In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Care­er Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

In this interview, we sat down with Daniel Pomeroy. Daniel is currently the Executive Director of the Scientific Policy Initiative at Harvard. He has a wide history of science policy involvement. We discussed his journey into the science policy space and also resources for early career scientists interested in science policy.

Would you provide a general background about what your career path has been like to get you to where you are now?

Throughout my entire educational career, I did two things. One was like physics in the classroom, which led me to a PhD. But outside the classroom, I did a lot of political activism. In undergrad, I was very involved with the marriage equality movement in Massachusetts. In grad school at Brandeis University, they have a policy where you can take a year’s leave of absence, and my advisor agreed to let me do that. I spent a year running campaign offices during the 2008 elections. Afterwards, I went back to grad school because doing campaign work made getting a PhD seem easy by comparison. It was definitely the hardest I’ve ever worked. Towards the end of grad school, I was really struggling with how I could put these very different interests together. In my mind, I saw no overlap between the two. I went to a career panel at Brandeis that had one person on it who was from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and she started talking about science policy, and I thought, “What is this world?” It just opened my eyes to a whole possibility and gave me direction in my career in a way that was really exciting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists was launching a new Center for Science and Democracy, which seemed aligned with my interests. I went to their launch event. I actually applied to be the director of the program, which was humorous, but I applied to be the director, and I ended up being an intern. Shoot for the stars, but land with your foot in the door. Right after I finished my PhD, I went to DC. I interned with the Union of Concerned Scientists for a while, which was a really great learning experience. I had also applied for two big DC fellowships: the AAAS fellowship and the Mirzayan fellowship at the National Academy of Sciences. I got an interview with AAAS in my first year, and I bombed it. Luckily, I got the Mirzayan fellowship and learned all the specific ways that I bombed [the AAAS one] such that I was better prepared for the following year. I ended up doing the AAAS fellowship, and I worked in the office of Senator Markey. I learned more in that one year than I did probably the entire rest of my life, about all sorts of topics. It was the most fun professional year of my life. I’m going to say that was my entry point into science policy.

You said that the first interview you did with AAAS didn’t go so well. Are there any tips that you learned that you could give to an early career scientist?

Talk to somebody who went through the interview before. That’s the number one tip. One thing that they don’t teach you in grad school is networking and informational interviews. I think grad students are afraid to cold-email somebody and ask for advice, but it’s actually something people are very open to in DC. If you can go online and find some former fellows who may have worked in spaces that you’re interested in, find their email, and just email them and ask for advice.

The other thing is to get a basic understanding of what science policy is and what it isn’t. I would say I didn’t understand or appreciate the way science and policy interacted. I had a sense of what policy is from an activist perspective, but it turns out public policy is its own field of research. You might think you know everything about it, but you probably don’t know much. The Mirzayan fellowship was really helpful in that it taught me the specific ways in which science and policy interact. Knowing this enabled me to talk with some degree of expertise in the next interview.

When I was working at MIT, I created an online course called Academic Engagement for Public Policy. It’s free on edX. It was designed in two ways: to help get the faculty up to speed on a policy world and to provide all the information I wish I had before going into that interview. That being said, professional societies all have really good [policy] research. I was a member of the American Physical Society and didn’t even realize they had a whole policy arm. AAAS has some really great trainings. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a science network that people can be a part of that teaches a lot about community engagement around science issues. There are a lot of ways to kind of get that training and understanding while you’re still in grad school, so that way you’re more competitive for the fellowships.

Where does your career go after those fellowships?

I think this is the thing. A lot of grad students getting a PhD think that they have learned to do exactly one thing, whatever their research topic is, but don’t realize how broadly applicable the skill of doing research is—in particular, the ability to form a hypothesis and test that hypothesis. When I went to DC, for one of these informational interviews, I met with the senior congressional staffer, who told me that working in policy is a lot like working in science. In policy, you form a hypothesis, and you go out and collect data to support your hypothesis, which is how science works. People from AAAS go into government. For example, I worked in the Senate, a lot of my cohort stayed in the Senate, some of them went on to the executive branch. You could work in the State Department and foreign policy issues with a physics background. If you have an interest in a topic, you have the ability to learn it quickly and then you have the ability to do the kind of analysis and thinking that a lot of people aren’t trained to do. Some people go back to academia and think about how you can find the overlap between academically relevant research and public policy. Some people go into industry and consulting and all those need somebody with technical understanding and policy understanding. Somebody who can read a very technical paper but also communicate it to a senator—that’s a  special skill. Your PhD skills in general open you up to way more careers than you think, but a combination of a PhD plus a science policy fellowship gives you an attractive set of skills to a lot of people.

Would you like to speak more about your work at MIT?

After I left the hill, I went to MIT to start a program, a policy lab. The full title is The Policy Lab at the Center for International Studies. It’s a program that helps faculty engage and develop relationships with public policymakers to both inform public policy with the academic research being conducted at MIT, but also to inform the research with the interests of the policymakers.

Can we pivot a little bit to talk about your work with the scientific citizenship initiative?

The Scientific Citizenship Initiative is a program to teach scientists how to ethically engage with society. It’s a bit broader than science policy. Ethical research standards [are] fundamental, like how do you make decisions about deploying technology that can alter ecosystems? And how do you make decisions about even doing that research in the first place? It’s this broader look at the engagement in interactions between science and society as a whole. It breaks down into two different categories: classroom-style learning and experiential learning. Our classroom courses are workshop-style courses that are interactive and simulation-based and introduce students to concepts in short bursts so that they can do it without taking a lot of time from everything. Our flagship experiential learning program was the fellowship in the Massachusetts State House, similar to AAAS, but it placed STEM graduate students in the State House over the summer part-time. That way, they could get science policy experience and experience engaging with stakeholders, while still maintaining all of their academic responsibilities.

What kinds of communication skills do you try to emphasize on the fellows to communicate what they’re doing effectively to the senators?

Working with policymakers is more than communicating. It’s about how you engage and build relationships and dialogue. There’s this idea-deficit model of engagement. It’s a prevalent idea among scientists that, if policymakers only knew and understood what we knew, they would make the decisions that we would make, which are the “right” decisions. And one of the big things we teach students is that science policy recommendations inherently involve both scientific input and values input. You can’t make a recommendation without adding a layer of values to that recommendation. There’s no value-neutral policy recommendation.

There’s research that shows that, if you confront somebody who has a hardened belief system with just facts to try to convince them otherwise, they actually become more assured of their position. Scientists’ default is, “If I just present you with the evidence, you’ll agree with me.” That’s not how human psychology works. Before you can ever hope to sort of change people’s minds, something you have to do first is meet them where they are and be willing to understand their perspective.

Do you find it’s difficult for scientists to recognize their own values that they’re bringing to the table?

Yes, and one of the big reasons is selection bias. They’re surrounded by people who have a lot of shared values. You think that the world has those values, or that those values are the “correct” ones. It makes it harder to identify them because they seem so natural to you. In the same way, it makes it hard to identify your broader skill set because everybody around you has the same skill set. Everybody around you knows how to do research; therefore, the world knows how to do research. That’s not true. It’s confirmation bias. Everybody has biases, values that make them view some data as more important than others, etc. Scientists view themselves as being unbiased, and it’s true we do our best to eliminate bias and research. But we are far from unbiased when we think about how the world should work, right?

, , ,

Graduate student and postdoctoral leaders from the Early Career Scientist Committees of the GSA.

View all posts by Early Career Scientist Committees »

Read more in