My first piece of advice is apply for as many things as possible. Finding a job in policy is 1. about connections and 2. about continuously putting yourself out there.
The next thing I would do is get involved in the policy arena. Whether that means finding some grass roots/advocacy efforts to join and volunteer with or maybe doing some campaigning this election cycle, getting involved is key. That will only help on applications going forward. Also, take advantage of any opportunity to take a leadership role.
also, always stay positive. You don't want to tell anyone you are bored of academia or your current job. Rather say something about enjoying your time in academia but you are interested in this new arena and new challenges.
A note on networking! For each fellowship or job to which I apply, I try to reach out for advice, information, and referrals to relevant connections as through alumni and professional organizations, LinkedIn. When I can, I set up a time to talk and talk with them on four topics: 1) their current job, 2) the career path that brought them there, 3) expectations for their professional future, and 4) referrals to anyone else I should talk to and upcoming career opportunities I should pursue. If I see an opportunity to contribute to their work, even without financial compensation, I ask how I can contribute. These are paths to building relevant, helpful new skills and networks and will help you decide how well you will fit with various target work opportunities.
A lot of policy jobs you'll find posted on sites like USAJobs.gov and bradtraverse.com will list a degree in political science or a related discipline among their requirements. Sometimes they'll allow something like 12 semester hours in a related discipline plus 12 semester hours in statistics or quantitative methods.
To meet these requirements, if I were associated with a university, I'd take some courses in statistics in a discipline related to my target jobs.
If I were willing to get another degree, I would begin my search with science policy related programs I've heard of and build from there. Those I've found so far are listed below.
Fellowships are one way of meeting standard requirements for policy jobs. Compensation will be lower than for regular jobs and they're highly competitive, despite often having narrow eligibility criteria. One plus I've found that former fellows are generally very sympathetic and willing to share ideas.
You know about the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowship and CCST Fellowship. For other science policy fellowships, I have collected a list from several sources summarized in the table below. Fellowship details change each year, so if you're interested check with a representative of that organization for information about upcoming years.
A working spreadsheet of science policy fellowships is here.
Finally, I paraphrase advice I learned from a group for people taking the Foreign Service exam. Especially for people that are more advanced in their careers, in addition to considering formal education, it's quite valuable to start thinking about public policy - government response to issues on behalf of the public - how it relates to their work, their community, or other issues they're interested in.
If you're interested in science policy as an opportunity to contribute to good works while you live and work abroad, consider applying for the Peace Corps, an NGO, or a missionary program through a religious organization.
If you're interested in to be a part of shaping policy, then consider an internship or other entry level role working for an international organization or with a think tank.
If your goal is to work in public diplomacy - the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies - consider working with a media watch group or as a communications officer for your member of Congress.
Consider volunteering at the city council, or following the city council meetings. Especially at the state and local level, policy is open to the public, for comment and for input.
Entry into work in science policy is often not straightforward. As you start to engage, you'll begin taking advantage of a unique opportunity to learn more and build the connections and experiences that will inform your decisions about how to proceed with your professional pursuits. If you are involved in work that matters to you, then you will not only gain experience, but also references who have seen your heartfelt contribution to a common cause. Spend your time doing work that matters to you. If it opens doors professionally, great. But even if it never does, your time will not have been wasted.
Originally published in the AWIS San Diego July/August 2014 newsletter.
There are two motivations for writing about science policy for me: one personal and one general. First, last year I transitioned from academic research to a career focused on science policy. Writing about science policy keeps me focused and accountable. Second, I acknowledge that many of my peers, trained in research through academic Ph.D. and postdoc positions, can benefit from learning about career options beyond the relative scarcity of permanent academic and other research jobs. I hope to facilitate discussions of and solutions for the problem of elusive research jobs by sharing with AWIS-SD information about non-academic work where the skills of science and engineering Ph.Ds. can be helpful.
My informal networking presented a particularly remarkable chance to tap into the insights of rising professionals in science and technology policy. I have invited these professionals to respond to a set of emailed interview questions. I have published the exact responses of one here. My interviewee is Leonardo Alves, Ph.D., a Science and Technology Policy Fellow of The California Council on Science and Technology. In the next newsletter, I will write again about science policy and include a summary of the other responses I received, give examples of where and how science, engineering, and technology policy are practiced now, and address the issue of how policy might help people with science and engineering Ph.Ds. and no permanent academic job.
Q1. Could you tell us a little bit about your background and interests? How did you end up involved in science policy? How do you define science and policy and what's been the focus of your science policy activities? Where do you see your career going from here?
During my doctoral training at UC Irvine, I received an award and went to Capitol Hill in D.C. to meet with elected officials and legislative aides. Our objective was to raise awareness of the benefits that funding basic research can bring to a society. Although it was an incredibly rewarding experience, I learned that science is often not the main concern in the political arena. During the last year of my Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences, I received the Science and Technology Policy Fellowship. At the time, I was in Philadelphia at the Children's Hospital focusing on metabolism and bioenergetics. The Science Fellows program is offered by the California Council on Science and Technology and has the impetus of bringing scientists and engineers of high caliber to the world of science policy.
As a Science Fellow, I was placed in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. As one of the consultants, I tracked legislation, provided expert advice to decisionmakers, and at times served as the nexus between science and the legislature. Since finishing the fellowship, I accepted a position as a legislative analyst for the Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations with the California Department of Conservation. My role in my current occupation is to monitor the legislature and provide support to the executive branch on issues under the jurisdiction of the department. I see my career continuing in the executive branch, which I personally believe, allows a person with technical skills and passion for a topic to be most effective at directing science-based policy decisions.
Q2. Some government science policies, such as those regarding the use of human embryonic stem cells, have been pretty controversial and hotly contested. What do you think has been the top science policy decision in the United States in the past five years? In the state of California?
In California, Human Embryonic Stem Cells with the inception of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and the Global Warming Solutions Act, have been two of the most controversial, hotly debated, and of enormous consequences to the state and the world. The approach California took regarding both of these issues has set California apart from all the other states. Unfortunately, at the federal level due to many factors, especially partisanship, hotly debated issues become stagnant and are not acted upon. This has been the case for many efforts to mitigate climate change and to increase the use of alternative sources of energy. There is great room for improvement in both the state and federal arenas; however, scientists must try to demonstrate that issues with a scientific component are not political, and should not be seen as partisan.
Q3. President Obama and his administration made some strong appointments of scientists, people like Steven Chu, Jane Lubchenco and John Holdren. What do you think are the most significant challenges they have faced? What have been their most important accomplishments?
From a scientist's perspective working at the Capitol, the greatest challenge is the disparate academic background scientists have compared to people who traditionally have been involved in policy. Lawmakers have a different set of skills, often possessing a deeper understanding for the process and great proficiency at navigating through the political "climate." Scientists, on the other hand, are not versed in these fields, but are aware of important issues that rarely reach the surface. A great example is basic research funding. To a scientist from academia, the importance and the consequences of curtailing basic research funding is obvious; however, to a lawmaker often it is more sensible to fund clinical trials of a pharmaceutical company. The latter will most likely be most cost-beneficial to the public since a drug has already been found, and it is just a matter of funding and time before it reaches the market. Scientists also, generally have a mindset very different than the elected officials. We rely on data, projections, estimates, and realistic consequences. Scientists often side on the side of caution rather than presenting hyperbolic consequences. In the political scene there is little room for being extra cautious; arguments that neither have a price tag nor disastrous consequences, or do not account for a loss of jobs, never become a priority in the legislature. Neither stem cells, climate change, continued reliance on fossil fuels, nor decreased funding to public universities are issues traditionally framed under that optics [i.e., political appearance or perspective]. Hence, it is obvious that they [these issues] are not the cornerstone of political campaigns. Reframing issues having a major scientific component, in addition to convincing others of their importance to society, to me, is the greatest challenge scientists at all levels of government face. Notwithstanding brilliant credentials, these appointees had a difficult time achieving their objectives at the federal level; meanwhile California, as a state or at the local level, was able to make significant strides in terms of climate change and recycling.
Q4. Science policy issues appear diverse and complex. Problems of energy, immigration, climate change, health care and education. What do you think are some policies the current administrations should focus on to rebuild their science and technology activities and infrastructure?
Education and greater science literacy are the missing pillars in society. Although energy, climate change, and a variety of other issues are very pressing, I fear that until there is greater interest in science by the public-at-large, very little change is possible. In order to rebuild science and technology activities, there ought to be more emphasis in the education of science and math. Officials need to have a better understanding about science and math in order to understand the expert's opinions and advices. In addition, the public needs to better understand the issues in order to care more about them.
California ranks near the bottom in both elementary and middle-school reading and mathematics. Moreover, high school graduation rates are mediocre. The gap between what scientists believe to be important and the elected officials' priorities is daunting. In the current system, it is very difficult to give the necessary time to persuade a lawmaker about an issue not on his or her priority list. Due to the complex nature of scientific issues, it has become even more difficult to influence and change the course of things.
Unfortunately, it is rare that a purely scientific policy issue can draw crowds of voters to the streets. Therefore, it is necessary for both officials and for the public to understand, and care more about these issues. Recently, at the state capitol, a bill proposing a ban to use dogs to hunt bears drew hundreds of people to the capitol; arguably it was the most contentious issue during that legislative year. However, the Republican-sponsored bill, which attempted to make it a requirement for recipients of state funds to provide public access to any publication of the peer-reviewed articles, stopped in the assembly committee silently. Greater scientific awareness is key; the complexity of these issues is not the problem, but rather how current legislators prioritize them. Only education and a drastic change in mindset can change that.
Q5. Many in the science community shy away from overt political activity as it relates to their work. For instance, a friend who works at a biofuels company felt such companies should avoid political activity because dependence on government action may undermine their credibility. How would you convince skeptical but interested scientists to get involved with advocacy? And what do you think would be the most effective way for them to channel their energies?
opinion is on record, it is difficult for the legislators not to side with them.
A scientist is in the unique position to help change the constant reactive mode of government officials. We have the technical expertise rarely seen in the legislature, and often are able to come up with ideas that will prevent problems from ever occurring. In these cases, it was surprising to me, how much a phone call or a letter to your elected official can do. It is important to note that industries and interest groups have people on staff constantly communicating their concerns to the legislators. If no one reaches out, it is difficult for legislators to know what other problems deserve their attention. I believe reaching out to the legislature is where a scientist would be most effective in driving policies.