Meet Dr. Kathie L. Olsen

New Voices recently interviewed Dr. Kathie L. Olsen. A neurobiologist by training, Dr. Olsen has spent most of her career working in science policy. She has held several positions at the National Science Foundation including serving as Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer. She has also worked as Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science at the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Additionally, she was Acting Associate Administrator for Biological and Physical Research and Chief Scientist for NASA! Dr. Olsen received her Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of California in Irvine and her B.S. in biology and psychology from Chatham College. Her postdoctoral fellowship was at Harvard Medical School.

How did you first become interested in science policy?

It was an evolutionary process. In high school I didn’t even like science. When I got to college, I took a general biology course, mostly because it fit into my class schedule. Well, I loved it- so I decided to major in biology and psychology. From there, my career followed the typical route for a research scientist. I got my Ph.D. in neuroscience and did a post doctoral fellowship before getting a position as an assistant professor with my own lab and NIH grant.

I enjoyed what I was doing but I still had some nagging feelings about my career path. For one thing, I’m extroverted and enjoy interacting with people. There were times when I would spend the entire day in lab and never talk to anyone. Also, in your research lab, it’s all about you-your projects, your grants, your publications. Going to the NSF was a great opportunity to see the field more broadly and get a lot done behind the scenes.

Given the many demands placed on early career scientists, how important is it for them to become involved in science advocacy and policy?

It’s critically important. There are a lot of little things that scientists at all stages of their careers can do to get involved. You can work through your professional societies. You can also work through your university to reach out to members of Congress- maybe invite them to your lab. I sometimes speak at grade schools, museums and rotary clubs about science. People have an idea of what a scientist looks like. Researchers can show them the truth. It’s not like what you see on TV. Scientists look just like them.

What advice would you give someone who is interested in science policy?

Stay up to date in your field. In order to be effective in policy, you should go to meetings, read journals and understand the newest technologies. The more research experience you have, the better you will be at explaining what is important. You don’t need to know everything, but you should know who to ask. Also, if you don’t know something, don’t give the wrong answer. Instead, offer to get the information from an expert and then follow through.

What was the biggest challenge for you when you entered the policy field?

More than science goes into policy decisions. Policy makers have to look at a lot of factors when deciding how to prioritize. One of those factors is and should be science, but it’s not the only one. As a scientist, that can be challenging.

What is your outlook for the future of research?

I’m optimistic. America has thrived because of innovation. It drives our economy and improves our health and well-being. We need to prioritize, and the public and Congress understand that research is critical in addressing the challenges of today and tomorrow, and essential in maintaining an acceptable standard of living into the future. They recognize that an investment in research and education is an investment in our future.

New Voices would like to thank Dr. Olsen for speaking with us. Are you feeling inspired to get involved?

Do Scientists Understand the Public?

Or, check out Chris Mooney's presentation in full screen vision on NIH's website.

We're Not Gonna Take It

The U.S. is ranked 35th in math and 29th in science worldwide. We've talked about these rankings on New Voices before. You've heard them for ages. Of course everyone wants us to be number 1. But what can any one person do? What's the point?

The truth is, if you're reading this post you know the statistics. You know we're dismally behind other industrialized countries where math and the sciences are concerned. You can blame it on the variance in international school systems. You can account for differences in total students being educated or percentage of education funded by the federal government. You can say that American students are just getting a more well-rounded education.

Or you can stand up and say, "We're not going to take it anymore."

You can pledge to get involved. To stand up for American students by personally interacting with an American student. This isn't someone else's responsibility. It is mine and yours.

Maybe your area doesn't have a wide variety of options for young people to get engaged in exciting STEM enrichment activities; but there are two things you can do right now:

1. Volunteer as a mentor or tutor. Local communities and schools have many after school and sometimes evening programs to help engage students with academic topics.

2. Invite a local science or math class to come and see where you work. If you're not sure that your work environment is worth a visit, try to remember what it was like to go on field trips as a kid. Anywhere new is exciting and interesting.(a la Fever Pitch below)

Connect a mind in your community. If not you, than who?

Meet Allison Bland, Communications Program Assistant

Welcome to New Voice Allison Bland, Communications Program Assistant at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

NV: What do you do?

Allison: I help maintain ASCO's patient website, Cancer.Net, by working with oncologists to review and update the latest information on cancer treatment and care. I also work with Cancer.Net's social media on Twitter and Facebook.

NV: What is the most challenging part of what you do?

Allison: Another part of my job is to help answer phone calls, emails, and letters from people with cancer and their families. People turn to ASCO looking for resources at any point during their cancer treatment. I help these people by directing them towards the best resources and information, but it can be difficult because I'm not able to give medical advice. Many times, patients are very educated about their diagnosis and come to us looking for the next step. It's challenging to explain complex medical information to someone who is dealing with a cancer diagnosis over the phone.

NV: When did you first become interested in science?

Allison: My dad is a physicist, but he never pushed me towards a career in science. I have always been a writer, and dabbled in science because I was interested in how new discoveries can make the world better. Combining the two led me to science communication, and I'm following that track now.

NV: What’s the most common misconception about scientists?

Allison: I think one of the most common misconceptions about scientists is that there is a single-track, vaguely defined career for a "scientist." The reality is that there are many kinds of jobs in the science field, and these types of jobs are becoming more important all the time.

NV: What advice would you give to someone who wants to get involved in advocacy and/or outreach?

Allison: Take full advantage of online tools. The communities that form around online platforms like blogging networks or Twitter attract people who know the issues and have similar interests in science outreach and advocacy. I think the best way to get involved is through participation in online communities and then finding face-to-face events -- conferences, science cafes, happy hours -- to take the next step.

Some of you may remember that Allison was a contributor to the New Voices blog. We thank Allison for sharing her experience and advice about science communications and advocacy. This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.


Bookmark and Share

Meet Jackie Maffucci, PhD, Human Protections Research Scientist

Today we’re introducing you to New Voice, Jackie Maffucci, Human Protections Research Scientist who is working as a contractor for the military.

NV: What do you do?

Jackie: I am a contractor for the military. I work for an independent agency to supplement the government workforce. I have worked on three different contracts since starting here.

First, I worked in a policy office where I was focused on the policies providing health and medical support for the troops.

Then I was part of a project in which I worked directly with service members, helping to get them compensation for traumatic injuries.

Now I am working to provide oversight to the institutions within the Army that perform research using human subjects. I help ensure that the use of human subjects follows Department of Defense and Army regulations. Some of this work includes reviewing assurances (agreements between the research institutions and our office stating that they will follow these regulations) and human research protections plans (which outline how they are going to follow these regulations).

NV: What is the most exciting part of what you do?

Jackie: I like that I am helping service members on a daily basis. I really enjoy interacting with people because I feel in “real time” that I’m making a difference. When I correspond on a screen or on paper, I can’t vary my message to make sure that my audience is receiving it, but when I am directly interacting with someone, I can. There is an inherent reward in that.

NV: Who’s your role model?

Jackie: Mrs. Krueger, my eighth grade science teacher. She really encouraged me to pursue science even though I was leaning toward English. She helped me realize that a lot of what I loved about the humanities can carry over into science, like creativity. Science isn’t boring; it’s interactive and creative! Mrs. Krueger really made me recognize my potential.

NV: What advice would you give to someone who wants to get involved in advocacy and/or outreach?

Jackie: Just do it. Find a way to do it. There are some small things you can start with like writing a blog, or even making comments on other blogs. You can write an article about a subject you care about and submit it to a journal or a local newspaper. You can get involved with a scientific society; most have a policy board. Or you can get in touch with a member of Congress and volunteer to be involved in their science advising. There are plenty of opportunities out there, just find the time.

NV: What one thing would you change about the culture of science?

Jackie: I get the impression from my interactions with scientists that they think their role is to make the discoveries, but not necessarily to describe those discoveries to the public. But, if the scientists don’t take the time to explain the work, then the usefulness of their research gets lost in translation. Publishing is not where their job ends, it’s where their job begins. It’s the scientist’s duty to talk about the importance of their work and represent it honestly to the public and policy makers, as well as their colleagues.


Some of you may remember that Jackie was a regular blogger for New Voices from September 2009 through January 2010 - including the excellent From Ideas to Treatments series on clinical research. We thank Jackie for giving us some time to learn more about her current position and her passion for science and outreach.

This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

Meet Raquel Lieberman, PhD, Assistant Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Lieberman, a brilliant early-career investigator, shared her story at the Congressional briefing we co-hosted with ACS, "Investing in Our Future: A New Generation of Researchers."

Raquel L. Lieberman, Ph.D. joined the faculty of the School of Chemistry at Georgia Tech in January 2008 as an assistant professor after a joint postdoctoral research position at Harvard Medical School, Brigham & Women’s Hospital and Brandeis University in Boston, MA. She graduated from MIT with a bachelor in science in Chemistry and from Northwestern with a PhD and is a native of New York City.

Dr. Lieberman's lab investigates proteins, the "worker molecule" of your body. The lab first tries to understand how normal proteins function so that they can understand how abnormal proteins cause diseases, like glaucoma and Alzheimer's disease. They can use this knowledge about abnormal proteins to try to design new ways to treat or diagnose the diseases.

Dr. Lieberman also shared with the audience the many jobs involved in being a Principle Investigator and some of the difficulties of being an early-career researcher.

You can see her power point presentation to see what it takes to be an assistant professor here (slides 31-42).


This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

Meet Marshall Hussain Shuler, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neuroscience

Dr. Hussain Shuler represented early-career investigators and shared his amazing work at the briefing we co-hosted with ACS, "Investing in Our Future: A New Generation of Researchers."

He joined the Department of Neuroscience as an Associate Professor in 2008 after completing his post-doctoral research with Dr. Mark Bear at the Picower Institute for Learning Memory at MIT as a Howard Hughes fellow. He received a Ph.D. in Neurobiology from Duke University, Durham NC in 2001, working in the laboratory of Miguel Nicolelis, having received a NRSA fellowship. He received a B.A. with distinction in Neuroscience from the University of Virginia, working with Dr. David Hill, where he was a Howard Hughes Undergraduate Research Apprentice (1995).

Here is a brief description of what he told the audience about his work: The brain is particularly good at helping people adapt to their surroundings; and it rewards itself for learning new, more appropriate behaviors – a process called reinforcement learning.

At the Hussain Shuler laboratory, our job is to understand how that process works inside the network of the brain. We use an interdisciplinary approach that includes mapping neural activity, genomics, and behavior.

Little is known about how reinforcement learning works in the brain. Studying these processes will directly impact our understanding of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and drug abuse.

Take a look at his power point presentation (slides 23-30) to see a really cool model used to study reinforcement learning.


This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

Mad Scientist

One Friday afternoon I was driving around when I caught Science Friday with Ira Flatow on NPR. I usually feel like Ira’s on my side—science can be interesting even to non-scientists. Imagine my feelings of betrayal when I heard this exchange on his program.

Vincenzo Natali was describing his new movie “Splice” in which the main characters, scientists, decide to splice together human and animal DNA. Shockingly, the experiment goes horribly wrong. Natali says of his main characters, “While they are quite brilliant and they fully understand the chemical building blocks of life, they don’t have a full appreciation of what life is. They lived a very sequestered, hermetic kind of existence in their lab.” Groan.

SPLICE: Movie Trailer. Watch more top selected videos about: Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley

Oh wait, it gets worse. A caller comments on the movie, “I wonder what the relationships are of the researchers in real life. I wonder if they’re not cold and clinical in their real life.”

And the worst part is that no one, not even Ira, defended scientists, explaining that they are normal people, too! How could you do this to us, Ira?

Somehow, scientists have gotten a bad reputation for not being able to interact in normal social situations. But are we really any different than other Americans?

• Scientists work hard, often more than a 40-hour workweek. Not to worry though, there is a lot of social interaction in a lab (and much more than at the desk jobs I’ve worked).

• Scientists have bosses who forget how long it takes to complete a project and wanted it done yesterday.
• Scientists have office mates who gossip near the water cooler and leave weird things in the refrigerator.
• Scientists “talk shop”, just like lawyers referencing cases, brokers naming stocks, or mechanics discussing car parts.
• Amazingly, scientists have normal relationships. Somehow, we’ve convinced someone to like us.

Adam Ruben wrote a post in Science recently about the caricature of science much more humorously than I can. Oh, Adam Ruben, you crack me up! (PS, he’s a scientist AND he’s funny!)

This misrepresentation is clearly a widespread problem. But, what’s a scientist to do about it? We have to change our image. My first suggestion is to get out of the lab and socialize with non-scientists (happy hour with your coworkers in between PCR runs doesn’t count). Have fun, talk, laugh--especially when you realize that most people can’t even tell that you’re a scientist.

What else would you suggest?

Meet Yung Lie, PhD, Scientific Director - Non-profit

Today we're introducing you to New Voice Yung Lie, Scientific Director at the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation.

NV: What do you do?

Yung: I am the scientific director at the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation. I oversee our grant-making programs for early career scientists. In addition, I am a liaison between scientists and the foundation as well as the donors. I’m the only scientist on staff, so I often answer questions about the research our scientists are doing. We’re working to better communicate the importance of scientific research.

NV: Why did you move into policy (from research)?

Yung: When I was in academia I was in an environment that was relatively stagnant and in this role I get to interact with both scientists and non-scientists and have a broader impact. It’s great to have the opportunity to talk to people about why it’s important to fund basic research, something I didn’t get to do when I was in an academic research environment.

NV: What limited your ability to do advocacy in your previous work?

Yung: Not knowing what opportunities existed for outreach and advocacy. I was always interested in the idea of it, but unless you’re presented with an opportunity you’ll find you just don’t take the initiative. Some labs are better at this than others, depending on whether lab heads and PIs are involved in outreach and advocacy.

NV: What motivates you to do advocacy?

Yung: You know, it’s an integral part of my job. And now that I’ve left my lab I see more why it’s so important to be out there talking about science. I see that there are so many non-scientists in the world who don’t understand why it’s important to have researchers working on many of these projects. Scientists need to be speaking about their work and the importance of it to the public.

NV: In what ways does your outreach affect those who receive it?

Yung: I think it’s an amazing opportunity for people to learn. I think that often people are basing their opinions on the articles they read in newspapers and magazines. And that reporting is often inaccurate and gives the wrong impression on research and money in research. Like with cancer, lots of false impressions have been given about how very little or no progress has been made despite how much money is put into research, when in fact, enormous progress has been made.

A lot of the responsibility to get the information out there falls on the scientists to not let the media give the wrong impression. The donors [at Damon Runyon] are always very pleased to have the opportunity to speak directly to scientists, to hear about their motivations for doing research and to learn why research is so important for understanding and treating human disease.


Thank you to Yung for giving us her time via phone so we could learn more about her and her career.

This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

Mystery Lab Contest - Day 4

This week on New Voices we'll be sharing images of research submitted by readers. Help your fellow researchers win the contest by guessing what type of research is being done based on the image below. Can today's image beat yesterday's? Come back tomorrow to see who won and find out what's been going on in the Mystery Lab!


Today is the last day of the Mystery Lab Contest , but you can always submit photos of your research to the New Voices Images from Around the Lab series by emailing an picture to hbenson at researchamerica.org.

Meet Jamie Vernon, PhD, Molecular Biologist

Today we're introducing you to New Voice Jamie Vernon, Postdoctoral Research Fellow with Dr. Lambowitz at The University of Texas at Austin.

NV: What do you do?

Jamie: I'm a Postdoctoral Fellow, NIH funded, and I work in a lab with Dr. Alan Lambowitz, a biochemist and microbiologist who studies mobile elements. Our lab is working on developing a gene targeting technology that could potentially be used for gene therapy and genetic engineering. This technology is based on something many people consider to be "junk DNA." These days it's becoming more and more evident that there is no such thing as "junk DNA." If it's conserved in our genomes, it probably serves a purpose.

Specifically, we study group II introns from bacteria and eukaryotic organelles. Our lab has determined that these mobile elements can be re-targeted to controllably insert into any DNA sequence. We call these re-targeted introns "targetrons" and they work very well in bacteria for creating gene knock-outs. My job is to make them target genes in eukaryotic cells, including human cells.

NV: How did you get started in outreach/advocacy?

Jamie: I think the Bush administration was a trigger. The policies related to stem cell research motivated me to act. I felt that the Bush administration's stem cell policies were not based on the best science. What was being touted was that we had all these existing stem cell lines, "why couldn't we do the research on those and get the answers we need?" But there were problems with those lines. We need a much broader collection of lines in order to deal with different diseases and different genomic backgrounds. There weren't adequate cell lines to address all these concerns. That's what sucked me in.

Now, climate change has become one area that needs to be addressed,the next calamity in science policy. Actually, there are countless science-related policy issues such as geoengineering, genomic privacy,forensic science and, of course the big one, alternative energy, that need to be carefully deliberated before we make the wrong policy decisions.

NV: What motivates you to do advocacy?

Jamie: My main motivation is that I think that science has so much to offer but it's being limited by the current policies. I truly believe that communicating science and gaining partnerships out in the public will have a positive effect on how much science is getting done.

The climate change bill is a huge issue for me. There's little room for compromise. If we don't act, the consequences down the road could be much greater than any financial investment we have to make today. You can't lose by investing in technologies that improve the environment. If the facts hold true, and I assume they will, the ramifications are dire for everyone.

NV: What limits your ability to do advocacy?

Jamie: I would say that I'm constrained by the same things as young professors. You have to produce to be considered effective. I have no incentive to do advocacy other my personal beliefs and desire to make science commonplace in the public discourse. I'm also limited by the fact that by the time I had graduated I had a family, a wife and a daughter, and that requires personal time. Mainly, I need to have a high level of productivity in order to compete and build my own research career.

There's little out there to support young scientists who wish to do outreach. For these reasons, I'm torn on which direction I want to go full-time. Science advocacy is very rewarding, but I'm a scientist at heart. It's difficult to be successful at both and it's almost an impossible decision to choose one over the other.

NV: Do you think outreach and advocacy should be required of scientists?

Jamie: No, I don't. I think there are enough scientists who care about outreach and have the communication skills to do it; rather, it should be incentivized in some way. If you force them, especially if they don't have the proper communication skills and don't want to be out there, they could make mistakes and say some stupid stuff. You need people who understand the sensitivities of the community and understand the arguments within the community. You need the public to feel that there position is being considered and appreciated when science policy decisions are being made.

Want to learn more about the issues Jamie mentioned above? Check out his blog!


This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

More with Elyse Walker, Marine Scientist

Photo credit: Florian Koch

Last week, we introduced Elyse Walker, a PhD student with Dr. Christopher Gobler in the Gobler Lab at Stony Brook University's School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. Today we're sharing the second half of that two-part interview.

NV: How did you get to where you are today?

Elyse: I have taken an unusual path. I learned about phytoplankton while volunteering at a local marine science center in 8th grade and decided then that I wanted to study them for the rest of my life. I looked up scientific articles, starting with easier-to-read journals like Science and Nature.

When choosing an undergraduate school I looked for marine science programs that supported undergraduate research and had multiple faculty that studied phytoplankton. I started working in a lab as a freshman and worked in 3 different labs at my university, as well as doing 3 summer internships, during my degree. Through working on a variety of questions about phytoplankton in those labs and internships I decided that harmful algal blooms are the best focus for my research right now.

NV: Who is your scientific role model?

Elyse: This is a hard question for me. I have had a lot of role models along the way, but always cherry pick what I like about any individual. I want to emulate how my Ph.D. advisor works with local governments to do monitoring and does interviews for journalists frequently to publish about our research.

I'm inspired by Sonya Dyhrman, who collaborated with Whyville, a youth educational game website, to add in harmful algal blooms to the game. I would love to work with the group at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute who developed the Environmental Sample Processor, which can be deployed long term to detect harmful algae species and/or their toxins in coastal waters in real time.

I have also been encouraged by a few mentors who balance their work and family life extremely well.

NV: What one thing would you change about the culture of science?

Elyse: I wish that the scientific method was more broadly applied in daily life. I think people could improve their understanding of the world around them, and their quality of life, if they understood basic principles and applied them regularly. For example, while doing a regular commute in a temperate climate, I tested the fuel efficiency of using a/c versus open windows at different speeds to help guide my a/c use in the long term. This seems crazy to most people, but the knowledge I gained empirically has saved me a lot of money over the years.

NV: What's the most common misconception about scientists?

Elyse: I haven't really experienced any misconceptions. I am trying to introduce myself as a "scientist" rather than a "graduate student" and the response is usually, "I have never met a scientist before! Tell me about what you do." This offers a great opportunity to tell people about phytoplankton in general, and sometimes harmful algal blooms, too.

NV: What's your next step after you complete your degree?

Elyse: My long term plan is to start a harmful algae monitoring, research, and education program. I want to monitor local marine and freshwater locations for harmful algal blooms and notify the public of their occurrence (through website updates and occasional newsletters). I will simultaneously do research with both natural samples collected during monitoring and laboratory cultures to learn more about the causes and effects of harmful algal blooms. Finally, I hope to design educational displays for aquariums and science centers about local harmful algal blooms and their impact. I'm not sure where or how I will achieve this goal yet, but I have a few years to figure it out.


Thank you to Elyse for giving us her time via email so we could learn more about her and her career.

This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

Charm, Competition, and Communication

In the early 90’s, administrators at MIT realized that many of its students, while brilliant, were socially challenged. The bastion of engineering was producing geniuses that couldn’t give a decent handshake, talk to strangers, or dress reasonably. The solution? Charm School.

The university offered students the opportunity to fill any social holes that might have developed as a byproduct of possessing a superior technical intellect. The program was deemed a huge a success, and now in its 17th year, is popular and thriving.

Science researchers are another smart group that suffers from social deficits – namely the ability to communicating the importance of their work to those outside their fields. Should they be required to attend “Communication School”?

In 2007 there was a push from Congress to require scientists to do exactly that. The America Competes Act, which was a bill that intended to funnel big bucks to research powerhouses like the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and the Dept of Energy, contained provisions requiring graduate students “to be trained in the communication of the substance and importance of their research to non-scientist audiences”. While the 2007 Competes Act made it through both houses of Congress, and was signed by the President, select pieces of it were not funded during appropriations. One of the casualties was the science communication training.

The science outreach community was disappointed by the 2007 Competes Act, and hoped for a chance of redemption this year when the 2010 America Competes Act was being written. Unfortunately, any language concerning communicating to non-science audiences is conspicuously absent in the 2010 version. Nearly all of the outreach wording in the 2010 Competes Act specifically focuses on energy, STEM education, and commercial applications of research - a sign of the times.

There may be a glimmer of hope. For some time, NSF has required researchers to address the broader impact of their research when applying for grant money. It is unclear exactly how much weight is placed up this review criteria but applicants are supposed to emphasis how the work benefits society and/or broadens dissemination of scientific and technological understanding. This is a good start and there are murmurs the NIH will soon follow suit and require similar activities from their grant applicants.

It may seem like an impossible feat to get scientists communicating about their work, but if the students at MIT's Charm School can learn Israeli folk dance, surely scientists can learn to do a better job of explaining why people should care about their research.

Sontheimer Lab, University of Alabama at Birmingham

This week's Images from Around the Lab takes us south to the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

A 3T Siemens Magnetom Allegra Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Spectroscopy scanner (for heads only).

The Detecto 6550 is a folding, portable wheelchair scale.

NIH ARRA funding is supporting members of the Sontheimer Lab team (from left to right): Lindsay Moore, Tiffany Dy, Brian Haas, Tia-Tabitha Barclay, & Vishnu Cuddapah. One line of study the lab is working on is glioblastoma multiform - a particularly aggressive form of brain cancer.

Harald Sontheimer and Tia-Tabitha Barclay

This is the electophysiology rig, which is used to look for electrical properties in cells. By examining biopsied cells from patients (or samples of cells that have been implanted in the brains of mice), scientists hope to develop therapeutic targets. Because the settings need to be exactly right to get a good look at the electrical signals, there's a lot of "voodoo" about using the rig. After a lab member had a particularly good reading, a nearby Spiderman action figure became a good luck charm and is now secured to the rig for continuing good mojo.

This week's Images from Around the Lab were contributed by Harald Sontheimer's team in the Functional Neuroimaging Lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Special thanks to Research!America's Stacie Propst for taking the photos and to Vishnu Cuddapah for explaining the equipment and the use of action figures in the lab.


We want to see images from your workspace too! Email hbenson at researchamerica.org to share your photos in New Voices Images from Around the Lab.

Do Scientists Understand the Public?

First thing first: there is no such thing as one public. If there were, we’d only have one type of clothing store, one political party, one television channel … there are lots of people in a variety of publics out there. That being said, it is much easier to call all of those diverse audiences “the public” rather than parse them all out each time.

Second thing second: although scientists are their own special breed of people, they still qualify as being part of the public! In just the short history of New Voices, I’m sure I’ve said that scientists need to communicate better with the public – which, in a way, makes it as if scientists are not part of the public. That is not at all what I meant.

Scientists live in their communities (even if it feels like they live in their labs), vote in the same elections, eat in restaurants, buy new tech gadgets, drive on interstates … they are the public. We are ALL the public. But again, it is a bit easier to type “the public” than “non-scientific audiences.”

Now that we’ve cleared up that we’re only using the phrase “the public” because it is convenient, let’s get into the question of the day: do scientists understand the public?

To answer that, I think we have to look at what makes scientists different from the rest of the public. The number one thing is probably thought processes. From the four focus groups mentioned in the Mooney article to countless other examples throughout history, it seems as if the approach scientists take to an issue is incredibly different from the approach of someone without scientific training.

Some claim that the emotion that the public brings to a debate leads to impractical decisions. Others say that the lack of (com)passion shown by scientists in a debate denotes a lack of interest in any position but their own. This isn’t a gulf or even a two cultures issue – this is simply a communication problem.

As with any relationship, knowing others and how they work makes things easier. Just as men being from Mars and women being from Venus doesn’t stop male-female interaction, scientists and the public can successfully come together and understand each other. But everyone must take the time to get to know everyone else instead of resorting to stereotypes and popular (mis)conceptions.

Mooney presented a number of other issues in the piece. What struck you as most important? What are the next steps to answering the title question? To better communication between scientists and the public?

Science Montage

Image credit: xkcd.com

Could this be a clue as to why there are so many bad science movies?

Meet Susan Maya, Clinical Research Coordinator

Today we have an inside look at clinical research. Susan Maya, a clinical research coordinator in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital was kind enough to tell us about her current position.

NV: Question 1. What do you do?

Susan: A little bit of everything. In a nut shell, each of the three to six research coordinators in our group is responsible for clinical trials. Some studies are externally sponsored and others are internal.

I’m responsible for the day to day function of the “smaller” multi-site studies. I spend 50% of my time doing the administrative stuff: IRB paperwork, data entry, calling patients to schedule appointments and such. The other half is actually running studies. For each of the drug studies we run, patients have to come in multiple times for the study. We do different types of testing to make sure the study drug isn’t harming them and to see if the study drug is effective.

I’m the first point of contact for the patients if they experience side-effects or need information. Coordinators do everything from taking vitals and EKGs to drawing blood. Then the neurologist – our PI – will come and do her assessments.

The last thing I do – which is not directly related to the studies – is a bi-monthly disorders clinic where our PI sees people outside the regular research studies on Huntington’s. It’s interesting because it is a multi-faceted team that really focuses on disease management, which is important since there isn’t a treatment for Huntington’s at this time.

I also sometimes have the opportunity to help those who are interested in getting involved in the studies.

NV: Question 2. How does your background in science – and research particularly – help you?

Susan: What I do day-to-day is not directly related to what I would be doing in a bench research setting. I do spend a good amount of time processing blood samples; which is good because I’m invested in the patients – since I work directly with them. But I can learn about the research that’s going on, and participating in the process helps me to understand it better.

NV: Question 3. What is the most exciting component of what you do?

Susan: I like drawing blood. But really, it’s getting to work with the patients.

One of the nice things about clinical research – especially with a long-term disease like Huntington’s - is that you really get to form relationships with the people involved in the studies. I can see this with our neurologist, who really KNOWS our patients.

NV: Question 4. What advice would you give to someone who wanted to become a clinical research coordinator? An advocate for Huntington’s research?

Susan: There aren’t that many technical skills involved in being a coordinator, because we get our training on the job. But you have to be flexible, work collaboratively with the other members of our team.

In terms of advocacy – there is a great community already. Huntington’s Disease Society of America is great about educating families and patients about trials, new drugs and discovery.

NV: Question 5. What’s your next step?

Susan: I’m going to medical school in August. I definitely see myself doing research while I’m there. Not because I have to (since Yale requires it) but because I want to. I see myself pursuing research further.


Thank you to Susan for giving us a few minutes by phone to learn more about her and her career. We look forward to following up with her soon to hear about how her passion for research exhibits itself in medical school. For more information about Huntington's Disease, please visit the HDlighthouse.

This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

Images from Around the Lab

Yesterday, you got to see the first on one of our two new summer series, Profiling New Voices. Today, we're announcing the other new running series, Images from Around the Lab.

Research today can be done in a lab, in a field, in a river, in an office, in a garage ... basically anywhere. However, most people are unfamiliar with what research looks like. We know how incredibly cool science is and want to give the world a better taste of what it looks like through your eyes.

Want to help? Send us pictures from around your lab or really anyplace where you do science. Each week we'll post pictures showing where research happens. Alternatively, drop a link in the comments section to your lab's online photo albums.


Images: Children's renditions of scientists at work.

Profiling New Voices

When we talk about New Voices, who are we talking about? What makes someone a New Voice?

Simply put, a New Voice is anyone who wants to speak out about science and research. All of the authors of the New Voices blog qualify, as do you - our readers.

To put some faces with the title, we'll be introducing you to New Voices around the country this summer. If you're interested in being interviewed (just a few quick questions about what you do, where you do it, and what makes it interesting), drop us a line in the comments or email me at hbenson [at] researchamerica.org.

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Forum - Day 1

Two of your New Voices bloggers were at the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Forum last week to hear the latest policy news on issues in the scientific community. There was a ton of information shared over the two days, so we're breaking it down into three segments for you: day 1, day 2, and the William D. Carey lecture. (A full agenda is available for more details.)

The themes are captured here, and we'll be sharing quotes starting tomorrow morning on our Twitter feed - so follow us @NV4Research for even more coverage of the forum.

Budgetary and Policy Context for R&D in FY2011

• The budget for research is increasing in fiscal year 2011
• The Obama administration cares about science; demonstrated by 30 members of the National Academies of Sciences on his staff.
• Investment at the federal level is more important than ever as state economies suffer from the recession and deal with budget cuts.
• It's hard to change institutions, because due to unions, firing people is difficult.
• Extending the Bush tax cuts would be terrible for the economy
• There is a long, slow gray area between a good and a bad economy, and we are in that gray area right now.

Societal Impacts of Science and Technology

• Greater health directly relates to greater wealth.
• It is hard to analyze the impact of R&D, because there is often not a direct link between the two.

Beyond Cap and Trade: Other Climate Issues

• Geo-engineering poses a number of both scientific and moral questions, not the least of which is, who's hand is on the thermostat if we do have the ability to change the climate?
• Energy and climate change are inherently security issues, because they serve as threat multipliers for instability in the world.
• Who are the experts and which experts do you trust on which issues?
• There is a mismatch between agencies with social science expertise and those with environmental missions, which makes explaining the complexity of climate change an even more difficult task.
• We need more strategies for adapting to climate change, including advanced disease surveillance that accounts for differences in regional climates.