Embracing my silly side makes me a better scientist. I wish I’d done it sooner

From ScienceMag:

“Come in,” I said to the scientists at my doorstep, ushering them toward the kitchen. Our color­ful tunics—not our typical work wear—rustled as we mixed that month’s cocktail, a wintery take on an Aperol spritz. We bantered and laughed; one attendee asked which walkout song we would choose if we were professional mixed martial arts fighters. It was what I needed, and not just for relief after a long week in the lab. I’ve learned that levity helps me be a better scientist, mentor, and colleague. It is also what keeps me going during hard times—a lesson that was reinforced the very next month.

For much of my career, my fellow scientists only saw what I call my “resting science face,” which conveys the part of me that’s driven to spend hours obsessing over a conference talk or stay up all night putting the final touches on a grant. They didn’t see the side of me that loves alien kidnapping skits on Saturday Night Live. As a woman and mother, I felt I needed to prove I was serious about the job, lest others view me as too distracted by my personal life to excel.

My serious face worked. I landed a job at a great univer­sity, recruited brilliant graduate students, and won tenure. But I felt I had to split myself in two—the serious scientist in public, the goofball in private. Only later did I realize how much stronger my science, and my relationships, could have been if I’d let both sides show sooner.

The first crack in my public persona came in 2024 when, on a whim, I participated in a local live storytelling show. I took a risk and described an embarrassing moment from a solo trip to Thailand. To my surprise, when people laughed it didn’t feel bad or shameful. It felt like a hug.

The experience made me think I could start to experiment with being silly at work, too. So, when Halloween came around, I delivered a lecture dressed in a fuzzy pink axolotl costume. I began kicking off lab meetings by asking my gradu­ate students what brings them joy or makes them laugh. And I started the monthly get together with colleagues. The idea was to get out of our usual professional mode by enjoying fancy cocktails and lighthearted conversation. Donning out­landish garments helped set the mood.

To my surprise, I found that injecting fun and humor into my work life didn’t make me less effective or credible. Students seemed to find me more approachable. Humor also helped me open up with colleagues, which in turn led others to be more authentic and vulnerable with me, a key part of building trust. After one of my closest international collaborators and I discov­ered a shared love of humor, we began affectionately poking fun at each other. That brought us closer and made it easier for us to handle challenging issues.

But perhaps most importantly, humor has helped me be re­silient. Not long after the gathering at my house last winter, my grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was abruptly terminated as part of the federal government’s sci­ence cuts. After the shock and immediate grief wore off, I turned to my goofy side, writing several pieces of satire, mak­ing joke T-shirts, and letting colleagues distract me with dis­cussions about the set design choices in Sir Mix-a-Lot’s 1992 Baby Got Back music video.

That’s not to say I was living in denial. I knew I needed to find new ways to pursue my goals in an increasingly complex funding environment. But that pressure could easily feel overwhelming. Making jokes and sharing laughter helped me stay present. It also served as a reminder of how much joy I get from interacting with the people I work with, what­ever the circumstances.

In the end, I have come to realize that being authentic at work is not a weakness, but rather a strength. For other scien­tists, that may mean talking more about their hobbies or families, or showing off their other talents—whatever brings them joy and helps them connect with others. For me, that’s humor.

So that’s why, even as I reimagine my research plans, I’ll be putting on a colorful outfit, calling up some friends, and crack­ing jokes. Now, more than ever, it’s time to laugh.

Do you have an interesting career story? Send it to SciCareerEditor@aaas.org. Read the general guidelines here.

Read More

Thank your science teachers while you still can

From ScienceMag:

Experimental Error logo
Experimental Error is a column about the quirky, comical, and sometimes bizarre world of scientific training and careers, written by scientist and comedian Adam Ruben. Barmaleeva/Shutterstock, adapted by C. Aycock/Science

One day this summer I was washing dishes when I discovered my son had placed in the sink a dirty bowl that still contained a popsicle stick and a napkin. He should have known what was coming. I held up the stick and the napkin.

“What don’t we put down the sink?” I asked, hoping he’d remember prior admonitions. He didn’t, so I continued: “We don’t put insoluble solids down the sink. Say it with me: Insoluble. Solids.” Again, a blank expression. “Insoluble means that they don’t dissolve. Wood and paper don’t dissolve. Solids are not liquids or gases. Wood and paper are solids. So, what don’t we put down the sink? Insoluble solids.”

At this point, he probably asked whether he could go watch Paw Patrol, because he’s 5.

Maybe it’s foolish of me to use slightly scientific jargon to teach kitchen etiquette to someone who still thinks dogs can fly helicopters. But I will always, always think of what should stay out of the drain as insoluble solids. And that’s because of my ninth grade science teacher, Ms. Newsom—who, I learned a few weeks ago, recently passed away at age 79.

I can say without reservation that she was one of the most influential teachers I’ve ever had. My first introduction to her came when I was her student in a course called Introductory Physical Science, or IPS, which was basically chemistry, physics, and biology rolled into a neat little ninth grade package. After IPS ended I continued to learn from her, as she also coached our school’s Science Olympiad team and was the faculty adviser to the Newspaper Club. For Ms. Newsom, “ninth grade science teacher” was more than a title. This is a little hard to explain, but she was the sort of person who, if you had asked me to briefly describe her as a human being, I would have said she was a ninth grade science teacher. She just exuded that aura: a friendly, open, didactic, pragmatic woman who sometimes wore a broad-brimmed gardening hat, and no matter how hectic a room of 30 freshmen became she was always firmly in control. She was named teacher of the year, at one point became president of the national Science Olympiad, and helped our school—a middle-of-the-road public high school in suburban Delaware—flourish.

And yet.

It’s been 28 years since I graduated, and in that time, I never once emailed her to tell her what a great teacher she had been. I never looked her up on social media or tried to find her contact information. I went off to college, graduated with a degree in molecular biology, started grad school, earned a Ph.D. in molecular biology, started writing this column, worked at a biotech company, worked for the federal government. I got married, had three kids, bought a house, bought a pinball machine, adopted cats. Life moved forward. I took her lessons into everything I do. And especially in this age of abundant information, looking her up and sending a message of thanks would have taken me five damn minutes.

She taught us “Do as you oughta; add acid to wata.” In case it’s unclear in print, that last word is a deliberate mispronunciation of “water,” and you have to trust me that it sounds better out loud. At least, until you pronounce the word with my school’s native Delaware accent, and it comes out as “wooder,” which has to complete the rhyme by making “oughta” sound more like “ooder,” and by this point you’ve completely forgotten what you were doing with acid.

She assigned us “the sludge,” for goodness sake. That was a legendary ninth grade lab. Older students spoke about it with reverence. We each received a bottle of greenish blackish goo and we had a few weeks, using all the lab techniques we’d learned—filtration, distillation, titration, you name it—to identify all of the ingredients in the bottle. That lab taught us, maybe for the first time, that science doesn’t just mean mixing X and Y to make what you know will be Z; it means learning enough practical methods to solve a mystery without a road map. My friend Steve and I spent an entire weekend writing up our lab report in a unique style (including an audio cassette in which we described our lab techniques in Beavis and Butt-Head voices—hey, it was the early ’90s). We went completely overboard not because we needed to, but I think because we had felt Ms. Newsom’s exuberance for the sludge, and we wanted to respond in kind.

The sludge wasn’t even the coolest lab we did that year. That honor goes to the Rube: an assignment to build a Rube Goldberg machine and run it in front of the class. Hands down, whole career, the Rube was my favorite science project I’ve ever done. For three glorious weeks, I met with my team and built this excruciatingly complicated gizmo, a monument to plywood and hot glue, with no fewer than 61 individual steps. Even though our machine caught fire during the classroom demo (I continue to blame my teammate Steve for being overly generous with the lighter fluid while cackling “huh huh” in a Beavis voice—and I blame all of us, I suppose, both for introducing a machine component that needed lighter fluid and for trusting it to Steve), the Rube was a defining experience in my development as a scientist. I still think of it as the most excited I’ve ever felt about a science project, and when choosing a career, a little part of me knew I had to become a scientist on the slim chance that such a path could recreate that excitement.

I could have told her this when she was alive. I could have looked her up, called, emailed. I could have let her know how her lessons have never left me. I could have thanked her for her wisdom, her imagination, her kindness. I could have told her that, as a science communicator, I understand how challenging it can be to convince children that science is the most fun part of their day. I could have told her that she transformed an obligatory class like IPS into a creative experience I’ll never forget.

I could have told her all of these things any time in the past 28 years. I could have told her all of these things last month.

And yet.

I’ve taught classes myself, and almost none of my students have looked me up as adults to follow up in any way. I get it now. We don’t think of teachers as needing any kind of follow-up. We think we can move on after we’ve finished receiving their services. We don’t think our own success or gratitude will matter to them, or, to be completely honest, we just don’t think about them much at all.

Ms. Newsom, you taught us that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. I suppose a high school graduate mired in the inertia of daily life tends to stay in the inertia of daily life.

You taught us how to calculate an atom’s charge, why mass differs from weight, how to balance a ceramic crucible above a Bunsen burner. You taught us lessons we’ve forgotten and lessons we’ll never forget. You taught us to love science almost as much as you did.

And yet.

I can’t tell you how influential you were, because I missed my chance. But it’s a mistake I won’t make twice.

While writing this article, I tracked down Harry Kreider, my 12th grade Advanced Placement Biology teacher. (It was easier than I thought—maybe because Delaware only has, like, five people.) If Ms. Newsom introduced me to high school science, Mr. Kreider was the other bookend. He had secured some kind of grant to let us try gel electrophoresis, a DNA-viewing technique that felt like rocket science at the time. I remember making him laugh when I asked whether crossing two wild-type genes would yield Gene Wilder. He and Ms. Newsom were among the few teachers I invited to my high school graduation party.

Mr. Kreider, it turns out, is still alive and has email. I’m going to send him a message right now.

If you had a special teacher whose energy and enthusiasm set you on your way to a career in science, I highly recommend you do the same.

Read More

As an international scholar, my academic dreams belong to my family, too

From ScienceMag:

I’ll never forget the tremor in my sister’s voice when she called me that Sunday evening last year. “Daddy collapsed,” she said. “He’s in the hospital.” My father, my biggest cheerleader, was in critical condition back home in Nigeria. The doctors suspected a stroke. In that moment, my world tilted. I paced my tiny apartment in Florida, wishing I could teleport home. I was a graduate student with barely enough money to cover rent, let alone a plane ticket to Lagos. My family needed me, and I felt powerless to help. For weeks, every WhatsApp notification sent my heart racing. Some nights I stared at my notes until the words blurred. My grades slipped. If I stayed on this path, the dream I had come here to pursue would be in jeopardy.

That dream wasn’t mine alone. My family had sacrificed a lot to help me pursue my goal of studying abroad at a world-class university. I earned a bachelor’s degree in Nigeria, published research, saved every naira I could, and sent out several graduate applications. When I received an offer from the University of South Florida I was elated. But reality soon kicked in—although the offer came with a tuition waiver, I would still have to cover visa fees, flights, and living expenses. I took on freelance gigs and sold off electronics, furniture, and clothes, but I still fell short. Just as I was about to turn down the offer, my big sister learned of my dilemma and my family rallied to support me. They pooled resources, giving up things I knew they couldn’t easily spare.

When I landed in Miami, I carried the weight of their hopes with me, and that responsibility became my compass. Knowing how air pollution had scarred the community where I grew up, I chose a project on carbon sequestration. Whenever I was tempted to settle for “good enough,” I heard my father’s voice urging me on.

Then, a year into my program, came the news that he was ill. After agonizing for several weeks, I finally came to accept that flying home wasn’t realistic. Money aside, traveling on a student visa was too risky—if something went wrong with the paperwork, I might not be able to return. Instead, I emptied my bank account and sent the money home to cover hospital bills, maxing out credit cards to cover my rent and other bills. The guilt continued to gnaw at me, but I kept it to myself.

A couple weeks after my sister’s call, one of my professors noticed something was amiss and called me into their office. For the first time, I told someone in my professional world what was happening. They listened without judgment, offered encouragement, and connected me with the university counseling center. Those counseling sessions steadied me. My friends did, too, showing up with groceries when I couldn’t afford them and dragging me to the library so I wouldn’t be isolated. They reminded me that I wasn’t carrying this weight alone.

Their support helped me keep showing up, one day at a time. So did my mother’s words. On every call, she said in Igbo, “Stay in school for your father, inugo? That’s what he would want.”

Eventually, my father’s health stabilized. I’ll never forget the relief of seeing him smile on a video call, or the pride in his voice when he called me “the American scholar” again. When I told him months later about the choice I’d faced, he chuckled softly and said, “Why would you drop out of school? Did I not teach you better?” His comment lifted a weight I didn’t realize I still carried.

Looking back, that season taught me lessons I’ll hold forever. I learned to ask for help without shame and lean on my support system of friends and classmates. Most importantly, I learned to keep sight of why I came here in the first place. Now, when I feel overwhelmed, I pause and remind myself that I’m not just chasing a degree—I’m trying to solve scientific problems that matter beyond myself, and I’m honoring my family. That perspective keeps me grounded and pushes me to give my best even on the hardest days.

Like so many Africans chasing big dreams across the Atlantic Ocean, I walk on the wings of sacrifice and love. When I earned my master’s degree in August, it felt less like a personal victory and more like giving my family the win they deserved. Their belief in me will carry me through the next phase of my journey.

Do you have an interesting career story? Send it to SciCareerEditor@aaas.org. Read the general guidelines here.

Read More

How I recovered from a collaboration gone wrong

From ScienceMag:

The rejection email from an elite journal was still fresh when my two co-authors and I jumped on a Zoom call to commiserate. When I suggested another outlet we could try next, I was shocked by their immediate and vehement opposition. That’s when everything unraveled. They already had a paper under review there. I’d known about their other project using the same data set. But their paper had morphed substantially since I’d last seen it. Now, it looked disturbingly similar to ours. I was livid. This was my idea from the start. I had invested nearly 3 years working on it. Learning they had poached it felt like a huge betrayal—and transformed my approach to collaboration.

My academic career started auspiciously with two fast, singleauthored publications. But when I pivoted from economics to business and management, I got nothing but rejections for a couple long years. I was an outsider in the field of management studies, and I thought collaboration would help me out of this quagmire. Increasingly I worked with co-authors, seeking mentorship from senior ones and complementarities and energy from the junior ones. The result was multiple publications, conference invitations, and a growing network of collaborators. I thought I had mastered the game and that “we” was the answer—until that Zoom call.

I reached out to several senior journal editors for guidance and solutions. Dishearteningly, all advised me to drop it; authorship disputes, they said, are messy affairs where nobody wins. I felt utterly powerless. My health deteriorated, especially my mental state. I couldn’t sleep, couldn’t work, couldn’t even enjoy time with my family.

Nevertheless, I followed my heart and decided to fight back. I wrote to the journal where my former co-authors’ paper was under review. The journal ultimately rejected their paper—but based on reviewer recommendations, not ethical grounds. I contacted ethics officers at my institution and one of theirs. Though initially sympathetic, their message was consistent: Drop it, it’s messy, no one wins. Professional organizations to which we all belonged shrugged off my inquiries on the grounds of sporadic membership. I reached out to mutual co-authors from other projects, but they wouldn’t get involved either.

I finally decided to move on and focus on other research. For nearly 2 years I worked alone—until I finally considered reviving the original project, which had never been published. Again, I would have to collaborate with others to put together the underlying data set. This thought filled me with anxiety. But I also knew isolation was not sustainable, and my productivity would suffer.

After much thought, I found someone who seemed like a good fit for the project. Before our first substantive conversation, I proposed something I’d never asked before: a formal collaboration agreement. We outlined roles, established authorship criteria based on concrete contributions, and agreed to document key decisions via email rather than casual chats. A couple of years later, we published the research together using a much larger data set and more sophisticated statistical analyses than before.

Beyond vindication, the lessons I learned have reshaped my approach to collaboration. First, safeguard self-sufficiency. Knowing I can execute and publish high-quality solo research has been my rock throughout these tribulations. Second, vet collaborators carefully. I now approach research partnerships like hiring decisions, checking collaborators’ work, asking around, and taking time to decide on new endeavors. Third, always protect yourself. Before sharing ideas, I establish clear collaboration agreements. I settle matters in writing, documenting key conversations and milestones, as these records prove invaluable if things go sideways.

After 16 years in academia, I’ve become more selective about collaboration. It remains a joy and a blessing, but I’ve also learned how quickly “we” can turn wicked. The key is choosing your partnerships wisely and keeping “I” as a strong safety net.

Do you have an interesting career story? Send it to SciCareerEditor@aaas.org. Read the general guidelines here.

Read More

Transitioning to ‘emeritus professor’ wasn’t always easy. Here’s how I adjusted

From ScienceMag:

After more than 40 years in academia, I felt optimistic about the path ahead when I retired in 2012. I intended to continue working, focusing on research and writing now that I no longer had administrative and teaching responsibilities. But as I downsized my office and changed my email signature to Emeritus Professor, I was unprepared for the reality of retirement. I found it difficult to adjust to no longer holding decision-making roles. Colleagues were less likely to seek my opinions than before, which ate at my sense of self-worth and left me feeling that my ideas were no longer valued. Regaining my equilibrium and appreciating the positive aspects of retirement took months.

I had leadership roles throughout my career. After spending 27 years at a U.S. university, I pivoted to working as the deputy director of a natural history museum for 2 years followed by 15 years as a faculty member at a European university. In these positions, I had a range of decision-making responsibilities—departmental chair, botanical garden director, journal editor, secretary-general for an international scientific organization.

As I reached 68, I was ready to let those roles go. After so many cycles of dealing with administrative hurdles and other challenges, I had lost some of my drive. It seemed appropriate for more junior faculty to step into those shoes. But I hadn’t fully processed what that might mean for me.

I was excited to have workdays free of the meetings and classes that broke up my days as a professor. I expected to have more time to finish manuscripts, start collaborative projects, and dive into book writing. That turned out to be true. But it was hard to ignore that meetings were being scheduled to which I was not invited. I was no longer an essential cog in the system.

As time wore on, I also had a nagging sense of being left behind scientifically, standing beside the track after the train had left the station. I continued to attend national and international conferences, but fewer than before. I didn’t always hear about new developments, and I drifted away from old friends from other universities.

On my own campus, where I had a small office, the lack of daily chats in the laboratory with students and colleagues and discussions in the classroom left me feeling isolated. Retirement is a haven for the solitary worker, and working alone has never been a problem for me. But I did find that when bad news struck—such as learning that a paper had been rejected—I had no class later that day where a successful lecture could recharge my self-confidence.

Slowly, though, I began to ease into my new rhythm. Structure helped. I gave myself deadlines for completing manuscripts, and I set a schedule to get to the office by 10 a.m. each morning, which stimulated me to get out of bed and keep going. I also learned to see my isolation as a privilege rather than a penalty. In addition to being able to complete shorter manuscripts, I could focus on larger projects, such as review papers and books, which have proved very satisfying. Although retirement means I have lost influence with university decision-making, having the time to step back and take a broad, synthetic view of my field more than makes up for it.

For me, success in retirement has involved mapping out a realistic plan that is both enjoyable and academically fulfilling. When I do attend a conference, I go with reduced expectations—not to capture all the newest advances, but to learn about broad new trends and catch up with as many old friends as possible. The good news is that I am no longer being constantly evaluated by others—I am only being evaluated by myself. I have learned to keep pushing forward, at a more relaxed pace, and working with, rather than fighting against, these new challenges.

Do you have an interesting career story? Send it to SciCareerEditor@aaas.org. Read the general guidelines here.

Read More

University of California faculty push back against Big Brother cybersecurity mandate

From ScienceMag:

Faculty and administrators at the University of California (UC) have settled into a bitter stalemate in a dispute over privacy and academic freedom. For more than a year, faculty members have voiced loud opposition to a cybersecurity mandate they say hands administrators and federal agencies access to their research and communications. Last month, they learned the UC president’s office would not issue any further statements on the issue, a decision faculty say underscores their frustration over limited dialogue about the mandate, which began going into effect in May.

The long-running dispute centers on Trellix, a cybersecurity software UC now requires on all university-owned computers used by faculty and even personal computers accessing certain online university resources. UC officials say it is essential for defending against a surge in digital threats. But faculty warn that Trellix is highly intrusive and effectively gives administrators the ability to view, or even remotely manipulate, nearly all activity on their devices. Trellix’s participation in the federal Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative, which aims for “rapid information sharing” between private companies and federal agencies, is stoking the concerns. Faculty fear the software could expose sensitive research, regulated health data, and high-value innovations to a presidential administration already hostile to higher education.

“Putting this kind of software on our machines completely obliterates our ability to speak and think freely in our academic communities,” says Lilly Irani, a communication scholar of technology at UC San Diego (UCSD). “It feels very much like Big Brother is sitting on the shoulder of every worker at the University of California,” adds Mia McIver, executive director of the American Association of University Professors, which sent a letter to UC officials today expressing “deep concern” about the policy.

Trellix is part of a class of cybersecurity tools that shield against ransomware and other attacks by constantly scanning a computer for any sign of intrusion. According to information posted online by the UC Office of the President (UCOP), Trellix can collect file names and browser history as needed and can remotely remove malicious files. 

In February 2024, then–UC President Michael Drake announced all employee computers connected to university networks would be required to install Trellix by May 2025. Campuses failing to comply would face penalties of up to $500,000 per security incident and a 15% increase in cybersecurity insurance costs. Unionized employees, including postdocs and graduate students, were exempt because adding such terms to their contracts would have required separate negotiations.

A spokesperson for UC, which in 2020 paid $1.14 million to a ransomware gang that penetrated computers at UC San Francisco, told Science the university established the mandate in response to “numerous requirements under federal and state law” and “to remain eligible for cybersecurity insurance at a reasonable cost.” University officials add that UC is not alone, claiming the software is in place at more than 600 colleges and universities—though the spokesperson and Trellix both declined to provide a source for those numbers.

UC faculty note that Trellix, formerly known as FireEye, was itself hacked by Russian intelligence in the 2020 SolarWinds cyberattack that compromised more than 250 federal agencies. Because it has full administrative control over every computer it monitors through a mechanism called “root access,” Trellix could become a single point of failure if breached, faculty argue. Adopting Trellix could make UC systems “more rather than less vulnerable to threats,” the UC Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate wrote in a May letter to the UC president.

Trellix’s root access privileges could also allow administrators or the government to view anything on faculty computers at any time, without a warrant, says Kevork Abazajian, a cosmologist at UC Irvine (UCI). In an email to Science, a Trellix spokesperson wrote that the company “will not disclose any UC or other customer data unless required to do so under law or a valid government order. In such an event, we would first give the customer notice of the demand and an opportunity to object, unless legally prohibited from doing so.”

UC says it would not allow such intrusions in the first place. “The university’s long-standing Electronic Communication Policy … strictly prohibits administrators from accessing user content without due process, such as a warrant,” says Van Williams, UC’s vice president for information technology services.

But many faculty members aren’t convinced by those assurances. “Once someone has access for a legitimate purpose, there is also access for illegitimate purposes,” Abazajian says. Given federal efforts to cut university funding, Irani also fears it might be hard for UC administrators to stand up to government officials seeking information on faculty computers. “It seems like a recipe for UCOP to end up in a situation where it’s going to get blackmailed by grant cancellations to give up information about what we’re teaching and researching.”

The objections have sparked a flurry of letters, petitions, and resolutions. Most recently, in June, UC’s Academic Senate—which shares decision-making power with the administration on matters affecting teaching, research, and academic policy—passed a resolution with an 82% supermajority demanding an immediate halt to Trellix. That same month, more than 1000 faculty signed a petition opposing the rollout, followed by another 1 August letter calling for its suspension. But on 15 September, Academic Senate Chair Ahmet Palazoglu relayed that UCOP would not respond to the August letter or issue future UC-wide messages regarding Trellix.

Despite the protests, all 10 UC campuses have rolled out the software, with varying policies. UCSD has said Trellix is required on both university-owned and personal laptops that access “trusted resources,” such as restricted research databases. UCI requires Trellix even for access to routine resources such as Canvas, the learning platform professors use to communicate with students, and employee timesheets. In response, some UCI faculty say they have resorted to teaching from “burner laptops” or virtual machines to avoid putting Trellix on computers where they store their data.

Organizers of the push to end the mandate say their fight isn’t over. “We certainly intend to keep the pressure up,” says Claudio Fogu, director of UC Santa Barbara’s Italian program.  A UC spokesperson told Science that administrators continue to be committed to an open dialogue with faculty. “This is a complex matter that requires nuanced, continuous conversation,” they wrote by email.

The stalemate has shaken faculty confidence in the Academic Senate’s power and has pushed some toward unionization. The UC system is home to a union that represents nearly 50,000 graduate students, postdocs, and academic researchers—but no tenured and tenure-track professors. “For many years, I thought we didn’t need a union,” says Walter Leal, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at UC Davis. “Now, I believe the only way out is if we’re effectively unionized, which is a very dramatic change.”

Read More

Being a Black scientist can be lonely. Juneteenth helped me find myself

From ScienceMag:

It was 19 June 2024, and I was 1 year into my Ph.D. Three years earlier, President Joe Biden had designated Juneteenth National Independence Day, recognizing the freedom of enslaved African Americans—a declaration that brought joy, relief, and a sense of pride to my community. But Juneteenth, though a federal holiday, does not receive the same recognition as other holidays, including at many academic institutions. On this day meant to celebrate my freedom to exist fully as a citizen, my department had scheduled a crucial laboratory demonstration. I looked around for someone, anyone, to express my grievances to, but I realized I only had myself. I was the only African American in my department. I had to carry this burden on my own.

It’s been a familiar feeling throughout my scientific training. I was one of the few women and Black Americans in my classes at the primarily white institution where I pursued my bachelor’s and master’s degrees in engineering. I was self-conscious; I am well aware of the stereotypes about people who look like me. I felt I needed to stand out and be the brightest, but also blend in and not draw attention to myself. In class I would only participate when I was confident I knew the correct answer; otherwise I sat in silence and refused to make eye contact. On the rare occasions when I spoke up and got an answer wrong, I perseverated on what others may have thought about me. I got good grades and felt I had convinced my teachers and peers I was good enough. But in the back of my mind, I questioned my own worth.

Then, I started my Ph.D. in a diverse department full of international students. I was still the only Black student, but I thought the feeling of being “other” would fade away. Except it did not. I still felt like an outsider who did not deserve to be in the program. And I still found myself trying to control others’ narratives of me—which, in this new environment, meant I was even quieter than before. I don’t think many of my peers even knew my name or what research team I was part of.

This isolation pushed me to look inward and gave me a chance to reflect. And I ultimately saw ways to allay my insecurities and stop worrying about others’ perceptions.

Growing up I had always been involved in community service, and I love talking about topics I am knowledgeable about. It boosts my confidence and reminds me why I fell in love with science in the first place: because it provides a level of truth we all so desperately need. During this time of frustration and fear, I thought reincorporating these activities into my life might be exactly what I needed. I began to participate in outreach opportunities through my department, visiting local high schools, hosting demonstrations, and speaking to the community about the work we do and how we got here. Seeing students’ interest in my knowledge and experience reminded me of what I have accomplished. I felt I was finding my place.

Then came that Juneteenth lab demonstration. I quietly attended, tamping down my feelings. But after this holiday that is so meaningful to me was effectively ignored, I realized I needed to reflect on the source of my insecurities. Instead of focusing on things outside my control, I chose to shift my effort into expanding my knowledge, speaking up when I want, and asking for help when I need it without worrying I will be seen as inferior, incompetent, or troublesome.

With this new mindset, I have noticed an increase in my productivity and passion. I am less drained at the end of the day, and my mind is freer now that I have taken away this imaginary power I gave to other people. Each day I move forward with a Bible passage in mind: “Whatever you do, do it well.”

When Juneteenth came around this year and was again largely overlooked by my academic community, I did not dwell on the hurt. I decided to plan the day on my own terms, to meet my own needs—without worrying about what others would think. I did some work in the morning to support my research team, and then spent the rest of the day with friends. Juneteenth represents historical freedom, and I’ve finally found my freedom to fully exist as myself.

Do you have an interesting career story? Send it to SciCareerEditor@aaas.org. Read the general guidelines here.

Read More

As an immigrant scientist in the U.S., travel bans and visa uncertainty are taking a toll

From ScienceMag:

On a warm June evening, I sat alone in my house, sobbing as I watched a choppy, pixelated livestream of my mother’s funeral. Thousands of kilometers away in Venezuela, my family grieved together while I remained in the United States, unable to travel because of immigration restrictions. I tried to tell my 17-month-old son I was sad, but not because of him. I was heartbroken and overwhelmed with guilt for not being there. I kept asking myself whether choosing a career in science, so far from home, had been the right decision. I felt a little like the species I study as a postdoc: the spotted lanternfly, an invasive insect that threatens U.S. ecosystems. I, too, was unwelcome and out of place.

As an undergraduate in Venezuela, I became captivated by the biodiversity of the tropics and began to research fruit bats. A cold email to a U.S. scientist working in the field opened the door for me to pursue a Ph.D. in her lab. I worried about not fitting in and was sad to leave home. Still, I felt thrilled and fortunate to move abroad. Visiting my family back home would never be a problem, or so I assumed. And after completing my Ph.D., I could return to Venezuela, teach at a local university, and share what I had learned abroad.

During my first year as a Ph.D. student, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. My first instinct was to move back home, but my mother—wise and selfless—assured me I should stay and keep pursuing my dream. Her illness made me more determined to finish so the sacrifice would feel worthwhile. I visited her three times during my program, and we shared long video calls. I followed her doctors’ visits, her hair loss, her fading strength. She supported me amid my research struggles and celebrated my progress, professionally and personally. She met my partner virtually. She watched my Ph.D. graduation online, and my wedding 2 months later. Despite my deep sadness, I found joy in my work and felt deeply grateful for the life I was building in the U.S.

Meanwhile my plan to return home had begun to dissolve, as Venezuela’s political and economic collapse made academic careers nearly impossible there. After my marriage I submitted a green card application so I could continue my career in the U.S. In the meantime, I transitioned to a postdoctoral position studying invasive species, working under an Optional Practical Training extension—a program that allows student visa holders in STEM to work in the U.S. for up to 2 years after finishing their degree.

Still, I wanted to visit Venezuela. My husband and I had welcomed our first son, and my biggest dream was to take him to meet my mother; her cancer had metastasized to her bones, leaving her too weak to travel. But until I had my green card, I could not leave the U.S. Under my student visa extension, I would not be allowed to re-enter the country. My husband and I spent countless hours navigating the immigration system, reading confusing guidelines, filling out dozens of forms, triple checking instructions. I lived in a constant state of waiting, hoping my green card would be approved.

In June, new regulations and a travel ban triggered warnings from my university’s international office, warning that my visa could be revoked at any moment and further discouraging international travel. I was advised to speak with immigration attorneys. For the first time, I began to question whether I truly belonged in the U.S. I even became self-conscious about my accent and appearance.

The clock was ticking. My mother’s health was deteriorating rapidly. Each morning, I checked my green card status. I was desperate to see her one more time. But the most consistent advice remained: Do not leave. A few weeks later, my mother passed away. I never got to say goodbye, and she never met my son.

I find comfort in believing my mother was proud that the curious girl she raised had followed her dream of becoming a scientist and turned that curiosity into a career. And although some may see me, and others like me, as invasive pests, I choose to focus on a different aspect of my study species: Even in foreign lands, it’s possible to survive, adapt, and thrive.

Do you have an interesting career story? Send it to SciCareerEditor@aaas.org. Read the general guidelines here.

Read More

How my stutter is teaching me humility—in science and beyond

From ScienceMag:

“My name is …” The words stick in my throat, obstinately refusing to yield. The silence stretches on as I shake a stranger’s hand. Consciously relaxing my jaw, I breathe in and manage to release my name in a breathy tone, “Pppeeeettterr.” Typical responses range from awkward pauses to the joking “Are you sure?” or, in the worst case, “I’m sorry, what did you say?” As a child, I would imagine I just made myself look stupid. Now, I see it differently. My stutter is an invitation to humility.

I have been a stutterer since I was about 7 years old. It had no obvious cause; even the most current literature on the topic will admit the pathology of stuttering is “enigmatic.” When I was young, I avoided speaking. I learned speech therapy techniques, methods of breathing and forming my words, but I was comfortable in my own mind and didn’t really need to share my thoughts. When I couldn’t avoid speaking, my go-to strategy was to replace words with synonyms when I felt a block coming. Then I fell in love with science, where precision mattered not only in benchwork, but also in terminology. So, while in graduate school, I restarted speech therapy, worked on new strategies, and began to gain confidence in my own voice. I thought I had my stutter under control.

One postdoc and many job interviews later, I became an assistant professor, facing the standard challenges of starting a research group—and my speech was regressing. Using speech strategies is taxing: To avoid stammering on tricky words I must be aware of how I breathe, form words on my lips, and move my mouth. But between grants, papers, project management, paperwork, other principal investigator stresses, and being a father of four (soon to be five) young children, I had too little intellectual space left to devote to preparing to speak. In addition, the transition from the few planned and prepared speaking opportunities I had as a postdoc to endless obligatory communication overwhelmed my coping strategies. I have been so preoccupied with what I am saying that I cannot focus on how I say it.

The regression was gradual, and I didn’t notice it until one day, a few months ago, I was teaching my thermodynamics class and found myself unable to say “equilibrium.” Later that day I struggled to tell a colleague the name of my newborn daughter. The students seemed to shrug off my difficulty, and my colleague changed the subject after a brief awkward moment. Still, a feeling of humiliation remained, clashing with my self-image as a capable scientist. I began to wonder how anyone could respect me or my work if I was unable to communicate clearly.

A few weeks later, I found myself nervously ruminating on a commitment I had made to introduce a speaker at an upcoming conference. I began dwelling on worst-case scenarios in which I humiliated myself in front of my peers. This anxiety over 30 seconds of public speaking months in the future was not healthy. I began to wonder whether I had subconsciously begun to avoid speaking roles again, as in my childhood. I thought back to a conference opportunity I had passed up, telling myself I was too busy to apply. Maybe I just didn’t want to give a talk.

Eventually I came to a realization: I will probably never be free of my stutter. I will always face the burden of coaxing my body to do what comes naturally and effortlessly for most. The thought was both depressing and exhausting. At the same time, I began to wonder whether I can gain some good from this burden. If radiation can be used to cure cancer, why can’t my stutter make me better, too?

I have decided to reject feelings of humiliation and instead embrace humility; to accept my vulnerabilities and my limitations and welcome the new perspectives they provide. When my voice sticks and refuses to cooperate, I can’t force it. And I can’t control how others perceive me. Instead, I can choose to relax, breathe, and coax each syllable, gently yet diligently. This mindset can help my work as well. I can employ similar strategies when I receive grant rejections or belittling paper reviews. I am not in control, but I can, with proper effort, participate in the conversation.

Do you have an interesting career story? Send it to SciCareerEditor@aaas.org. Read the general guidelines here.

Read More

When women researchers publish, media attention doesn’t always follow

From ScienceMag:

Media coverage can give scientists a powerful career boost, raising their visibility and signaling that their work matters beyond the lab. But a new study finds that benefit goes disproportionately to men, potentially widening existing gender gaps and shaping public perceptions of who counts as a researcher. In an analysis of 1.2 million news stories about scholarly research, men-led papers were found to receive more attention overall and were heavily overrepresented in the top 5% of most covered studies. Women-led papers, on the other hand, clustered at the bottom.

“News media sit at a crucial gateway,” says senior author Chaoqun Ni of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “If coverage systematically tilts toward some groups over others, that doesn’t just affect individual careers—it can reinforce stereotypes about who ‘looks like’ a scientist.”

Ni and colleagues searched for English-language news coverage of more than 1 million papers with U.S.-based corresponding authors published between 2018 and 2022 in highly media-cited journals; broadcast coverage, such as TV and radio, and blogs were excluded. Overall, only about one in eight of the papers—which spanned STEM, social sciences, and the humanities—received any media attention at all, the authors reported in a paper published in Science Communication in August. Of the 129,000 studies that did garner coverage, men-led papers were on average highlighted in more outlets than women-led ones. To classify gender, the authors used a computational tool based on names—a widely accepted but imperfect method, particularly for non-Western names.

A paradox also emerged across fields in terms of whether a study was covered at all. In male-dominated areas such as economics and business, women-led work was slightly more likely to be covered than expected. But in fields nearer gender parity—public health and social sciences—women-led papers were less likely to make the news. The authors compared media coverage with the real gender balance in each field—for example, if only one-quarter of the papers in a field were led by women, that was the baseline for judging under- or overrepresentation.

“Women often ‘outperform’ in fields where they are least represented, whether in citations or grants,” says Cassidy Sugimoto, an information scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the new study. What stood out to her was the scale and nature of the skew. Women-led papers were more likely to be featured in local outlets than in national, international, or science-specialty media. They appeared more often in liberal-leaning outlets than conservative ones. And coverage of their work carried a more negative tone. “When women’s research is politicized or framed negatively, it risks eroding the perceived credibility of women scientists,” Sugimoto says.

The study doesn’t investigate possible mechanisms underlying the results. But multiple steps along the publicity pipeline could be at play, as well as broader structural imbalances. News coverage often reflects what universities and journals promote through press releases to the media, notes Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch. “If men are more likely to request press releases, that could tilt the pool.” High-profile journals—which often publish papers that warrant news coverage, and are more likely to have the resources to promote those papers to the media—also tend to have disproportionately male corresponding authors, says Priyanka Runwal, an associate editor at Chemical & Engineering News.

A first media mention can also open the gate for a researcher, says Yong-Yeol Ahn, a data science researcher at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. Who reporters can reach for interviews—and whether authors agree to talk—can determine whether an initial mention snowballs into high-visibility coverage. “Small biases can compound as attention spreads,” he says.

Even when reporters work hard to talk to women researchers, some hesitate to agree, Runwal says. One study found women were more likely than men to cite harassment, appearance-based comments, or lack of confidence as barriers to interviews. This echoes Oransky’s concerns. “Are men more able to answer journalist calls? Are they getting snappier quotes that journalists love?”

Scientists can help shape coverage, Runwal says. “If it’s a field I regularly cover, I often ask researchers to keep me in the loop about upcoming publications,” she says. For women especially, who may hesitate to speak on sensitive topics, she suggests opening a dialogue with reporters about concerns such as backlash or harassment. “You can always ask questions, set boundaries, and if you’re not convinced, decline to go on the record.”

Read More