- Email: [email protected]
From Pipettes to Science Policy
Series: Training the Next Generation
Scientific Life From Pipettes to Science Policy Yvette R. Seger1,*,@ Science policy provides PhDtrained scientists with unique and rewarding opportunities to support the research community. Careers in science policy require broad scientific knowledge coupled with keen problem-solving, data-analysis, and communication skills. This article describes strategies for scientists to engage in policy discussions, both extramural and fulltime. The path to a ‘successful’ career in the biological and biomedical sciences is well characterized. It can start as early as high school, with budding young investigators supplementing their studies with internships at local laboratories or biotechnology companies. Undergraduate degree programs and research fellowships provide more opportunities to hone critical thinking and experimental technique. These experiences, combined with a good grade-point average and competitive scores on the Graduate Record Examination, earn the lucky scholar a spot in a competitive PhD program. After 4–6 years of coursework, stints as a teaching assistant, and a few successful (and a few more unsuccessful) experiments and peer-reviewed publications in hand, the newly minted PhD moves on to a new lab, a new project, and a new title (‘postdoc’), driven by the desire to unlock biological mysteries and establish a research program that will lead to a tenure-track faculty position. This dream is realized by only approximately 23% of the biomedical workforce [1].
However, what happens when a young investigator discovers greater interest in shaping policies that foster great science than the experiments themselves? Or when a day spent talking about federal investment in basic research on Capitol Hill provides a greater sense of accomplishment than nailing your chalk talk during job interviews? I’m here to reassure you that this is okay. For some, the necessary fix may be as brief as a few days a year spent serving on an advisory panel or participating in their professional society's Capitol Hill day. For others, myself included, it is a career that is dependent upon the critical thinking skills gained from the laboratory.
What Is Science Policy? Of non-research careers in science, science policy may be among the least well understood. I attribute this to the breadth of career paths and responsibilities that fall within this category. Although science policy professionals play a critical role in federal and state governments, providing advice to the President, congressional leaders, and heads of funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or National Science Foundation (NSF), the policy community extends beyond the government to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, think tanks, and professional societies. Science policy activities are categorized as ‘science for policy’ or ‘policy for science’. In the former, scientific findings are used as the basis for the development of public policy. A common example is the regulation of pollutant emissions under the Clean Air Acti to meet health-based airquality standards. To implement this law, the Environmental Protection Agency is dependent upon the scientific community for accurate collection of air-quality data and the development of new technologies to reduce pollutant emissions. Similarly, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practicesii meets three times per year to review recent scientific
data on disease outbreaks and the safety and efficacy of vaccines to develop recommendations for vaccination schedules. By contrast, activities classified as ‘policy for science’ include government laws, regulations, and policies that affect the practice of science. Examples of such policy activities can range from implementation of grant programs intended to stimulate research activity on a specific disease to recommendations to enhance graduate and postdoctoral training to conditions associated with the acceptance of a grant award to ensure appropriate stewardship of federal funds. For instance, the Advisory Committee to the Director of the NIHiii has provided data-driven recommendations to the NIH Director regarding strategies to enhance the biomedical workforce, fulfill a Presidential initiative on neuroscience research, and strengthen the peer review of grant applications. Although different, both science policy scenarios rely on the use of data to drive decision making and achieve a specific outcome. Many scientists are already engaged in science policy activities without knowing it. For example, individuals who serve on a study section or Advisory Council of an NIH Institute or NSF Directorate provide critical advice regarding how these agencies should allocate funds. On a more local level, scientists may work with university leaders to generate local support for new trans-departmental initiatives and construction of new facilities, or work within their department to generate new or updated curricula and expand training opportunities. Like politics, much of science policy is local.
Adapting Research Skills for Science Policy The good news for those contemplating a career in science policy is that many of the skills you spent years perfecting in the laboratory are actually transferable and applicable to policy pursuits. In addition to specific subject-matter expertise and understanding of the scientific process,
Trends in Immunology, November 2015, Vol. 36, No. 11
663
scientists bring unparalleled skills in data analysis and critical thinking to policy discussions. Similarly, the inherent curiosity of scientists allows them to learn quickly and master new topics in a short time. This attribute must not be underestimated, because the rate at which policy decisions are made is highly variable and dependent upon factors such as the economy, public health, national security, and public opinion. Scientists are also expert project managers. Experience developing and implementing a research plan, managing collaborative projects, and reporting findings are as critical to a science policy analyst as they are to a principal investigator on an NIH grant. In addition to these transferable skills, scientists considering a shift to science policy should seek opportunities to develop their communication, consensus building, and networking skills. While scientists are experienced at communicating their work through research publications or presentations to their peers at scientific conferences, science policy requires the ability to convey the importance of scientific information to non-scientists. Gauging the information needs of target audiences and developing successful strategies for delivering this information are considered core competencies for science policy analysts. Development of public policy requires input from a wide range of stakeholders, including individual researchers, academic institutions, companies, and patients. Therefore, the ability to identify areas of consensus among these varied perspectives is critical to ensure progress and stakeholder buy-in for a policy initiative. Finally, networking, an activity frequently met with groans, should not be underestimated. It is critical to foster and maintain professional relationships because success in science policy is driven by both what and whom you know.
Box 1. Ways to Develop Science Policy Skills
Stay informed of science issues in the news. Organize a science policy discussion group. Join and participate in a scientific society or professional organization. Meet with a member of Congress. Participate in a Capitol Hill Day. Teach or mentor in your community. Volunteer at a local science museum. Contribute articles or letters to local newspapers and/or institution or society newsletters. Seek internships with institutional offices of government relations, technology transfer, or sponsored research. Pursue a science policy fellowship opportunity. Invite elected officials to visit your laboratory. Work on a political campaign.
there is no ‘cookie-cutter’ career path. If you’ve ever attended a science policy career panel, chances are that each expert described a unique path to their current position and each decided to take the plunge at different stages of their career (Box 1). There are, however, common threads. The first step is to become more engaged in science policy issues and discussions and figure out which areas are of greatest interest to you. Social media and blogs authored by agency leaders make it easy to engage in policy discussions. At many institutions, graduate students and postdoctoral scholars have organized active science policy discussion groups to foster discussion and develop policy-related skills. Policy discussions are also easily integrated into lab meetings, workshops, and seminar series.
Professional societies and associations also provide a wide array of opportunities and resources to engage member scientists in science policy activities. Many sponsor Capitol Hill Day events in which society members come to Washington, DC to meet with congressional representatives and advocate on behalf the research community, often focusing effort on key issues, such as predictable and sustainable federal funding for research. These face-toface interactions are supplemented by robust web-based advocacy toolkits that provide resources such as instructions for scheduling a meeting with a member of Making the Jump from Bench to Congress, talking points, and even fact Beltway The greatest feature about a career in sheets detailing the history of federal fundscience policy is also its most terrifying: ing for research in a particular state or
664
Trends in Immunology, November 2015, Vol. 36, No. 11
congressional districtiv. Longer-term activities offered by professional societies include service on public policy committees, planning and hosting public policy events in conjunction with an annual meeting, and contributing articles on public policy issues to the society newsletter. Science policy fellowships or internships offer scientists a structured program within which to contribute to a science policy activity, develop policy analysis skills, and expand professional networks. Sponsored by professional societies, foundations, government agencies, or academic institutions, these competitive fellowships range in duration from three months to up to two years, and are frequently seen as a launching pad for a career in science policy. The AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowship program brings approximately 200 fellows to Washington, DC for one-year appointments across the Federal Governmentv. AAAS Science & Technology Fellows range from newly minted PhDs and postdoctoral scholars to mid-career investigators. Current graduate students and those within five years of a terminal degree are eligible to explore the policy-making process through the twelve-week Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Fellowship offered by the National Academiesvi. While the majority of science policy fellowships are based in Washington, DC, the number of opportunities within state governments and major US and international metropolitan regions continues to increasevii.
Get Involved!
Spotlight
Closing Thoughts
Participation of scientists in the development of rules and regulations that could affect their research is a key step to establishing practical solutions and fostering community acceptance of final policies. The first step is to be aware of the policy discussions that could affect science. Leaders of several federal agencies have turned to blogs as ways of quickly disseminating information to the research community. Agencies and congressional leaders also rely on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to disseminate brief, real-time information about funding trends and emerging policy issues of interest to the research community. Involvement can also be as passive as subscribing to an e-newsletter or e-action alert list, in which information about the hottest topics in science policy are delivered straight to your email inbox.
It's been over a decade since I decided to hang up my lab coat and pursue science policy as a full-time career. Moving to a new city to start a fellowship for which I had minimal expertise was nothing short of terrifying, but not much different than starting a postdoctoral position or establishing an independent research program. Today, my scientific training is applied to solving problems about the research workforce and developing strategies to maximize federal funding for research rather than determining interactions between molecules. Taking that big, scary step away from the bench has provided me with a broader perspective of the research enterprise and introduced me to areas of research I might never have encountered had I stayed in the lab. Most importantly, I rediscovered my passion for science and am driven by the hope that my work will help researchers fulfill the potential of this For those ready to step out from behind very exciting time for science. the computer screen, participation in public outreach events and discussions Resources i are a great way to engage the public in a www.epa.gov/air/caa/index.html ii dialogue regarding the important role of www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/index.html iii research in everyday life. Arranging lab- iv http://acd.od.nih.gov/index.htm www.faseb.org/Policy-and-Government-Affairs/ oratory visits for congressional leaders Become-an-Advocate.aspx provides a unique opportunity to high- v www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policylight the importance of federal research fellowships support through one-on-one discussions vi http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/policy with early-career and established scien- fellows/index.htm tists and demonstration of laboratory vii http:// www. faseb.org/Policy-and-Governmenttools and techniques. Whether it's Affairs/Science-Policy-Issues/ speaking at a local school's science Training-and-Career-Opportunities-for-Scientists/ day, participating in a Capitol Hill Day, Science-Policy-Fellowship-Programs.aspx or serving as a subject matter expert 1Office of Public Affairs, Federation of American Societies on a federal advisory committee, the for Experimental Biology (FASEB), 9650 Rockville Pike, impact of face-to-face time with a scien- Bethesda, MD 20814, USA tist should not be underestimated. @Twitter: @FASEBopa Therefore, service as a ‘science advocate’ for science should be encouraged *Correspondence: [email protected] (Y.R. Seger). by research mentors, graduate pro- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2015.09.002 grams, and institutional leaders, and recReference ognized as a meaningful component of 1. NIH Advisory Committee to the Director (2012) Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report, National Instiprofessional development. tutes of Health
Beyond Genomics: Multidimensional Analysis of Cancer Therapy Resistance Mary Philip1 and Andrea Schietinger1,* Cancer resistance to therapy occurs through a selection process generally thought to be driven by mutations. In a recent study, Hugo et al. use multidimensional analysis of the dynamic genetic, transcriptional, epigenetic, and immune landscape alterations in baseline and MAPK inhibitor-resistant melanoma tumors, demonstrating a role for ‘non-genomic’ drivers in cancer evolution. Since the breakthrough therapeutic success of the BCR-ABL kinase inhibitor in chronic myelogenous leukemia, numerous targeted inhibitors have been used to treat cancers. Cancer therapies lead to Darwinian evolutionary selection of cancer cell variants with pre-existing or acquired mutations [1]. To prevent therapy resistance in cancer, combination drug therapy with multimodal mechanisms is essential. Activation of the MAPK pathway through mutation of BRAF (V600E) occurs in 50% of melanomas, and inhibitors targeting mutant BRAF and downstream MEK (MAPKi) in combination have been developed. While this combination therapy is initially efficacious, melanoma patients frequently relapse, prompting investigators to understand multiresistance mechanisms and determine what other therapies could be added to prevent resistance. One such therapy is immune checkpoint blockade directed against cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4
Trends in Immunology, November 2015, Vol. 36, No. 11
665
Scientific Life From Pipettes to Science Policy Yvette R. Seger1,*,@ Science policy provides PhDtrained scientists with unique and rewarding opportunities to support the research community. Careers in science policy require broad scientific knowledge coupled with keen problem-solving, data-analysis, and communication skills. This article describes strategies for scientists to engage in policy discussions, both extramural and fulltime. The path to a ‘successful’ career in the biological and biomedical sciences is well characterized. It can start as early as high school, with budding young investigators supplementing their studies with internships at local laboratories or biotechnology companies. Undergraduate degree programs and research fellowships provide more opportunities to hone critical thinking and experimental technique. These experiences, combined with a good grade-point average and competitive scores on the Graduate Record Examination, earn the lucky scholar a spot in a competitive PhD program. After 4–6 years of coursework, stints as a teaching assistant, and a few successful (and a few more unsuccessful) experiments and peer-reviewed publications in hand, the newly minted PhD moves on to a new lab, a new project, and a new title (‘postdoc’), driven by the desire to unlock biological mysteries and establish a research program that will lead to a tenure-track faculty position. This dream is realized by only approximately 23% of the biomedical workforce [1].
However, what happens when a young investigator discovers greater interest in shaping policies that foster great science than the experiments themselves? Or when a day spent talking about federal investment in basic research on Capitol Hill provides a greater sense of accomplishment than nailing your chalk talk during job interviews? I’m here to reassure you that this is okay. For some, the necessary fix may be as brief as a few days a year spent serving on an advisory panel or participating in their professional society's Capitol Hill day. For others, myself included, it is a career that is dependent upon the critical thinking skills gained from the laboratory.
What Is Science Policy? Of non-research careers in science, science policy may be among the least well understood. I attribute this to the breadth of career paths and responsibilities that fall within this category. Although science policy professionals play a critical role in federal and state governments, providing advice to the President, congressional leaders, and heads of funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or National Science Foundation (NSF), the policy community extends beyond the government to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, think tanks, and professional societies. Science policy activities are categorized as ‘science for policy’ or ‘policy for science’. In the former, scientific findings are used as the basis for the development of public policy. A common example is the regulation of pollutant emissions under the Clean Air Acti to meet health-based airquality standards. To implement this law, the Environmental Protection Agency is dependent upon the scientific community for accurate collection of air-quality data and the development of new technologies to reduce pollutant emissions. Similarly, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practicesii meets three times per year to review recent scientific
data on disease outbreaks and the safety and efficacy of vaccines to develop recommendations for vaccination schedules. By contrast, activities classified as ‘policy for science’ include government laws, regulations, and policies that affect the practice of science. Examples of such policy activities can range from implementation of grant programs intended to stimulate research activity on a specific disease to recommendations to enhance graduate and postdoctoral training to conditions associated with the acceptance of a grant award to ensure appropriate stewardship of federal funds. For instance, the Advisory Committee to the Director of the NIHiii has provided data-driven recommendations to the NIH Director regarding strategies to enhance the biomedical workforce, fulfill a Presidential initiative on neuroscience research, and strengthen the peer review of grant applications. Although different, both science policy scenarios rely on the use of data to drive decision making and achieve a specific outcome. Many scientists are already engaged in science policy activities without knowing it. For example, individuals who serve on a study section or Advisory Council of an NIH Institute or NSF Directorate provide critical advice regarding how these agencies should allocate funds. On a more local level, scientists may work with university leaders to generate local support for new trans-departmental initiatives and construction of new facilities, or work within their department to generate new or updated curricula and expand training opportunities. Like politics, much of science policy is local.
Adapting Research Skills for Science Policy The good news for those contemplating a career in science policy is that many of the skills you spent years perfecting in the laboratory are actually transferable and applicable to policy pursuits. In addition to specific subject-matter expertise and understanding of the scientific process,
Trends in Immunology, November 2015, Vol. 36, No. 11
663
scientists bring unparalleled skills in data analysis and critical thinking to policy discussions. Similarly, the inherent curiosity of scientists allows them to learn quickly and master new topics in a short time. This attribute must not be underestimated, because the rate at which policy decisions are made is highly variable and dependent upon factors such as the economy, public health, national security, and public opinion. Scientists are also expert project managers. Experience developing and implementing a research plan, managing collaborative projects, and reporting findings are as critical to a science policy analyst as they are to a principal investigator on an NIH grant. In addition to these transferable skills, scientists considering a shift to science policy should seek opportunities to develop their communication, consensus building, and networking skills. While scientists are experienced at communicating their work through research publications or presentations to their peers at scientific conferences, science policy requires the ability to convey the importance of scientific information to non-scientists. Gauging the information needs of target audiences and developing successful strategies for delivering this information are considered core competencies for science policy analysts. Development of public policy requires input from a wide range of stakeholders, including individual researchers, academic institutions, companies, and patients. Therefore, the ability to identify areas of consensus among these varied perspectives is critical to ensure progress and stakeholder buy-in for a policy initiative. Finally, networking, an activity frequently met with groans, should not be underestimated. It is critical to foster and maintain professional relationships because success in science policy is driven by both what and whom you know.
Box 1. Ways to Develop Science Policy Skills
Stay informed of science issues in the news. Organize a science policy discussion group. Join and participate in a scientific society or professional organization. Meet with a member of Congress. Participate in a Capitol Hill Day. Teach or mentor in your community. Volunteer at a local science museum. Contribute articles or letters to local newspapers and/or institution or society newsletters. Seek internships with institutional offices of government relations, technology transfer, or sponsored research. Pursue a science policy fellowship opportunity. Invite elected officials to visit your laboratory. Work on a political campaign.
there is no ‘cookie-cutter’ career path. If you’ve ever attended a science policy career panel, chances are that each expert described a unique path to their current position and each decided to take the plunge at different stages of their career (Box 1). There are, however, common threads. The first step is to become more engaged in science policy issues and discussions and figure out which areas are of greatest interest to you. Social media and blogs authored by agency leaders make it easy to engage in policy discussions. At many institutions, graduate students and postdoctoral scholars have organized active science policy discussion groups to foster discussion and develop policy-related skills. Policy discussions are also easily integrated into lab meetings, workshops, and seminar series.
Professional societies and associations also provide a wide array of opportunities and resources to engage member scientists in science policy activities. Many sponsor Capitol Hill Day events in which society members come to Washington, DC to meet with congressional representatives and advocate on behalf the research community, often focusing effort on key issues, such as predictable and sustainable federal funding for research. These face-toface interactions are supplemented by robust web-based advocacy toolkits that provide resources such as instructions for scheduling a meeting with a member of Making the Jump from Bench to Congress, talking points, and even fact Beltway The greatest feature about a career in sheets detailing the history of federal fundscience policy is also its most terrifying: ing for research in a particular state or
664
Trends in Immunology, November 2015, Vol. 36, No. 11
congressional districtiv. Longer-term activities offered by professional societies include service on public policy committees, planning and hosting public policy events in conjunction with an annual meeting, and contributing articles on public policy issues to the society newsletter. Science policy fellowships or internships offer scientists a structured program within which to contribute to a science policy activity, develop policy analysis skills, and expand professional networks. Sponsored by professional societies, foundations, government agencies, or academic institutions, these competitive fellowships range in duration from three months to up to two years, and are frequently seen as a launching pad for a career in science policy. The AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowship program brings approximately 200 fellows to Washington, DC for one-year appointments across the Federal Governmentv. AAAS Science & Technology Fellows range from newly minted PhDs and postdoctoral scholars to mid-career investigators. Current graduate students and those within five years of a terminal degree are eligible to explore the policy-making process through the twelve-week Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Fellowship offered by the National Academiesvi. While the majority of science policy fellowships are based in Washington, DC, the number of opportunities within state governments and major US and international metropolitan regions continues to increasevii.
Get Involved!
Spotlight
Closing Thoughts
Participation of scientists in the development of rules and regulations that could affect their research is a key step to establishing practical solutions and fostering community acceptance of final policies. The first step is to be aware of the policy discussions that could affect science. Leaders of several federal agencies have turned to blogs as ways of quickly disseminating information to the research community. Agencies and congressional leaders also rely on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to disseminate brief, real-time information about funding trends and emerging policy issues of interest to the research community. Involvement can also be as passive as subscribing to an e-newsletter or e-action alert list, in which information about the hottest topics in science policy are delivered straight to your email inbox.
It's been over a decade since I decided to hang up my lab coat and pursue science policy as a full-time career. Moving to a new city to start a fellowship for which I had minimal expertise was nothing short of terrifying, but not much different than starting a postdoctoral position or establishing an independent research program. Today, my scientific training is applied to solving problems about the research workforce and developing strategies to maximize federal funding for research rather than determining interactions between molecules. Taking that big, scary step away from the bench has provided me with a broader perspective of the research enterprise and introduced me to areas of research I might never have encountered had I stayed in the lab. Most importantly, I rediscovered my passion for science and am driven by the hope that my work will help researchers fulfill the potential of this For those ready to step out from behind very exciting time for science. the computer screen, participation in public outreach events and discussions Resources i are a great way to engage the public in a www.epa.gov/air/caa/index.html ii dialogue regarding the important role of www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/index.html iii research in everyday life. Arranging lab- iv http://acd.od.nih.gov/index.htm www.faseb.org/Policy-and-Government-Affairs/ oratory visits for congressional leaders Become-an-Advocate.aspx provides a unique opportunity to high- v www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policylight the importance of federal research fellowships support through one-on-one discussions vi http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/policy with early-career and established scien- fellows/index.htm tists and demonstration of laboratory vii http:// www. faseb.org/Policy-and-Governmenttools and techniques. Whether it's Affairs/Science-Policy-Issues/ speaking at a local school's science Training-and-Career-Opportunities-for-Scientists/ day, participating in a Capitol Hill Day, Science-Policy-Fellowship-Programs.aspx or serving as a subject matter expert 1Office of Public Affairs, Federation of American Societies on a federal advisory committee, the for Experimental Biology (FASEB), 9650 Rockville Pike, impact of face-to-face time with a scien- Bethesda, MD 20814, USA tist should not be underestimated. @Twitter: @FASEBopa Therefore, service as a ‘science advocate’ for science should be encouraged *Correspondence: [email protected] (Y.R. Seger). by research mentors, graduate pro- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2015.09.002 grams, and institutional leaders, and recReference ognized as a meaningful component of 1. NIH Advisory Committee to the Director (2012) Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report, National Instiprofessional development. tutes of Health
Beyond Genomics: Multidimensional Analysis of Cancer Therapy Resistance Mary Philip1 and Andrea Schietinger1,* Cancer resistance to therapy occurs through a selection process generally thought to be driven by mutations. In a recent study, Hugo et al. use multidimensional analysis of the dynamic genetic, transcriptional, epigenetic, and immune landscape alterations in baseline and MAPK inhibitor-resistant melanoma tumors, demonstrating a role for ‘non-genomic’ drivers in cancer evolution. Since the breakthrough therapeutic success of the BCR-ABL kinase inhibitor in chronic myelogenous leukemia, numerous targeted inhibitors have been used to treat cancers. Cancer therapies lead to Darwinian evolutionary selection of cancer cell variants with pre-existing or acquired mutations [1]. To prevent therapy resistance in cancer, combination drug therapy with multimodal mechanisms is essential. Activation of the MAPK pathway through mutation of BRAF (V600E) occurs in 50% of melanomas, and inhibitors targeting mutant BRAF and downstream MEK (MAPKi) in combination have been developed. While this combination therapy is initially efficacious, melanoma patients frequently relapse, prompting investigators to understand multiresistance mechanisms and determine what other therapies could be added to prevent resistance. One such therapy is immune checkpoint blockade directed against cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4
Trends in Immunology, November 2015, Vol. 36, No. 11
665