PCD-You: Meet Marja

From scientist to consultant ’science and society’

Marja was born in 1976 in Wageningen. After high-school she moved to Leeuwarden, where her family originated, to get a bachelors degree in laboratory science (HBO). Following, she moved to Dordrecht, and worked at Erasmus MC as a technician for a year. During that year, she found herself highly interested in biology and decided to go back to University. After finishing her Master-degree in Biology in Leiden, she started her PhD in 2001 at Erasmus MC.

As a young PhD student, Marja wanted to pursue a career in science, but changed her mind towards the end.  She finished her PhD in 2007, a year after giving birth to her first child. This was planned as Marja had always wanted to have a family. But during her PhD, she realized that if she wanted to be a successful scientist, this would mean that she could not have her family the way she wanted:  For her it was either being a scientist ór having a family.

Marja really loves science, so in her career she wanted to keep science close to her heart. She considered different options, but there was nothing that really grabbed her. Teaching for example, would draw her too much away from the real science. And then, she just happened to come across a job-ad for ‘consultant science and society’ at the department of Cell Biology at the Erasmus MC, where she used to work. She never even thought a job like that existed, applied and was successful.

Her tasks as a consultant science and society include writing press releases about discoveries within the Erasmus MC, writing content for websites, organizing public lectures, discussion nights and science-theatre. She works 3 days a week, which combines very well with her family that has grown to three kids.

Her biggest success so far was a press release she wrote about a novel scientific finding that even made it to national TV (NOS). Prior to the broadcast she spent hours on the phone speaking with journalists. This illustrated that her decision to communicate this research had been a good one. (Read the news article here [in Dutch])  

 Luck or a planned career?

In retrospect, becoming a science communicator was actually quite an obvious career choice. During her masters, Marja already followed courses in science journalism and always loved to explain her research to others. But she had never thought that these skills could be useful for her future career.

Whether this career path is a lucky shot or not, Marja loves her current job. There is lot of variety of activities, days are never similar. She is in close contact with not only scientists, but also artists, actors and other people of the creative community. She enjoys her work most when an event has been successful: when science was well presented and both the scientist and the audience had fun. What she finds challenging in her work is making scientists aware of the need for science communication. According to Marja, scientists are very modest about their discoveries. Of course, explaining the relevance of fundamental research to lay people can be challenging, but often scientists don’t see the urgency to present their findings to society at all. Even the scientist whose research made it to Dutch national TV wanted to go to a research meeting first before talking to a journalist, while Marja had been continuously receiving phone calls from 8.30h on that morning. That’s why Marja has the important task of approaching and encouraging scientists to write press-releases or to speak at a public lectures.

Unrealistic perspectives

During her undergraduate studies, it was made clear to Marja and her fellow students that the default career path was 1) obtaining a PhD, 2) going abroad for a postdoc, and 3) becoming a professor. The fact that eventually such a career would only work out for the happy few was never explained. Almost all beginning PhD students see themselves as professor in the future, and that is something very unrealistic. Marja hopes things have changed over the past years. For example, she notices that working for a company is no longer considered as something 'indecent'. Marja thinks that students should be aware that not everyone can be a top-scientist, and a PhD might not be necessary for every job. She thinks there should be positions for master-graduates other than technician or PhD student, some in-between functions that so far don’t exist.

Making students aware of their choices and options in an earlier stage, maybe even before they start a PhD, is very important according to Marja. Career fairs are useful, but often very large-scale. As PCDI´s activities are at a smaller scale and therefore more personal than career fairs. She hopes there will be more of those in the future. Although PI´s should become more aware of the need for career development, it should be the PhD student to initiate career development-activities. Graduate schools and courses may help with that, but at Erasmus MC Marja doesn’t see many things happening yet.

Although now in a very different field, Marja appreciates her PhD degree. Many things she learned such as writing in English, presenting her work, being organized, networking, now come in hand. Just like when she was a scientist, she needs to keep looking at the big picture without losing track of the details.

The future of science communication

At the moment, Marja is happy with the work she is doing. But she is also realistic: with science budgets being cut, extra ‘services’ as a department-science communicator are the first positions that are at risk to be made redundant.

Working in a close relationship with society is great in her current job, a big contrast to when she was a scientist. It is also great to be able to combine this career with her family; a 3-day working week would not have been feasible for a postdoc. She looks forward to work more hours when the kids are older and follow courses again for her personal and career development. At that moment she would have more time again to visit science events. Life is full of choices and Marja is happy to have made this one.

Her message to young scientists who don’t know which way to go is one that also applies to life in general: Always follow your heart. It is possible to combine a (large) family with a challenging career, even one that keeps science close to your heart!

This interview was posted on PCD-You 

PCD-You: Meet Wia Timmerman

A classical story, about a researcher who loves science, is forced to go to 'the other side' and finds out working for a company is also great!

On a sunny Friday afternoon, I meet Wia Timmerman in her office at the Groningen location of PRA International, where she works as a senior research scientist. Before we start, she mentions that she thinks what PCDI is doing is very important, something she was missing when she stepped out of the academic world. At that point, she would have loved the support of PCDI and fellow PhD’s struggling with their careers.

Wia Timmerman studied biology in Groningen, graduated in ‘87 and started her PhD-research at the department of Pharmaco-chemistry in Groningen. After obtaining her degree in ‘92, she went to Newark for 6 months and obtained a KNAW-grant that allowed her to return to the Netherlands. This KNAW-grant, comparable to the current VIDI, lasted for 3 years with a possible extension to 5 years, and was considered the first step towards a permanent position in academia. So that was what she hoped to achieve from the start of her PhD, to become a group leader. Although she loved her work and obtained quite a number of publications, luck was not on her side.

Too many temporary contracts

With no permanent position available at her department when her KNAW-fellowship ended, she had one short fixed-term contract after another, making it impossible to establish a research group. After a couple of years, with still no permanent position in sight, she found herself demotivated and frustrated. But with two small children and a husband who just obtained a job as associate professor in Groningen, she did not want to leave the region. So she realized that she should give up her ambition of becoming a PI and apply for jobs at companies, which felt as a failure for her at that moment.

 She obtained a position as project-coordinator at Pharma Bio-Research, as PRA was called at that moment. And that was a big change, it took her a while to get used to the different way of working compared to academia. There was much more pressure on projects, with very strict time lines. She had to do lots of small administrative and financial tasks that were never important when she was a researcher. She felt that a part of her academic freedom had been taken away. But on the other hand, she liked working with a group of people with different backgrounds on one goal, and she liked the fact that the clinical studies actually had a clear start and finish. She also appreciated that, in a relatively small company, the lines to the top are shorter than at the university, so she had a better insight in the organization.

All her projects at the university had been preclinical work using animal models, focused on substances that act on the central nervous system. Wia always had been interested in the clinical applications of her research, and in collaborating with physicians and psychiatrists. At PRA, where she now is part of the science team, she works in phase I clinical research, which is just one step further in the development from fundamental research to new drug. She likes being close to her previous research topic, and she even finds the results of studies she previously worked on in academia coming back in clinical trials. She now finds herself much closer to real life, as a PhD-student she spent days at an electrophysiology setup, monitoring a single cell, which made her feel out of touch with the world outside.


The importance of transferrable skills

According to Wia, very important skills needed to succeed in a company are, good organizational and project management skills, and good interpersonal communication. Wia thinks that it is necessary to obtain these skills during a PhD, because they are VERY important in the world outside academia but of course also within academia. And, as only 10% of all PhD-students will obtain a position at a university, she thinks it would be good to include these skill trainings in a PhD-programme. PhD programmes nowadays falling under the umbrella of graduate schools certainly will help this development: for example many students nowadays participate in writing and project management skill courses. Wia is also a project-leader of a TI Pharma research grant and is happy to see her PhD-students going to business and management courses.


A mother and scientist

An issue for many female scientists is how to combine a career with children. Wia never really had problems with this. As long as your employer (and that of your partner) is supportive and flexible, it is manageable. Both Wia and her husband chose to work 32 - 36 hours a week, this combined with being creative with time, there was always someone home to be with the children. She is convinced that it is possible to both have a career, even a scientific one, and have time to spend with your children.


Self-confidence

Wia Timmerman is happy and successful in her new position. It wasn’t easy to adapt to a totally different working environment. But she remained confident in her skills and learned about possibilities to grow and develop in different settings as well. This was an eye-opener for her. So to all PhD-students and postdocs who doubt about the future, she wants to say that a job in a non-academic environment can be as challenging and rewarding as an academic position. Most important is to believe in your own capabilities and find out where your interests are.

This article was originally published on the PCD-You blog of the Postdoc Career Development Initiative (PCDI)

Peer-review versus de idealistische wetenschapper

In april verscheen in het wetenschappelijke tijdschrift Nature een commentaar van de Nederlandse moleculair bioloog Hidde Ploegh, die werkt op het prestigieuze MIT-instituut in Boston. Deze gerenommeerde wetenschapper, die heeft gepubliceerd in de allerbeste tijdschriften, veegde de vloer aan met het huidige algemeen gebruikte systeem van het publiceren van onderzoeksresultaten: peer-review.

Voor de niet-wetenschappers onder de lezers een uitleg over dit systeem (zie ook eerdere artikelen op Sciencepalooza van Pleuni en Tim). Als onderzoeker heb je een idee, je bedenkt slimme experimenten om je hypothese te testen, en na jaren zweten in het lab, door databases graven of patiëntengegevens bekijken heb je genoeg gegevens verzameld. Je schrijft een mooi artikel en stuurt dit op naar een tijdschrift dat past bij jouw vakgebied, maar kijkt ook naar de kwaliteit. Wetenschappelijke tijdschriften worden geclassificeerd aan de hand van impact factors: hoe vaak artikelen uit zo’n tijdschrift geciteerd worden. Overtuigd als je bent van je mooie verhaal kies je een tijdschrift met een hoge impact factor.

Bij dit tijdschrift leest een editor het artikel door (nou ja, de samenvatting) en besluit of het interessant genoeg is. Zo niet, dan krijg je onmiddellijk bericht terug: rejected! Maar ach, je had wat hoog gegokt, dus je stuurt je artikel naar een ander tijdschrift met een iets lagere impact factor. Daar vindt de editor het wel interessant en die stuurt je artikel door naar een paar wetenschappers (de reviewers) uit (ongeveer) hetzelfde vakgebied die je artikel kritisch lezen, kijken of er geen fouten in zitten en die suggesties kunnen doen om het beter te maken (revisions). Vervolgens rapporteren zij aan de editor, die een besluit maakt: accept, reject of accept with revisions. Dit proces heet peer-review, en zo uitgelegd klinkt het als een goed systeem, maar er zitten nogal wat haken en ogen aan. 

Want een reviewer heeft altijd commentaar en stelt altijd extra experimenten voor die gedaan moeten worden om het artikel te kunnen publiceren. En dit is wat Hidde Ploegh hekelt - volgens hem zijn de review-commentaren lang niet altijd relevant, kosten ze de onderzoeker veel tijd en geld en levert het de wetenschap niet eens echt wat op. Maar ja, als je het niet doet, komt je artikel zeker niet in dat tijdschrift... dus schoorvoetend begeef je je weer naar het lab, werk je maanden aan de gesuggereerde experimenten en stuur je de gereviseerde versie op. Met de hoop dat het nu wel goed genoeg is, want zeker is dit niet: soms worden in de volgende ronde wéér experimenten voorgesteld. Dit proces kan zo een jaar duren - en nog steeds is er een kans dat je artikel wordt afgewezen.

De idealistische wetenschapper 

Zijn “we” (als wetenschappers) hier niet een beetje afgeweken van het originele doel van de wetenschap? Wilden we niet graag weten hoe iets werkt? Iets uitvinden, iets ontdekken, iets uitzoeken? Dat was gelukt - maar om het zo hoog mogelijk te kunnen publiceren dansen we naar de pijpen van de reviewers en de editors, en besteden we onze kostbare tijd en geld (van overheidsinstanties en goede-doelenfondsen) aan nutteloze experimenten. Moeten we niet terug naar de basis; vanuit nieuwsgierigheid gedreven iets uitzoeken en dat delen met vakgenoten? In plaats van iets nieuws zo lang mogelijk geheim houden om te voorkomen dat anderen er met dat idee vandoor gaan? Hierdoor creeëren we de mogelijkheid dat meerdere mensen hetzelfde werk doen terwijl er maar één de publicatie in het toptijdschrift kan krijgen. De snelste wint, maar of dit altijd de beste is, valt te betwijfelen.

Herzie het systeem! 

Volgens Hidde Ploegh zouden reviewers bij het voorstellen van experimenten ook moeten kijken naar de kosten die hieraan verbonden zijn en naar de relevantie van de experimenten voor de vergroting van de algemene kennis. De afgelopen jaren verschijnen er tijdschriften, zoals PLoS Currents, waarbij het review-systeem anders is: in principe kan alles gepubliceerd worden, zolang de experimenten maar goed gedaan zijn. Suggesties van de reviewers kún je uitvoeren als je dit wilt, en daarmee later je artikel updaten. Deze PLoS Currents, waarvan er nu vier bestaan, zijn een eerste indicatie dat het ook anders kan.

Zou dit het begin zijn van een nieuwe manier van publiceren, waarbij het delen van gegevens met elkaar, en het vergroten van de kennis over een onderwerp, belangrijker is  dan de impact factor? Zo zou het, volgens mijn idealistische idee van de wetenschap, eigenlijk moeten zijn... 

Dit artikel verscheen oorspronkelijk op Sciencepalooza

Should I stay or should I go...?

This blog was written for PCDI's community 

The past year I have been writing about my doubts of an academic career, my thoughts on what my perfect job would be and the actions I took to find it. After the postdoc retreat in 2010 I decided to search for what I really want and started to do a lot of other things next to my research. These included organizing the postdoc retreat in February, writing for different websites and organizations (Sciencepalooza and more, like PCDI) and participating in our departments Academische Jaarprijs-team. I found out that I was really enjoying these things and started to look for work in that direction.  

As I wasn’t afraid to speak out my wish for a new challenge, people started asking me to participate in science communication activities and soon I was offered a job - that I will start in July. In short, I will be project leader on the development of an exhibition about science in a new research institute in Groningen (ERIBA). I will be working together with scientists, designers and artists to translate the research that is performed at the institute to the general public and schools. The preparations already started, so now I am, in between my experiments and writing a paper, sending emails, organizing brainstorms with designers and talking to people from a small science center at the university. And I love it!

But... the new job will be for 50% - so I have to find more work to be able to pay the bills. So there was another big question: what else? Maybe soon I will be in a position to earn some money with popular science writing. I set up my own blog some months ago, but it might be difficult to get myself in between the well-known journalists. I could work for the science center at the university. Or, maybe, I could do some part-time research.

I had decided against doing research, what can you do, part-time science? And I wasn’t enjoying it that much any more. So, these would be my final months as a scientist, the end of my job that I had been doing for almost 8 years now. Scary, but I started to get used to the idea.

And then, when I least expected it, came, out of the blue: a grant! My first one ever! Why now? And what now? Go for the project? Or try being involved in the research from a distance? Training a PhD-student to do the experiments and then supervising?

So, what do you think? Can I be a part-time scientist? Shall I keep one foot in the real science while having a job in science communication? Or shall I step out of research totally? Shall I try to become a real science journalist? Or shall I just take the shotgun approach and do everything?

PCDI: second postdoc retreat - from behind the scenes

A report of PCDI's postdoc retreat that took place on February 16-18 in Heeze. I attended the retreat last year as a participant and this year as a member of the organizing committee. 

--------

Original post on PCDI's community website:

Second retreat? Yes, after the great experience of last year, I decided to get involved and joined the organizing committee. When I attended the retreat last year, I had the question that all the participants have: do I want to be a scientist, and if not, what DO I want to do? Although I had some ideas already at that time, things got clearer during these three beautiful days in April (see my report from last year). Because I enjoyed the retreat a lot I decided to help in making the 2011 retreat at least as nice as the one in 2010. 


The organization started in August, when the postdoc committee was assembled. In September, when the committee met for the first time, we divided the tasks among the nine of us and brainstormed about the theme of the event and about potential keynote speakers. Since that first encounter, we kept in touch with each other frequently by email, gathered keynote speakers from our own contacts and found enough networkers for the round-table discussions. Five months and two more meetings later, the postdoc retreat was a fact! The three days we had worked so hard for were about to start... Would it all go well? Would all the keynote speakers make it? Would the participants enjoy it as much as we all did the year before? Needless to say I was a bit nervous.

And then it started... three exciting days! And everything went just fine (at least, that’s what we think). Our work paid off well: the retreat was fully booked and the evaluation forms we analyzed showed that most participants enjoyed the three days in Heeze. Looking back at the organization, it didn’t seem an awful lot of work, as we discussed a lot via email and the work was divided among all of us and spread out over a number of months. I learned a lot about organizing a real conference and working together in a team. And next to that it was fun! When do you get the chance to just call a professor to invite him/her to give a lecture? When can you talk to a famous person as Bas Haring in person? I think I can speak from the whole committee if I say that we enjoyed organizing the 2011 retreat. So if you are in doubt about organizing next year: just do it!

This year, I saw the retreat from a different perspective: I attended some of the lectures and workshops, but also used some time to prepare for activities at the retreat. And as a participant I was also asked the usual question: “So, what are your plans?”. As I have been thinking about and working on a new career in the last year (see one of my blogposts), my answer was that I had a clear idea and a job in the pipeline. So, people started asking me how I (almost) got this perfect job and I found myself almost in the position of one of the networkers. In my case, the way to find the perfect job was: be visible! All the things I want to do in a future career, I have been doing next to my postdoc over the past years (writing, organizing events (here and here)). And by not being afraid to speak out my wishes for a new career (even when this could harm my position as a scientist), I was visible among people in the field. In this way, I basically created my own job (or, others created the perfect job for me).  

So as take-home message: be visible and create your own perfect career!It is time to take charge of your future! Follow PCDI and be the first one to get news about the next postdoc retreat: sign up for the newsletter on the website: www.pcdi.nl or follow them on twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/PostdocNews. 

The scientist of the future

Forum discussion @ PCDI’s postdoc retreat 2011, Friday February 18, 2011
Panel members: Frank Miedema, Bas Haring, Ingrid Molema and Jan Raaijmakers

What would happen if you ask a dean and a philosopher what the ’Scientist of the Future’ should be like? This was exactly what was done at the forum discussion on the final day of the 2011 PCDI Postdoc Retreat, witnessed by an audience of about 100 PhD-students and postdocs.

Prof Frank Miedema, dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Utrecht and an established scientist, shared experiences from his scientific career with us. Working at different institutes all over the world, he noticed that the arrogant scientist who dares to step out and brag about his/her work will be more successful than the hard-working shy postdoc who spends lots of time time at the bench doing serious experiments. Also he explained that (editors of) journals are not as unbiased as people might think. Unfortunately, he stated, “although a university should be an intellectual institute, it’s all about politics in the end”.

Mathematician and philosopher Prof Bas Haring agreed on the politics involved in science. But he tried to give the audience a different view by making us realize that one should always be aware of what you are actually doing, and not just try to produce as many papers as possible. Also, you have to think of what you really WANT to do, instead of doing something because other people say you are good at it. His main message was that taking time on a regular basis to reflect on your work and yourself might increase your chances on both success and happiness Only then you will be able to beat the political game and make it as a scientist.

But what about the traditional way of the curious scientist (the 14-year old boy who watches the stars and decides that his whole life will be devoted to studying them). Does this scientist exist or will “Curiosity kill the scientist” as was put in a statement? According to to Bas Haring, there may be some truth in this - some non-academically educated bachelor-students (HBO) get more done, just because they do not ask too many questions. Prof Ingrid Molema, PI and head of the Groningen graduate school GUIDE, and Prof Jan Raaijmakers, CEO at GlaxoSmithKline, who joined the forum discussion, believe that curiosity remains a requirement to succeed in science, and that it will cause a scientist to ask the right questions. But how can we perform science out of curiosity (fundamental research) as grants are mainly reviewed on applicability and relevance of the outcomes?

Are “Communication and visibility... the keys to succes”?. Should we just write down our curiosity-driven questions in the right context to obtain a grant? Molema stressed that selling your OWN ideas (not those of your PI) in the right way is indeed very important for getting funded. Haring agreed that communication and visibility are core qualities of science and vital to find the essence of your research. But how will we be able to fulfill all the criteria of our grants and still look ourselves in the eyes in the mirror when you come home at night?

“Academic institutions should allow researchers to take time to reflect on their personal development and careers”, despite the fact that universities and PI’s are not always willing to spend time and money on events like the PCDI Postdoc Retreat. That young scientists are willing to do so is demonstrated by the 100+ participants that are actively involved in the discussion and are not afraid to speak out. A fiery discussion was ongoing about the strong positions of universities and the ‘weak’ positions of individual scientists.


So, how should the sentence “The scientist of the future is someone who...” be completed? Haring described someone who is bright, self-reliant and reflective; Raaijmakers didn’t believe he or she exists, according to Molema it is someone who is, next to reflective, also a people-manager, and Miedema thought it is someone who knows how the lead the lab of the future. Different views but with one strong common aspect: we need more time for reflection and personal development. So, more postdoc retreats, coaching and professional help on people management? But how will we manage to find this so much needed time for personal development, as our supervisors rather see us working in the lab?

The discussion between the participants lasted beyond the morning planned, but it shouldn’t stop now we are back to our labs and involved in our daily businesses. Do you have answers to the questions raised? How does your “scientist of the future look” like? Please share your opinion with PCDI’s community on this blog and we can keep the forum-discussion open beyond the postdoc retreat!

- This blog was originally posted on PCDI's community blog -

New year resolutions

A new year is approaching rapidly, so it’s time for New Year resolutions. If any of yours sound like 'Finishing my PhD' or 'Finding a new postdoc', then take a minute to think about what kind of career you want to have. Will you continue along the obvious route of doing a post-doc, struggling to get grants and finding one of the scarce research positions at university, or will you step out of 'real science' and move into industry, policy-making, or something completely different?

If you’re in doubt about your future career, or if you’re curious about what else you could do with a PhD in the life sciences, a good thing you could do for 2011 is to register straightaway for PCDI's Postdoc Retreat. In just 3 days, you will get an almost complete overview of all the possible careers within and outside the academic world. You will meet 80 - 100 other PhD students and postdocs who have similar questions. You can attend workshops from qualified trainers who will show you how to give better presentations, how to discover your transferrable skills, and how to write that perfect grant- or job application. And you can enjoy talking to people with a PhD in the life sciences who followed diverse career paths after graduating.
Last year I attended the retreat and returned to work completely energized (read my report of the retreat). For me, those 3 days were a confirmation of something that I had only partly realized at that time: my future (heart?) did not lie in the academic world. In last year’s forum discussion about 'our impact on society', I realized that this was it: I wanted to have an impact on society MY way! And I knew that I had to take action to reach my goals.

Now, almost a year later, I have taken my first steps in a career in science communication: I started writing for a popular science blog (Sciencepalooza, see also here) and I took part in the Academische Jaarprijs, a competition for the translation of science to a broad audience (see www.genenkraken.nl and my blog entries about this subject).

By being active in these fields next to doing my postdoc work, people noticed that I was truly interested in a career in science communication. This has recently led to a job offer to carry out science-communication-activities for a new European research institute being built in Groningen. So from January onwards, I will be a postdoc for 50% of the time, and working in science communication for the other 50%. All this would not have happened if I had not decided to take charge of my career last year!

At Postdoc Retreat 2010, I was able to 'Put my career in perspective'. Will you do the same in 2011? Check out the retreat’s program for 2011, read the summary of last year’s retreat and sign up to find out that 'Your Future is Your Choice!'

- This blog was first posted on PCDI's community blog - 

Transferrable skills

About being a writer, project coordinator and scientist

During a career as a scientist, you develop a lot of so-called 'transferable skills': not only do you learn how to do labwork, write and read papers, but also (sometimes without noticing) you learn how to lead projects, manage people, organize, teach, explain our research, and be creative and flexible. These transferable skills, and their importance, are becoming more prominent to me now I’m getting  involved in different things next to doing research.

First, I became a writer by for a popular science blog (sciencepalooza). I have always found writing in simple terms rather difficult, but after having written only a small number of blogs, I started to adapt to it. Now it takes me less and less time to get an idea, work it out and post it. Even during a busy conference, I found some time to write about interesting lectures...

Second, in participating in the Academische Jaarprijs with a team from our department, I have the task to be the coordinator of the project. I ended up being the contact person for the team-members participating and all secondary parties involved, and being responsible for keeping overview of the many different sub-projects we are doing. Because I wanted to be part of everything and keep an eye on all activities, the hours I was putting in were increasing and I was getting more and more stressed. So it was quickly learned that delegating jobs and trusting your team-members is actually the most important job of a project-coordinator.

Last but not least, I’m still a postdoc, so I have to keep my projects in the lab running (and actually working), to teach, to write grants, to visit conferences and to supervise students. To be able to do that there are two more very important skills I’m achieving more and more: multi-tasking and being efficient.

I think the experience I got as a scientist in the past 6 years, eg. to be flexible, to work together with different types of people (sometimes difficult ones) and to report about my work frequently made me able to adapt to these other functions quickly. So remember: if you doubt your skills at any point during your career, you probably have developed these skills already and it’s just a matter of refreshment!

- This blog was first posted on PCDI's community blog - 

The Academische Jaarprijs

In October 2009, I had a chat with our professors on how we could explain our research to the general public and I suggested participating in the Academische Jaarprijs, which is a competition between Dutch universities and research institutes for the best translation of science to the general audience. I have been following it since its start in 2005 and have friends who almost won the prize with their group. It was something I always wanted to participate in, so I tried to make more people in the department enthusiastic for it . And I think it worked - as on our research retreat, the Academische Jaarprijs was on the program and one of the invited speakers was the 2007-winner of the prize. After inspiring and sometimes hilarious brainstorm-sessions, one idea came out as best and we decided to take that further to a real plan (I can’t tell much about it, you will hear more in September). Being the one who had come up with the idea in the first place, I became coordinator of the activities.

In the following months, we formed a team and talked to many people from outside academia, as the Department of Communication, a promotion-centre for the city of Groningen, journalists, web-designers.... They were all enthusiastic about our plan and were willing to help us. So in March, we submitted our idea, it got through the first selection-round, we send in a real proposal and last week it was announced that our plan was among the 5 finalists!

What does this mean for my search for a career in science communication? Well, mainly that I’m actually already doing it! Organizing events, talking to people outside academia about science, writing about it, and meeting a lot of people will help me expanding my network. Working on this project gives me opportunities that I would never have gotten by staying in the lab. How else would I end up at the Hilversum-studio’s to record a TV-pitch for a popular-science program? Doing this strengthens my feelings that I should pursue a career in this direction. But it also gives me the energy to get to the lab and get my experiments going, because I have to do that in a bit less time now.

I will keep you posted on our progress, especially in September when the plans will be revealed in newspapers and on TV, and the audience can vote for the best plan! The take-home message for you is: If you have an idea, just talk with people about it, even if you know you’re not in the position to make decisions. If you’re very enthusiastic, others might support you in your plans and can help you pursue them!! Go for it!!

 - This blog was first posted on PCDI's community blog -

Be visible: The importance of communicating science to the public

A report of the forum discussion of PCDI Postdoc Retreat 2010

Jos van den Broek followed a ‘normal’ path in science: after studying Biochemistry in Leiden, he obtained his PhD in Pharmacology in 1981. After he wrote a second edition of his thesis for family and friends, he started a career in science-writing. He worked as a writer for different organizations in The Netherlands for some of years, and then went to the MIT in Boston on a Science-writing Fellowship.Back in the Netherlands, he worked for a number of well-known popular science magazines, as freelancer and as editor-in-chief. Since 2002, he is (assistant)-professor in Science Communication, at the VU and Leiden University. Also, he wrote a number of books on science communication and organizes many public events.

If there is anyone in the Netherlands who knows all about science communication, it is Jos van den Broek – and he was at the PCDI Postdoc Retreat with three clear messages for young scientists: BE VISIBLE, BE VISIBLE, BE VISIBLE!

According to Jos van den Broek, there are many reasons why we, as scientists, should get involved in science- and technology communication. For example, our economy would be impossible without the high-standard life-science research and bio-business that we have. So everybody working in this field has the responsibility to explain the public what we have achieved. Also, for public acceptance and a good opinion about science, we need to communicate to the general audience. Without the approval of the public, we will never get proper funding and we won’t be able to recruit talent for the future. The one and only way to achieve this all, which is the take-home message from the lecture is to MAKE OURSELVES VISIBLE and show people that WE ARE PROUD of our achievements!

The lecture was followed by the forum discussion: ‘Your impact on society’. Jos van den Broek was joined by an established scientist (Floor van Leeuwen from the NKI), a key player in industry (Jan van de Winkel, director of Genmab BV) and a consultant in Technology Transfer (Mirjam Leloux). Together with the retreat participants we discussed recent topics, as: how to prevent catastrophes about the public vaccination for HPV (that was refused by a lot of girls/their parents because of aggressive campaigns on the internet) and the fear for the Mexican flu (thanks to our Virus-guru Ab Osterhaus). Floor van Leeuwen had been a key player in the HPV-vaccination campaign and explained us how things went wrong despite good intentions of the participating scientists. We discussed how to prevent such debacles from happening again. Everybody agreed that more informed communicators (journalists) would have helped. Floor van Leeuwen stressed that we need to educate the public that in science, there are always uncertainties to be dealt with. So again the message was: it is our duty as scientists to educate and inform, to make sure that everybody can separate the good from the incorrect and misinterpreted information that we can read in the media. If we don’t, then who would?
 
And where to achieve this better than at the basis of our education: schools. This would also help to reach a goal that Jos van den Broek stressed: we need our talent for the future! There are already programmes to bring science to high-schools, like the travelling DNA-labs, Junior Science-projects, scientists that visit schools to explain their research… You can participate in these projects, or even visit schools at your own initiative – schools are usually keen to receive guest lectures from scientists. So also for this – BE VISIBLE is very true. Do you think you have something interesting to tell? Just go and tell people about it! Maybe we should even expand these projects to primary schools, where children are very eager to learn and explore new things. Good communication to primary school teachers, convince them that science does not have to be difficult but could be very exciting. Would that be a strategy get science to primary school pupils, the new Einsteins of the future?

It is clear that this was a very inspiring and energizing morning for many of the young researchers at the retreat (including myself). But a number of questions arose from the audience: Where to find the right people to organize an event? Can we really just step up to a high-school and give a class about our research? How to find a decent writing course? Jos van den Broek suggested to look into possibilities to set up an afternoon-course or workshop with PCDI: ‘How to be a good Science Communicator’. I personally hope that PCDI will follow his advice and come up with a course full of science writing, public speaking, networking and presentation skills. I will surely attend!

I have been inspired: I definitely want to have an impact on society that goes beyond my fundamental research!

- This report was first published on the website of PCDI -

Digestion of the 2010 Postdoc Retreat

If I would have to summarize the past Postdoc-retreat in Heeze in one word, it would be: ENERGIZING! Talking to so many young scientists with similar questions as I had, and listening to people who are happy about their career was very inspiring!When I signed up for the retreat, I wasn’t sure about staying in science, and if not, what I would do else. In the past few months I spent time thinking about this, talking to people, looking into organizations that I would be interested in to work for etc. Just before the retreat, I had made up my mind: after this post-doc I would do something else. I would be either a teacher, or a science communicator, or both. But I wanted to keep my mind open for other possibilities during the retreat.

We listened to two inspiring established scientists, and although I love science, the thing that became most clear to me was: I am not like them... The enormous drive, passion for research, the will to dive very deep into one subject… I don’t really have that, and never had. I am not a bad researcher, but just not a REAL scientist. So for me it would not be the right way to pursue a career in science.

We heard the story from a scientist who started his own spin-off based on his results, and also from someone who helps other researchers with translating their results into products via  a technology-transfer office. I like to translate science in something with a practical purpose but I didn’t make any major discoveries that could be used. But helping other scientists with this might be an interesting way to go, although my commercial skills are not very developed...

Also a few major players in the pharmaceutical/biotech industry were invited. What came up as a PRO of working for a company was the team-spirit, something the speakers had missed during their scientific career. I also sometimes miss the contact with other during working alone on my project. But I don’t really want to do labwork anymore and the strong competition in industry is something I probably won’t like. So although I think a career in industry would be a nice one, I don’t think this is the right way to go for me.

And then, on the last day, the topic was ‘Your impact on society’. Together with people from science communication and industry, we discussed about our role as scientists in educating the public. About how to prevent media-catastrophes like the controversy on the HPV-vaccine and the doom-stories about the Mexican flu. About how to get schoolchildren in contact with science. About how to change the general idea about science…  During those discussions I forgot about my tiredness after 3 days of retreat and had to stop myself from taking the microphone every 5 minutes. It was clear: this is what I want to do! I want to tell others about science, to make the public aware about how great science is, to stop the popular media from writing nonsense about science, to make schoolchildren get in contact with science at an early age, to teach science, to write about science…. But I don’t have to do the science myself any more.

So this will be my next career step! Although it might sound clear, it is not simple to translate my desires into a paid job. Science communication is mainly being done on the side by scientists themselves (which is also what I’m doing now). So to really make this next career step I can’t just react on a job application, no, I will have to use my network to explore this option and I am aware that this may take some time. Hopefully this will lead to a job at one point…  So during the retreat I strengthened the idea that I already had for my future career, made it clearer and also expanded my network in the field of science communication. PCDI: Thanks for that! And you: Stay tuned, I will keep you updated via this blog about the progress I’m making.

- This blog was first posted on PCDI's community blog - 

Introduction

After racing through secondary school, University and PhD I found myself in my first real post-doc at the age of 28 and realized that I needed to take a step at my place to reflect on my past and decide which route to take for the rest of my career. Will it be it the freedom and joy of science, but including the endless struggle for money, the uncertainties about positions and the crazy work hours; or will I change to a more stable job that might be (or not…) less challenging?

I considered ‘leaving’ science at the end of my PhD but decided to continue with a post-doc because the ‘other options’ I had were quite vague and none seemed  to be as challenging as science. But during the first year of my post-doc the doubts came back. This was when I came across PCDI and signed up for the Post-doc retreat. And that I started to realize that science is great, but that it doesn’t have to be me who makes the great discoveries. Attending the retreat, keeping my eyes open on other careers linked to science and taking action to do other things next to working in the lab gave me ideas about what I really wanted.

At the moment my projects as a post-doc are actually working out well, I supervise students, I do some teaching, I write blogs for Sciencepalooza, I organize an event with our Department aiming to win the Academische Jaarprijs and I am in the organizing committee of PCDI's Postdoc Retreat 2011. As I actually enjoy all the other things more than really doing the science, I don’t think I will try to set up my own lab and make great discoveries. – I want to be teaching, talking and writing about science, organizing public events and participating in initiatives to bring science to the public. Now I just have to find the job that fits it all… or maybe I already have that job…?

In my blog you can read about all the steps I’m taking to find the perfect career in science communication.

- This blog was first posted on PCDI's community blog -