Scientists Simplifying Science

Category archive


Blogs about Science policies across the world

The Untold Journey of a Reviewer

in Poli-Scie/Sci-Pourri by

Editor’s note: For a scientist, publishing papers is the path to progress. The journey of publishing begins with planning meticulous experiments and ends with the article getting fair reviews and final acceptance in a journal. What would it be like to sit on the other side of the table and become a reviewer? In this article, Smita Salian Mehta gives detailed tips and guidelines to become a reviewer and get the proverbial foot in the door of the reviewing world- Shayu Deshpande

We all have PIs, colleagues, and friends who review papers regularly, but how a postdoc can climb through the barriers to become a reviewer is not taught or widely publicized. How to carve the path through unknown obstacles, whom to approach and how to proceed are few questions that I have tried to tackle below. These are few pointers from my personal journey when I was on the cusp of wanting to be a reviewer myself. Initially, having done quite a few reviews unofficially, I thought it would be rather simple. However, it was not!

I did approach the “dependable” people, only to be turned away with statements like, “You are just a postdoc”. There was no denying that, but I also was a person with a sound scientific aptitude and prided myself on being perseverant. So I decided to venture out all by myself. Below are some quintessential facts, my view of bare essentials that I discovered during this journey.

(Inset image: Shayu Deshpande)

Why become a reviewer?

The best way to improve scientific knowledge and polish one’s aptitude for rational thinking is by reviewing papers. A simple process that helps to evaluate our own work more critically. By learning to ask questions we also become proficient at finding answers to our own experiments. Reviewing papers is also very important when applying for permanent residency in the US or for a faculty position.

Who can be a reviewer?

Any graduate or postdoc can be a peer reviewer. All you need is to have at least one paper in a peer-reviewed journal. You must be scientifically inclined, and have a broad interest in research. Thumb rule: you are never under qualified until you choose to think you are. It is not just the “how” but also about the “why” behind the research, that makes you seek answers and will make you an excellent reviewer.

Which journals to approach?

Journals within your area of expertise are great and the ones with a broad general scope. Thumb rule: if you are a neurobiologist you can target neurobiology, molecular biology, journals that publish articles with in-vitro and in-vivo experiments or plain life sciences. The chances of becoming a reviewer in low impact journals are greater than for high impact journals. Impact factor does not matter as long as it is a peer-reviewed journal.

Whom to approach?

(inset image: from Pexels)
  1. PI or Mentor:  ask your PI or mentor to forward papers directly via editors. It should come from the journal office to you directly and should not be a forwarded email. For green card applicants, it is especially important to keep emails of invitations and acknowledgments from journals as proof of being a reviewer. It is not enough to save just the invitations, proof of having reviewed an article is valid only with a complete set of emails consisting of invitation, submission of the completed review and a thank you note from the journal.
  2. Collaborators: if the first step fails, approach collaborators. Many academic professors work on editorial boards and are good resources.
  3. Peers: Many of your friends/colleagues unknown to your knowledge may be involved in some capacity (as reviewers or editors) with journals. So ask for help. Thumb rule: Not everyone is helpful, but don’t lose hope. You can approach journals on your own, which will likely improve your chances of success.
  4. Journals: (i) Identify journals– do not target very high impact journals. They are difficult but not impossible to approach. Thumb rule: Target journals with impact factors between 2-5, journals where good science and good reviewing are appreciated and sought. (ii) Approach the editor in chief (EIC) and associate editors. Try to create a login on journal websites or journal platforms such as Elsevier. When creating a login if asked about reviewing or interest in becoming a reviewer, say yes and indicate general expertise (example molecular biology, western blots, transfection, etc.). Also, select all the areas pertaining to your major expertise. Creating such logins/profiles before approaching the EIC is better and compels many to consider you more seriously. Since most editors, if they agree, would eventually send you links to create profiles, doing so beforehand reduces your time to reach your goal. Additionally, editors don’t have to search for your contact and expertise area. Thumb rule: use direct message service from journal website for contacting journals and editors or search the email addresses of the EIC via Google. The harder you work the better chances you have.

How to follow-up?

Make a list of all the journals you have applied or approached. The numbers can be quite high. To get yourself organized, in your list place a tick mark when sending an email, creating logins and also if you have received a reply from the journals. Most would send a reply in the affirmative, but never end up sending any papers. Send reminder emails, asking them to send you papers in your field. Remind them that you are waiting and have your expertise to offer. Thumb rule: reminders don’t hurt, so don’t be shy. Be perseverant because that is the key to success.

What to write in the email?

A few lines describing who you are, where you work, what you are currently pursuing and the number of papers you have published. If you are a graduate student then write about papers under review or in preparation. Tell them about your interest in science and how this opportunity would help you grow. Thumb rule: KISS (keep it simple and sweet).

(inset infographics by Shayu Deshpande, bullet point thumb image taken from Pixabay,modified by Shayu Deshpande)

When you finally get a paper to review, do a good job, and return it back well within time. Editors and journals really like such reviewers and often send them more papers. All this may seem tough, but when you do everything yourself your confidence will show in your resume. In the end, this is a learning experience and will make you grow scientifically. It is also a chance to contribute back to the scientific community.

This is Smita’s personal experience and this approach worked wonderfully well for her. She became a reviewer for 10 different journals in just over two months. “Be persistent and never give up, neither on your dreams nor your ambitions” is Smita’s final piece of advice.

About the author

Smita Salian-Mehta is currently a senior scientist at Abbvie (Chicago). She finished her Masters in Microbiology and followed it up with a Ph.D. in Biochemistry (specialization in reproductive toxicology) from National Institute for research in Reproductive health (ICMR) Mumbai. She moved to a postdoctoral position in neuroendocrinology at the  University of Colorado before joining Abbvie in 2015. Smita loves to write fictional stories especially fan fiction and has an ardent fan following that eagerly waits for her next stories.



Editorial team

1st Editor: Shayu Deshpande pursued her Ph.D. at IISc and is doing exciting research in myeloma in the US.  When not in the lab she enjoys singing classical music, reading books, meeting her friends and playing with her kids.




2nd EditorRoopsha Sengupta is a freelance manuscript editor and is trying to break into a suitable scientific editing and writing role. She did her Ph.D. in the Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna and postdoctoral research at the University of Cambridge UK, specializing in the field of Epigenetics. Besides science and words, she enjoys spending time with children, doodling, and singing.



Cover image background from Unsplash and illustrated by Roopsha Sengupta ; inset image and infographic by Shayu Deshpande. Other image sources are mentioned with the images.

Blog design

Shayu Deshpande

The contents of Club SciWri are the copyright of PhD Career Support Group for STEM PhDs (A US Non-Profit 501(c)3, PhDCSG is an initiative of the alumni of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. The primary aim of this group is to build a NETWORK among scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs).

This work by Club SciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Research Integrity: Integral to Good Science

in Poli-Scie by

Editor’s note: Integrity is the founding stone of scientific discoveries. Often without which the interwoven and complex structure of research falls apart. It is the need of the hour that the delicate bond of science and community is strengthened with the values of trust and honesty. However, with the boom of technological advancements- the availability of “excess” and sometimes clouded vision of individual benefits in the face of adversity, weakens this bond.

Uma’s first article in this series aims to highlight some of the challenges faced by the scientific community in upholding research integrity and ethics. She carefully dissected out the scientific misconduct and how it threatens society? Our aim here is not to tell you what to think, what to do, or to provide a tailor-made solution to circumvent the problem. However, I hope that Uma’s article will give you a realistic picture of the regulations existing globally and the expectations of inculcating research integrity as a mandatory curriculum. – Rituparna Chakrabarti


Arthur Galston, during his graduate years at the University of Illinois, discovered that use of 2,3,5-triiodobenzoic acid substantially increased the number of harvestable soybean pods. This boosted agricultural productivity, but when applied at higher concentrations led to the shedding of leaves and buds, ultimately destroying vegetation. The basis of his discovery became the infamous Agent Orange, a weapon that the USA deployed in full force during the Vietnam War from 1962 onwards. Appalled by the twisted use of his scientific contribution, Galston consistently lobbied towards outlawing the use of Agent Orange as a chemical weapon. He eventually succeeded in convincing President Nixon that defoliants such as Agent Orange be phased out from use.2

Admittedly, most scientists’ day-to-day research dilemmas within the lab do not correlate accurately with this example. But how many can deny having faced some kind of a “To do or not to do” through their research careers? Most scientists, at some point in their careers, face a mental tug-of-war between choosing the correct approach over the practical one. Science & research is certainly not an easy and comfortable career path. To be a successful scientist, it is important to overcome the difficulties associated with designing studies, analysing complex data, presenting research, and interacting fruitfully with peers and public.

If we break down the scientific discipline, it rests on five essential principles (as described in this short video by Neil deGrasse Tyson):

  • To question authority, and not to accept things as facts without evidence
  • To question and think for oneself
  • To test ideas, and accept them as the truth only after rigorous experimentation
  • To follow the evidence as the only guide
  • To accept that one can make mistakes

While doing so, scientists must uphold the values of honesty and integrity in designing experiments and reporting the results. Fairness in dealing with colleagues, openness in accepting opposing viewpoints, and respect for other scientists’ work are an integral part of the process. Pressure to make a position for oneself in a cutthroat work environment, earn name and fame, or a ‘gentle’ push from influential seniors, can make an otherwise law-abiding scientist resort to scientific misconduct.

What is Scientific Misconduct, its Causes, and Repercussions?

Fabrication, falsification of data and plagiarism are considered the “worst” forms of scientific misconduct. Equally questionable are scientific malpractices of failure to maintain confidentiality in peer review, allocation of research credit, amongst others.2

A meta-analysis of surveys that sought information from scientists regarding misconduct revealed that up to 33% of scientists admitted to using questionable research practices, while 72% admitted to questionable practices on the parts of their colleagues.3

The causes of research misconduct can be manifold and can be classified into five main groups4:

  • Individual traits (ego, vanity)
  • Circumstances (financial, personal reasons)
  • Organisational factors (complex interpersonal relationships at the workplace, inadequate mentoring)
  • Structural elements (like ‘publish-or-perish’ culture)
  • Cultural factors (difference in understanding what constitutes good scientific practice)

When a scientist shows a lack of professional ethics, it is the entire society that suffers as a result. There is considerable loss of time and resources, hindering the advancement of human knowledge. On a personal front, scientific misconduct could permanently damage the scientist’s reputation. Thus scientists not only have an obligation to themselves and to the research fraternity who build on previous findings, but also to the society, which funds their research.2

In response to several cases of research and medical malpractices in the past, the research community globally came up with several measures. In the interest of the brevity, we highlight a few notable ones here.

What Are the Regulations and Regulatory Bodies in Research?

At the end of the Second World War, as an outcome of the many unethical experiments on human subjects during the war, one of the first documents to codify responsible conduct in research was drafted in 1947. The Nuremberg Code laid down a set of research ethics principles on human experimentation. This was followed by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, which was the first significant effort by the medical community to regulate research on human subjects.

In 1981, shaken by four prominent cases of alleged fraud in the USA concerning fabrication, falsification of data and plagiarism, research misconduct became an intense topic of discussion in the US Congress5. Increasing public attention to cases of research misconduct led to the creation of the Office of Scientific Integrity in the USA in 1989. Today, as the Office of Research Integrity, it ensures institutional compliance with research integrity, carries out inquiries into allegations of research misconduct and investigations. Its recommendations to deal with scientific misconduct are

  • to adopt a zero tolerance to unethical behaviour in research
  • to protect the whistleblowers
  • to clarify the reporting of misconduct
  • to train mentors and to set up a model for ethical behaviour in research

In Europe, Denmark took the lead in establishing institutions dedicated to ensuring integrity in research, with the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty founded under the aegis of the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, in 1992, initially on a trial basis. Recently, since July 1, 2017, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty have been replaced by the Danish Committee on Research Misconduct.

In 1997, a major scandal involving two biomedical researchers came to light in Germany. A 4-month inquiry panel consisting of scientists and legal experts came to the conclusion that the two researchers had manipulated or falsified data “to an unprecedented extent”, over an extended period from 1988 to 1996. It was found that data in at least 37 papers published by the duo were questionable6. Thoroughly disturbed by this scandal, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the government agency responsible for funding academic research in Germany, established a panel of scientists and experts to publish ‘Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice’, a white paper on integrity in scientific research. It made 10 recommendations to prevent scientific dishonesty, directing them primarily to scientific institutions and also to all individual scientists.

In India, scientific wrongdoings are on the rise as well. In 2011, at the Workshop on Scientific Ethics in Chennai, Prof. T.A. Abinandanan, affiliated to the Indian Institute of Science, presented his findings on the rate of scientific misconduct in India. He reported that 44 articles per 100,000 published were retracted due to scientific misconduct (mainly plagiarism) in the decade of 2001-2010. Sadly, this was higher than the world average withdrawals of about 17 (due to both misconduct and genuine errors)7. Very often, Indian researchers who indulge in scientific malpractice are novice regarding the code of ethical conduct in research, especially when it comes to sharing or presenting their work. In addition, insufficient training (e.g. data management, writing skills) can also play a pivotal role in inadvertently turning them towards plagiarism. To circumvent this loophole, the Society for Scientific Values was established by a group of scientists in 1986, led by Prof. Avtar Paintal. So far, this is the only independent ethics body that acts as a watchdog upholding research integrity in India. The lack of a statutory body to deal with alleged cases pushes individual institutions to take action on an ad hoc basis. This manifests in the absence of a uniform code and appropriate responses toward research misconduct in India. However, the lack of consistent outline is a worldwide phenomenon challenging research fraternity.

The World Conferences on Research Integrity stemmed from the lack of gold standard definition of research integrity and overarching regulations. They aim to achieve a consensus to deal with unethical research practices. At the Second Conference on Research Integrity in 2010, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity was developed, wherein 4 principles for scientific integrity were laid out:

  • Honesty in all aspects of research
  • Accountability in the conduct of research
  • Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others
  • Good stewardship of research on behalf of others

Additionally, responsibilities of researchers were laid out, including integrity, adherence to regulations in different aspects of research, authorship guidelines, reporting research misconduct, and societal considerations.

Why is Research Integrity Training the ‘Need of the Hour’?

In 2009, a good scientific practice curriculum was developed by the “Ombudsman for Research” in Germany, targeting doctoral students. The feedback from students, post training, highlighted the fact that more than half of the students had experienced research misconduct that had a bearing on their work. Also, a staggering 1 in 5 doctoral students (76/387 students) had been involved in at least one form of severe scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, data manipulation, fabrication or theft, honorary authorship, and duplicate publication. The authors of this study speculated, following this course, that students had gained a clearer understanding regarding what constitutes scientific misconduct, and hence could admit to the widespread scientific malpractices in their work environment. This study also threw light on the fact that training in this subject was sorely lacking, also at the supervisor level.8

Therefore, it is important to include such curriculum as a mandatory subject right from the under-graduation and graduation levels. This will help individuals to identify the problem firstly, and then take the required steps to overcome it.


In the end, we would like to summarise with an excerpt from the white paper published by the DFG in 1998, for you to ponder upon:

“Every case that occurs is one case too many. For dishonesty – in contrast to error – not only fundamentally contradicts the principles and the essence of scientific work, [but] it is also a grave danger to science itself. It can undermine public confidence in science, and it may destroy the confidence of scientists in each other without which successful scientific work is impossible.”

The courage and confidence that Galston showed in pursuing the consequences of his research are indeed remarkable and inspiring. However, this conviction can only be achieved from a strong sense of research ethics, morals and dedication to upholding all the good science stands for. As Galston quoted, [the] responsibility [of a scientist] to society does not cease with publication of a definitive scientific paper.

Sound knowledge of and adherence to research integrity are imperative if we are to leave a positive imprint on humanity with our work.

In our following articles in this series, we shall see in greater detail what constitutes scientific malpractice and misconduct, conscious ways a researcher can remove themselves from involvement in such practices, regulations about authorship and publications, and conflict management when faced with research misconduct.



  1. Galston Science and social responsibility: A case history. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1972;196(4):223-35.
  2. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009.
  3. Fanelli How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738.
  4. Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, Diaz SR. Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files. Sci and Eng Ethics. 2007;13(4):395-414.
  5. Gold 6, Congressional Activities Regarding Misconduct and Integrity in Science. In: National Academy of Sciences (US), National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume II. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1993.
  6. Koenig Panel Calls Falsification in German Case ‘Unprecedented’. Science. 1997;277(5328):894.
  7. Abinandanan Scientific Misconduct in India: An Analysis of Retracted Papers in PubMed. Abstract of a talk presented at the Workshop on Academic Ethics. 2011 Jul 15-16; Chennai (India).
  8. Gommel M, Nolte H, Sponholz G. Teaching Good Scientific Practice: Results from a Survey and Observations from Two Hundred Courses. JUnQ. 2015;5(2):11-16.


Primary author and content research

Uma Turakhiya, currently works as a regulatory medical writer at Trilogy Writing and Consulting (Frankfurt, Germany), having previously completed her Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Freiburg, Germany. She enjoys writing about science and believes that simplification of science and communication are the key to creating a scientific temper in the society. Apart from having a voracious appetite for books, she is enthusiastic about learning new languages, meeting new people and occasionally playing the piano.


Primary editor, contributed to the research, infographics and blog design

Rituparna Chakrabarti, pursued her Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Georg-August University (Göttingen, Germany) and is currently a post-doctoral fellow at the Center for Biostructural Imaging of Neurodegeneration (BIN), Göttingen. Over the years, she has gained technical expertise in electron and high-resolution light microscopy, to study the nanostructures of specialized chemical synapses in the sensory systems. She likes to have a bird’s eye view of her undertakings and gets excited with analytics. Passionately believes in, correct simplification of science, therefore engages in different scientific communication and public outreach projects. To unwind herself she plays mandolin and eagerly looks for a corner at a coffee house to slide herself in with a good read or company.


Paurvi Shinde, did her PhD, in Immunology from University of Connecticut Health and currently works as a Post Doc, at Bloodworks Northwest in Seattle. She’s loves editing and proofreading scientific articles, to convey the message behind it, in a clear and concise form.



Our art team

  1. Cover image: Kindly provided by Vinita Bharat Ph.D. Follow her on Fuzzy Synapse (on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram).
  2. Inset image: Courtesy of Ipsa Jain. You can find more about her works at IpsaWonders (on Facebook and Instagram)



The contents of Club SciWri are the copyright of PhD Career Support Group for STEM PhDs (A US Non-Profit 501(c)3, PhDCSG is an initiative of the alumni of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. The primary aim of this group is to build a NETWORK among scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs). This work by Club SciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

What is Science Policy and Diplomacy?

in Poli-Scie by

Editor’s note: Science is a universal language and it knows no bounds. In her new post, Debanjana talks about why science should be at the center of all diplomatic relations – Neha Bhutani


I had promised in my last blog to be back with an article to discuss some plausible paths to a career in science diplomacy. However, I gleaned from the reader comments that the concept of science diplomacy seemed abstract to many. Therefore, before we get to careers and transition paths, I would like to linger a little longer on the definition and cite a few concrete examples.


Policy is a two-way street between the government and the public1,2. Science policy experts are links between the world of research, the government, and the public. These experts are entrusted with the responsibility of shaping and formalizing the government’s stance on particular scientific issues and controversies, as well as drafting legislation to address them. Besides their own policy experts, politicians often call upon outside analysts working at scientific non-profits for recommendations and reviews on the bills they draft. In the words of Dr. Laura Hoopes, emeritus professor at Pomona College, CA and former AAAS-fellow, ‘Science Policy really addresses two different themes: policy for science and science for policy. Policy for science is probably what most scientists think of when they think of “science policy”. It revolves around questions on how to fund science, and how to create goals for scientific research. In contrast, science for policy is more about how scientific evidence can contribute to the decision-making process.’’

Policies are drafted not only at national level, but also at subnational as well as international level. This leads us to the topic of ‘science in diplomacy’ where some policy experts, by dint of their background in specific scientific disciplines as well as economics and international affairs, advice to inform and support foreign policy objectives of a country. For example, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) is a government agency of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs which works to reduce poverty and promote development and equality. The SIDA-supported Health Nutrition and Population Sector Programme (HNPSP2) in Bangladesh is the world´s largest health sector programme3.

‘Science in Diplomacy’ is crucial in combating issues that have far-reaching consequences well beyond national levels, such as climate change, emergence of new infectious diseases, antibiotic resistance etc. An erroneous policy of one nation can impact the health and economy of not only its neighboring countries but the entire world. United Nations is constantly pushing for evidence-based policies customized to the needs and circumstances of every stake-holder to realize the sustainable development goals (SDGs) worldwide.


As I had mentioned in my earlier blog, ‘Science Diplomacy’ refers to three main types of activities:

  1. “Science in diplomacy”
  2. “Science for diplomacy”
  3. “Diplomacy for science”


Since we already touched upon the topic of ‘science in diplomacy’, we are left with the other two undertakings. The way I see it, ‘Science for Diplomacy’ is when scientific collaborations are used as a tool to improve diplomatic relationship between two nations. However, not all international scientific cooperations qualify. Such cooperations when established, and maintained with an ulterior diplomatic motive constitutes science diplomacy. Scientists are at a unique position to foster such connections. The relationship between two countries could be strained but they are usually still open to the idea of scientific exchange for the greater good. Prior to Obama administration, this approach was popularly known as ‘soft power’. The US-Iran nuclear deal of 2015, recent improvements in US- Cuba relations are prominent examples. Despite half a century long political impasse between US and Cuba, American Association for the Advancement of Science had been silently collaborating with the Cuban Academy of Sciences since 1997. This scientific cooperation formed the bedrock for the reestablishment of bilateral relations in December 2014. Contrary to popular notion, it is not always that the less developed country gets to benefit more from such relations. An interesting example is the US discovery of Cuba-developed lung cancer vaccine, Climavax, which has now been approved by FDA. Here are some good articles describing the role of science diplomacy in rebuilding of US-Cuba relations:


Update: This article was written prior to the executive order by President Trump to revise some of the Cuba policies of Obama era. The extent to which the diplomatic and scientific cooperation between the two countries would change is unclear at present.


The flip side of the coin are the nations with friendly diplomatic relations who could still benefit from establishing better and more effective ties through scientific collaborations (Diplomacy for Science). The most personal example in my mind is that of Germany and India. Historically, these two nations never faced any insurmountable diplomatic obstacle. Nevertheless, recognizing the benefits of science and technology collaboration with India and possibly, as a strategy to attract young highly-skilled talent into the country (Replacement Migration4), Germany has been making great efforts in engaging with India through ‘Science Diplomacy’. Unknowingly, we ourselves might have reaped positive benefits from such efforts. Back in 2010 when I set off for the Germany, little did I know how my career path had already been touched so closely by science diplomacy. German House for Research and Innovation at New Delhi is actively involved in facilitating bilateral projects in higher education, language, science, research and innovation. One significant step forward in the bilateral relations was signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in April, 2006 during the visit by the then Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh to Germany. As a part of this Science and Technology Collaboration, the Indo-German Science Centre for Infectious Diseases (IG-SCID) was opened in 2007. To foster cooperation through joint workshops and exchange programs, the IG-SCID brought together the Indian Council of Medical Research, the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research and the Hanover Medical School (MHH). This policy had impacted me personally as I was able to interview in-person with professors from MHH at New Delhi to secure a full scholarship for my doctoral studies at MHH. Such stories are only a small part of the boon of such diplomatic endeavors.


I hope that this article sheds some more light on the premise of science diplomacy. The next blog topic would be career track in science policy and diplomacy. So long!






About the author: 








Debanjana is an Immunologist / Clinical Coordinator at Columbia University, NY.  She is passionate about traveling, dancing, and languages. She is here to share the musings of her meandering mind.



Featured image: Pixabay

This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


Increasing public perception of science via robust science communication

in Poli-Scie by

Science is essential to the economic, societal and environmental growth of a country. Science improves the quality of life by providing better medical care, healthier environments, increased efficiency in industries, secured financial trading, improved food safety, strengthened border security, stimulating environment, etc. However, a lack of understanding of the scientific advances can have dire consequences. Take for example the issue of climate change, where a number of factors including inefficient communication of fundamental climate data to the public has not only created misunderstanding of scientists and their research, but has also influenced the government decision-making with regards to environmental regulations, science policy and funding. The importance of proper science communication is not just limited to the issue of climate change. With the development of new technologies like genome sequencing and personalized medicine, general public needs to know the complex scientific intricacies so that they can make decisions that directly affect the quality of their life. Thus, it is essential for the general public to know the basics of science to make informed decisions.

Scientific advancements and breakthroughs are channeled to the public through different media platforms. It is usually believed that any information that passes through a journalist’s filter is of high quality. As such, media coverage is widely considered as an indicator of relevance and success, as in the field of policy, related to science. However, an oversimplification of scientific jargon by journalists can not only water down the nuances of real science but also distort the information. Complicated situations arise when many journalists try to polarize the audience in a way that benefits their own vested interests, hence, blurring the lines between advertisement, journalism and advocacy. Unfortunately, the problems do not really end here.

With the advent of social media (YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and others), traditional media platforms, such as television and radio, for communicating science with the public, are getting outdated. While social media has made information more easily accessible to the public, these platforms are predated with fake news, alternative facts, hoaxes, misinformation, personal beliefs and political agendas. As a result, numerous people develop bizarre and inaccurate ideas about science. To make matters worse, any endeavor at rational discussion between the public and scientific community usually gets reduced to a clash between extremists, resulting in polarized societies. This can have real, negative consequences for the public support for science and the funding that goes into the scientific research all over the world. The recently released review of the funding for fundamental science in Canada, called the Naylor report, is one such example of decreasing support for basic science. Circumstances are not great too in other parts of the world.

Because of the decreased availability of funds, many researchers are spending a major proportion of their time writing grants. Early career researchers (ECRs) and young trainees (PhDs and post-docs) are especially affected in more ominous ways to the extent that many of them quit academia and even science. This can have potential long-term consequences for the future of science and society. Only a conscious and well-informed society can assess how crucial investments in science are and how future prosperity depends on new ideas. While increased funding for basic science would be the first right step in this direction, transparent science communication and promoting a two-way discussion between the general public and the scientific community is essential to strengthen public’s trust in science and the peer-review process.

Over years, few scientists and science enthusiasts have turned to various media platforms to promote public dissemination of scientific knowledge. Carl Sagan, who created the popular TV show “Cosmos” paved the way for such communication. In recent years, the popularity of the likes of Bill Nye -the Science Guy, Chris Hadfield, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, has provided further momentum in this direction. As such, many scientific organizations and individual scientists have also turned to writing blogs, participating in social networks and uploading videos about their research. However, the same people and their efforts have also received a lot of criticism from their peers as this is not what regular scientists do. This is regrettably true because governments generally judge the merit of a scientist based on the number of the grants and publications the person has. Science communication and outreach activities are rarely counted towards promotion in the university system and are often frowned upon as a means of distraction from the research agenda. Moreover, scientists who have a lot of responsibilities of reviewing papers and grants for free, undertaking a lot of journal editorial responsibilities, etc, may find communication an extra burden. There is paramount need to provide incentives to people who are engaged in science communication and other outreach activities.

While increased efforts by the scientific society to educate the public about the scientific progress, reasoning and critical thinking is the need for the hour. In a hostile environment of alternative facts and misinformations, it is imperative to explore avenues to foster optimal communication with the public, to bolster their participation in debates pertaining to science and policy, and also discourse the ethical, legal and social implications of research.

In conversation with Joanne Thomas (JT) of UK-based Sense about ScienceNida Siddiqui (NS) uncovers steps that need to be taken to increase public trust in science.

NS: Could you please tell us about yourself and your educational background?

JT: I am a program manager at Sense about Science, where I coordinate the “Voice of Young Science”, a network of engaged early career researchers, and deliver public engagement projects in partnership with researchers. Before joining the team in 2015, I completed a Masters degree in Science Communication at the University of the West of England and previously worked at the Science Media Centre, a press office that aims to improve media coverage of science. I also have an undergraduate degree in Biological Sciences from the University of Oxford.


NS: What motivated you to be a part of Sense about Science?

JT: During my undergraduate degree, I became really interested in the science communication movement and in how science and evidence interacts with society, particularly around issues related to GMOs (Genetically-modified organisms). I wanted to work for an organization that champions open discussions about [scientific] evidence and encourages researchers to engage with the public. Sense about Science was a great fit — it’s a dynamic organization that equips the public to make sense of science and evidence and encourages researchers to be open about their research findings and to communicate them in a clear, accessible way to public audiences.


NS: Tell us about the initiatives at Sense about Science.

JT: Sense about Science runs a series of programs, campaigns and projects to challenge misrepresentations of science in public life and to give people the tools they need to make sense of science and evidence.

Our biggest campaign is Ask for Evidence This is a wide-reaching public campaign which helps people request for themselves the evidence behind news stories, marketing claims and policies. We hear daily claims about what is good for our health, bad for the environment, how to improve education, cut crime, treat disease or improve agriculture. Some are based on reliable evidence and scientific rigor. Many are not. How can we make companies, politicians, commentators and official bodies accountable for the claims they make? If they want us to vote for them, believe them or buy their products, then we should Ask for Evidence. This campaign is about holding powerful figures to account and not having the wool pulled over our eyes on important issues. It is making sure that a discussion about the evidence is happening when it really matters. You can read some of the claims people have been asking for evidence about on the Ask for Evidence website.

Another big initiative of ours is the Voice of Young Science (VoYS) program. VoYS is a unique and dynamic network of early career researchers across Europe committed to playing an active role in public discussions about science. By responding to public misconceptions about science and evidence and engaging with the media, this active community of 2,000+ researchers, engineers, scientists and medics is changing the way the public and the media view science and scientists.

The program includes a series of free Standing up for Science media workshops each year. These full day events encourage early career researchers to get their voices heard in public discussions about science. Early career researchers have the chance to hear directly from respected science journalists, as well as from scientists with media experience. It’s an opportunity to learn how the media works, how to respond and comment, and what journalists want and expect from scientists. And at the heart of VoYS are myth-busting and evidence-hunting campaigns led by members who, inspired by the workshops, are passionate about taking on bad science, tackling misconceptions and sharing insights from their research. These campaigns have ranged from homeopathy and detox to meteorology:

Our VoYS program is also now expanding into Europe – and we’re running our first VoYS EU workshop in Brussels in June 2017. You can read more about Ask for Evidence, VoYS, and other areas of our work on our website:


NS: Why is it becoming increasingly important for early career researchers (ECRs) to communicate science?

JT: The importance of ECRs communicating science has always been clear, and has increasingly become so in an environment where a huge amount of information is publicly available yet often conflicting, and where there are ever more pressures on researchers’ time. ECRs are often at the coal face of research – they are the ones in the lab carrying out the research day-to-day so are often best placed to communicate what the research is aiming to achieve, how and why. Additionally, all researchers have a responsibility to communicate their research with the public and we’ve seen the real impact that researchers, and particularly ECRs can have on public discussion. We encourage researchers not to wait until they are professors before taking on the responsibility to get involved in public debates.


NS: Any thoughts on how can we bridge the gap between the public (understanding) and scientists (discoveries) and improve public engagement in science?

JT: In order to close gaps between public and scientific discussion on issues and to engage more people, we must encourage and support more researchers to communicate clearly and openly with wide public audiences. Researchers must also involve many public groups early in the research process, to not only inform their research questions but also to help them to plan how they should communicate their findings. To increase public trust in science – researchers must first trust the public, by being clear about their findings and the uncertainty within them: sharing what their research can and can’t tell us. Our public guide Making Sense of Uncertainty sets out why uncertainty is central to science and to communicating research.

Increasing public trust in science can also come from talking more openly about the process of science; how it works. For example, peer review, which is an essential process to science, can also be a useful tool for the public too. If people know about the peer review process, when they come across scientific claims, they can then ask is it peer reviewed? This is a useful first question for everyone to ask in order to weigh up the quality of evidence. See our public guide to peer review I don’t know what to believe for more details:


NS: Is there a considerable impact of science communication done by ECRs (blogs and social media) on mainstream science journalism?

JT: Early career researchers certainly can and are having an impact on public and media discussions about science and evidence. Voice of Young Science members have launched a number of successful campaigns in recent years which have been covered in mainstream media:

For example, in spring 2009, VoYS sent an open letter to the World Health Organisation, calling for the body to issue a clear international communication about the inappropriate use of homeopathy for five serious diseases. VoYS had become aware of widespread promotion of homeopathic treatments for serious diseases in developing countries and saw that there were no clear guidelines available on this from the World Health Organisation (WHO). VoYS joined with other early career medics and researchers working in Africa and pressured the WHO to condemn the promotion of homeopathy for the treatment of serious diseases. On 21st August 2009, the WHO responded to the open letter stating clearly that it does not recommend the use of homeopathy for treating HIV, TB, malaria, influenza and infant diarrhoea. VoYS members then wrote to the health ministers of all countries to publicise the WHO’s position, asking them to combat the promotion of homeopathy for these dangerous diseases. This campaign was covered in the Times, the Guardian and by the BBC.

Individual VoYS members have also been standing up for science as individuals – for example last year Britt Marie Hermes wrote an extraordinary investigative piece in Forbes magazine, delving into the evidence behind health claims for a new device, UVLrx; Leah Fitzsimmons helped the BBC fact-check a segment on cold sores for Trust Me, I’m a Doctor and RPS members Hayley Gorton and Ryan Hamilton organised a We Pharmacists twitter chat about evidence-based medicine that reached over 1 million people.

So early career researchers can and do make a difference! The message of VoYS is not to wait until you’re later in your career to get involved, so stand up for science now.


About Joanne Thomas (JT):

Joanne is a program manager at Sense about Science. She coordinates Voice of Young Science (VoYS), a unique and growing network of over 2000 early career researchers who are committed to playing an active role in public discussions about science. Joanne is also part of Sense about Science’s public engagement team, which helps researchers to make complex scientific issues widely accessible, guided by the people who will use them. Prior to joining the team in 2015, Joanne completed a Masters degree in Science Communication at the University of the West of England and previously worked at the Science Media Centre, a press office that aims to improve media coverage of science. Joanne also has an undergraduate degree in Biological Sciences from the University of Oxford.


Co-author: Nida Siddiqui, who is currently pursuing final year Ph.D. at the Centre for Mechanochemical Cell Biology, University of Warwick, UK. Follow her on LinkedIn and twitter as @siddnida.

Edited by: Sayantan Chakraborty, PhD

Photo credit: Pixabay


This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Unity in diversity – Göttingen’s March for Science

in Poli-Scie by
  • March-for-science-1-1.jpg?fit=2453%2C3468

Göttingen, the city of science, is not called so for nothing at all. In nineteenth century, seven professors from Göttingen university, now popularly called Göttinger Sieben, dared standing up against the Kingdom of Hanover, protesting against the alteration of the constitution. Inspired by them the Göttinger Achtzehn, a group of 18 nuclear scientists from the city stood against the Adaneuer government to stop propagation of nuclear weapons in 1957. Clearly the university here has always kept itself connected with politics, contributing in shaping the policies and creating Germany as a liberal country.

Today, on 22nd April, 2017 it stood by its tradition where the Göttingers took to a peaceful demonstration to March for Science. Starting at around 10 am, the march gathered around 2000 Göttingers – a huge, diverse, international crowd ranging from university students, researchers, politicians, media personnel and science supporters outside academia. The reasons for their participation varied widely – for funding, evidence-based policy making to creating a collaborative space between researchers, advocating for open science and to create access to scientific research for public.

Yuko Maeda, one of the organizers of the event said, “Science is a core democratic value. I stand up for communication of science. The discussion should not around the facts (that we get from science), but rather what do we do with those facts.” The President of the university, Prof. Ulrike Beisiegel emphasized on the importance of people understanding the philosophy and process of science, dealing with hypothesizing, experimentation, analysis and validation. On similar lines, Prof. Quadt, a particle physics researcher himself, reminded the audience of the famous quote by Richard Feynman – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” He aptly reminded the audience the importance of pursuing global science, relating with the advances in particle physics, a field that has largely benefited from international collaborations. A Turkish academician, who lost her research position for being a part of Academics for Peace petition in Turkey, and now staying in exile in Germany, emphasized on the needs of ensuring a world that embraces diversity. And the Minister for Science and Culture in the state of Niedersachsen, Ms. Gabriele Heinen-Kljajić, who was present for the event, expressed solidarity for the threatened researchers and journalists worldwide.

And if you are still apprehensive of what an amalgamation of science and politics should look like, take a look at the pictures from the event. Remember that this is a March for Science, not for scientists. It is a global march that can affect all of us, as mankind. And science cannot keep itself away from politics, for then you risk not being a part of the policy making.

Illustration: By Ipsa Jain

About the author:

Somdatta Karak works with Club SciWri as a project co ordinator and Corporate Liaison. She is a doctorate in neuroscience from Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany and has been a Teach for India fellow (2014-16). She loves putting her analytical skills to build newer and more sustainable solutions, enjoys traveling and communicating and takes every opportunity to expand her horizon.

You can reach her here.

In the marriage of Science & Politics – How separated are they?

in Poli-Scie by
  • vinita_MFS.jpg?fit=840%2C578

Trump government’s travel ban troubled numerous scientists working in the USA, hurting science as a whole, without any need to stress upon how difficult it was for those who were banned. Those who weren’t affected by the ban have enough to take care of by tackling visa policies. Brexit came with its own share of additional insecurity amongst the European research community. Budget cuts in science have become common worldwide. A new Hungarian law threatens closure of one of their leading universities. And there are numerous examples in both developed and developing countries where there is an enormous disconnect between what the scientists claim, what the citizens perceive and what laws and policies revolve around those.

Assuming that politicians and scientists strive only for the betterment of their countries, and for the human society as a whole, then why do we see a lack of healthy amalgamation of these two communities? Why are we seeing an increase in decisions that are clearly not healthy for science, and a paucity of significant public interest in it? As scientists have we failed miserably to communicate not only our passion but also the importance of our work to the society? Do the statesmen really understand the criteria on which they base their decisions that impact science? Are they willing to get into their details? Are there unbiased, progressive platforms that can facilitate discussions between scientists and statesmen that assist them in taking informed decisions?

Although we might have reached this sad state of facing the short end of the stick, as the sufferers, it’s high time that we, scientists, took charge of connecting with the public – the layman and the politician. After all, they need convincing that our ever-increasing, complicated research has a potential to widen the frontiers of human knowledge – some of which might help us develop a life-saving invention in the coming month and some might need years of hard work. It is also necessary for people to be actively made aware that they are surrounded with discoveries, quite a few of which have taken decades of intellectual perseverance before they evolved into usable products. And it’s only with public support that the rather small scientific community can channelize its importance to the law and policy makers.

As a coordinated global step towards facilitating a healthy relationship between science and society, the community of supporters of science (both from scientific and other backgrounds) are organizing ‘March for Science’ at more than 500 locations worldwide on 22nd April, 2017. Backed by universities, reputed research institutes and well-known organizations that support socio-scientific causes, the marchers plan to connect people with science via media, talks and activities. The hope is that it will spark the necessary enthusiasm to engage the public scientifically, that will finally trickle down to gathering their support for science in politics, policy and law-making. The aim is that this would trigger a cascade of dissolution of barriers between scientists and the society, such that we all understand our inter-dependence and acknowledge our roles in growing a better world.

What are the chances that a single event will potentially enable a heroic task of taking off the perceived alien mask donned by science? Maybe the scale of the event globally will suffice for such a miracle to happen or at least it might mark its beginning. All of these remain to be seen and answered. But not ascertaining different ways of taming this demon and analyzing the efficacies of such movements, aren’t options anymore. The problem, too big and daunting, is staring at our faces. It is time that we all must roll up our sleeves and put on our thinking hats to show what it takes to make it possible for scientists to reach out to our fellow citizens and let them appreciate that science aims to make all our lives better.

Check the different locations where March for Science is going to be held. See if your town/ city also has one. I hope you attend the event, and let me know your thoughts about it – its success and areas of development, in the comments section.

I thank Vinita Bharat, PhD for her help with the illustration and Sayantan Chakrabarty, PhD for his help with editing the article.

About the author:

Somdatta Karak works with Club SciWri as a project co ordinator and Corporate Liaison. She is a doctorate in neuroscience from Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany and has been a Teach for India fellow (2014-16). She loves putting her analytical skills to build newer and more sustainable solutions, enjoys traveling and communicating and takes every opportunity to expand her horizon.

You can reach her here.



Why I Left Bench Science and How I Found Science Diplomacy

in Poli-Scie by

Editor’s Note: Have you ever wanted to transition out of lab but the path seemed obscure? Don’t worry! You are not the only one! Read about Debanjana‘s first steps to “extraordinariness” and tune into her blog posts to follow her journey from lab to diplomacy. –Neha Bhutani


This is not the first time some disgruntled postdoc decided to write about his/her ‘break-up’ with science. Indeed, such stories have been told and retold; articles have been published arguing in favor of leaving academia as the most sensible option. However, not all of us learn from anecdotal evidence. We believe our story could be different (and don’t get me wrong, some stories certainly are). So we stay, and persevere, till the circumstances or our inner compass directs our departure. Nevertheless, I felt that an introduction to my past would help my readers follow my journey. Perhaps, another poor postdoc somewhere would identify and feel a little less lonely in his/her struggle. Therefore, despite the risk of being redundant, here I go:

I was born and brought up in Howrah, an industrial city whose inhabitants, including some of my closest friends and family, found their life purpose and contentment in their immediate surroundings. I would never know the precise reason why I never felt at home there. I was always too curious, too eager to feel the flow of life in cultures and lands far-away. To my relief, my educational path allowed me to move to Kolkata, Delhi, and eventually, Germany for my doctoral studies.

Germany… the land of ideas (and also of ‘kartoffeln, bratwurst and sauerkraut’, extensive recycling, Autobahns, Oktoberfest and Christmas markets). I exchanged the familiar dusty sultriness and chaotic vibrancy of Howrah with the verdant serenity and disciplined monotone of the crisp Hannover air. It was a love-at-first-sight. My PhD journey was something I cherished, thanks to a kind and supportive mentor and amazing colleagues. My stay in ‘Deutschland’ gave me some of my fondest memories, deepest life-lessons, and the official permission to call myself Dr. Chatterjee. In those four years, I was able to travel to more than a dozen countries. I discovered that my love for travel, languages, cultures equaled, if not surpassed, my love for science. However, I still wanted to continue in academia and I thought I was ready for the long grinding path of ‘postdoc’-ing for several years to land an elusive tenure-track position. Up, as I always am, for a new adventure, I set out for New York to start the next phase of my research career. The work pressure and ambition that ivy leagues abound in, added to the fast-paced life of the city, was a starkly contrasting experience to that of my German tryst. It took a while but I adapted, found great friends, as well as brilliant (yet helpful) colleagues. The project too seemed to be on a good track, with the work being recognized at multiple conferences, leading to a grant. However, my relationship with supervisor was already showing signs of strain. With time, things continued to worsen. It started taking a toll on my general enthusiasm for the project. Benchwork was never my forte; what intrigued and stimulated me about Science was the realm of ideas. As all of us academics know, everyday Science barely about the thrill of discovery. It is about long hours, failed experiments, unending patience for the minutiae, and coming home to a meagre paycheck. I began to dread every session spent with a multi-color flow-cytometer, or the hours spent readjusting a figure for the umpteenth time for a manuscript that would take forever to be published. I was miserable. I knew I had to change but I had always imagined my future in academia. So the path to change was almost obscure. After some soul-searching, I fathomed that I love people interaction and started applying for clinical research coordinator (CRC) roles. Many friends discouraged me saying that I would be taking several steps back. However, I needed a break. A regular job seemed the best option while I strived to figure out my future track. I was very lucky to find a position where I could split my time between working as a CRC and some benchwork as a postdoc. It was perfect.

The first few months of the new positions were a whirlwind with a flurry of new information, demanding clinic schedules, and a significantly different work culture. Apart from the clinical knowledge I imbibed, this contact with patients and health care providers offered me important insights on the impact of policy on healthcare and science (e.g. Affordable Care Act, Genetic information Non-discrimination Act, etc). In the mean time, I continued racking my brains about my future. I vacillated between day-dreams of lucrative pharma positions offering the delicious taste of affluence and the closeted yearning for a profession more meaningful.

Four months into this new life, I witnessed the political environment in USA turn topsy-turvy. The impending policy changes directly affected the research community as well as the hundreds of patients I had began to know in person. I strove to keep abreast with all the recent developments and did my best to assuage patient concerns regarding potential loss of health insurance for pre-existing medical and genetic conditions. However, I mostly felt like an on-looker with little to do to change the course of things.

The idea of science diplomacy dawned on me in manner no less than a revelation (dramatic drum beats…). One fine evening I was in a café reading ‘A bend in the River’ by V.S. Naipaul. The novel recounts the tale of a character named Indar, friend to the protagonist. Indar is a man of Indian descent, brought up in an affluent merchant family in East Africa, who later finds himself in London pursuing his dreams educational dreams. In the novel, Indar mentions a lady who had given him his first significant career advice. In his words,

“This lady had the idea that people like myself were at sea because we were men of two worlds. She was right, of course. But at the time it didn’t seem so to me–I thought I saw everything very clearly… this lady also thought that my education and background made me extraordinary, and I couldn’t fight the idea of my extraordinariness. An extraordinary man, a man of two worlds, needed an extraordinary job. And she suggested I should become a diplomat.“

I did not feel extraordinary. However, as a person who rediscovered her love of Rabindranritya in Hula, prepared garam masala-infused Paellas, and was about to pursue an undergraduate degree in Literature before changing her mind, the idea of being a person of multiple worlds really clicked with me. However, I did not see how I could be a diplomat with my background in Science. A random, off-hand search on the internet and lo and behold, I stumbled upon several articles on science diplomacy, a career track whose existence I was not even aware of.

I read with interest that the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science had put-forward a summary of what “science diplomacy” entails. To quote Wikipedia, it refers to three main types of activities:

  • “Science in diplomacy”: Science can provide advice to inform and support foreign policy objectives.
  • “Diplomacy for science”: Diplomacy can facilitate international scientific cooperation.
  • “Science for diplomacy”: Scientific cooperation can improve international relations.

I was immediately attracted to the prospect to being able to utilize my knowledge and expertise in science to make an impact in the real world by helping shape evidence-based policies.

Since that fateful evening in mid December, I have spent hours googling for possible paths to break into the field. I have been able to gather a good amount of information, especially relevant to immigrant Indian postdocs like me. I plan to jot this information down in my next post. So, all the future science diplomat aspirants, Auf Wiedersehen!










About the author:  Debanjana is an Immunologist / Clinical Coordinator at Columbia University, NY.  She is passionate about traveling, dancing, and languages. She is here to share the musings of her meandering mind.


Featured Image Source: Pixabay

This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Science Policy: Shaping the Future

in Poli-Scie by

Editor’s Note: Our lives are blessed with the fruits of science, like that self-driven car which might soon be a regular feature on our streets. If science is so self-sufficient in discoveries then why does science policy matter? Well, what would that artificially intelligent car in your driveway be without a set of instructions to abide by traffic rules and the roads to choose for reaching the destination safely. This is the role of Science policy makers, who serve as the guardians to the use of science, because Science is good servant and a bad master. Neha Bhutani kickstarts a new series on Science Policy at #ClubSciWri. In her first blog she talks about its very definition and the ramifications to  decipher “the known knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.” After pipetting and more pipetting, didn’t know this was coming right?- Abhinav Dey



What is Science Policy?

Science policy can be defined as the organized measures that governments take to promote the development of research in the field of science and technology (S&T) and, in particular, to guide the utilization of research results for the advancement of economic growth and welfare of society. Since 1960s, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is engaged internationally to recognize the important role of S&T in national development, especially, towards creating awareness among public and political leaders of the importance of S&T in the modern world and of the need for more systematic measures by governments to direct and control their use. A 1963 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report stated: “To say that a government needs an articulated science policy is simply to note that there has devolved upon that government a major and continuing responsibility to make choices about issues that involve science.”

Science policy has 2 complementary aspects: firstly, policy for promoting science, i.e., governments’ provisions of an environment that fosters growth of S&T knowledge; and secondly, policy for using science, i.e., the exploitation of this knowledge for the development of the public and society. In this article, I will be delving mostly into the second aspect of science policy, i.e., the use of scientific knowledge for the development of society. This aspect of science policy is essential to fully realize the benefits of society’s investment in science. It can help governments to use the ultimate products of science, which is evidence, to support policies and decision-making.


Linking the scientific and public policy communities

Policy-making is a two-way approach between the government and the public; and the policymakers can work at either end. They can work for the legislators or for various societies like the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS), Society for Neuroscience (SfN), etc. Science policymakers serve as a bridge between researchers and  the public- finding ways to translate obscure, often highly technical, scientific issues into something that can be sold as a policy. These professionals have advanced degrees in science and some are just good at advocating for a topic they believe in. What all experts have in common is literacy in science, politics, and economics.

By and large, the field of policy making consists of people coming mainly from two communities the scientific and the public policy communities. Both communities harbor very different cultures and hence do not interact much with each other. The ideal network of a scientific community includes the expertise of the public, private, and academic sectors. Its culture constitutes a high degree of interaction between scientists and engineers based on their knowledge and expertise, rather than position and rank; on peer review and assessment, rather than deference to the authority of their internal organizational. Recognition among scientists and engineers is based on intellectual assessment as judged by their peers, rather than by the superiors in an organization. On the other hand, the culture in many government organizations is based on bureaucracy and hierarchy. The scientific values are consistent worldwide despite cultural differences between populations. These values make the distinctive scientific culture incompatible with the structure of the public sector, hence making the connection between the two communities difficult to maintain.

There is a strong need for the two communities to invest in the improvement of their mutual understanding. However, hurdles exist at various levels. Firstly, students aiming for a career in government or science do not learn much about the other field. The academic curriculum needs to be reviewed to bridge this gap and provide students with opportunities that can aid in the expansion of their knowledge regarding the “other world.” Secondly, academia, which pushes towards specialization, does not give incentives for public engagement and communication. On the other hand, sound policy-making requires broader perspectives. This raises an important question that how can one create values for S&T personnel to interact with the government, and how can bureaucracies be restructured to allow for a freer flow of outside experts in the government machinery. New Zealand has a very good federal funding support for science communication. United States has recently started giving some recognition to public sector work. While in Canada, grant/ fellowship funding agencies do not acknowledge the advocacy and outreach activities, rather they focus only on the publications in peer-reviewed journals. There is an increased need for the role of government departments to provide dual science/policy career paths for their employee scientists. In this regard, there are organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC), etc., that are offering fellowships to faculty and post-doctoral researchers. Having said this, although new unique opportunities are opening up for people to make a transition to the field of science policy, one needs to have a healthy dose of scientific expertise and a strong interest in advocacy and outreach.


Understanding the role of S&T in policy-making

For a very long time, S&T have helped improve the quality of life by providing better medical care, healthier environments, increased efficiency in industries, secure financial trading, improved food safety, strengthened border security, and providing a stimulating environment. In short, S&T are essential to the economic, societal, and environmental growth of a country.

An expert scientific advice is fundamental to the process of policy-making. It can provide evidence for decisions; confirm the reliability of policy in areas where the evidence is conclusive; define the contours of uncertainty and trade-offs where the likely outcomes cannot be known for sure. Given the challenges faced by the governments, ranging from climate change to poverty issues, it is of utmost importance to have inputs from researchers across disciplines. Evidence-based policies are robust in long term as compared to those designed in the absence of scientific evidence. One can distinguish many functions of scientific evidence in policy-making, such as, regulation and oversight, knowledge creation, knowledge translation, aggregation and interpretation. Such an advice can be trusted because the science behind it is continually subject to criticism and peer review. This promotes the evolution of science and does not let it change from one government to the next. Strengthening the process by which scientific advice contributes to government policy-making is rapidly becoming a characteristic of the richest democracies in the western world.

However, one must keep in mind the complexities associated with it. As mentioned above, scientific evidence plays a very different role in situations in which the research is conclusive as compared to situations in which there is conflicting evidence. In the first case, evidence can be used to confirm a course of action. However, in the second case, there is a strong need for inputs from researchers as politicians might want to cherry-pick those evidences which support their approach towards policy. It is important for the scientists to proactively advice if they want a voice in policy-making. It is not sufficient to just provide answers to questions that are put in front of them by the decision-makers. They must responsibly anticipate future needs and volunteer their advice on issues that are likely to surface in the future. A “pull” created by the policy demands and a “push” created by the scientific enquiry are necessary to build the relationship between science and government. One should also keep in mind the importance of interdisciplinary cooperation and dialogue, as the scientific expertise leading to the policy process involves many disciplines. Thus, a great deal of knowledge transfer from the scientific and technological communities to the government policy-making process is crucial for policy-making.

While governments are generally supportive of the scientists and their research, they often assess the value of research in terms of their commercial and economic value. This tension becomes daunting when investments in science do not pay off the right away or when money is put into basic research. Presence of conflicting scientific evidence and the inability of the media to distinguish areas in which the scientific evidence is genuinely contestable from those in which one view has clearly and overwhelmingly debunked adds another level of complexity. The tendency of journalists to provide balanced coverage by giving both sides equal time, regardless of the weight of the scientific evidence supporting one side has reinforced a false sense of relativity in policy debates (if ever they happen) about science. It is important for the experts to act as credible referees for those debates. Thus, there is a strong need for the scientists to communicate their work to the public. As Donald Rumsfeld, the former US defense secretary once said, the scientists need to provide “the known knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.” This will help build an environment for public debate and in turn help in the process of policy-making.




Acknowledgements: Sayantan Chakraborty (Editing); Ipsa Jain (Featured Image)



This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




Transitioning into Science Policy: In conversation with Zane Martin, Ph.D.

in Face à Face/Poli-Scie by

The process of bringing bench side discoveries to bedside not only involves the efforts of scientists and doctors, but also people who serve as a bridge among the researchers, policymakers, and the public at large. These individuals work in areas involving the policies that apply science for the benefit of society in a profession that is colloquially termed ‘Science Policy’. The science policy umbrella is diverse, ranging from scientists working in federal agencies, serving as Congressional staff, or providing science policy guidance for non-profits, academia, or industry. Duties include but aren’t limited to grant management, regulatory oversight, and science communication with policymakers and the public with the goal of progressing science. Every country that pursues scientific research with the aim of bringing the discoveries to the society has people involved in this profession. Although different governments work different, interacting with a science policy professional can always provide an idea of an alternative career for Ph.D. graduates.

Becoming a policy maker or an implementer by itself involves a lot of training (apart from bench work) and persistence. Although the internet provides a lot of resources, the best information can be obtained during a personal interaction with a professional working in this area. Serendipity created an opportunity for me to interview Dr. Zane Martin who gladly obliged to talk about her role in Science Policy and how her efforts during her graduate studies landed her some prestigious science policy fellowships.

SC: Could you tell us about your educational background?

ZM: I attended graduate school at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where I investigated drug discovery techniques for neurodegenerative diseases. While completing my Masters’ thesis in Pharmacology, I synthesized and screened a library of compounds to evaluate their prophylactic/therapeutic efficacy against amyloid-beta aggregation, one of the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Thereafter, I completed my Ph.D. dissertation in Neuroscience, investigating another therapeutic strategy based on inhibiting a cellular signalling event involved in synaptic plasticity implicated in Parkinson’s disease. Following my Ph.D., I completed a postdoctoral position at the NYS Institute for Basic Research, where I investigated potential therapeutics against tau hyperphosphorylation, another hallmark of Alzheimer’s. During my postdoc, I was awarded the Jeanne B. Kempner Postdoctoral Scholar fellowship to fund my work. Collectively from these studies, I authored several peer-reviewed publications and won travel awards to several conferences to present my work.

SC: What is your current position and what does a normal day at work look like?

ZM: I am currently completing an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Fellowship at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Along with the training opportunities that I avail as a recipient of this fellowship, I work at the National Institute on Aging in the Division of Neuroscience. I am involved with the implementation of the National Alzheimer’s Project Act. I help regulate funding through both grant management and by developing resources to help progress science. Examples of resources at the NIH typically involve databases like PubMed,, and GenBank. The database I am working on is based on Alzheimer’s preclinical studies with the aim of improving science rigor to increase success in clinical trials.

SC: What motivated you to transition from laboratory science into science policy?

ZM: As an AD researcher, I was aware of the potential healthcare havoc we will experience if no treatment strategy for AD is discovered as demographic shifts increase the percentage of the population over age 65. Because of this, I developed a deep respect for the policies that help with the progression of biomedicine for the betterment of our society. The NIH is a global pillar for the worldwide coordination of scientific and healthcare related collaborations to address all global health needs. By including legislation, synergies become established to help pinpoint critical global health challenges, such as finding better treatments for diseases like AD.

SC: What were your approaches to pursue science policy? Did you exploit other resources during your Ph.D. or postdoc tenure to gain skills pertaining to your goals?

ZM: I first got involved during graduate school by participating in advocacy networks in different scientific societies. I attended advocacy meetings and volunteered to help with advocacy events. To increase experience in leadership positions, I was the president of my local Association for Women in Science (AWIS) chapter during my last two years in graduate school, where I organized several local functions and chapter meetings.

During my postdoc, I created a local science advocacy group with the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). My group met with our Senator’s staff to campaign for increased biomedical funding. I also volunteered as an Alzheimer’s Congressional Team Member for the Alzheimer’s Association, where I wrote OpEds for our local paper and met with policymakers to discuss the importance of biomedical funding for Alzheimer’s research.

From volunteering at societies, I found an opportunity to become a science policy intern at the American Brain Coalition (ABC). For this internship, I participated in meetings with the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus to analyse the impact and effectiveness of the BRAIN Initiative. I wrote reports from these meetings for the ABC members, and I provided other material for the ABC website, such as creating a Capitol Hill Toolkit.

I also started a blog to practice writing for different audiences. I wrote about current policy events, such as appropriations proceedings involving biomedical funding, and legislations dealing with climate change and energy, evolution and schools, and vaccination enforcement. This blog led to a consultation gig with AAAS, where I submitted blogs about science policy topics for their MemberCenter website.

I recently completed a Mirzayan Science Policy Fellowship at the National Academy of Sciences working in the Board on Life Sciences, Division on Earth and Life Studies. I helped manage projects by organizing expert speakers, panelists and reviewers, selecting the literature to guide the attendees, participating in workshops and webinars, and co-authoring the workshop summaries.

SC: Could you share your thoughts on how can a person who has no experience in science policy transition into such a role?

ZM: First and foremost, complete a Ph.D. program. Ph.D. graduates have a greater advantage because they understand science, and they know how to think critically. Another important suggestion is to network. Volunteer for science societies and nonprofits, and ask for informational interviews from people that interest you. Don’t be shy! You’ll be amazed at how receptive people really are when you reach out. And most importantly: WRITE. Write for multiple audiences. Along with scientific manuscripts, write Letters to the Editor or OpEds for your local paper, blog, submit articles to societies and nonprofits. Finally, don’t get discouraged with rejection. The great thing about science policy is that every person takes a different path to get there. So, if one path doesn’t work, try another.

SC: What are the long-term satisfactions associated with a career in this field?

ZM: I feel more purposeful in this career trajectory. Being a bench scientist is also admirable, but working in science policy is more “big picture” with work potential having a greater impact. Overall, working for the government is highly rewarding because I am serving the society.

About Zane:

I am an AAAS S&T Policy Fellow at the National Institute on Aging – National Institutes of Health, where I help with the implementation of the National Alzheimer’s Plan. I have a Ph.D. in Neuroscience and M.S. in Pharmacology from the University of Texas Medical Branch, and received postdoctoral training at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities. My research career focused on drug discovery strategies to combat Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. Follow her on Twitter @ZaneMartinPhD.

About Sayantan:

I’m an IRTA postdoctoral visiting fellow at the National Institute on Aging – National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, USA. Apart from science, I invest my time in networking, writing, organizing events, and consolidating efforts to build a platform that brings together scientists and industry professionals to help spread the perception of alternate careers for life science graduates. Follow me on Twitter @ch_sayantan


Creative Commons License
This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

MedNess- At the frontier of Medicine, Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Business

in Poli-Scie/SciBiz/Uncategorized by

Hello and welcome to the biweekly roundup of Healthcare business top stories. Please follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn


BMS’s injectable Opdivo approved by FDA for bladder cancer

FDA approved intravenous use of Opdivo (nivolumab), a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who have not benefitted from platinum-containing chemotherapy or in cases where the disease progressed within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum containing chemotherapy. Last year, FDA approved Roche’s Tecentriq, a checkpoint inhibitor, for the treatement of bladder cancer.

From the business standpoint, this was much awaited good news for BMS as the Opdivo did not make the cut as first line monotherapy study in non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2016. However, Merck’s Keytruda gained FDA approval soon after Opdivo failed in NSCLC study (Fierce Pharma).


The battle of patents: bad news for Teva Pharmaceuticals

Genric drug maker giant: Teva Pharmaceuticals lost the patent challenge in U.S. District Court, safeguarding their star drug Copaxone against generic competition. Copaxone, approved in 1996, became the most prescribed drug for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. The patents protecting Copaxone against generic competition expired two years ago for 20mg dose. Novartis and Momenta launched their 20 mg alternative (Glatopa) in 2015. To recuperate, Teva launched a 40 mg formulation of Copaxone. However, this week, U.S. District Court invalidated Teva’s last and fourth key patent protecting 40 mg Copaxone from generic drug competition. Teva lost other 3 patents last year (

Trump pledges to bring drug costs down

Pharmaceutical industries were told by Trump that the drugs should be manufactured in the USA and the foreign countries buying US manufactured drugs should pay “fair share”. These changes in addition to “better innovation” will help bringing prices down for the US patients (CNBC).

MedNess from MedPol: Amgen CEO Robert Bradway announced that soon nearly 1600 jobs will be added. Bank of America Merrill Lynch predicted that Trump’s policies could help Amgen recover their stocks by 23% in the next 12 months (CNBC)


US President’s executive order on immigration: the aftermaths

This is not a political blog, but the executive order has a very significant impact on the scientific, medical and healthcare community. In the following paragraphs, I will brief you with the sectors that have been affected.

  • NRMP issues the statement for the upcoming Match

Nearly 260 people from seven nations affected by travel ban, applied through National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) for medical residency in the USA (Association of American Medical Colleges, AAMC). Both the applicants and the hospital programs are concerned and affected by the travel ban. However, NRMP has urged the programs and the applicants to be discrete in their decisions that are in the interest of healthcare. The official statement issued by NRMP on their website states, “The medical education community must support all international medical graduates and their families during these difficult times. As for the current Match cycle, NRMP encourages applicants and programs to make the best decisions they can under current circumstances. For its part, NRMP will be liberal in granting waivers to applicants and programs if they cannot meet their respective Match obligations because of the effects of the Executive Order” (

  • Dark times for the US hospitals and patients from seven nations affected by travel ban

Ill patients scheduled for treatment at the USA’s premier healthcare centers, John Hopkins Medicine and Cleveland Clinic are uncertain of their treatment options. Hopkins is taking a step ahead by either urging the patients to postpone their travel or sending their staff abroad for their treatment (STAT News)

We wrap up our biweekly MedNess and MedPol news section. Have a great weekend!

Image source:

Go to Top
%d bloggers like this: