In industry, you will more frequently feel the pressure to get things right without as much space to learn by making mistakes. 

Another difference is in the depth of projects. In research, you have the freedom to explore a topic by reading everything in the literature, looking at the data from different perspectives, and then making conclusions. In industry, you don’t have the time to get that level of depth on every project. This was a bit difficult for me because I was used to being completely immersed in what I was researching, but that’s not necessarily what’s needed in industry. Many times I’ve just scratched the surface before a project ends.

The other main challenge is the interviewing process in industry, which was a whole new world to me. For a PhD or a postdoc position, you might give a talk, then meet with faculty and have some laid back conversations about research. Data science interviews require an insane amount of preparation. I was quizzed and challenged to demonstrate competency in coding and data science-specific skills through separate specialized interviews. This was a stressful process and took more time to prepare for each set of technical interviews. 

What are your day-to-day responsibilities as a data scientist working on the Ocean Data Platform team within C4IR Ocean?

Our team’s focus is on building a platform that makes it easy for different types of users to get access to the data that they need to create a more sustainable ocean, whether that’s industry professionals, policymakers, or researchers. I take on a few different roles on the team. First, I do a lot of user interviews and talk to people who will be using our product to make sure that it meets their needs. Second, I work to understand what data is out there, what formats it exists in, and determine how we can make it more accessible to people. This involves working with different types of databases, including geospatial data sets, and then figuring out what actually can be done with the data. 

I read papers to understand why certain data is useful. Sometimes that involves working with our partners in different research institutions and universities in Norway to understand the downstream value of that data and coding different functions or working on different models that help people use that data. Having a research background is really useful in these cases, especially because people from research and industry have very different ways of communicating. It is sometimes easier for me to communicate with researchers because I understand their language and what’s important to them. For example, I’m collaborating with the University of Tromso on an Environmental DNA project, which has drawn on a lot from my genomics training.

How does your training compare with other industry data scientists?

When I started my first data science position at Nielsen (a TV ratings company) almost everyone on the team had a PhD in either physics, biology, or even fisheries. That was quite a big team compared to where I am now, which has two data scientists and some consultants. The other data scientist I work with now has a background in maritime data but isn’t from a strictly research background. At first it wasn’t an easy transition for me into industry, but I had really supportive team members who helped me bridge the gap between academic training and what is needed in an industry position.

What do you enjoy most about your current position with the Ocean Data Platform?

I like that I do a lot of different things. That’s important for me personally, as I don’t like doing only one thing repetitively. It’s nice that sometimes I spend my days talking to people and other days I concentrate on coding. I also contribute to big-picture ideas about the direction of our product. So, my favorite thing is that I have my hands in a little bit of everything, and I can be in contact with people on other parts of the project because we’re such a small team. For example, I enjoy trying to understand what the data engineers are doing, learning from them, and contributing to their work. 

Has your position within a policy-driven organization improved your communication skills?

I give a lot of presentations that include talking about technical things to non-technical people with a really wide range of expertise. I also present to different industries or government organizations or universities, who are interested in partnering with us. This includes getting them to understand exactly what we do and where we fit in. For this, each presentation has to be tailored to whoever is listening, so I spend a lot of time tweaking presentations and rarely give the same one talk twice.

At the beginning I struggled a little bit because I’m so used to scientific talks, where I present all of the evidence I have collected and then show how I reached a conclusion after turning over every stone. In my current position, the small details are not always as relevant. In the beginning I was giving maybe too much information, as I worried I didn’t have enough data to back up my conclusions. Now, I have learned what’s actually important and focus my talks more narrowly.

What general advice do you have for someone thinking about transitioning into data science?

First, it is important to understand what makes you tick as a person to be sure that you’re following a career path with opportunities that will make you happy. Second, be patient. It is really hard to transition to a new career and a new environment. It doesn’t happen overnight, but the skills that you acquire during your PhD will be helpful. Staying determined and continuing to work at it are essential. Finally, create a support network of people who have the career you want as you are transitioning. I always reach out to people who have gone through the same path and understand their experience and the hurdles they have overcome. They can pass on knowledge that will make it easier for you or even provide resources that you wouldn’t have thought of.

About the author:

Melissa Drown is a PhD candidate at the University of Miami. She is a member of the Career Development Subcommittee.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee. 

Stephen Klusza was inspired to become a scientist by his high school genetics teacher, whom he recalls was “ironically named Dr. Force.” In the middle of his graduate studies in biological sciences at Florida State University, he lost his ability to hear. Through determination, hard work, and supportive colleagues, Dr. Klusza continued his academic training and completed a postdoctoral appointment at the University of North Carolina. When he moved to Atlanta to serve as Adjunct Faculty at Atlanta Metropolitan State College, Dr. Klusza’s passion for helping students with diverse lived experiences grew even stronger. As an Assistant Professor of Biology at Clayton State University, Dr. Klusza continues to improve accessibility in his teaching and research for students with disabilities by combining his interests in expanding undergraduate research opportunities with universal design and open educational resources. He also leads the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Committee in the Genomics Education Partnership, aiming to provide bioinformatics research experiences to undergraduate students.

What inspired you to pursue a career in academia?

My inspiration goes back to my junior and senior years of high school. I was the salutatorian of my class and took almost every advanced placement class, of which biology was my favorite. I fell in love with genetics when I saw my teacher make the first Punnett square! I knew from that point on that I wanted to be a scientist. In the 1990s, being a scientist was more or less synonymous with academia. So, I wanted to be a geneticist and work at a university. Most people usually don’t get lucky in knowing what they want to do at such an early age, but my exposure to genetics in high school was pivotal in my career decision.

How was your graduate school experience as a PhD student with a disability?

My experience was overwhelmingly positive, as the department cared about its graduate students. I was diagnosed with profound hearing loss at the young age of 2. I still had some natural hearing and a hearing aid to supplement what I was missing, but it came to a point where I developed terrible tinnitus and lost the rest of my hearing during grad school, due to an undiagnosed birth defect in the inner ear. I had to go through a lot of medical appointments to figure out the cause. Through a specialist, I had the possibility of cochlear implantation to help restore hearing, which took about 2 years. The surgery was successful, and I actually heard more with the cochlear implant than I ever did with the hearing aid. 

During this period, my mentor, Dr. Wu-Min Deng, and my lab colleagues were highly supportive. Dr. Deng kept me in his lab and let me spend all the time I needed to shuttle back and forth between doing experiments and seeing specialists. I was also doing teaching assistantships, which was very hard, but the students were understanding. I’d walk around with a dry erase board so that they could write their questions on it and I could answer them. It took me around 7 years to earn my PhD, but I was fortunate to receive support from grad school.

Did your experiences influence your career choices?

I don’t believe that my disability influenced my personal decision to go into genetics. Part of the reason why it was easier for me to navigate the academic job market was my disability required a minimum of accommodations to fit in. I never relied too much on accommodations in the workspace, particularly when I got my cochlear implants, so it influenced my experiences but not my chances. 

When I was applying for jobs outside academia, there were times when I felt I was more than qualified for a position, but I didn’t get any response. In those situations, one can’t prove discrimination, but I had a gut feeling that they noticed my disability and threw my application out. I started thinking about which areas in science would be more welcoming to someone with a disability. I first worked as an Adjunct Faculty at Atlanta Metropolitan State College (AMC), where I really enjoyed teaching first-generation students. That changed my perspective on what I wanted to do in my life and started my current career trajectory. 

I’ve learned a lot more about the inequalities in the system while going up the academic ladder. Even with my disability, I had the privilege of being a white male. This is not to say that my hard work was immaterial to my success, but I most likely had some privileges that are inherent in the present system.

How did you get to your position at Clayton State University?

While working at AMC, I was looking at other jobs to continue my advocacy and take on a more prominent role in teaching and research. At that time, CSU needed a temporary lecturer for biology for one year, and thankfully, they accepted me for the position. This position allowed me to spend a year at CSU. I had a lot of opportunities to meet with faculty of the biology department and other departments and our Dean. I was blown away by how inclusive and incredibly diverse CSU life is! 

CSU has a much more visible presence for people with disabilities in jobs in administration, facilities, and management compared to other universities I have seen. It’s just a great place to be and to see how they guide students to better their lives. Luckily, there were Assistant Professor positions open. I applied for it and officially got the job in Fall 2020. As an Assistant Professor of Biology, I directly influence undergraduate students in research, and I love what I do!

How did you get involved with developing low-cost accessible educational resources?

College textbooks are expensive. For students who are unable to afford it, their ability to understand the material is reduced because they’re completely reliant on PowerPoint presentations. When I heard about “open educational resources,” such as writing a laboratory manual and books for free, I was amazed at how people spend a lot of time making no or low-cost resources that allow students to get involved in science. I’ve also seen labs devoted to creating low-cost lab equipment such as the Foldscope (Manu Prakash lab), which helps magnify images from a slide and costs only $10. 

Not only are there financial issues, but there are barriers to accessibility in teaching. Some students may have a disability that requires video or audio material to be presented differently. Sometimes a syllabus or other documents are written in very small fonts and can prevent some students from reading it. So, I started getting into the “universal design” approach, combining it with open educational resources. I’m still learning, but I want to spend time helping students who want to do science but can’t afford it.

Can you provide examples on how to improve accessibility in teaching and research?

If I have a syllabus, I can change the font to “OpenDyslexic” – an open-source font that is friendly for students with dyslexia. I then try to talk to dyslexic students, asking if it helped. I make sure to use colorblind-friendly images. I have an audio version of the text or a text-to-speech applet for printed materials. In my presentations, I add text descriptions to images to help people with visual screen readers. I turn on subtitles in the presenter view of the new versions of Microsoft with the accessibility feature. I also try to teach slowly. If I don’t make it to the end of the PowerPoint, I record a video to finish the rest.

I try to understand the difficulties students have due to the inaccessibility of the physical spaces in our labs. I want to help make that accessible as I get funds. What if a student has cerebral palsy? I would make it my highest priority to secure Opentrons lab robotics to pipette for them. I try to be proactive in embedding accommodations. In my lab, I want everyone to feel comfortable, supported, and valued. They need to know that they belong to science and I’m here to advocate for them. 

What suggestions do you have for scientific societies on building a diverse and inclusive work culture?

It’s not enough to have temporary measures in place to attract diversity. You’ve got to do the work to make the environment inclusive and supportive. We need to go deeper into the issues of why minorities or underrepresented groups face discrimination. This is continuing to be a problem and it’s disappointing. Things need to change. Let’s work together towards a solution and put our talk into action.

I want to pass on a message: if you ask people from underrepresented groups for DEI work and include their inputs, make sure you compensate them. Don’t expect them to do that for free. People that have undergone discrimination and faced barriers may have trauma from it. Being asked to do DEI work may re-traumatize them to the situation that they’ve lived in. 

Do you have any advice for early career scientists with disabilities?

It’s an uphill battle. Your journey won’t be without pitfalls and obstacles. It’s hard to get through the feeling that you may be alone in your fight, but you are not alone. My most important piece of advice is to be a part of the community of disabled scientists on #DisabilityTwitter and other platforms. Other grad students and faculty with disabilities will support you and let you know which places are more likely to support a disability. Making connections will help you persevere. 

Stephen Klusza at the onset of the pandemic and after one year working from home.

About the author:

Oindrila De is a member of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee and a PhD Candidate in the Department of Biology at Case Western Reserve University. She is passionate about making science inclusive and accessible to early career scientists with disabilities and leads the Accessibility and Disability Advocacy Group in the Early Career Leadership Program.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee. 

Dr. McGlynn received his PhD in Environmental, Population, and Organismic Biology from the University of Colorado. He was an Assistant Professor of Biology at the University of San Diego before moving into his current position as the Professor of Biology at CSU Dominguez Hills and Director of the CSU Desert Studies Consortium. He also works as a research associate at the National History Museum of Los Angeles County, maintains a blog, and has authored a book on college science teaching. He shares his experience navigating a career in higher education, as well as discussing how to maintain work-life balance and the struggles of navigating a job search with a family. 

Did you always know you wanted to teach at a teaching-focused institution?  

During my undergraduate education, I had an epiphany of wanting to study ecology and evolution. I went to graduate school with the thought that science is really cool, and I wanted to become a scientist. In graduate school, I learned more about the academic culture, and over the years, I settled into an understanding that I wanted to be at a teaching-focused institution. 

Was there a specific reason you chose this career path? 

There was a specific reason I chose this career path—I didn’t want to run a lab where my grantsmanship would be responsible for supporting the livelihoods of people I work with. Additionally, I was drawn to this career path because of the stability of tenure. I was also drawn to this idea that life in a teaching-focused institution would be less stressful, with better work-life balance and less worrying about research. 

It took me several years to realize I was wrong. It’s important for me to write grants, to pay undergraduates who work with me, and for students in my department to have research opportunities. Additionally, it’s just as busy and stressful at a teaching-focused institution compared to a research-focused institution. Some institutions may be more stressful than others or have a healthier work-life balance. The type of institution isn’t the deciding factor nearly as much as work culture. My reasons for wanting to be at a teaching-focused institution when I was a graduate student and postdoc were entirely mistaken because I didn’t understand the job. But I love where I’m at now, and I like the student-centered nature of my work.  

Is there anything you wish you knew or learned to prepare you better for your current position? 

I wish I learned how to run a lab better. Being a principal investigator, you almost need an MBA to run a lab, and managing both the lab and people is really difficult. No one trained me on how to manage people, and I think my biggest mistakes along this career path were when I mismanaged people. I also wish I had more explicit training and workshops in grant writing. It took me several years to figure out how to write grants. Training wouldn’t make the process inherently easier, but it would alleviate some stress.  

How did having a family impact your job search? 

When choosing my postdoc, I was fortunate that my spouse chose to go where I went. Then, when I moved to my visiting assistant professorship, I was able to choose a place that was geographically near where she wanted to do her master’s degree. As I was looking for faculty positions, I applied for jobs all over and was extraordinarily lucky to land a position in her hometown.  

Before I came up for tenure, I had a big disagreement about family leave being denied, even though my request met the conditions provided by the university. This led to conflict, and eventually, my dean reversed my department’s recommendation for tenure. But my son is more important than the job, and I have no regrets there. When I had to move after being denied tenure, it was an incredible challenge for us to identify our priorities. Fortunately, we landed good positions in the same place at the same time, and we avoided financial challenges or personal choices about whose career mattered more. I happened to get lucky—twice—and I recognize it. 

How has networking and mentorship played a role in your career? 

Networking is foundational for everything because so much of science is collaborative. Opportunities are based on connections. My approach for getting to know people has never been, “What can I get from this person?” I want to know my peers and become genuine friends with them. Mentorship is also really important and a source of wisdom. Good mentors don’t tell you what to do but ask you the questions other people aren’t asking. They help you realize what matters and could impact your choices, informed by their own experiences. If you’re looking for a mentor, find someone who has already been where you want to go. You want to find someone who asks, listens, supports your professional goals, and works with you to help you find your career goals.  

How important is time management in your role? 

Good time management is a critical skill because your greatest resource is your own time. The difference between now and graduate school is that the stakes are higher, and I’m expected to do more. However, throughout graduate school I became more efficient at these things. I’ve never been good at managing my time compared to others, whether related to mental health and anxiety, or procrastination of something I am scared to do. Time management is a constant struggle. With that, people may physically be at work 60+ hours, but how much work are they doing? Over time, I’ve realized when I put in 35-45 hours per week but genuinely focus on work, I get a lot done. Another thing that helps my time management is taking time for myself. When I exercise before starting my day, I am more energized and focused for the rest of the day.  

How do you maintain a work-life balance with a family? 

When I look back at how much time I’ve spent as a parent, I have no regrets. I didn’t miss out on big parenting moments. I’ve spent a lot of time with my son, and that has always been a priority. Could I have had more publications or done things differently? Maybe, but that is where I chose to draw the line. At my current institution, I work with people who value that we all have lives separate from work, and I designed my professional goals to maintain the work-life balance I want. 

I try to start work in the morning on time. At five o’clock, I’m done, though if I’m excited about something I might pick it up that evening. I’ve learned to manage my time well enough that if anything’s on fire it gets done right away; everything else can wait until tomorrow. And there are some things that never get done because I’ve decided it’s not going to happen. I make a point to look at my calendar, decide where my chunks of time go, and how they align with my priorities. I don’t spend time on something if I don’t place it as a priority and as my career has evolved, my priorities have shifted.  

About the author:

Michelle Jonika is a PhD candidate at the Department of Biology at Texas A&M. She is a member of the Career Development Subcommittee.

Kellyann Jones-Jamtgaard is a Biological Sciences Specialist at the USDA, where she supports education grant programs. Here, she talks about her passion for communicating the value of science to society and how that led her to pursue a career in science education and policy. 

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Kellyann Jones-Jamtgaard is a paragon of a successful science career shaped through volunteering opportunities and network building. She earned a PhD in Microbiology from the University of Kansas Medical Center. During graduate school, she engaged with students in local K-12 schools at outreach events and encouraged them to explore STEM careers. She aspires to be a role model for the next generation of STEM professionals by breaking down barriers and making science more inclusive. 

After completing her PhD, she joined the education non-profit Partnership for Regional Educational Preparation – Kansas City (PREP-KC) as the Career Academies Liaison. At the same time, her interests in science policy enticed her to apply to the Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship Program, where she was a part of the 2017 fellows cohort. She was also appointed to the Kansas City Health Commission through her leadership in public service and healthcare advocacy. 

Currently, Kellyann continues to broaden her knowledge and skills in science policy through her position at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), where she supports the education grant programs for institutions committed to improving the representation of minority groups in food and agricultural sciences. She manages the peer review process of grant applications and helps grantees manage funds and achieve their project goals.

What motivated you to choose a career in science education and policy? 

When I started grad school, I was focused on finishing my PhD, doing a postdoc, and then becoming a faculty member somewhere. Halfway through, I asked myself, “Is that really what I want to do when I graduate?”

I did an individual development plan to assess my strengths, weaknesses, and career interests, which prompted me to explore careers in science education and policy. At the same time, I was involved with several student groups and organizations in my university and volunteering at local schools. I really enjoyed the interactions and challenges outside of the lab. Those were my passions that fuelled me and gave me the greatest joy! 

While I still loved my research and being in the lab, it became difficult to keep going from experiment to experiment and dealing with failures, especially when I had interests outside of the lab. I still wanted to utilize the skills I gained as a scientist to encourage and help students learn about different STEM careers because being in the lab isn’t the only way to be a scientist. I wanted to communicate the value of science to students, the public, and policy makers.

How did your interactions with students at local schools inspire you?

I was primarily engaging with low-income students of color, specifically girls. When I was working with students, I would see myself reflected back at me. I grew up in the Bronx, New York. I’m a first generation American and my parents are immigrants from Guyana. I was the first one in my family to go to college and earn a PhD. A lot of the life experiences I had were very similar to the students I was serving. I wanted to find ways to motivate them, and to let them know that if they wanted a career in health or science, they could achieve it regardless of the barriers they may have faced. I benefited a lot in my career from mentorship opportunities for underrepresented students and I wanted to bring those same opportunities to the students I served, because I see myself as a success story of those types of opportunities.

Which experiences in graduate school helped you prepare for your career in science education and policy?

I volunteered with PREP-KC, a non-profit organization that provides educational opportunities to students from underrepresented and low-income backgrounds. I also participated in community health fairs and reading programs through local organizations. I worked with the Student Government and the Graduate Student Council as vice president and president, respectively. I was also very involved with the Student Diversity Council, which championed diversity amongst students on campus and created events for students to engage in efforts to increase diversity and inclusion. Those experiences taught me how to run a meeting, interact with students outside of my program, interact with faculty, become comfortable with public speaking, and be the face of an organization. These experiences also led to mentorship opportunities with staff and students. Every opportunity that I took advantage of as a graduate student, led to other opportunities and advanced my career.

How did networking help in your job search, and can you share some tips on building connections?

Throughout graduate school, I was constantly networking and was able to gain some inside information about different opportunities that helped me tailor my applications and my interviews to be successful. For example, I was mainly able to get my first job at PREP-KC, because they already knew me and my passion for science through my volunteering work there. My application to the Christine Mirzayan Science Policy Fellowship was strengthened through the interactions I had with the alumni of that program at scientific society meetings and science policy panels. 

As a graduate student, it was intimidating to email someone without knowing them. I started by attending a lot of networking events and reaching out to people by saying that I heard them speak at an event and their words really resonated with me. This made it much easier to then convey my interest in learning more about their career path and if they would have some time for a phone call or to grab coffee. Everyone I spoke with was able to introduce me to other people in interesting career fields which helped me build my network. I maintain those networks now just by updating people on where I am or congratulate them if I see they’ve had a career accomplishment.

Why did you choose a position at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and what are your key responsibilities there?

I was always interested in working for the federal government but I thought I needed to be in Washington, D.C. to be able to do so. My family and I are settled in Kansas City, and we’ll be here for the foreseeable future. When I heard about USDA moving some of its agencies to Kansas City, I considered it an opportunity to develop my career goals in science policy while working for the federal government. So, I followed updates about the vacancies at USDA through USAJobs.com and applied to the position of a Biological Sciences Specialist.

At the USDA – NIFA, I mainly support the peer review process. NIFA is the arm of the USDA that provides extramural funding primarily to land-grant universities, but also to non land-grant universities, small businesses, and nonprofits. When universities submit grants to NIFA, I help organize panels that review the grants and manage the process of getting the money out to the universities. I work with the grantees through the lifetime of their grants to make sure they meet their objectives and disseminate their great work to the public. In this way, the public is aware about the projects in food and agricultural sciences through NIFA. In addition to these responsibilities, I provide data to congressional staff and the federal government when they require information about the programs that we’re funding.

How have your various positions helped make science more inclusive? 

At PREP-KC, it was easy to achieve a more inclusive scientific environment because one of our missions was to work with students from underrepresented backgrounds and provide educational opportunities for them to succeed. I led most of our STEM programming and got to bring students on field trips related to health and science, and run internship programs for students interested in research or general science careers. 

At NIFA, I’m still pursuing diversity in science as the grant programs I’m involved with support Hispanic-Serving institutions, as well as Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving institutions. NIFA funds institutions that are providing opportunities to underrepresented students in food and agricultural sciences. Even though I’m not directly, one-on-one working with students anymore, I’m making science inclusive at a macro level by funding universities that are improving diversity and inclusion.

What aspects of your career do you enjoy and did you face any challenges?

The most rewarding experience for me is impacting society with the science achievements through public service, which has tied my two careers together. With PREP-KC, I enjoyed working one-on-one with the students. Now with the federal government, it is really about being a good steward of the taxpayer money we give out to universities and making sure that the discoveries and programs being implemented can benefit the people.

Some of the difficulties I faced were in leaving academia. A more prescribed career path for graduate students is to do a postdoc and apply for faculty positions. It is a lot harder to navigate your career path outside of academia. For me, it was hard to figure out what value I could provide to an organization and convince them of that value, especially when a PhD isn’t necessarily needed for the position. The unknowns of navigating a non-academic career path may be a little unusual or outside the norm. 

Do you have any advice for early career scientists interested in your career path?

Leaning into the uncertainty can be scary, but it can also be exciting! It is important to be OK with that discomfort and know it is a part of the process. Talk to as many people as you can, and learn about the variety of career paths people took to get to different places because no story is exactly the same. There is no recipe to get to a specific career. Be open to opportunities and go into things with an open mind, because you never know where the next opportunity for something may come from.

About the author:

Oindrila De is a member of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee and a PhD Candidate in the Department of Biology at Case Western Reserve University. She is passionate about making science inclusive and accessible to early career scientists with disabilities and leads the Accessibility and Disability Advocacy Group in the Early Career Leadership Program.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Most people are advised to follow a strict trajectory in their career path to an academic research position: go to college, pick a research field, get a PhD, obtain postdoctoral training—one right after the other. However, Dr. Lisa Zeigler Allen’s journey to her position at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) was anything but direct. At JCVI, Dr. Zeigler Allen runs a laboratory and research program studying microbial and viral ecology in the ocean. In her interview she shares her non-traditional path to this position, driven by her love for nature and understanding the world around her, and her commitment to sharing her knowledge with those around her. 

How did you become interested in science?

I have several experiences that caused me to fall in love with nature. Growing up, we had a lot of animals—horses, dogs, and cows—and from an early age, I started taking care of them. I also started working at a small animal vet clinic in high school. It was really fun for me! In addition to that, my family would go deer hunting in Northern Washington state for our yearly vacation. I was not into the hunting aspect, but my Grandpa would still take walks with me, teaching me survival techniques and picking up garbage along the way. I think these early experiences led to my appreciation of the environment.

During undergrad, I was lucky to get my first job in a lab with Dr. Diter von Wettstein, a plant geneticist. He and the other individuals in the lab taught me how to do everything, and I mean everything! We isolated our own enzymes, made our own competent cells, and made all of the chemicals that went into these processes. I also worked in the greenhouse and did field trials crossing different barley cultivars. The opportunity to incorporate my love for being outside and nature into my research was incredibly important. I think that is what helped push me into the field-based research role that I am still in today.

How did your research background in plant genetics lead you to do a PhD in Oceanography?

You know, I didn’t know I wanted to do a PhD, and I was against it. If I really think back to that time and try to remember it, I felt like I was being forced into that path and told by some that I could not do the type of research I wanted to without a doctorate. In a way they were right; for many aspects of research, advanced degrees are needed. After undergrad I started the PhD program at Washington State University (WSU) to continue working with Dr. von Wettstein. One day during that time someone came and gave a talk from San Diego about marine microorganisms. I had never even thought about them before! So on a whim one night I started looking at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego and applied to every open position. I was just about to finish the first year of my PhD at WSU when I received a call from a group at Scripps Institution of Oceanography with an introductory lab technician job. 

I decided to leave the PhD program at WSU. That was a little unnerving, but Dr. von Wettstein was supportive, so I packed up my car and drove to San Diego. I worked for almost three years in the lab at Scripps. It was a very different experience, moving from plants to marine bacteria. It was a natural products lab, primarily focused on chemistry with a small microbiology division looking at the genomes of these marine microorganisms and the enzymes and pathways that are responsible for constructing secondary metabolites. I decided it was time to continue with my education and was fortunate to begin again in the PhD program at Scripps. My research began moving into the chemical nature of these organisms, and I realized this was not the path I wanted to pursue, even though it was remarkably interesting that these tiny organisms could produce a vast repertoire of compounds. While examining the early genomes of these bacteria, I found it interesting that certain bacterial genes were flanked by viral genes. This was exciting and I began thinking more about horizontal gene transfer and the role of viruses.

Around that time, the J. Craig Venter Institute started a second campus in San Diego and there was an early career scientist there working on marine viruses. I really wanted to work with her and learn more about viruses. So I sent her multiple emails inquiring about a possible opportunity and I ended up getting a position at JCVI. I decided to take a year off of my PhD at Scripps to move into a research position there. However, I had time before the position at JCVI would start, so I worked in industry at Invitrogen in the research and development department for a few months. I loved that job too, and it was really difficult for me to leave it when it came time to start my position at JCVI. Ultimately, the research position at JCVI allowed me to rejoin the PhD program at Scripps and become the first PhD student to bridge research between both institutes. I like to tell this story because I want people to know that it’s OK to not necessarily know what you want to do. I definitely tried out a bunch of different things and in doing so gained valuable experience along the way through learning new protocols and technologies.

What does the average day look like for you as an assistant professor at JCVI?

JCVI is a non-profit non-degree granting institute. As a result, my position is “academic-like,” but I am not beholden to other responsibilities that come with being a professor at a university, such as teaching. That gives me a lot of flexibility and opens up a lot of time for research. I do quite a bit of field work since it drives a lot of the research that we do. For my field work I am on a ship, sometimes for a day trip or sometimes up to twenty-something days. I love field work and being on the ship because it 100% immerses you into the science. You have to be very resourceful and design experiments and change things on the fly since you cannot always take another trip.  

I no longer get to spend as much time in the lab performing experiments as I would like to, however I do have the ability to mentor students (from the University of California San Diego) and researchers that work in the lab. Additionally, since JCVI is a non-profit, soft-money institute, I spend a lot of time writing grants to raise the research funds and the salaries of everyone in my research group. I actually like grant writing quite a bit; I think it’s fun and exciting to design new avenues of research and ideas. On the flipside, grant writing does take away from preparing and writing manuscripts, which are also necessary to complete projects and to write proposals for more funding. It’s all about finding the balance—something I am very much still learning.

Can you tell me about your work with the League of Extraordinary Scientists and Engineers?

We call it LXS for short. What I really love about LXS is the mission, which is that science is equitable, that everyone has a right to know the science of how the world works, and that no one should be left behind. It’s important that the public is educated on what we know as scientists and it’s a fundamental right to know this information. I have been fortunate to be involved since the inception of LXS by founder Jeane Wong, and the mission has helped keep me involved and pushing for new programs. Not everyone is going to be a scientist, nor should they, but having general understandings of the biology within yourself and the biology around you are important things to know. Having this knowledge is what will drive all of our futures. I’ve also always thought it was so fun to teach kids and adults and get people excited about the world around them. 

Is there a personality trait or specific skill that really makes you the right fit for your academic position and helps you succeed?

Not being afraid. I’m not saying I’m perfect at this because I do get afraid a lot, but I try to limit the amount of fear that I let creep in. There are times when I get intimidated in a room full of well-known researchers in my field, but what I try to tell myself is that they were like me once, that it’s OK to be wrong, and it’s OK to have an idea that is not picked up by the group—it doesn’t mean that it’s a bad idea. Just try not to be afraid, work hard, be passionate and curious about what you are doing, and that will drive you forward. 

About the author:

Nicole Torosin is a Postdoc Researcher at Rutgers University and a member of the Career Development Subcommittee.

Learn more about the Early Career Leadership Program.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Vincenzo Alessandro Gennarino is an Assistant Professor of Genetics & Development at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. His career, which has led him from his home country of Italy to the US, is focused on understanding RNA neurobiology with a particular interest in rare diseases. He shares how his endless curiosity and passion for helping others have guided his career. 

Dr. Gennarino is a first generation college graduate and an international scientist working on neurological diseases. He completed his PhD in Medical Genetics in Italy, then moved to the US to pursue his postdoctoral studies in neurogenetics. He describes himself as a person of the world who is curious about life and biology.

What compelled you to be interested in biology?

I grew up in the beautiful city of Palermo, in southern Italy. I was one of three sons. When I was very young, we didn’t have money to spend on lots of games and toys, so we used our imagination. I spent time outside, observing people, pets, farm animals, and plants. I wondered how they thought and felt about life. Then I’d go to the library and read books about anything I observed. Although I was the first in my family to go to university, my parents were very supportive of my interests and ambitions. I’m still curious today, and I think that’s what really drives me in science, along with the satisfaction that comes from asking a question and finding an answer.

Tell me about your career trajectory—what experiences led you to these positions?

I loved spending time in the library. The smell of old books still brings me back to the joy of learning. But I think things really started when my father, with a lot of sacrifices, got me my first computer. The world of internet opened up the possibility of reading science that was not in the books yet. So, I started reading about genetics and how the brain works. Then, I became interested in bioinformatics and computational biology. In 2005, I joined the lab of Elia Stupka at the Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine (TIGEM) in Naples, where I learned about genomics and non-coding RNAs. So I pursued my PhD with Sandro Banfi, who allowed me to pursue whatever topic I wanted. At the time, it was very difficult to identify microRNA targets. I developed a new approach aimed to accurately predict miRNA target genes.

For my postdoctoral training I joined the lab of Huda Zoghbi at Jan and Dan Duncan Neurological Research Institute to study neurodegenerative diseases. Since my background was in RNA biology, when I joined Huda’s Lab I didn’t know anything about the brain or mouse models. I still remember the first time I held a mouse: I thought they’re too cute to do experiments on.

In 2014, I went to my first Ataxia Investigators Meeting at the National Ataxia Foundation. During the poster session with patients, a young woman facing a lifetime of neurological degeneration asked if there was a way to cure her disease. I was deeply touched and realized how lucky I am to be healthy. I decided to dedicate my life to understanding rare neurological diseases.

In 2018, I joined the Department of Genetics and Development at Columbia University Irving Medical Center as an Assistant Professor. I was able to meet a patient and her parents for the disease I just discovered (Pumilio1 Associated Developmental Delay and Seizures, PADDAS). The patient’s mother thanked me for all the work I was doing. That was the second time I realized I wanted to work in genetics to help patients. 

Did you encounter any roadblocks during your transition from Italy to the US?

It was terrible in the beginning because I knew no English! I still remember the hours I spent on the phone trying to establish an electricity account. One trick that helped me to learn English was to not hang out with Italians. This forced me to speak English and learn by practicing. 

There were lots of other roadblocks, not only about science, but about life in the US itself. I had to spend weeks without a Social Security number, so I could not open a bank account or get a cell phone contract. My wife was not allowed to work for almost a year because she did not have a work permit, which is very difficult to get. Another issue was that I could not apply for many grants without a green card. The only federal grant I could apply for, the K99, was very difficult since you must apply within 4 years of receiving the PhD.

Does the academic environment differ between Italy and the US? 

They both have strengths. First, I should say that I have not been an independent scientist anywhere but here, so I really cannot compare from personal experience. But my impression is that scientists in the US have a bit more freedom to do “big science”, while scientists in Italy have to be more creative to do more with less resources.

What helped you the most in your career journey?

I think the most important thing in science is collaboration. I follow the example of Sandro and Huda in this regard. Some people don’t have the attitude of sharing their data because they are afraid someone will take advantage of them. However, I seek to collaborate and share my data even in the beginning of a project, because we can solve the puzzle faster when we work together! 

When I read papers, I take note of the ones that are particularly interesting to me. Then, before I go to a meeting, I’ll email the authors I’d like to meet. Those people you meet will be the same people who will review your papers and grants most likely, and it’s easier to read a grant if you know the person who wrote it.

What is your advice to postdocs who are in the job market looking for faculty positions?

First of all, don’t be stressed and remember you are not doing this job to be rich. Be clear about why you want to be an academic scientist. With this mindset, work as much as possible to build your CV. A strong CV doesn’t mean papers in Cell, Nature, and Science, but productivity is important. The level of productivity will differ by field. A good rule of thumb is to build a second project that is independent of your main postdoc project so that if one project fails, you can still have results to build on in your own lab. This is extremely important because this is the first question people are going to ask you in your job talk. Believe me—I did 22 job talks! 

About the author:

Şeyma Katrinli is a Co-chair of the Early Career Scientist Multimedia Subcommittee and a former member of the Career Development Subcommittee. She is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Emory University.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Kailene Simon is a scientist not just driven by passion, but by cause. When she was in high school, she lost her grandmother to the rare disease scleroderma. Her curiosity to understand the disease, passion for science, and urge to serve society eventually led Simon first to Genzyme, now part of Sanofi, a Boston-based company with a strong reputation in the rare disease community, and then to Atalanta Therapeutics, a startup company focused on developing siRNA-based therapeutics to treat neurodegeneration.

Simon started at Genzyme as a research assistant immediately following her graduation from Providence College, where she obtained an undergraduate degree in biology. As an RA in the Bioanalytical Development group, she supported several rare disease projects, including one focused on scleroderma, but soon realized she needed to continue her education. Using a company-sponsored degree program, Simon was able to continue working at Genzyme while earning her MS from Tufts. As her career progressed, she again felt compelled to return to graduate school, this time for her PhD. 

However, unlike with the masters’ degree, there was no precedent in her company for obtaining a PhD while working full-time. Undeterred by this, Simon initiated an agreement with the University of Massachusetts Medical School which allowed her to pursue a doctorate in biochemistry as a full-time student while also maintaining her scientist position. After completing her PhD, she was offered a position as an associate director of in vitro biology at Atalanta Therapeutics, which was founded by UMass scientists Anastasia Khvorova, Neil Aronin, and Craig Mello.

What was your motivation for joining industry?

When I was in high school, I lost my grandmother to a disease called systemic scleroderma. The biggest challenge my parents faced in caring for my grandmother was finding a doctor who could identify her collection of symptoms for what they were—a rare autoimmune disease. By the time she was properly diagnosed, her disease had progressed beyond the point of treatment, and she passed away within a few months. We now know that with the correct diagnosis and treatment, patients with scleroderma can often have a normal life expectancy. But as is the case with many rare diseases, the limited research and treatment options that existed (especially in the mid-90’s) made her diagnosis and treatment particularly challenging.

Motivated by my experience, I decided to attend PC as a pre-med/biology major with the intention of going on to medical school. However, during my sophomore year an opportunity arose to work in the biochemistry lab of Dr. Yinsheng Wan that provided a view of what being a research scientist was like. Dr. Wan was a fantastic mentor and was the first to discuss a career in industry with me, something I had not considered until then. Admittedly, he did encourage me to consider grad school first, but I decided against it and began applying for jobs in rare disease research. The opportunity to be a part of improving the lives of people like my grandmother was incredibly important to me, and there seemed like no better place for this than at Genzyme.

Why did you decide to go back to school after spending so many years in industry? 

A few years after I began working in industry, I developed a sense of the gaps in my scientific knowledge. I was also working with two women in leadership positions in my group who both had PhDs, and I benefited from their excitement for science. At that point, I decided I needed to go back to school. I took advantage of their tuition reimbursement program and applied to a part-time master’s degree program at Tufts. This allowed me to work during the day and take one class at a time in the evenings until I had completed my degree. 

My PhD happened a few years later. After years of following the leadership of some wonderful scientific directors, I felt confident in what I knew in the field of biology and what I could contribute, but I also knew I still had a lot to learn. When working with my colleagues with a PhD degree, I always felt an inherent difference in their thought process compared to mine. They could think more critically about the trajectory of their work or the rationale behind choosing one therapeutic modality over another for a given patient population or target. In industry, these factors are what make a program successful.

Why did you decide to pursue a PhD while also working a full-time job?

As I was finishing my master’s degree, my husband Andrew (a fellow Genzyme scientist) and I got married and bought a house. Around that same time, I began to think seriously about pursuing a PhD, a career goal of Andrew’s as well. However, because we had just purchased a house, giving up both salaries in lieu of grad school stipends was not an option. And despite having the support of my immediate supervisor, conversations with our leadership team about the possibility of working toward the PhD while at Genzyme were understandably met with skepticism. So, after much discussion, Andrew and I collectively decided I would stay at the company, while he would go back to school full-time with the understanding that once he was finished, I would return as well. 

A few years after Andrew went back to school, we welcomed our son, Bennett, which coincided with Sanofi’s buyout of Genzyme and a major reorganization of the company’s leadership. Two years after that, with Andrew still engaged in his thesis research, we found out we were expecting again, and this time we were having a girl. The news that we had a daughter on the way suddenly made getting the PhD seem much more urgent. I realized I never wanted her to ask why her father had a Ph.D. but her mother did not. I also knew that if I were going to return to school, I needed to do it right away, or I likely would not do it at all. And since we relied primarily on my salary, I had to find a way to hold onto my full-time job.

So, after discussions with our parents about what it would take for us to pull this off (and them offering their unwavering support in all possible ways), and at six months pregnant, I went to the dean at the University of Massachusetts Medical School to ask about the possibility of doing a PhD while also working full-time. To my relief, he was supportive and excited. On his side, he convinced the associate dean of the graduate school and the dean of admissions for their support. On my side, I went back to Genzyme (now Sanofi), to ask for their support to build this collaboration of sorts, so I could keep my salary. Unfortunately, unlike with my master’s, there wasn’t a lot of precedent for doing a PhD while holding a salaried position. There were some programs for executives, which I used as an administrative loophole to get an inroad, but I was the first to ask for the opportunity to combine my work responsibilities with a doctoral program. There were so many factors at play – who would own the IP? (Sanofi), would UMass pay me a stipend? (no, but I did keep my salary and benefits from Sanofi), what happened if the company decided to terminate my project (too bad!) After a lot of back and forth with the Sanofi lawyers, they gave their approval for me to work on a discovery research project that supported a drug discovery program at Sanofi, but that was funded with grant money from a third party. Three days before I went on maternity leave, I signed a contract with our head of R&D that gave me permission to move ahead with this arrangement. A few months later, I interviewed for and was accepted to the graduate program at UMass, and when my daughter was eleven months old, I started the PhD program. 

You had two kids before you joined the PhD program. How did you balance your life and work? 

I started graduate school when my children were just shy of turning one and three, and life became more hectic than ever. In many ways, my academic schedule was the same as every other student. I was, of course, expected to take all the classes required by my PhD program, including the career development courses, while doing rotations and my thesis work. Yet I was also expected to fulfill my obligation to Sanofi to maintain my position there. This often meant going to class in the morning, then heading to Sanofi by noon and working late in the lab. Whenever possible, I would make it home in time for a late dinner with Andrew and the kids (who became experts at the flexible schedule our situation commanded), and after dinner we would put the kids to bed, and we would both sit back down at our computers to study or analyze data. It was a challenging schedule but having a partner who was willing and able to share the childcare responsibilities equally made all the difference. We were fortunate that my first few years back in school overlapped with his last few, so we had the flexibility of his grad school schedule to make things easier. I also had the advantage of my experience as an industry scientist, which helped a lot. I had been in a lab for 15 years at that point and I had developed good time management and project management skills.

Once the first year was over, my course load got easier, and we found ourselves in a good routine. But no matter how well we managed our days, we could not have done this all alone. We relied heavily on my parents, who provided two days a week of childcare for us. And every week, my parents kept the kids for an overnight so there was always one night (usually Thursday) where we could work late in the lab guilt-free or even sneak in a late dinner date at a pub near our house.

In the end, it worked out, and I was able to graduate in just under five years. Looking back on the experience now, I am so glad I made the decision to go back for my doctorate. It was tough, of course, but for our family, it was worth it. And while I know that this path wouldn’t be the right fit for everyone, it feels great to know I didn’t have to choose between having a family and having the career I wanted. More importantly, I am grateful that with the support of UMass, I was able to be an example for what it looks like to invite industry into the world of academia and create a collaborative relationship in the process.

What prompted your move to Atalanta?

After I graduated with my PhD, I was ready for the next step in my career. By that time, I had been at Genzyme/Sanofi for about 18 years, and it felt like the right time to move to a completely new environment. I had begun considering my options when a friend from school reached out to me to discuss a potential opportunity with a startup company she was helping establish with her PI at UMass, Anastasia Khvorova. She connected me with the company’s CEO, Alicia Secor, and CSO, Aimee Jackson, and after speaking with them I knew this was the best place for the next phase of my career. The opportunity to work at a company with a founder who has been such a force in the field, and for a leadership team of such talented women, was something I couldn’t pass up. I was employee number 13 at Atalanta, which meant having the opportunity to help build the science organization alongside some amazing scientists. I started the position in February of 2020. Building a lab from scratch during a pandemic was incredibly tough, but my team is fantastic. They, along with the rest of our company, are all working very hard, very quickly, and we are making exciting progress!

I was so fortunate that the right people took a chance with me—first at UMass, then Genzyme, and now at Atalanta—and it has made all the difference. After twenty years in this field, I have finally gotten to where I want to be.

About the author:

Ruchi Jhonsa was a liaison on the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee. Currently, she is an account manager at Absorption Systems, Philadelphia. She strives to educate young scientists about career development and is passionate about writing new scientific developments from academia and industry. 

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Neal Lemon currently serves as the Associate Director of Technology Licensing and Corporate Outreach for the Penn Center for Innovation and Perelman School of Medicine. He is focused on commercializing innovation with a particular emphasis on medical technologies and therapies. He has an MBA in International Business and a PhD in neuroscience. Neal switched between business and biology a few times before finally settling on technology transfer, where he can intersect these two interests.  

What does a job in technology transfer look like? 

The main focus of technology transfer is to interact with faculty and explain how they can take their ideas, experiments, and intellectual property to a state where they can be developed into something that can be sold as a product or service. Usually, this is accomplished by getting invention disclosures, protection through patents, and often either starting a company or licensing to a pre-existing company. Half of the job is interacting with the university community, faculty, and students, while the other half is interacting with industry. This is quite interesting because you can have a foot in the university and a foot out of it. You can gather a sense of early stage research in universities as well as the trends and what is required to turn intellectual property into something people can use. As a part of the bridge between universities and industry, there are options to partner with an existing large company to sponsor additional research and further advance intellectual property to the point of licensing, or even into a startup. 

How did you come into your current position?

I did my undergraduate degree in biology and psychology, and I was really interested in neuroscience. Following undergrad, I continued with a medical research council scholarship in Canada, where I did neuroscience research for two years. I decided to stop after two years and complete my master’s instead of continuing to do my PhD. The work was very focused, and I wasn’t really keen on doing one specific type of research long-term. I decided to do an MBA at the University of Victoria and Handelshochschule (HHL) in Leipzig, Germany. After that, I took a position at Hewlett Packard working in finance. During this time, I found that what I really wanted to do was combine my neuroscience and business backgrounds. At that time, however, there weren’t many opportunities at that intersection. 

I took a job at a bioinformatics startup and found myself at a decision point between continuing in finance or trying to go back to working in science. I was interviewing with people in both fields but decided to go back to Germany to the International Graduate School of Neuroscience to get my PhD. Following graduate school, I went back to Canada for a postdoc before taking a job between academia and industry working in commercialization. This brought me to my first position in technology transfer, where I have been since. 

How do you use the skills that you gained in your academic training specifically in this position?

There are two different aspects to the application of academic training: knowledge and skills. The knowledge aspect of the training, especially on the neurophysiology side, is understanding material that is critical to interpreting invention disclosures and speaking about them knowledgeably. Everyone in technology transfer has an area where they are an expert, which is usually aligned with their PhD. It’s enjoyable to be able to dig deep into those topics.  

The other aspect is the skills you develop while doing a PhD. If you think about when you started your PhD and the material was all new, the ability to educate yourself was very important. You develop the ability to search through PubMed and extract the information you need. In technology transfer you are doing the same thing, looking through patent records and commercial databases. So in this position, you need the skills to be able to learn by yourself. 

What characteristics make you good at your job in technology transfer?

In many scientific career paths, you need to have a combination of curiosity and discipline. At least professionally, I think I have both of those characteristics. It’s debatable sometimes which trait is more important to make a good researcher. Is it more important that the person is disciplined or has a sense of curiosity? They intersect, though, as you also need motivation for discipline. Personally, I like to understand how things work and how to make things work better. I am interested in society and capitalism and how they work, and how ideas become realities. I think that level of curiosity to dig into the processes and systems of commercialization, in addition to the details of the technologies, is important for a job in technology transfer. However, like with everything, you need the discipline to not just find out interesting things but also use that knowledge and work to benefit others. 

How does your life outside of your career influence your career?

You can work very long hours in this job. You also need discipline in saying “enough is enough.” The great thing about this position is that you should never be bored. There’s nearly an infinite amount of work to do through transactional work as well as the research side. Like in a lot of other careers, you could let it totally consume you, but it is important to have a life outside of work. When you’re finished working on something, it is good to take time to do something else so you don’t burn out. You could work 24/7 and feel that you continue to add value, but you get diminishing returns at a certain point. 

How has your network shaped your career?

I’ve built a few different networks through my professional life, research, and business school. It is interesting to think of the Venn diagram of my networks, because I believe there is little overlap. I think this is good because I have a network of friends and professionals in technology transfer who have similar interests and abilities, as well as a network of friends that have no relation to the sciences or business at all. I even keep in contact with friends from college sports. 

If you are looking at where you want to go in your career and set your sights towards something, start walking towards that. On the journey, you will meet people with similar interests to form a network.

What advice do you have for early career scientists who aren’t sure what to do next in their career? 

Take an afternoon with a cup of coffee and a notebook, sit down, and think about what would make you happy professionally. What is really interesting to you? What kind of setting do you want to work in? Maybe it has nothing to do with what you did over the last five years at all, but take time to look into it. Then, see what concrete steps you need to take to do what you’re interested in. My advice is to take the time to think about what you like to do — don’t be paralyzed by the choice. Be prepared that you might go in different directions than what you’re doing now. 

About the author:

Abigail DiVito is a member of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and a Graduate Student at the University of Pennsylvania. She is currently researching reproductive arrest and germline aging, and hopes to work in intellectual property.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

CJ Neely is a certified career coach and Assistant Director of Career Education at Johns Hopkins Medical Institute. She has a PhD in Microbiology and Immunology from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and was a postdoctoral fellow at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. While serving on the Postdoctoral Leadership Council at St. Jude, she found her passion for career development. 

What career did you imagine you would have when you were a graduate student and postdoc? 

I became interested in research early on as an undergraduate at Towson University. I was able to gain hands-on experience working in multiple labs while in college and loved it. One of my professors encouraged me to pursue a PhD, which I didn’t even think was a possibility. After applying and receiving multiple offers, I started grad school at UNC with the goal of becoming a PI at a primarily undergraduate institution (PUI). I wanted to inspire the next generation in the same way my professors did for me. However, at UNC I was enthralled with the research, and I didn’t think it was feasible to continue this type of work at a PUI. At that point, my interests shifted to being a PI at an R1 institution. 

 I then did a postdoc at St. Jude, where I was looking to develop new skills and improve my grant writing. I was strategic and went to a lab that had a history of moving postdocs into faculty roles. However, I found that my graduate school experience and postdoc experience were very different. In my graduate lab, I was the first grad student. I spent a lot of time training others in the lab, and I was encouraged to serve on committees and present at conferences. On the other hand, as a postdoc, my focus was to get the project off the ground and develop research independence. In the process, I realized I wasn’t really happy doing all of the things I needed to do to become a PI. This is when I started to look for careers outside of the lab that mimicked the aspects of graduate school I enjoyed the most. 

How did you decide to pursue a career in professional development? 

Once I realized there was a misalignment between my interests and career trajectory, I started to look into professional development resources. The only resources available at St. Jude at the time were developed by postdocs on the Postdoc Leadership Council. There was a role available as the Chair of Career Development, so I ran and was elected for that position. As the Chair, I created a career discovery series, where I brought in local PhD professionals to discuss their career paths and current roles in more detail. I found that a lot of the careers were interesting on paper, but when I learned more about them, they just weren’t what I was looking for. 

One day, our postdoc coordinator asked me, “What are you doing when you get lost in your work and lose track of time? What makes you feel built up instead of depleted?” It was everything that I was doing for the Postdoc Leadership Council. She reminded me that it was a real job! Before that, it didn’t click that there were people with PhDs who were working in professional development and academic administration roles. 

It’s interesting that from the beginning your interest in research was based in wanting to inspire the next generation, and that’s what you are doing now. 

Yes, just in a different way than I initially envisioned. I think that if I was more self-aware and listened to what I wanted to do instead of what I thought I should do, it wouldn’t have taken me so long to get where I am now. I needed to be honest with myself about my strengths and interests. While I find research incredibly fascinating, sitting at the bench or leading a research team is not where I am most fulfilled. It did take me a while to mourn the loss of leaving academia because I had invested so much time, and a lot of my identity was wrapped up in being a scientist. Even though I was ready to make the transition, it was a hard process to go through and likely why it took so long. 

Can you describe what you do in your position now? 

I manage a PhD Career Curriculum called OPTIONS. This involves program management, event planning, and building relationships with various stakeholders, such as senior leadership, faculty, alumni, and other PhD professionals. The other side of my role is providing one-on-one career coaching to early career scientists. Career coaching is about listening to the other person. Earning my career coach certification has taught me the importance of talking less, asking powerful questions, and guiding individuals through the process rather than telling them what to do. The goal is to empower early career scientists to make informed decisions and take action.

What skills have you brought from your graduate school and postdoc experiences? 

In graduate school and as a postdoc, I learned how to stay organized, manage competing priorities, lead an effective meeting, make persuasive arguments, and communicate effectively. All of these skills are essential to my current position.  

How were you able to balance pursuing and exploring your career outside of academia while you were fulfilling your duties as a postdoc? 

It’s not easy. The earlier you start the more time you can work on it. If you can take the approach of “the tortoise vs. the hare,” you can work on it slowly without committing a lot of time each week. For me, because I had taken on a career development role on the St. Jude Postdoc Leadership Council, there was a certain commitment to researching careers and developing relevant programming. So, I would work full time in the lab and then often spend another 10 hours per week on this extracurricular activity. I enjoyed it so much that I was probably putting more time in than I needed to. For me, that was a big indicator that I was tapping into something that I really needed to consider as a career. 

What are some issues that you see coming up for a lot of early career scientists while they’re exploring their career options? 

A problem I often see is that early career scientists don’t commit enough time to career exploration. They’re in a PhD program to become an independent scientist, so research comes first, and I wholeheartedly support that. However, you do need to take time throughout your training to really think about your next steps. Many early career scientists wait until their last thesis committee meeting when they have six months left in their program to start this process. At this point they are feeling so much pressure, it’s hard to think straight. It’s easy to take the “lowest hanging fruit”—the first opportunity that comes along. For example, some pursue a postdoc by default and then fall into a pattern where—three years later—they are no closer to figuring out what they want to do. By spending more time exploring career options, you can be more intentional and confident with your career decisions. 

What is your advice for people like this? 

Protect time for career exploration and professional development. If that means you need to add it to your calendar like any other meeting, do so. Also, most of us will have multiple “careers” in our lifetime. So rather than trying to figure it all out, let curiosity lead you to your next step. 

About the author:

Abigail DiVito is a member of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and a Graduate Student at the University of Pennsylvania. She is currently researching reproductive arrest and germline aging, and hopes to work in intellectual property.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.