For many scientists, federal policymaking can feel distant. Something that happens somewhere else and is handled by people with law degrees and political instincts. But Adriana Bankston knows firsthand that science policy is shaped every day by voices that choose to speak up.

Trained as a biochemist, Bankston was not originally set to work on Capitol Hill. Like many scientists, she planned to follow the path of academia, publishing papers and competing for grants. This changed over time, with a growing realization that the systems governing science and the people doing research were just as important as the discoveries they made.

Her career now spans science policy research, advocacy, and Congress, giving her a rare view from both sides of the table: as a scientist and advocate asking Congress to fund and improve science, and as a Congressional Policy Fellow working for a Member of Congress and helping decide which constituent requests turn into action. Her message to scientists today is simple and urgent: your voice matters on Capitol Hill more than you think.

From the bench to policy

Bankston earned her PhD in biochemistry, cell and developmental biology from Emory University, with the intention of staying in academia. It was during her postdoc that she began to question what else might be possible.

“I started asking what we could do to support the future of science,” she said. “Not just for policy change within universities, but with federal policymakers.”

One early turning point came when she organized a career seminar series for postdocs, inviting speakers to talk about nonacademic paths. Policy came up repeatedly, planting a seed. Soon after, she joined the nonprofit Future of Research focused on advocating for an improved research enterprise and a robust STEM pipeline in universities. That role brought “policy for science” into sharp focus, particularly when the organization began analyzing how one particular federal labor law could affect postdoc salaries.

“That was when it all really clicked,” she said. “You could see directly how federal policymaking in the legislative branch was shaping the lives of trainees in academic labs.”

Rather than leaving research behind, Bankston expanded her scope. She moved from being a specialist studying a narrow scientific question to a generalist working across several facets of the research enterprise, including science funding, workforce development, immigration, and research integrity. The transition was challenging, but it also revealed the interconnectedness of these issues and that academic scientists can have a voice in the conversations that shape their future in STEM through engaging with Congress.

Inside a Congressional office

Bankston’s 2024-2025 AAAS-ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellowship placed her inside a House office at a moment of intense uncertainty for U.S. science. Research funding cuts, shifting policy priorities, and heightened anxiety among academic trainees defined much of the environment. As a Fellow working as a full-time staffer covering science, research, STEM education, and immigration among other topics, she knows firsthand how many science policy issues come across Congressional desks.

“Staffers cover an incredible number of issues in the House of Representatives,” she said. “Scientific research is just one of many.”

What made her experience unique was the Member of Congress she worked for: Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL), a physicist who had worked at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and ran for Congress in part because of his commitment to scientific research (it’s rare for workers on the Hill and especially Members of Congress to have research experience). Even then, Bankston emphasized that science competes daily with many other urgent priorities.

One of her most meaningful projects was working on the bipartisan immigration legislation Keep STEM Talent Act, aimed at retaining international STEM graduate students in U.S. laboratories. The bill, supported by student groups, organizations, and scientific societies, reflected a core belief that foreign talent retention is essential to the future of U.S. research.

“It went back to my roots,” she said. “Supporting research trainees and building the STEM pipeline. That’s what this is all about.”

Just as impactful to her everyday work in Rep. Foster’s office and her journey in science policy were Capitol Hill meetings with graduate students and postdocs who were struggling to see a future in science. During her time in Congress, Bankston recalled receiving constituent phone calls and taking meetings with research trainees who were anxious, demoralized, and unsure how to move forward in their careers.

“Being on the staffer side, you’re suddenly in a position to try to help,” she said. “That opportunity to make a difference stays with you and is an immense honor.”

Why scientists’ voices matter

From both sides of her research and advocacy, Bankston has seen the same pattern repeat: when scientists show up in Congress, it makes a difference.

Members of Congress and their staff rely heavily on constituent input to understand how policies affect real people. For science, that gap can be especially wide. Very few Members of Congress have scientific training or deep knowledge of the research enterprise. Many understand that scientific research is “important” for this country in the abstract, but lack insights into how funding cuts, visa delays, or training uncertainties can affect the daily life and work of researchers working in labs.

“When a graduate student comes into a Congressional office and says, ‘This is what I’m going through,’ it changes the conversation,” Bankston said. “It makes their issues real and more grounded, and reminds us of why we do this work.”

That impact happens both ways. Involvement of scientists in advocacy helps policymakers do their jobs more efficiently, and it helps researchers see that policymaking is not an unreachable black box. Participation in Hill meetings, contributions to letters, or sharing personal stories can shape Congressional activities, including funding priorities through legislative language, letters, and speeches on the national stage.

Importantly, Bankston emphasized that early career scientists often underestimate their influence in Congress.

“I hear this all the time: ‘I’m just a grad student. No one cares about what I have to say nor will they act on it,’” she said. “That’s not true. I’ve seen Members of Congress listen to your concerns and incorporate them into relevant actions using their extensive platform of influence.”

How scientists can get involved

Not every scientist needs to work in policy. Bankston is clear that meaningful research advocacy can take many forms.

Writing is one of the most effective tools. Op-eds, blog posts, and personal essays can help shape the narrative around science and make impacts visible on Capitol Hill. Here, Congressional staff read media coverage on scientific topics, especially when it comes from constituents or trusted organizations. Every means of engagement matters if the right people on Capitol Hill are paying attention.

Direct engagement also counts. Meeting with Congressional offices, participating in Hill days, or responding to Requests for Information (RFIs) can provide  policymakers with concrete examples to  use in developing effective and evidence-based policy. Learning how to communicate your message clearly—crafting an elevator pitch, connecting research to district-level impacts—is a skill that improves with practice.

Scientific societies like GSA play a crucial role here. Organized advocacy efforts with detailed fact sheets and coordinated Hill visits help amplify individual voices. Data combined with personal stories is especially powerful, and including facts like how many trainees are impacted by research funding cuts within a given district and how much science funding a university in that district has lost can be helpful indicators for Hill staffers to craft useful policies that benefit their constituents as well as the broader U.S. scientific enterprise. 

“Stories and data together are what can make an issue really stick with Congressional staff, particularly if linked to district-related policy impacts,” Bankston said.

Advocacy as part of scientific responsibility

For Bankston, advocacy is not a distraction from science; it is part of protecting its future. The United States depends on a strong research enterprise, but that strength is not guaranteed. Policy decisions made today shape who stays in science, who leaves, and what research discoveries are possible tomorrow and into the future.

“This country depends on what scientists are doing every day,” she said. “Even if it doesn’t always feel obvious, their contributions make a difference to our global competitiveness.”

Her advice to scientists is both practical and hopeful: keep speaking, keep writing, keep showing up in Congress. The system can be slow and frustrating, but individual voices and collective efforts matter. Ideas travel. And change often starts with someone deciding that silence is no longer an option.

*Disclaimer: Bankston was a 2024-2025 AAAS-ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow and this article was written post-fellowship.

, , ,
View all posts by Editorial Staff »

Read more in