SPI Alumni Reunion in DC (Winter 2023)

Written by Zach Berzolla

On January 26th, about 15 SPI Alumni/ae from the classes of 1964 to 2022, two current exec board members, and the MIT Washington Office gathered in DC for an evening of networking. Alums from across the government, academia, and industry joined to learn from each other, meet friends old and new, and talk about ways to engage with SPI. It was wonderful to meet everyone working in so many different ways to make the world a better place through science policy. We’re gearing up for an online alumni event for those SPI’ers who are not in the DMV and always welcome alumni sharing jobs, fellowships, and internships that current students might find interesting. For more information on connecting with SPI, email the current alumni relations chair, Zach Berzolla at zbz@mit.edu. 

Reflections: Bootcamp 2018

Guest Blog Post: Eli Pollock

February 14, 2018

Last month, SPI hosted its annual Science Policy Bootcamp, taught by former head of the MIT DC Office Bill Bonvillian. Starting with discussions about the fundamental role of technological advancement in economic growth, students developed an understanding of the historical forces that have shaped the way the United States funds science and engineering research. The class emphasized participation, with students leading discussions about the many course readings. As a student in the class, I was surprised by some of the things I learned, especially about how misconceptions about manufacturing have cost the US its competitive edge (here I feel obligated to include a recommendation for Bill’s recently-published book, Advanced Manufacturing, now available from MIT Press). I had thought, like many Americans, that manufacturing will happen wherever it is cheapest, much like agriculture. However, this is not always true: integrating manufacturing into the research pipeline can help countries maintain expertise and prevent high-paying jobs from leaving.

Another interesting aspect of the class was how many of the people we discussed were MIT faculty or alumni. Perhaps the most central figure in the class discussions was Vannevar Bush, the MIT president whose vision for government-supported research has shaped science policy since the end of World War II. To me, it was fascinating to learn that MIT has not only produced so much incredible science but shaped the way that science is funded and used by society.

The course also touched on more human topics. One session was a series of case studies of individuals and small groups that have made technological breakthroughs, reminding us that it is ultimately people, not policies, that create innovation. In the final class session, we heard from a panel comprised of Prof. Christine Walley, George Westerman, and Prof. Thomas Kochan on the future of work and education. The panel addressed the often-ignored side of innovation: the people whose lives are upended by economic change and do not share in the resulting growth. Prof. Walley talked about how her father was one of thousands of workers in the Chicago steel mills who lost his job when they closed. Her personal account of the local community’s struggles drove home the importance of policy aimed at helping everyone share in the benefits of technological advancement.

I believe it is important for scientists and engineers to have an understanding of the knowledge imparted by this course. Science is not done in a vacuum, nor should it be. Understanding the relationship between individuals, governments, and scientific progress is part of being a good citizen scientist. I am proud to be part of an institution that has so much history of producing good citizen scientists and hope to be one myself.

AAAS 2017: Guest Blog Post: Seamus Bann

March 10, 2017

Written by Seamus Bann

The American Association for the Advancement of Science exists at a unique interface between science and society: aside from publishing the journal Science, AAAS focuses on STEM education, global science outreach, and participates in science policy and advocacy on behalf of the U.S. scientific community. As a graduate student in AeroAstro and the Technology and Policy Program, I’m passionate about the role scientists and engineers play in advancing fact-based assessments of the nation’s most pressing issues, and I firmly believe that the academic community has a critical voice in building constructive policies. My research, for example, focuses on alternative transportation fuels, but my work intentionally addresses actions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency to promote the use of renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The importance of cross-disciplinary inquiry was on full display at the recent AAAS Annual Meeting (held February 16-20 in Boston) with seminars ranging from “Global Climate Change Imperatives in a Post-Paris Agreement World” to “Leveraging Linguistics to Broaden Participation in STEM.” The latter talk, given jointly by Anne Charity-Hudley (of William and Mary), Mary Bucholtz (of UC Santa Barbara), and Michael DeGraff (of MIT) emphasized the importance of leveraging the backgrounds of socio-linguistically diverse students—with evidence drawn from African-American, Haitian, and Latina/Latino communities—to bolster STEM education within those populations. Another discussion with Jed Rakoff (of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York), Jose Almirall (of Florida International University), and William Thompson (of UC Irvine) highlighted the importance of scientific rigor during forensic investigations. These sessions illustrated important issues—climate change, STEM education, and criminal justice—but emphasized the essential contributions of good science toward robust solutions.

 As a participant in the Student Poster Competition, I had an opportunity to discuss my research with students from around the country. I presented my work on alternative jet fuel production pathways in the “Environmental and Ecology” category, with other students presenting in categories such as “Brain and Behavior,” “Cellular and Molecular Biology,” “Developmental Biology, Physiology, and Immunology,” and “Physical Sciences,” to name a few. One poster, from fellow MIT student Marika Psyhojos, explained the role of the Internet of Things in promoting better care for older adults. A survey of doctors around the country fueled a discussion about how new innovations might best support a burgeoning aging population. Another poster, from University of Kentucky student Grant Victor, described widespread opioid and heroin abuse trends around the United States. Both posters, found in the “Science in Society” category, struck me as particularly relevant to two pressing issues that receive considerable media attention: how best to provide geriatric care and the nationwide opioid epidemic. As policymakers across the country wade into debates about how best to address these issues, perhaps the best starting point might be to consult the researchers—like Marika and Grant—who use the scientific method to deliver fact-supported conclusions.

AAAS 2017: Guest Blog Post: Jackie Ohmura

March 9, 2017

Written by Jackie Ohmura

As a PhD candidate interested in a career in academia and policy, attending the 2017 AAAS conference was an indispensable experience.  The conference included a diverse assortment of talks and workshops, while providing other career promoting resources such as providing a speed mentoring workshop and professional headshots tothe attendees!  Throughout the weekend, I was able to present myresearch at the student poster session, as well as attend talks directly related to my work.  This includedsections focusing on energy infrastructures in North America, Europe, and Asia as well as green chemistry.  The seminars at AAAS provided a different perspective from field specific conferences.  Exploring the interplay between policy, the integration of technology in society, and the development of science, the AAAS seminars gave a wider view of research impact on society.  Presenting research at AAAS also differed from that of presenting at field specific conferences.  It was a great opportunity to describe my work to not only other scientists outside of my field, but also members of the journalism community. 

As readers of this blog are presumably interested in the policy and career building portions of the AAAS conference, I also want to take time to detail my experiences attending the AAAS workshops and non-research based sessions.  As an early career scientist, I found both offerings to be extremely helpful.  With respect to workshops, I had a great experience at the speed-mentoring event.  At this event, conference attendees rotated tables every 15 minutes to speak with a different ‘mentor’.  At the start of the event, mentors introduced their backgrounds so that each attendee would be able to seek out mentors best suited for their career trajectories.  As a result, each attendee had an extremely tailored experience.  I, personally, talked to mentors with great perspectives on blending academic careers with policy. With respect to the plethora of non-research focused sessions, I mainly attended sessions focused on science communication and career pathways.   As an example of content, the session ‘Science Communication Strategies in Academic, Government, and Non-Profit Sectors’ brought up a lot of great pointers on communicating effectively based on the audience.  One such pointer was direction to the writing tool ‘compass box’ to assist in organizing scientific communication aimed at the general public.

In conclusion, the workshops and seminars afforded at the AAAS conference were an extremely enriching experience.  Nonetheless, I found the most rewarding part of attending the AAAS conference to be interacting with the other attendees.  The members of the community were so enthusiastic about serving policy through science, interested in learning about my experiences, as well as helping each other realize their goals.  To me, the conference was also a great reminder that science policy is filled with a growing community of supportive individuals.

AAAS 2017: Reflections

March 8, 2017

Written by Donovan Guttieres

This year’s theme for the AAAS meeting was “science policy for society,” which I was very drawn to as a current Technology Policy Program student within the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, & Society. Outside of MIT, I am also part of a participatory youth engagement mechanism within the UN system, called the UN Major Group for Children & Youth (UN MGCY), that is entirely youth-led and volunteer based, engaging youth (up to 30 years old) in a dozen different intergovernmental processes related to sustainable development. Its role is to facilitate meaningfully engagement of youth – including young scientists and engineers - in the policy design, implementation, follow-up and review stages across all levels (global, national, and local level). Attending the conference with a few colleagues from both MIT and UN MGCY, I had the pleasure of engaging in substantive discussions in the lead-up, during, and after the forum. I would like to share a few of the highlights from the sessions which I attended:

Power of Networks

The value of networks is difficult to measure until an opportunity presents itself to leverage a discussion or card exchange. The format and organization of the conference was conducive to interactions between people across fields, nationalities, and generations. Given the multidimensional and multidisciplinary nature of science policy, the rich diversity of participants helped promote substantive dialogue and networking that will surely have long-term effects. 

Science Communication

 Effective science communication is crucial in appropriately impacting society through science policy. Whether it’s communicating data, interpreting or applying science, or putting engineering principles into practice, bridging gaps between science and policy is vital in successfully enacting sustainable and positive change. Although science is objectively derived, it is often subjectively interpreted, influenced by underlying values and local context that have unique socio-cultural, economic, and environmental priorities.

Science practitioners, more and more, are being urged to assist policy making, contributing to an era of evidence-informed policy. However, this approach not always meets societal needs. This is partly due to ineffective communication of science and persisting gap between science practitioners and policy makers. Therefore, effective communication must help in closing the gaps between science and policy in order to galvanize public interest, promote well-founded advocacy, and help steer decision making.

In doing so, it important to explore sources of disconnect, perceived or real, between science / policy / society and how it has contributed to rifts over knowledge assessments, interpretation of empirical data, and even influence outcomes of both scientific and policy processes. Creative ways should be developed to enhance avenues for young practitioners to communicate their work for effective integration into policy and into inform public knowledge, as participatory mechanisms for science and technology impact assessments. 

Advisory Mechanism

Several sessions focused on the role of science and technology advisory systems. One particular sessions discussed the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM), hosted in the European Commission's Directorate General for Research and Innovation, whose purpose is to draw upon a wide range of experts to support the Commission with high quality, timely and independent scientific advice for its policy-making activities. A similar initiative, spearheaded by the Science & Technology Advisory to the US Department of State, is a newly launched network of science and technology advisors to foreign governments. The first public meeting of the network members, from both developed and developing countries, took place during a special session hosted at Tufts by The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Science Diplomacy Club. The interactive dialogue helped highlight best practices for science advise, referencing similar processes ongoing at the UN level such as the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, as well as formally announcing the launch of a new center dedicated to science diplomacy.

Recommendations

The Annual AAAS, with its multiple parallel sessions, packed rooms, and socials is as much as you make it. Whether you have specific objective in mind or just looking to learn, it can definitely be an enjoyable experience.  If interested in learning, I would be more than happy to discuss my experiences. Additionally, I would like to share a few opportunities for further engagement in the UN MGCY related to science-policy:

• Join and participate in a growing network for of young practitioners working on sustainable development policy through the UN MGCY Science-Policy Interface Platform.

• Join a science, technology, and innovation consultation between universities in both Boston and Cambridge to discuss the appropriate use of technology and innovation policy for achieving the newly established Sustainable Development Goals.

• Join a webinar being hosted at the end of March on effective science communication for policy and the role of young practitioners.

• Join a group of students attending the Annual Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology, & Innovation for SDGs (May 15-16) in NYC at the UN Headquarters.

For more information on the above activities, email spiteam@childrenyouth.org

AAAS 2017: Get Involved

March 6, 2017

Written by Angela Phillips

“Get involved” was the resounding theme of each session I attended at the AAAS conference. Each panelist had their own concerns about the future of science in the Trump administration, but two echoing fears were that our current apparatus for using science to inform policy would be dismantled, and that R & D would be the first to face cuts in the discretionary budget. Speakers called upon scientists to stand up for science, and to change the academic culture such that scientists are rewarded, not punished, for engaging with society. Panelists encouraged their audiences to write blogs and opinion columns, march in the streets, spotlight falsehoods, engage with their local communities, tithe 10% of their time to public service, and run for office.

For actions to take in the short term, the March for Science came up in several discussions. While audience members had mixed feelings about the march, panelists seemed largely united in supporting and participating in the march. Questions were raised about whether the march would cause science to become politicized. Some shot this down by claiming that, to an extent, science has already become politicized. Others acknowledged the risk, and said that we must do as much damage control as possible to prevent science from being politicized or becoming partisan.

But how? Speakers were in agreement that we had to tell stories of society benefiting from science. To scientists, the societal benefits of science may seem obvious, but these connections must be made apparent to the general public. We must convince them that their well being depends on scientific progress.

But how? For some students, the impact of their work was clear: clinical researchers working to advance modern medicine and extended life expectancy, or atmospheric chemists improving climate prediction models to better inform sustainability policy. Other students, who were studying obscure systems with limited immediate societal impact, were at a loss. The fact is that many of us conduct fundamental research—it doesn’t have an intended application, and is therefore seemingly more difficult to generate public interest and financial support. So we need to dig a bit deeper…what are examples of how basic research has enabled advances in medicine, biotechnology, and environmental sustainability? The connections are there, we just have to do more leg work to point them out, and no one is going to do this for us. If we want the public to support the scientific community, and to appreciate the products of our work, we have to make the broader impact of our work undeniably obvious.

So as we gear up for the March for Science, I am reaching out to my hometown community, a deep red county that borders President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. I want them to understand why we are marching. I want them to know how science benefits everyone, and how important it us for our nation to value science. I want them to understand that we are marching to protect these societal benefits, not to secure funding for our own professional gains.

So I urge every scientist to look back to where you grew up, where you went to college, and where you have family members. Are there communities that you can communicate this message to? Write a guest column. Give a talk at your high school. Volunteer in your community. Get involved.

Congressional Visit Days 2016

Meet The Team

Guest Blog by Cassie Rosen

Twenty-four MIT students will be travelling to Washington, D.C. to meet with Representatives on April 13th as part of SPI’s Congressional Visit Day (CVD), talking about science, research, and funding. But who is SPI sending? Let’s meet the team! Everyone’s been to D.C. before, and a third of them have been on a type of CVD in the past. The student breakdown amongst the group looks something like this (see right) – a lot of experienced PhD’s, but also some fresher faces too!

Those going have a diverse set of technical interests too (see below)! Although there’s a large contingency experienced in biotechnology and bioengineering, topics cover environment, energy, aerospace, and cyber security.

A big focus of our CVD will be on funding for STEM research. So, we were curious where our delegates were getting their funding from. Although private funding from industry constitutes a significant portion, funding from government agencies dominates, at almost two thirds. Within this subsection, the NSF and NIH are prominently represented, as well as a sprinkling of other agencies such as the DOD, DOE, EPA, and NASA. 

Where are our lovely delegates coming from? It turns out we have ties to 26 states - not bad for a group of 24!

Going into politics and lobbying a bit more, we were curious to see how many in our group had interacted with their representative before. It turns out we have a group of people who are quite new to such interactions! This should make for a trip full of learning.

How does this group keep up with the latest political happenings? Although social media is used, typical news is not dead! Twitter and Facebook seem to be popular on the social media end. And some are even keen enough to be subscribed to newsletters from their local representative – awesome! 

Lastly, when thinking to the future, we wanted to know what people hope to do upon graduation. It would be neat to see how delegates see this CVD experience playing into their development as a both within the Institute and beyond (see below). We hope this teaser of info-graphics has caught your attention! Follow our blog for more info about our upcoming CVD trip!