The Pen is as Mighty as the Pipette

Although it seems like only yesterday that I was starting my internship here at Research!America, it’s actually been almost three months! I guess time flies when you are having fun and learning a lot. I was looking through the archives to see what past interns said in their farewell posts and I realized that I’m in a unique situation. This week, the New Voices blog is signing off for the last time. So as I reflect on my experiences, I’m also closing a chapter for this great community.

I’ve been working in research labs for a long time now and I figured that coming to Research!America as a science policy intern would be a pretty big adjustment. There are the obvious differences, working at a desk instead of a bench, being told you have to leave at a certain time and wearing clothes that don’t double as pajamas. But what really struck me were the similarities. It turns out advocacy is a lot like lab work. Allow me to explain.

First, you ask a question. How can we protect the research enterprise in the U.S.? You read the available literature, learn about the budget and legislative processes and gain an understanding of how research support has been secured in the past. You look at what has worked and what has failed and you form a hypothesis. You guess at what you think will be successful based on what you know.

So you’ve made a guess at the answer to your question- how do you test it? Any scientist can tell you that you design an experiment, in this case a new approach to advocacy, a way to protect the research enterprise. Maybe you think the answer is a fact sheet or an op-ed. Maybe it’s training scientists to be better advocates for research or meeting with members of congress to convince them to maintain robust, continuous support of scientific endeavors.

Whatever your proposed solution, just like in lab work, implementation is the hardest part. That’s where having the opportunity to work at Research!America has been so great. People here really care about research and they’ve spent many years proposing new advocacy approaches and implementing them. It’s a grind, with lots of ups and downs-does this sound familiar to any of you?

This brings me to the most important similarity between scientific research and advocacy. Both require a lot of dedicated people working towards a goal. Big breakthroughs don’t happen all of a sudden, they happen through incremental advances made by many individuals and organizations. This is why each of you in the New Voices community is so important to this process. Even though our blog is ending, I hope that you will continue to work with Research!America to make sure that research remains a top national priority.

A second stop at the NIH

I’ve already written about how one of my most exciting moments at Research!America was visiting the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus for the first time. And in my second visit earlier this week, the excitement hadn’t worn off. It’s likely because, this time, I and a few other Research!America staff got to see first-hand many of the things at the heart of the NIH: its history of discovery, its state-of-the-art clinical research hospital, and its talented researchers.

The day started with a walk led by our tour guide, Tara Mowery, who told us about the NIH’s origins as a “hygienic laboratory” located on Staten Island back in the late 1800s. Eventually the National Institute (no “s”) of Health moved to DC and found a home in nearby Bethesda. One of many sights on our tour was building 1 – current location of Director Francis Collins’ office, and the first of nearly 70 buildings on the NIH campus. Soon after, we entered building 10, the NIH’s hospital (pictured above), where we saw how researchers are literally taking their work from bench (a few hundred yards over) to bedside. John Burklow, director of the Office of Communications, followed up our tour with a presentation on the NIH’s organizational structure. There are 27 institutes and centers, but as Burklow emphasized, they’re all part of one NIH that is putting out news-worthy findings each and every day. Part of Burklow’s job, he added, is to ensure that the public understands the NIH’s expansive reach, especially with 85% of NIH research being done externally, at universities and other institutions across the country and around the world.

We then visited Dr. Marcus Chen, a staff clinician for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Dr. Chen’s work is the kind of news-worthy research that Burklow had just described, as the Laboratory of Cardiac Energetics is studying methods for decreased radiation in computerized tomography (CT) scans of the heart. There have been quite a few major news stories recently about growing public concern over radiation and the increased use of high-radiation diagnostic tests, especially among children. By modifying certain parameters and using computer algorithms to improve imagery, Chen and his fellow researchers have been able to dramatically reduce radiation exposure. Pending further tests and development, this research could become the basis for safer, more patient-friendly CT scanning techniques at a hospital near you.

To wrap up our tour, Dr. Chen agreed to show us one of the CT scanners being used by his staff. It took a while, however, because machine after machine was being used for a patient. Eventually, we did get to see a scanner up close, but the wait was an excellent reminder of the NIH’s value. The clinical work done at its hospital not only serves and likely benefits patients today, but with continued discovery and development, the NIH also benefits the patients of tomorrow.

Meet Amit Mistry, AAAS Science and Technology Fellow at USAID

Amit is a former Science Policy Fellow for Research!America and was kind enough to tell us via email about his current work.

New Voices (NV): What do you do, and why is it important?

Amit: I am a AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). I am working on the development and implementation of a strategy to combat global hunger and food security. Part of my job involves communicating technical information to non-technical audiences, keeping them informed and engaged in our activities. Another part of my job is connecting research programs to country programs that may benefit from the research. More broadly, my work supports a coordinated effort across the U.S. government to sustainably reduce global poverty and hunger.

NV: What’s the most exciting part of what you do? Any particularly interesting stories?

Amit: The most exciting part of my job is getting to see the impact of our agency’s work through the real people who are impacted by it. In September 2010, I traveled to Uganda for a few weeks and provided the local government feedback on its plan to strengthen the agriculture sector and reduce hunger. I met inspirational government leaders, researchers, and farmers who all shared the goal of lifting millions of Ugandans out of poverty.

NV: What is the biggest policy issue affecting your work? Describe how you’ve dealt with it, or even advocated regarding that issue.

Amit: One of the important challenges I face is working across multiple sectors, such as food security and climate change. These two sectors are closely linked and should be addressed comprehensively for the greatest impact. At USAID, I helped create a Strategic Integration Working Group, which brings together various sectors so they can share best practices. The group has developed recommendations for USAID that can improve our work across multiple sectors.

NV: How might the public misinterpret your work? Is there anything you want to clear up?

Amit: There is a misconception that U.S. investments abroad don’t have an impact on Americans. In fact, investments in foreign assistance have a far-reaching impact that affects our own economic security and national security. Our investments in foreign assistance build allies, strengthen trade partnerships, and create opportunities for American innovators and entrepreneurs.

NV: What’s your advice for someone in science who wants to get involved in policy, advocacy or outreach?

Amit: My advice for someone interested in science policy is to strengthen your communication skills and practice communicating with different audiences, and for different purposes. Good communication skills are an incredible asset in science policy and will make you a more effective advocate or policy-maker. Also, I recommend learning the federal budgeting process because it is extremely helpful to understand, no matter where you work in the science policy world. Finally, I would encourage you to always promote the use of science-based decision-making in the policy area.


This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

First Stop: NIH

Image courtesy of USAID

When I arrived in DC a couple of weeks ago, I was excited to see many famous places for the first time: the White House, Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial and others. Which major attraction did I see first? The NIH campus.

Alright, it might not be every tourist’s top choice, but the NIH campus in Bethesda, MD is a place I’ve heard and read about for years. So when Heather asked me to attend a lecture there by Dr. Rajiv Shah, the current USAID (US Agency for International Development) administrator, I was more than happy to visit.

It turned out, however, that I wasn’t the only one having my “first time” on the NIH campus. NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins introduced Shah and noted that this was the first time a sitting USAID administrator had addressed the NIH. It was a bit a surprising: two closely related – and physically close – government agencies never having that kind of interaction.

As Shah soon described, the bond between USAID and the NIH certainly has plenty of room to grow. He first brought up a few cases in which the NIH has already contributed to USAID work: An NIH-funded study called First Breath has led to the development of a program against newborn asphyxia. An NIH study that discovered circumcision can reduce HIV transmission has brought on a circumcision campaign in Swaziland. And NIH studies on antiretrovirals and gel microbicides have USAID looking further into those HIV prevention strategies.

There remain plenty of areas, however, where the NIH’s potential for discovery and development can yield great benefits for USAID. In the fight against malaria, for example, Shah said, “we must invent new solutions:” faster methods of diagnosis, safer insecticides, cheaper medicines, and – the biggest potential coup – a cheap, effective vaccine. The two agencies share many of the same targets – malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis – and by working together, they can shorten “the distance between bench and bush.”

It was Shah’s first address to the NIH, and he immediately gave both agencies plenty to think about in the years ahead as their efforts become more unified. “This collaboration is the most powerful building tool we have,” Shah said, adding that “When we have this massive engine focused […] it will be a huge win for the world.”

My hope now is that everyone involved in promoting health – whether health care providers, researchers, or their supporters – recognize that this “massive engine” should be interacting, working together, and, of course, visiting one another. The majority of people might not have the opportunity to visit the NIH, like I did, but together we can bring its discoveries and its benefits to their doorstep.

Introducing our Newest Voice, Christian Torres

Name: Christian Torres

Position: Research!America Science Policy Intern

Education: BA in Human Biology from Stanford University

Previous experience: News Writing Intern at Nature Medicine, Research Assistant at Stanford's Center for Interdisciplinary Brain Sciences Research

Fun fact: If you name almost any movie, Christian can give you its box office statistics. He says his interest really started when Spider-Man broke the $100 million mark for opening weekend (with $114 million) in 2002. Since then, one of the most interesting movies was Avatar, which had "great legs" - or a great multiplier - from its opening weekend ($70 million) to its final total (over $700 million).

We're excited to have Christian on board and look forward to more exciting posts like his first, Nerd Alert: Stop the Bullying. Welcome him to New Voices!

Ciao

Given that this is my last day at Research!America, I looked up the definition to “bittersweet” to get some inspiration. Here is what I found:

Bittersweet: poisonous perennial Old World vine having violet flowers and oval coral-red berries

Whoa, that’s not right. I don’t equate this experience with poison!

Let’s try again--this is more like it:

Bittersweet: tinged with sadness

I have had the amazing opportunity to be a Science Policy Fellow at Research!America for the past 5 months, but it’s now time to move on. While I am excited to try something new and test the skills I have developed, I am sad to leave the wonderful people I have worked with and the excellent initiatives I have undertaken.

I have learned so much over the course of such a short time. I sought this position so that I could learn more about the governmental process and science policy, but I will be taking much more away.

I have seen how important advocacy is, in particular the necessity for scientists to be involved, and I have learned how to effectively advocate. My newfound insight into the legislative process and Congress will help me navigate the system.

I have seen my writing style change from academic to…well…a little less academic. But at least through that process I have learned how to better communicate scientific principles to non-scientists. In fact, my experience writing for New Voices opened my eyes to a whole new career opportunity – science writing - an area I will be joining after my fellowship.

Though I may not be involved in policy for my job, I am sure to remain active in the policy community. I fully believe in Research!America’s mission and I now have the skills and knowledge to support that mission.

Thus, today is bittersweet. I am grateful for this opportunity and the knowledge I’ve gained, so will be sad to leave, but I look toward an exciting future.

Budget Bewilderment

It’s a new year and time for a new budget! President Obama is expected to release his federal budget request for 2012 in early February. This makes for a confusing navigation of budgets, though. You see, Congress may receive the President’s request for the fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget before they have even passed the FY 2011 budget, despite the fact that FY 2011 started three months ago. And this means that most agencies are operating at FY 2010 levels. Whew!

The budget process itself is dizzying. For one, what is the fiscal year? Unfortunately, the fiscal year is not concurrent with the calendar year, which just confuses everything. The fiscal year begins October 1 of the previous year and ends September 30 of the following year. So FY 2011 began October 1, 2010 and will end September 30, 2011. Ideally, the FY 2011 budget, the layout for how much money government agencies receive for that fiscal year, should have been passed by the two chambers of Congress before the fiscal year began on October 1, 2010, but that is rarely the case, especially in an election year.

There is a lot for the chambers of Congress to get through and agree upon before they can pass the budget. After receiving the President’s budget request, the House and Senate Budget Committees each develop a budget resolution, which is a ceiling for how much money Congress can spend in certain categories, or “functions”. This is the allocations process. Then, each chamber debates the budget resolution. Finally, a House-Senate conference resolves the differences between the House and Senate resolutions, and the conference report must be passed by both houses. This is all supposed to be accomplished by April 15th, but rarely makes that mark.

Although the budget resolution is an incredibly important step, it’s not a bill and doesn’t actually give any money to anyone, but sets the spending limit for government functions. Legislation for spending, or appropriations bills, must also be passed in the House and the Senate and the spending must fall within the allocations laid out in the budget resolution.

Because the FY 2011 budget is not yet decided upon, you may have heard words thrown around like “continuing resolution,” “omnibus” and “government shutdown.” Technically, if appropriations have not been made by the beginning of a fiscal year, the government agencies should not be able to continue work and would shutdown. However, in these circumstances, Congress usually passes a continuing resolution for a set amount of time, perhaps another month, so that the government can continue operating at the previous year’s levels while Congress continues to work on an appropriations bill. For FY 2011, Congress has passed four continuing resolutions, the most recent lasting until March 4, 2011, halfway through the fiscal year!

Oftentimes, when appropriations have not been made before the start of the fiscal year, the spending is combined into one large omnibus appropriations bill rather than separate bills. Congress just withdrew an omnibus bill for FY 2011 in favor of a continuing resolution in order to avoid a government shutdown. Now the incoming Congress will have to finish the FY 2011 budget and start debating the FY 2012 budget nearly simultaneously.

Let’s hope this year’s budget process goes a little more smoothly than last.

New Voices in Transition

In 2007, New Voices for Research began as a private community for a few dedicated early-career scientists; a place where they could go online to learn about advocacy, practice their skills in a safe environment, and network with like-minded researchers from around the country.

At that time, Stacie Propst, PhD was leading the initiative; a researcher herself, who had transitioned into science policy and wanted to make sure that others in her position would have the tools available to help them along. As Research!America grew and her responsibilities increased, she transitioned leadership of the initiative to me.

Together we developed language describing the initiative and worked to engage more researchers in the private community. However, it seemed silly to restrict so many of the postings to a small community of scientists when there were certainly more out there looking for information about science policy, advocacy, and science communication.

In December of 2008, the New Voices for Research blog launched. Aided by Research!America's talented interns and fellows we began posting five days a week on the topics we thought would most help readers. In the past two years, New Voices has evolved as more of our colleagues joined in as regular bloggers and as other New Voices moved on to pursue their careers or head back to school. Each has left their mark: unique writing styles, subject matter expertise, humor, competitions, projects, a Twitter presence; totaling - as of next week - more than 500 posts.

Despite all of that change, the last few months have been the biggest transition. Our writing team has become smaller and our fearless leader - Stacie - is departing Research!America after nine years to take the lessons she's learned in national advocacy and apply them in her home state of Alabama. Stacie will join the many New Voices operating on the state and local level around the country.

Though this time has been turbulent, we must look to the future. New Voices' mission to empower researchers to communicate about the value of their work and provide tools and resources online can only continue if we all engage. If you believe in New Voices, I ask you to make one simple step today:

Tell us that yours will be a voice that stands up for science.

Ready for the Mid-Term Elections?

I just attended my first “political” event, The Hotline Mid-Term Cram Session hosted by the National Journal. I’ve been to policy events before, but they’ve never been quite so political. Here, I heard the executive directors of the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee debate the executive directors of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. As you might expect, the Democratic leaders and Republican leaders disagreed on almost everything…except where the exciting races are being run.

There are several Senatorial races that should be watched closely, namely in Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Washington and California.

Because these are hotly contested races, I figured the leading candidates would want their constituents to know where they stand on important issues--to know what differentiates them from their opponent. So I went to the Your Candidates - Your Health website to see how the battling candidates feel on issues of great importance to many of us, health and research.

Guess how many of the candidates from the two major parties in those six states have responded to the survey. None. And only 8 of the 36 total candidates in those states have responses available. That’s right, the voters in those states have to make a very important decision without necessary information.

Scientific research has a major impact on everyone’s daily life. The way we understand and treat disease is rapidly evolving, thanks to major advances facilitated by research. More importantly, though, research improves the economy in addition to health.

Then why is it that, aside from whether someone voted for or against the healthcare reform law, do we know very little about how our candidates feel about science and technology? The members of the 112th Congress will shape how research is done in this country, which will have a huge impact on the health of the nation. That is why we need to know where our candidates stand.

Visit the site to see what your candidates think. Let them know that these topics are significant to you and our country, and urge them to answer the questions if they haven’t already.

Wait, I have to leave?

I glanced at my calendar the other day and was astonished to realize that this was already my last week here as a science policy intern at Research!America. I feel like I've finally gotten into the swing of things, just in time to move on. Isn't that always the way?

Thankfully, I do know where I'm headed next, and that is... Mozambique (if, like me upon first hearing my destination, you're aren't positive where Mozambique is, check the map on the right). I am officially a future Peace Corps Volunteer and will be leaving at the end of September to spend two years in Mozambique teaching chemistry in Portuguese, the official language of Mozambique, and a language I as of yet do not speak a word of.

I'm not too worried though, mostly because one thing I realized here at Research!America is that in just three short months (the length of both my internship and my training in Mozambique before I start teaching) the amount I can learn is way more than I ever thought before.

So adeus, New Voices, and thank you for teaching me so much and giving me such amazing opportunities this summer.


Alissa wrote this post before her departure in late August, but we saved it for today since it is the first day of her training in Mozambique. New Voices is going to miss having Alissa around (it's pretty quiet in the office without her) but we're looking forward to hearing her updates about teaching science abroad. Best of luck Alissa!

If it looks like a stem cell and smells like a stem cell...

Today, I attended my first Congressional briefing--how exciting! Senator Tom Harkin called together a panel of stem cell researchers to discuss the promise of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. I was excited to attend and see what this whole “politics” thing is really about. I am excited now because I think it’s important for people to understand just what is behind the stem cell debate.

I feel like a lot of misinformation is getting thrown around, particularly relating to what can and cannot be done with stem cells. Senator Wicker (of the infamous Dickey-Wicker amendment) insisted that adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells can be used in place of human embryonic stem cells. But, let me back up a little.

There are three types of stem cells that are being studied today: embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells. The important characteristic of embryonic stem cells is that they are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any cell type in the body, which makes them incredibly powerful tools for research and therapy. Adult stem cells are stem cells that have already begun the process of becoming a certain cell type, so they are no longer pluripotent. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are adult stem cells that have been genetically manipulated to be pluripotent. However, these cells do not behave the same as hESC.

So, many opponents of hESC research say that the latter two types of stem cells are just as good, so why should we do research on hESC? As many of today’s panelists pointed out, iPSC could not have been developed without knowledge from the study of hESC. The point is that the research of hESC and the other two types can’t so easily be segregated. In fact, researchers don’t even segregate themselves. These scientists advocate for research on all three types of stem cells because each type will probably be the best in a particular application. However, because we don’t yet know where each will be the most useful, we must continue to study them all.

One big issue that often gets overlooked is that we’re actually debating whether the government should fund this research. Senator Wicker actually stated that non-taxpayer money could continue to fund hESC research, just not federal money. However, as several of the panelists pointed out, the best research occurs in universities and hospitals, which are primarily funded by government grants. We may not want to admit it, but this is true. The private sector has no interest in the most basic research, on which treatments are built, because it’s not going to make enough money to even break even.

Relatedly, there is a huge fear that young scientists will not pursue hESC research because the funding is just too uncertain right now. Young scientists, in particular, are hugely dependent on government grants to move up the system and build an independent lab. It’s already a tough field without worrying whether your research will be shut down by some injunction or whenever there’s a change in office. These promising scientists might move into different fields or, worse yet, they might take their work overseas, which will really call into question the US’s preeminence in cutting-edge scientific research.

We clearly need legislation clarifying this issue. Tell your representatives and senators that the U.S. must continue to invest in embryonic stem cell research and a legislative solution is necessary to ensure this important research continues uninterrupted.

Telling the stories of those on the front lines

While completing my independent project this summer here at Research!America, I've had the opportunity to speak to amazing scientists who take time of out their very busy schedules to do advocacy and outreach to further the goals of all scientists. They excite the public, both young and old, about science and even contact politicians and work to convince them to make their decisions based on the proper science behind an issue.

Each Wednesday (as you may have noticed), you will get to read excerpts from the interviews I did with all of these scientists, to learn from their experiences, read more about their work and career.

The scientists I spoke with are from all different stages of their careers, from graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, to new lab heads, and all the way up to seasoned scientists who've had their own labs for awhile.

Hopefully these stories will serve to inspire both scientists and the general public alike to become more involved in science policy and the promotion of health research and it's importance to our country.

Von Boyage

So as fellows depart from Research!America it has become a tradition for them to write a sign off post. After doing a google image search using phrases like "goodbye" and "adios", I put in what I thought was how you say goodbye in French - Von Boyage. To my surprise, this phrase not only doesn't exist, but "bon voyage", the real phrase, doesn't mean "goodbye". Does this explain why Parisian's have always been so rude to me whenever I have visited their beautiful city? (My strategy to communicate with foreigners by speaking English loudly and slowly works pretty well in other countries.)

Writing this is bittersweet. I will not admit to how much I have learned as a Science and Technology Policy Fellow at Research!America because it would reveal how little I knew three months ago upon arrival. Writing for the New Voices blog has been one of many fun responsibilities – what other forum would provide an opportunity to expound on everything from beer to brain tumors?

Between teaching, doing research, internships, and fellowships, I have had seven different positions in Washington since moving here a year and a half ago. While you learn a lot jumping from job to job every couple months, I am thrilled to be starting a permanent science policy position with the American Chemical Society. The ACS is the world's largest scientific society and a perfect environment to continuing advocating for research.

Goodbye to the great people at Research!America. It has been my pleasure to have been part of such a motivated and dynamic team this summer. I intend to stay a part of the New Voices community and look forward to seeing what exciting things lie in store for all of its members. ciao, sayanora, kamsahamnidah, l'hitraot, kol tuv, shalom, arrivaderci, do svidanja, au revoir, hasta la vista, bis freitagabend, and xi chien.

Wanted: Your Story!

Upon arriving at Research!America last month, I was asked to define a project I would partake in over my time here that would be both interesting to me and helpful to the organization. The possibilities were endless, and I thought long and hard about what I would choose to study and how to go about it.

Eight weeks later and I am up to my ears in studies of how scientists engage in advocacy and outreach, both to the public and (occasionally) to the legislative branch. I’ve read about information provision, motivations, time constraints, and negative impacts and despite all I’ve read, there is one big thing missing:

Personal stories.

So here’s what I need from you, New Voices! Are you a lab scientist who takes time out of your admittedly busy schedule to do some form of public outreach (especially to your elected officials)? If so, I’d love to talk to you and ask you some questions about your work. It’ll be great to hear how different scientists all over the country are prioritizing advocacy and why.

So please leave a comment or send me an email at aortman_at_researchamerica.org and let me know if you’re willing to answer a few questions. It will help us here at Research!America to better understand advocacy from the point of view of scientists, and how to persuade more scientists to be advocates. And it would be great, from one scientist to another, if I could have some more data for this experiment.

Wait, where's the microscope?

Upon arriving at my workspace my first day here at Research!America, my first thought was, something's missing. It had been four years since my job hadn't required any kind of scientific equipment, and it seemed obviously lacking at my new desk.

Five weeks into my first ever policy job, I’ve learned a few things:
1. Despite the lack of a microscope, I can get a lot done here.
2. I should never drink the instant coffee in the break room except in dire need.
3. And, most importantly, I can reach an audience, keep them engaged, and deliver a message so they actually hear and understand it (maybe even use it in the future).

Working as a science policy intern for Research!America has certainly been an eye-opening experience. Spending the last four years in school and at the lab bench has prepared me for a job in the policy world more than I would have previously believed.

The thought process needed to solve the problems presented to us at Research!America can often be better understood through the lens of a scientific mind. Especially when considering one of the main groups that we try to reach here, especially in New Voices, is that of the men and women doing research today. What better way to connect with your audience than having been one of them, and having that in common to discuss and bond over.

One of my more interesting experiences so far was a chance to view a Capitol Hill hearing in which the director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, testified before the Subcommittee on Health in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Dr. Collins explained the importance of the NIH budget and fielded questions from members of Congress on a huge array of issues.

Watching Dr. Collins, I felt intense gratitude that there was someone so qualified to speak to Congress that day on the importance of science research in this country’s future. But what about the other days? Who contacts Congress on the other hundreds of days a year to advocate for science research?

The answer is, not nearly enough people. While Research!America strives to show members of Congress the importance of basic research, it needs to come from the constituents and the scientists themselves to get the most reaction from the members.

The best part about that? Scientists ARE constituents.

If scientists can take time out of their admittedly busy schedule to visit a congressional office, write a letter, send an e-mail, or even offer their expertise on an issue that the member might be dealing with, the change could be dramatic and hugely powerful. So when is the last time you contacted your representative or senator? Let them know today that you think science research funding is important for our country’s future.

Introducing Two New Voices for the Summer

Name: Alissa Ortman
Position: Research!America Science Policy Intern
Education: BA in Neuroscience from Smith College
Previous experience: Undergraduate research on stem cells
Educational Technology Consultant at Smith College
Fun fact: Alissa woke up at or before 4:40 a.m. six days a week for three years during college. To row a boat. On a cold river. That's dedication.



Name: Ryan Davison
Position: Research!America Science Policy Fellow
Education: PhD in Behavioral Neuroscience at University of Alabama at Birmingham
MS in Experimental Psychology from Appalachian State University
BS in Psychology from Appalachian State University
Previous experience: Adjunct Professor, The George Washington University
Post doctoral Research Fellow, Department of Medicine, Georgetown University
Science Policy Fellow, National Academy of Science
Fun fact: Ryan starred in Edward Scissorhands with Johnny Depp and Winona Ryder. Unfortunately, after two weeks of filming at his school, only a few seconds of the footage made it into the theatrical release and Ryan could only be seen on the cutting room floor.

Last Words

Image credit: Sarah Gallagher, Columbia University Commencement 2010

My final post has been difficult to write because it marks the end of an important chapter of my life. However, this is nowhere near the end of my journey in policy, so these are only my last words as a science policy fellow for Research!America.

May 18th, I had the opportunity to attend the commencement ceremony for my PhD. I actually defended in July and received my degree in the mail last October. However, 'walking' 10 months after my defense ended up being very fitting.

I finished graduate school mere months after the economy crashed and unemployment skyrocketed. At that point, I had applied to over 50 positions, but did not get a single interview. Since then, I have had two incredible opportunities: I was a legislative intern for a Congressman and a science policy fellow for Research!America.

Having decided to forgo the standard chemistry track of a post-doctoral position, I needed to gain experience since my graduate studies had not given me the chance to explore policy earlier. The opportunities I accepted were vital and enabled me to become a marketable candidate for jobs I truly wanted.

One year later, May 2010, these experiences have allowed me to obtain my dream position. This fall I will be a AAAS Fellow for the EPA. Having a clear next path for my career made commencement more meaningful. Graduating this year was appropriate because it marked a true life transition.

My fellowship with Research!America helped me to better understand the role of science in policy and more importantly, the role I see myself filling in the process.

At the end of April, I posted a poll to determine where you, our readers, thought scientists belonged in the policy-making process. The results showed that most believed the most important capacity is as a science advisor.

There is a lot of value to all of the other options listed in the poll. As lawmakers, a scientist would be able to choose issues they decide to tackle. As a lobbyist, scientists can bring credibility to their work pushing science policy decisions that they understand in depth. Instead of just sitting on the sidelines, why aren't more scientists compelled to pursue a career path that enables them to influence policy?

Here is a list of reasons I believe scientists can find the transition to policy difficult:

1. Jargon – Scientists speak another language. I've gotten my fair share of blank stares when discussing technical topics. The stares are mostly because I have forgotten which words should be common knowledge and which are a foreign language. Learning how to communicate science in a digestible manner for all audiences is a skill I have been working to develop.
   
   
2. Conditionals – It is rare that A = B. I always want to use phrases like "is thought to" or "can be" to communicate an appropriate level of uncertainty. However, these conditional phrases can confuse the overall message. It is essential for scientists to learn how to communicate topics clearly, while at the same time maintaining accuracy.
   
   
3. Research and Grant Writing Take Up Time (…all of it) – Principle investigators have the life-consuming obligation of running a lab. Therefore, the experts in the field often find they are too busy to find time for political engagement. For recent graduates, like me, research is not viewed as ‘credible’ work experience, which makes the transition to science policy extremely difficult.
   
   
4. Science Policy Decisions Aren't Based Solely on Science – The all-time most frustrating realization I had was that non-science factors can weight heavily on science policy decisions. As I discussed in my series, TSCA enables the EPA to regulate chemicals when they pose and unreasonable risk of harm to human health or the environment. However, it also requires the EPA to take the most inexpensive approach, which doesn't necessarily mean it is the most public health conscious approach. While this is extremely frustrating, we still need scientists to fight for issues they believe in and keep the most effective solutions on the agenda.
   

Here is the main reason why scientists need to get involved:

Scientists Know the Issues Best – Lawmakers need a group of knowledgeable people who are able to dedicate a significant amount of time to specific issues.

My career path is definitely non-traditional for a scientist. And it is even less traditional that I decided to get my Ph.D. because of my interest in policy. A year in, I can definitely say I would encourage any scientist who has ever considered policy work to give it a try.


New Voices wishes Sarah the best in her science policy journey and congratulates her on her upcoming AAAS fellowship.

Where Do Scientists Belong in Policy?

I finished my Ph.D. in July and promptly packed up and moved to D.C. Why? I have had a long-standing interest in science policy and wanted learn how scientists fit in the process. As I try to find my place in the science policy world, I'm interested in knowing where you, our readers, think scientists belong.

There are multiple ways that scientists can contribute to policy, but what role do you think they should be playing?

What role should scientists play in the policy process?
	Vote in elections
	Get published
	Be a science advisor
	Get a job on the Hill
	Become a lobbyist
	Run for office
pollcode.com free polls

Ciao, New Voices!

Wow…the past three months have flown by! This sign-off brings me mixed emotions. In the next four weeks, I will finish my Masters of Public Health degree from the University of Florida. The thought of Pomp and Circumstance and tassels brings me pure joy. However, I’m really sad that I’m leaving Research!America. I have truly enjoyed being a Science Policy Intern and blogging on New Voices.

I spent my time as an intern tweeting, blogging, writing newsletter articles, doing background research projects, updating websites and attending events. Most importantly, I’ve been communicating my passion for health to others.

Even though advocating won’t be my full-time job for quite some time, I’m making a promise to myself to never lose sight of what I feel is important: the health of the American public. New Voices has helped me to find my own voice in the world of health advocacy. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be featured in a series that looks at the intersection of medical research and public health, and how the two can work together to improve the health of our nation.

Speaking of medicine, I guess that I should inform you that I’ve been accepted to Ross University School of Medicine! Hopefully between studying for exams and dissecting cadavers, I’ll have some time to do some guest blog posts.

So, even though I’m not Italian (although I do love Italian food), it’s time for me to say ciao, New Voices. It’s been fantastico.

A Chemist's Road Less Traveled

My parents are the reason I am interested in policy. From watching the national news after dinner every evening to attending protests, I was raised with an awareness of political happenings in the world. They also encouraged me to think independently about my views of current events, which apparently worked because we definitely don’t agree on every issue. Some differences, while very slight, were made abundantly clear during the 2008 presidential primary when my dad and I had multiple heated arguments over which candidate was a better choice for president.

At a very young age, my political interests developed an environmental bend. Being determined to convey my concerns to people who actually made the decisions, I wrote a letter to President Clinton at 11 years old about US policies that promoted rainforest destruction. For my seventh grade science project, I doused 32 plants with common chemicals we use, such as antifreeze and dish soap, and charted the impacts on the plants’ growth. My mother claims she found this phase in my life to be extremely cute, but I'm not so sure she felt that way at the time.

My interest in developing a scientific framework to understand science policy issues led me to declare chemistry as my major in college, which seemed to naturally blend into starting a graduate degree in chemistry in the fall of 2004. I quickly discovered lab work is an interesting mix of gut wrenching setbacks peppered with euphoric successes, making an interesting roller coaster ride. However, the part I enjoyed most was developing projects, which required me to learn absolutely everything I could about a topic inside and out and present a compressed summary to my research group.


Early on, a senior graduate student in my lab suggested that because of my communication skills and interest in politics, I might enjoy a career in science policy. The idea took hold and I never let go. From that point forward, when people asked what I was going to do with my degree, I told them I was going to give science policy a try.

Fast-forward to 2009: I defended my dissertation mid-July and was faced with the hard reality that I had a great idea of what I would want to do for my career but had not yet found an appropriate job to begin the transition. The problem I was facing is that most political jobs do not consider 9 years in the laboratory as valuable ‘work experience’. So then just how was I supposed to ‘break into’ science policy?

There was a general consensus among my fellow classmates who were graduating that no one really knew what they specifically wanted to do in the long run, but the majority prolonged the decision by starting down the standard career route of a chemist, which is applying for post-doctoral research positions. But I didn’t want to wait to begin studying the interface of science and policy, so I simply packed up my things and moved to Washington, DC where I began working as a legislative intern for a Congressman… for free.

I had an amazing time on the Hill. During my internship, I recognized quickly that there are a whole new set of rules at play, which I am going to have to learn to navigate. A lot more goes into a policy decisions than the science. I made a few friends and learned a lot about the political process; however, a three month crash course was not enough to help me break into policy and I needed more opportunities.

One incredible way for scientists to learn about the policy-making process is through a science policy fellowship. Probably the best known is the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Fellowship. However, there are many more opportunities and a long list has been conveniently compiled by Sheril Kirshenbaum of The Intersection.

I was fortunate enough to become a Science Policy Fellow at Research!America. I’m really enjoying working for a non-profit organization, it has been a valuable learning experience. The question is, what am I going to choose to do with this?

Six months ago I set out on my personal "road less traveled" (compared to a post doc or life in industry) and I had no idea where the adventure would lead. I couldn't be happier with that decision. I hope I have the same luck when I reach the next fork in my road.