Science careers and social media: will #IamScience and ‘This is what a scientist looks like’ help change perceptions?

To complement Social Media Week, the nature.com blogs team are publishing a series of posts about science and social media. Two of the posts focus on recent social media memes about science careers – the #IamScience hashtag on Twitter, and the ‘This is what a scientist looks like’ meme on Tumblr.

The #IamScience hashtag is being used by scientists to share the variety of ways they began their science careers. A guest post by Ben Lillie, co-founder of The Story Collider, explains how the meme emerged:

About three weeks ago, a science writer named Kevin Zelnio tweeted this:

Image of #IamScience tweet by Kevin Zelnio

And with that, he completely transformed what I thought was possible, and indeed what the point was, of social media.

The tweet came from a discussion of how people had started their science careers, and Kevin’s frustration that the path to a scientist was always depicted in one way: go to college, go directly to grad school. Hope it was a top-tier school, then, “Bam! You’re a scientist.”

But that wasn’t the path Kevin took, and it wasn’t the path most of the people he knew with careers in science took. So he tweeted, and encouraged others to tweet. It struck a chord, and within hours there were hundreds of people tweeting their stories with the hashtag  #IAmScience.

Ben goes on to explain why the stories being shared via #IamScience are important:

These are tales of wrong turns, failed classes, delayed dreams, failed schools, rejection, disabilities, mistaken careers, and as you saw in Kevin’s tweet, much, much more. As science communicators we talk a lot about humanizing science. It doesn’t get much more human than this — but I’ve rarely seen a major science publication touch most of these subjects. And that, of course, is the power of Twitter. Things that would never be published anywhere find a way of bubbling to the surface.

While #IamScience is helping share diverse stories of how scientists began their science careers, the ‘This is what a scientist looks like website is showing the world that it’s not all lab coats and safety glasses once you get there. In another post, the nature.com communities team explain the concept:

Developed by science writer and multimedia specialist Allie Wilkinson, the concept is simple, a Tumblr blog which collates pictures of scientists from all walks of life. Allie explains, “there is no cookie-cutter mould of what a scientist looks like. A scientist can look like you, or can look like me.”

Allie wanted to show that anyone can be a scientist:

“In the movie Ratatouille, the motto repeated throughout is, ‘anyone can cook’.  Although initially frustrated by this motto, the critic in the movie eventually realizes that not everyone can cook, but a great cook can come from anywhere,” explains Allie. “I want people to realize the same for scientists.  Not everyone can be a scientist, just like not everyone can cook, but a great scientist can be anyone.” Allie hopes that this project will help change stereotypes and inspire kids to realize that they have the potential to be a scientist.

As the nature.com communities team conclude, only time will tell if social media initiatives such as #IamScience and ‘This is what a scientist looks like’ will really change the way people think about what a career in science involves. In the meantime, it’s certainly a powerful way to reach a wider audience and engage with the next generation of potential scientists.

How would you define a successful career in science?

Last week Naturejobs joined more than 100 representatives of funding agencies, research councils, universities and research institutes from across the globe for a workshop on how to track researchers’ careers. The workshop, held in Luxembourg and coordinated by the European Science Foundation (ESF) and Luxembourg’s National Research Fund (FNR), covered a wide range of topics – including how success in a science career should be defined for the purposes of career tracking.

It’s an important issue for both decision makers and scientists to consider because career-tracking studies can be used to judge the impact of funding. And although there have been surprisingly few studies to date – primarily due to running costs – the profile of attendees at the workshop suggests career tracking will play a larger role in funding considerations in the future. So how would you, as a working scientist, define a successful career in science?

Several factors for defining success were put forward by the attendees at the workshop, shown below in no particular order. Please vote for your top three in our poll, and let us know what you think of the suggestions by leaving a comment below. What would you prioritise or dismiss? What is missing? And would you agree or disagree that there are a variety of successful careers for researchers, including those outside academia?

The results of the poll and comments posted below will be considered for inclusion in the final report of the ESF-FNR workshop, and may influence future career-tracking studies, so please feel free to make your views known.

Factors for defining success in science careers

  • Generation of new research ideas (original research and methods)
  • Production of research relevant to society
  • The impact of research on society
  • Personal satisfaction/quality of life
  • (International) networking and professional contacts
  • Diversity (including gender)
  • Employment
  • Leadership position
  • Attractiveness to next generations
  • Salary/income (in relation to national system)
  • Independence
  • Flexibility
  • Security
  • Quality of working environment
  • Quality of research infrastructure
  • Publications
  • Awards
  • Funding

AstraZeneca to cut 2,200 R&D jobs

As part of a major restructuring programme, pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca announced yesterday it would be cutting 2,200 jobs from its research and development (R&D) workforce.

The bulk of job losses will affect employees in its neuroscience arm as the company looks to outsource more of its R&D via external collaborations. It will set up a ‘virtual’ neuroscience research unit comprising 40 to 50 AstraZeneca scientists working with partners in academia and industry, such as the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. The unit will be based in Boston, United States, and Cambridge, United Kingdom, while R&D activities will cease at two sites that are focused on neuroscience: Södertälje in Sweden and Montreal in Canada.

In a statement, AstraZeneca’s president of R&D, Martin Mackay, said: “We’ve made an active choice to stay in neuroscience though we will work very differently to share cost, risk and reward with partners in this especially challenging but important field of medical research.”

US scientists have their say on plans for biomedical workforce

Posted on behalf of Gene Russo, Nature Careers editor

US biomedical scientists recently had a chance to set their field’s priorities. And what was the most pressing problem they reported? The very real possibility that there are too damn many biomedical scientists.

The balance between the supply of biomedical researchers and the demand in terms of available career opportunities should be the biggest priority for reforming the US biomedical workforce, according to a survey response issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Other big priorities that scientists highlighted were PhD characteristics (i.e. PhD curriculum, length of the PhD training period, and lack of preparation for diverse career paths) and postdoctoral-fellow training characteristics (i.e. a bottleneck of jobseekers causing long stints as postdocs and poor mentoring).

Many of the respondents did not mince their words. On the supply and demand issue, some called the current structure of the research workforce a ‘pyramid scheme’ that takes advantage of cheap student and postdoc labour rather than hiring mid-career researchers. Solutions included tenure-model reform, decreasing the number of funded trainees per principal investigator (PI) and using more staff scientists. On the oversupply issue, respondents suggested class-size reductions, raising programme entry requirements and better training for ‘alternative’ careers. Regarding the contraction of research funding, respondents suggested increasing paylines and limiting the number of large grants a single PI is permitted to have.

The survey, part of an NIH working group effort, asked respondents to prioritize future issues for the biomedical workforce. It had 219 respondents — ranging from graduate students to senior scientists — who made a total of 498 ‘quotations’ about various priorities; multiple comments were ranked and the working group then calculated the overall priority of a given issue.

In addition to PhD characteristics and postdoctoral-fellow training characteristics, the working group asked for comment on six other categories: postdoc training, biomedical research career appeal, clinician characteristics, the staff-scientist career track, effects of NIH policies and the training-to-research grant ratio. Based on respondents’ comments, it then added four more categories to its analysis: diversity, mentoring, early educational interventions and industry partnerships.

It’s not a big sample size. But the message is clear: improving satisfaction among early-career biomedical scientists and boosting the efficiency of a system that churns out far more scientists than academia alone can accommodate will require big changes. And these changes will have side effects. Want labs with more full-time staff scientists, and fewer students willing to work 60-hour weeks? Lab productivity and publication rates could suffer (see ‘Mid-career crunch’ for more discussions around changes to NIH grants). Want to curtail tenure? Some argue this would threaten academic freedom and deflate the enthusiasm of academia’s rising biomedical research stars (see ‘The changing face of tenure’ for more).The NIH working group — whose ongoing charge includes developing a “model for a sustainable and diverse US biomedical research workforce” — certainly has its work cut out for it.