SoapboxScience

Prof Julie Williams (JW) is the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Welsh Government, and one of our speakers at our Soapbox Science (SS) Swansea event this Saturday. Before the event, she answers a short set of questions, which hopefully provide some insights into her career path, motivations, and research area. Do join Julie on the 5^th of July, 11-3, on the expanse of Swansea Bay (next to the 360 Beach and Watersports centre and café) and hear her talk on what genes can tell us about dementia.

SS: Julie, it is a great honour to have you on our soapbox for the first Soapbox Science event in Swansea. The aim of this Q&A is to get our readers to know a little bit about you. So, to start with, maybe you can tell us how you got to your current position?

JW: I studied psychology at degree level and then used the skills I had to practical and potentially life-saving use while working for chemical giant ICI, designing their instrument panels in an attempt to lessen the margin for employee error – the result of which could easily prove to have fatal consequences.

After going on to do a PhD looking at, amongst other things, the effects of stress and noise in work-base situations, I took time out to start a family.  When my daughters were one and four, I moved back into academia and renewed my career in research, but I found it was really difficult to get back in.

It was not just because I had my hands full with the children either – there are plenty of families out there who have to cope with the same – I had to get my foot back in the door with a part-time position at Cardiff’s University of Wales College of Medicine at a lower grade.

Luckily, the study of genetics was having a revolution of sorts back in the early ’90s and it was becoming feasible to do things you couldn’t have done five or 10 years previously, like looking at genetic variation and its relationship with disease. Having started working on the likes of schizophrenia for a number of years I moved onto Alzheimer’s, a field of research which was a little more developed. I was fascinated by what genetics could do in identifying at a finite, molecular level what was going on with this disease.

In 2008 I became Chief Scientific Advisor to Alzheimer’s Research UK.  I have also advised UK and Welsh Governments on dementia policy. Previously Dean of Research at the School of Medicine, Cardiff University, I was appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Welsh Government in September 2013.

SS: What, or who, inspired you to get a career in science?

JW: As a child I had this burning interest in things that weren’t fully understood and the idea of having insight into something no one else knew about really intrigued me, so I bought this little pamphlet on Faraday from a branch of WH Smith one day – which, I must stress, I didn’t fully understand – and just thought it was neat.  It showed all his notes and brought the process of what he’d managed to do to life, I was just in awe of it.

Then there was this great documentary series that used to run on the BBC called The Ascent of Man which was presented by the historian Jacob Bronowski and traced the development of human society through its understanding of science.

SS: What is the most fascinating aspect of your research?

JW: In this job excitement comes along once in a blue moon because, more often than not, your first reaction each time you get an interesting development is to immediately go, “Uh-oh, better recheck my findings to check we’ve not done something wrong.’ It’s only when other research teams start producing the same results that you sort of allow yourself a quiet sense of satisfaction, even then though you’re talking months and months down the line – it’s hardly a punch-the-air Eureka moment.

But when I was just about to give a talk about our findings at a 2009 conference in Vienna was one of those rare moments when I suddenly felt we were on the cusp of something new, since another research team also had a paper which boasted similar findings to ours.

In the space of one short day we realised that we’d highlighted three new genes for Alzheimer’s. That’s more than had been accomplished in the previous 17 years.

I’ll never forget that.

SS: What attracted you to Soapbox Science?

JW: The opportunity to share experiences and communicate with people about science.

SS: And if you had to sum up in one word your expectations for the day?

JW: Enthusiasm.

SS: You have a magic wand, you can change one thing about the scientific culture right now. What would it be?

JW: We need a more flexible and supportive structure to underpin career development within science.

SS: Finally, what would be your top recommendation to a female PhD student considering pursuing a career in academia?

JW: Be persistent – if you think you can make a difference just go for it. You don’t have to be perfect to succeed.

Dr Sarah Durant (SD) is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London. Her research aims to develop applied approaches to conservation problems, with a particular focus on large carnivores. She believes using science is key to reverse declines in large carnivores and promote coexistence between people and wildlife. Sarah will be on her soapbox today at our London Soapbox Science (SS) event. Join us and meet her from 12-3, Gabriel’s wharf, London.

SS: Sarah, we are delighted to have you on our soapbox this year! We are very much looking forward to your talk today on the South Bank and hope this little interview will help people get to know you pre-event. To start with, maybe you could tell everyone about your career path: how did you get to your current position?

SD: I was fortunate to find the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), where I am based now, very early in my career. I was appointed as a post doc soon after I had completed my PhD, and joined a new ecological science research group at the Institute of Zoology (IOZ) within ZSL in 1991. However, I spent much of my first 10 years not in London but in Tanzania engaged in field work in Serengeti National Park, where I established a long term project on individually recognised cheetahs – now the longest ongoing study in the world on wild cheetahs. In 2002 I expanded my activities in Tanzania to establish the Tanzania Carnivore Program – with the goal of establishing national capacity for carnivore conservation and research. Later I broadened my work across Africa to establish the Range-Wide Conservation Program for Cheetah and Wild Dog. I was appointed to a permanent position as a senior research fellow at IOZ in 2003, and last year was appointed to lead a new research theme – People Wildlife and Ecosystems – which focuses on research to understand and address anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems and wildlife. For me, this is a very exciting development at IOZ, as it is the only research theme that explicitly addresses linkages between people and conservation. Although people are the cause of many of the problems facing wildlife and ecosystems, they must also be part of the solutions.

SS: What, or who, inspired you to get a career in science?

SD: From my earliest memories I was always fascinated with wildlife and the natural world, and as I grew older I became increasingly engaged with conservation issues. It is difficult to pin-point any exact time or individual that inspired me towards making this passion and enthusiasm my career, but there were a number of individuals who helped me along the way. One particular teacher stands out. She taught me maths at secondary school and, while not a biologist, encouraged curiosity and independent thought. My secondary school was a girl’s school and at that time did not teach maths to the high level needed to get into Oxbridge – unlike its boy’s school counterpart. She single-handedly took on this higher level maths teaching – and, despite it being a struggle for both of us, I have her to thank for the fact that I managed to secure a place at the University of Cambridge. I went on to graduate in Applied Biology and undertake a PhD in Conservation Biology.

SS: What is the most fascinating aspect of your research?

SD: My research depends on the collection of data on wild animals, often in extremely remote locations. I have been extremely privileged to be able to spend long periods living in one of the most amazing wildernesses on earth – the Serengeti National Park. I found getting to know the individual cheetahs in my study area absolutely fascinating, and, as my projects have grown, and my desk-based workload has increased, I greatly miss those days spent in the field getting to know the Serengeti cheetahs.

SS: What attracted you to Soapbox Science?

SD: Working, as I do, in conservation science,I believe it is really important to engage the younger generation in helping to address the growing problems facing biodiversity on our planet. Soapbox Science provides a forum in which to do this. The fact that it is limited to women, gives women a voice, in particular, to reach out to young women scientists, and presents an alternative, female, view of science.

SS: Right, so the event is later today! Sum up in one word your expectations – excitement? fear? thrill? anticipation?

SD: Anticipation

SS: And if you could change one thing about the scientific culture right now, what would it be?

SD: Women have broken through many barriers; however the prejudices and assumptions that can persist in our unconscious minds remain extremely difficult to combat. Until we do this, then men’s voices are more likely to be listened to than women’s. The responsibility for addressing this falls upon each and every one of us. We all need look deeply into ourselves and be mindful of our interactions, if we are to ensure that we treat each other fairly and without bias.

SS: And finally, what would be your top recommendation to a female PhD student considering pursuing a career in academia?

SD: Go for it!

By Dr. Elaine Massung, Research Assistant at the Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol.

Elaine recently participated to our Bristol event, where she talked about smartphones and sustainability. You can follow Elaine on Twitter @GreenDoors2014

Comfort zones.  We all have them, those safe bubbles that we cocoon ourselves inside. Occasionally we may stick our heads above the parapet, with the result being that our comfort zone either increases in size, or we retreat, muttering, “I’m never doing that again.”

Me, I hate speaking in public.  I mean, speaking with the public is fine – it’s a large part of my job and is something I enjoy: conducting interviews to determine what features organisations want in an app, or exploring what users found confusing during trials so improvements can be made.  But I view this as a conversation; speaking in front of people is a different kettle of fish entirely.

My heart rate accelerates, my stomach clenches, and my mind races … and all of this can start days, if not weeks before I’m due to speak.  I read an article once that theorised that the fear of public speaking was rooted in evolution: for our distant ancestors, having many eyes focussed on you meant that you might soon become dinner.  While I logically know I am unlikely to fall prey to a modern audience, this always rang uncomfortably true.

And yet I figured I might as well apply for Soapbox Science Bristol; it never hurts just to apply, right?  And then I got accepted.  And somehow found myself at the London Zoo, surrounded by a group of women conducting fascinating research, all waiting to hear from Robin Ince about communicating science.

Robin’s talk about the perils and pitfalls of presenting science to the public was by turns hilarious and thought provoking.  The necessity of enthusing, rather than informing, was one point that stuck with me.  This is the complete opposite of presenting academic papers, where it’s important to note that X% of the control group were observed to do Y, or to regurgitate the necessary technical details to satisfy a reviewer’s curiosity.  So rather than speak in minute detail about one app I was involved with, I decided to focus on citizen science in general; as a topic it’s interesting and accessible, or so I hoped.

He also spoke of the importance of theatricality, but that it wasn’t necessary to pull a rabbit from a top hat.  Perhaps it was meant as a throwaway line, but it reminded me of a quote from science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”  And what modern technology is more magical than a smartphone, one pocket-sized device that can tell you the time, let you take pictures and check email, keep track of your shopping list and appointments, allow you to catch up with your favourite TV programme while on the bus, as well as make phone calls and send text messages?  My Soapbox Science talk was beginning to take shape.

I busied myself with buying and making the props I wanted to use.  Many hats began to arrive in the post as I did my bit to keep eBay in business, and I got to know the nice lady at Stationery World after making multiple visits to purchase sheets of foamboard (lesson learned: cutting foamboard should be left to professionals).  With my focus on the props, it was easy to ignore the other side of the equation, the whole speaking-in-public business.

But the day of Soapbox Science was rapidly approaching, and what I had signed myself up for was becoming increasingly clear.  There would be no notes.  No PowerPoint.  No guaranteed audience – I’d have to attract and hold a crowd.  Oh, and I’d be standing on a soapbox.  My comfort zone was quickly receding and becoming a dot on the horizon.

The morning of Soapbox Science Bristol dawned bright and clear and hot.  Really hot.  While I wondered whether keeling over from heat exhaustion would save me from the necessity of actually having to speak, it was suddenly show time.  My nerves were taut as I began to talk to the little group assembled in front of me.  And talk.  And talk.  I realised I actually knew what I was speaking about – despite the unusual location and situation, I was still in my comfort zone.  And I realised I was having fun.

Some people listened to only a minute or two then walked on, but most stayed.  Whether out of politeness or interest, I don’t know, but it was encouraging and I found the next hour passing in a pleasant blur.  My memories of the experience range from doing battle with a sash that was trying its utmost to slip from my shoulder (future Soapboxers: safety pins are your friend), to the nods of the crowd and the whispers of “Oh, we should download that!” when I mentioned popular citizen science apps.  I only had one out-of-body experience: a presenter from the BBC came around to interview Soapbox Scientists about their research and I don’t know what I said, but my husband assures me it was coherent English. Success!

So what have I learned from my Soapbox Science experience?  Comfort zones can stretch to encompass things you never thought possible.  Conversations can take many forms.  Both can even include a soapbox.

Dr Yvette Hancock (YH) is a lecturer at the Department of Physics, University of York. As well as science, she is trained in performing arts and has a passion for making her research come alive through song, dance and stories. She is the creator of ‘Ellie the Electron’, and have written and performed in a pantomime play about her character to delight UK audiences. You can meet Yvette and Ellie at our Soapbox Science (SS) event this Sunday, 12-3, Gabriel’s wharf, London. You can also follow Ellie on twitter @EllieElectron

SS: Yvette, it’s a real pleasure to have you onboard for our London event this year. Let’s start by knowing a bit more about your career path: how did you end up in your current position?

YH: My current position as Lecturer in the Department of Physics at the University of York would not have happened without my PhD and the experience I obtained as a researcher afterwards. I obtained my PhD in 2003 at Monash University in Melbourne, with a specialisation in theoretical quantum physics and engineering of nanoscale technologies. While at Aalto University in Helsinki from 2006 to 2009, I was the research manager of a large-scale collaboration with the Nokia Corporation, where one of the projects I supervised was the application of grapheme in next generation mobile technologies. In 2009, I was appointed as a Lecturer at the University of York, where I continue my work on both theoretical and experimental studies of graphene. Altogether, I believe the international experience and working in collaboration with industry helped enormously.

SS: What, or who, inspired you to get a career in science?

YH: For a long time I did not know I was going to be a physicist. What I trusted were my questions, which led down the physics path. My inspiration? That would be nature and understanding her mysteries. I am also inspired by other scientists (past, present and future)­—by the community working in this awe-inspiring field.

SS: What is the most fascinating aspect of your research?

YH: I am fascinated by quantum physics, which governs the very small worlds of atoms. Understanding and engineering on this scale is an enormous challenge—think about creating technologies that fit within the width of a human hair! On a daily basis I am working in collaboration with scientists across a broad-range of disciplines; chemistry, electronics, biomedicine, mathematics, etc. Certainly this is where the magic happens!

SS: What attracted you to Soapbox Science?

YH: I believe that science is accessible to all and that it can be made to be fun and entertaining. I have a real joy inside of me about science that I would love to share. Soapbox Science provides an invaluable opportunity to do this and is a very special forum, which highlights women’s efforts to push forward scientific boundaries. It is a real honour to be a part of this marvellous event and I am enormously inspired by the event organisers who had the vision to create it.

SS: Sum up in one word your expectations for the day

YH: Party-time!!!

SS: Now if you could change one thing about the scientific culture right now, what would it be?

YH: Breaking down stereotypes of scientists and having people realise that if they ever asked why the sky is blue that they are also scientists at heart.

SS: And lastly, what would be your top recommendation to a female PhD student considering pursuing a career in academia?

YH: Be persistent and don’t give up on your dream.

Dr. Erin Heerey (EH) is a Senior lecturer at the School of Psychology, Bangor University. Her research shows how people influence others with crimes, punishments, risks and rewards, and explains why it is better to smile than to be beautiful. Erin will be standing on one of our soapboxes this Sunday, 12-3, in London. Before the event, she answers some Soapbox Science (SS)’s team questions.

SS: Erin, Thank you so much for joining us this Sunday in London! We can’t wait to hear about your fascinating research. before we start, we thought you could provide us with a quick overview of your career path: so, how did you get to your current position?

EH: I did my undergraduate degree at the University of Wisconsin, Madison in the US. My research focused on social behavior. After that I worked for a few years as a Research Assistant in the Department of Psychiatry at the Medical School there. Although I had a brief flirtation with another field of science after graduation, I came back to psychology because I think that the research questions that psychologists work on interest me the most. I decided to do a PhD in Clinical Psychology and got accepted to the University of California, Berkeley. My research there combined my interests in clinical and social psychology – I studied autism, social anxiety, social behavior and emotion. After my PhD I moved to Baltimore for a postdoctoral fellowship in schizophrenia research and then came to Bangor – where I have been for the last 8 years examining how the social cues people exchange shape their social decisions.

SS: What, or who, inspired you to get a career in science?

EH: As an undergraduate (in the early 1990s), I worked as a “confederate” in a psychology experiment for a semester. That means I got paid to pretend to be a research participant. The study used a token exchange game to examine participants’ prejudice against people with HIV. Each participant was told one of several things about me prior to the game. Although I didn’t know what participants had been told about me until after the study was over, I did notice that they treated me extremely differently – so much so that some of them refused to play the game with me. Of those who did play the game, there were subtle and not-so-subtle differences in their behavior, which I later learned reflected the conditions to which they had been assigned. I found the fact that their beliefs shaped their behavior so dramatically to be really interesting and it made me want to learn more about how cognitions and emotions color the social decisions people make. That experience got me interested in psychology and ultimately, in the research questions I currently study.

SS: What do you think is the most fascinating aspect of your research?

EH: The most interesting aspect of my research is the work I do looking at people’s real, natural interactions. Face-to-face interaction studies are extremely hard to do – they are super time consuming (each one takes a couple years to complete), expensive, and the data can be difficult to interpret. But, I learn something new and surprising about human social behavior every time I do a study. The surprise is so much fun to find that once I get one study wrapped up, I can’t help but plan the next one.

SS: What attracted you to Soapbox Science?

EH: It sounded like a fun opportunity to chat about my work and to hear what people think about it. Because my work is so applicable to most people, I thought that hearing their perspectives and questions would allow me to develop my research in a way that better reflects people’s experiences.

SS: Sum up in one word your expectations for the day – excitement? fear? thrill? anticipation?

EH: Adventure

SS: If you could change one thing about the scientific culture right now, what would it be?

EH: It’s time to end the culture of glossy journals. It’s true that lots of good work gets published in journals like Science and Nature, but there is plenty of great work published in journals that are less high impact. There is also quite a bit of less-than-great work published in journals like Science and Nature as well – work that won’t replicate or work that doesn’t really advance a field. One finding is not necessarily more or less important than another just because of where it was published. Moreover, because women are less likely to aim at super-high-impact journals, their work is much less likely to garner the career-boosting benefits of glossy journal publication. Instead, a system of post-publication evaluation that links all journals and holds metrics as simple as downloads or likes/dislikes could help level the playing field for all researchers and ensure that the really excellent work in a field really does get seen by everyone.

SS: And finally, what would be your top recommendation to a female PhD student considering pursuing a career in academia?

EH: APPEAR confident in yourself (even if you feel rather the opposite). Your male colleagues are happy to self-promote, spread the word, network and advertise their own research (even when it’s not as strong as it could be). If you spend 1/3 of the time that you currently spend worrying about whether your work is good enough in promoting your own ideas, people will hear your message and respond. This will open the door to awards, grants, collaborations, academic jobs, etc. Unfortunately, if you don’t promote yourself, no one will – so go sing your song!

By Professor Eleanor Highwood, University of Reading.

Ellie will be on her London soapbox this Sunday, 29th of June, 12-3. Come and listen to her talk entitled “When smoke gets in your skies: the effect of atmospheric aerosols on weather and climate” this Sunday on the Southbank!

Soapbox Science asked “what one thing would you change about the culture surrounding science at the moment?”. If I could wave a magic wand, I would remove the labels “hard” and “difficult” from science, maths and engineering. Labelling something as difficult instantly puts up a barrier for people with lower self-confidence. This might be the young, the more senior, women, those with low disposable income, those with little family experience of  education or access to cultural opportunities. I don’t believe that science and maths are actually harder than any other subjects we might study at school. To study anything to high level is hard, to become expert or at least competent in most things requires a lot of practice, experimentation, successes and failures. I would argue that it is the determination and passion that is needed to become a subject specialist that is hard, rather than the subject  itself. Undoubtedly, becoming a science specialist is easier if you have support and access to materials, laboratories, enthusiastic and competent teachers and experiences, but this is also true of any other subject area you choose to follow.

In fact we all use scientific thinking every day, for example, in deciding whether to cross the road we have a picture in our heads (conceptual model) of how cars move (based on our previous observations of cars), we estimate the speed of the car compared to where we are, we assess the likely outcomes and make an evidence based judgement whether to step off the pavement to perform the experiment. Assuming that our model and estimates were good, we will reach the other side of the road and record that we survived that encounter. Babies are natural scientists and experiments because observing, exploring and experimenting is the only way they can learn. Repeatedly dropping things from a highchair is an experiment that tells babies that broadly the same things happen when you drop something, that liquids tend to make mess over a wider area, and that parents will react to this activity.

Clearly, sometime after early childhood, science and maths get labelled as “hard” which then gives people a reason not to engage with these subjects. My heart sinks when I hear parents at the school gate saying “She/he is just like me – maths is too hard for us”. Given the strong influence that parents have on primary school age children, teachers have an uphill battle to keep interest alive in science and maths. . Re-labelling science entirely as “experiments” might help, but perhaps the best they can hope for is to ignite a strong enough science flame that it burns through the extinguishing hormones and social pressures of the teenage years strongly enough such  that the glowing embers can be rekindled at A-level. That assumes that the teachers themselves are confident enough to engage children in science and maths – and this is almost certainly affected by the “hard” label given to science in their own educational experience. Thus the “hard” effect perpetuates.

Given that this is for Soapbox Science, I think that the “hard” label effect is also alive and well in the context of science communication. At SciComm2014 this year, we spent a lot of time discussing the “under-served” and “hard to reach” publics that are not already engaged in some science or cultural activity. I much prefer the “under-served” term, because I suspect that the “hard to reach” label means that we are less likely to try. Imagining a world of publics that the science communicators are trying to reach, the “hard-to-reach” would be the equivalent of “the un-explored territories” or even “there be monsters” on an old sea chart. Broadly, reaching the “under-served” publics probably means taking science to those communities, learning different methods, experimenting, and refining our approach in the light of the results.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: “The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking”.

Dr Priya Kalia (PK) is a Research Associate in the department of Biomaterials, Biomimetics & Biophotonics at King’s College London. Her research is about repairing and regenerating damaged and diseased bones and joints, helping the injured and elderly enjoy higher quality and pain-free lives. Come along to our London Soapbox Science (SS) event on the 29th of June to hear Priya speak about “Putting Humpty Dumpty together again” You can also follow Priya on twitter @DrPriyakalia

SS: Hi Priya, thank you for taking the time to answer a few questions. We very much look forward to seeing you soon on our soapbox! To start with, could you tell us how you got to your current position?

PK: During my first degree in Molecular Genetics and Molecular Biology at the University of Toronto, Canada, I was lucky to find a summer studentship in Genetics at Imperial College in London. The project was interesting and I was trained in a variety of lab techniques. I realised that I really like the thinking of the scientists and surgeon I worked with, and really enjoyed carrying out lab work while listening to the radio! London was an amazing place to be then, and still is now. During that summer, I also discovered the field of tissue engineering, which was a growing field in London. I went back to finish my degree in Canada, then returned to do a PhD in Bone Tissue Engineering at UCL, followed by postdoctoral work at the University of Cambridge and a travelling fellowship to Columbia University in New York City, before coming to work at King’s College London’s Dental Institute.

SS: What, or who, inspired you to get a career in science?

PK: My father worked as an electrochemical engineer, and got me started with home experiments from a young age. He would take me to the library to find science books and videos for younger people, and would try to explain his own research to me. As I moved to the Canadian of A-levels and above, his research started to make more sense, however my own strengths lay in Biology, and I enjoyed Genetics and Molecular Biology. I decided that Medical Research would have lots of interesting opportunities and have eventual translational to patients. I have always been interested in the idea that scientists and engineers can create the tools and treatments which doctors and surgeons then administer to their patients.

SS: So, what would you say is the most fascinating aspect of your research?

PK: Bone is a fascinating tissue. It is a composite of both a ceramic material, called hydroxyapatite (a calcium phosphate ceramic) and a soft material called collagen, which is produced by cells during development and repair. How this process occurs, and how the collagen becomes this ‘mineralised’ structure that can support our weight, is absolutely amazing. The fact that bones can act as calcium stores for the whole body, as well as respond to loading makes them a sensitive and essential part of our bodies. When bones are compromised, quality of life can be terribly affected. However, although musculoskeletal disease and injuries have affected many of us, and those we know, it is still a poorly understood and funded area of research.

SS: What attracted you to Soapbox Science in the first place?

PK: I am very interested in the public engagement aspect of science. The majority of my friends and family are not scientists, so I often have to explain my research to a lay audience. Many people are interested in my research, the type of work we do, and the lab techniques and equipment we use. Telling a friend that I spent an entire day in a basement, with no windows, thrilled by visualising my samples under an electron microscope, or feeding my cells (“my babies”), thrills my friends. I have also previously volunteered for a hospital radio station, and had a short stint in Healthcare PR, so I have other experience with communicating to different audiences.

SS: Sum up in one word your expectations for the day – excitement? fear? thrill? anticipation?

PK: Excitement!

SS: You have a magic wand, you can change one thing about the scientific culture right now – what would it be?

PK: More funding and resources for career support at an earlier stage in academia, so that PhD students and postdocs are aware of all the opportunities around them, aside from postdocing and academia. I think that at this level, all scientists need to be equally empowered to pursue the career that will satisfy their career goals, including those opportunities in industry, abroad, and outside of the lab. Postdocs need constant support with realistic career planning, and sometimes this needs to be sourced from outside of their department. The Postdoctoral Society at the University of Cambridge should be a model organisation for all other UK universities. It has really empowered and mobilised the postdocs at that University, giving them regular career support, networking opportunities, and funding opportunities at the postdoc level.

SS: You probably accumulated a lot of knowledge about what helps (and what doesn’t) when pursuing a career in academia. What would be your top recommendation to a female PhD student considering pursuing a career in academia?

PK: Speak to and shadow academics at various levels in their career, including postdoc, lecturer and professor. Network, inside and inside your department and university. Ask about the responsibilities, benefits and hurdles in an academic career. Do you yourself enjoy lab work, writing and publishing papers, and giving talks at conferences? Try and visualise your life 10 years post-PhD in academia, and whether you have the passion, ambition and dedication required for an academic career. Would you be content with fixed-term contracts during your postdoctoral training? Would academia realistically provide the work-life balance you desire, as well as the intellectual stimulation, opportunities and challenges you need? It’s better to ask these difficult questions now, than wait 3 years until the end of your PhD swiftly arrives!

Dr Elaine Massung (EM) is a Research Assistant in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Bristol where her work involves examining how technology can be used to support sustainability. Today she talks to Soapbox Science (SS) about how she developed her career and gets us to think outside the box when it comes to our smart phones. You can here Elaine talk about “There’s an (environmental) app for that: smartphones and sustainability” on the 14^th of June. Follow Elaine on twitter @GreenDoors2014

SS: Hi Elaine, thanks for coming to speak to us this morning. Lets gets things starts, firstly can you tell us about how you got into your current position?

EM: How much time do you have?!  My route from student to researcher spans two continents and a few disciplines.  I am an American, and my background is in archaeological interpretation. I spent a year abroad as an undergraduate at the University of Bristol, and very quickly fell in love with the city.  I returned to Bristol to get an MA in “Archaeology for Screen Media”, and this introduced me to the use of location-based media to provide information about the past: audio or visual interpretation that was triggered by GPS and a user’s movement throughout a region.

At the time, this was still quite new (the iPhone had yet to be invented), and many companies were in such a rush to get something on the market that they didn’t bother to actually see what the users themselves wanted from the technology.  This inspired me to pursue a PhD entitled “Visitor Reception to Location-based Interpretation at Archaeological and Heritage Sites” where I tested different methods of providing interpretive content at the Clifton Suspension Bridge using members of the public to evaluate and shape the design.

This was jointly supervised between the Department of Archaeology and Computer Science, and it was my supervisor in Computer Science, Dr. Kirsten Cater, who later recommended that I apply for a research post looking at how technology can be used to promote issues of sustainability.  While initially outside my comfort zone of heritage studies, I have greatly enjoyed immersing myself in the world of HCI research [human-computer interaction], while also promoting a topic I personally believe in.

SS: From archaeological interpretation to human computer interactions – very exciting! So was there anything or anyone who particularly inspired you to get a career in science?

EM: Honestly, I wasn’t looking for a career in science, it found me!  But with the benefit of hindsight, it seems only natural that I have ended up in research.  Growing up the in United States, science fairs are a big part of the school curriculum: students learn the scientific method, how to think analytically, and are encouraged to run their own experiments. When I was in 5^th grade, I was fortunate to have a teacher, Mr. Martin, who encouraged me to enter the county fair and the rest, as they say, is history – participating in science fairs at the regional and state level were a big part of my life until I entered University.  I believe this not only helped instil a love of science, but also keep an open mind about the career possibilities open to me.

SS: We don’t really have those kind of science fairs here in the UK its nice to hear that they might be inspiring generations of scientists in the states. What is it about your current research that you find most fascinating?

EM: How an everyday device—the smartphone—can be used as a tool to do good.  Many people view their phones as a Swiss Army Knife of sorts: it allows you to stay connected to friends and family, can be used to find your way from point A to B, provides entertainment, and can even be used to order pizza at the press of a button.  Why shouldn’t something like this, something people always carry with them, also be used to support the work of a community organisation or science in general?  Our work with both Close the Door and the Digital Green Doors project has shown that smartphones can play an enormous role in data collection as part of the citizen science movement, and also enhance community learning and the spread of best practice.

SS: Really good point, why not use modern technology for so much more than phone calls and maps! You sound like you have a real passion for your subject which is wonderful, but what was it that first attracted you to Soapbox Science?

EM: They say the geek shall inherit the earth, but there is still a stereotype that computer science is nothing but coding and algorithms (typically carried out by socially inept men!).  The field of human-computer interaction blows these antiquated ideas away, involving such disparate subjects as psychology, design, and a desire to understand how technology can be used to bring about positive changes in behaviour.  People tend to find my jump from archaeology to computer science unusual, but I believe that I am still following the same path: using technology to spread enthusiasm and increase interest in a given subject, whether it be Roman ruins or the importance of cutting carbon emissions.  My interest in Soapbox Science is an extension of this, a desire to put a new face to computer science and get the word out about the fascinating research being conducted.

SS: And if you could summarise how you are feeling about the day in one word what would it be?

EM: Adrenaline!

SS: If there was one thing you could change about the scientific culture right now what would itbe and why?

EM: Eliminate stereotypes.  While this is applicable to many disciplines (and life in general of course!), the STEMM fields [science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine] seem to be plagued by notions such as “men are good at X, but women better at Y” or “people who do Z are like [fill in the blank]”, and therefore everyone should fall in line accordingly.  Yet men can be nurses. Women can be engineers.  Computer scientists can be social.  People should be encouraged to follow their passion for a subject, full stop.

SS: Well thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us today Elaine. Just before you go, if you could give a female PhD student thinking of starting a career in academia any advice what would it be?

EM: would ask her why she wanted to stay in academia – if it’s because she can’t think of anything else to do with a PhD, then it’s probably not the right place for her.  However, if it’s because she is so enthusiastic about a topic that she can’t see anywhere else that would let her pursue that interest to the fullest extent, then I would say she’s on the right track.  Seriously considering what she can offer academia, and vice versa, can help avoid a misalignment of values and unmet expectations.  Admittedly, I would give this advice regardless of gender as I’ve heard too many PhD students say that they’re planning to pursue an academic career because “that’s what you do” or that’s what’s expected of them, without any thought to what it will actually entail.

Aniko Varadi (AV) is Professor of Biomedical Research at the University of the West of England (UWE) where she is also the Athena SWAN leader for the Department of Applied Sciences. Aniko’s work focuses understanding genetic susceptibility to brain injury in newborn infants, and also insulin transportation and release in the blood stream and what goes wrong in diabetes. Here she joins Soapbox Science (SS) to tell us about her inspiration for pursuing an academic career and what she believes could change science culture for the better.

You can hear Aniko speak at Bristol Soapbox Science 2014 on the 14^th of June about “Keeping you blood sugar levels at bay”.

SS: Hello Aniko, thank you so much for taking time out to talk to us at Soapbox Science, to start off with can you tell us about how you reached your current position of Professor at UWE?

AV:I completed most of my education in Hungary. My first degree was in Biology and Chemistry and obtained my PhD in Medical Biochemistry. With my first degree I could have gone into teaching and actually this was the norm in our cohort. I did my entire teacher training and enjoyed my time with students but I felt that I wanted to know more about my subjects. I have thought that I could always go back to teaching but it was very hard or impossible to return to academic research after a period of teaching so I took up a researcher post. I found it much less glamorous at first than I have anticipated but after about 9 months of starting my post, a scientist returned from the USA and became my supervisor. I was washed away by his brilliant knowledge and I decided to remain in research. I got an EU-funded studentship to study in the UK. It was very challenging, particularly because I couldn’t speak the language. It was a life changing experience – I learned that there is absolutely no limit to what one can do or achieve. I have kept this approach throughout my career. I loved my time in the UK so much so that I have been here ever since (for 23 years). It was very hard at the beginning to get a post in the UK and I volunteered for a few months in a research lab and then worked as a research technician for a year. I applied for several posts/fellowships and I had a day when I had three dream job offers. I chose an R.D. Lawrance Fellowship from the DiabtesUK and spent a few years at the University of Oxford working on diabetes. After this, my career progression followed a more conventional path. I was a Research Fellow at the Universities of Newcastle upon Tyne and Bristol then I became a Reader and then a Professor at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

SS: What an achievement, and great to hear that you have enjoyed you time here in the UK so much. You mention briefly about your supervisor in the USA and his brilliant knowledge but was there anyone else who inspired you along your career path?

AV: When I was about 10 years old, I saw a documentary about Marie Curie which made me curious about chemistry, isotopes and radioactivity. Then I became fascinated by Mendeleyev, who put elements in an orderly format and created the periodic table. In addition, I had two brilliant chemistry teachers at school; all of these helped to choose this subject for my University degree. The main attraction to becoming a scientist was the endless intellectual freedom that academia could offer. There were not many successful senior female scientist/Professors around when I started my research career. My first mentor was Dr Steve Ashcroft (University of Oxford) who gave me a job in his lab and helped and encouraged me to get my own independent funding. We collaborated with Prof. Frances Ashcroft (University of Oxford) who has inspired me to always believe in myself and only publish data which are rock solid. Prof. Wendy Purcell (University of Plymouth) gave me my first permanent academic job and she let me develop my research without overloading me with teaching and administration. I really value that I had time to focus on research which is very much a luxury nowadays. The person, who helped and supported me in every step of my academic career and I am truly grateful for him, is my husband. He is a scientist himself. We met in Hungary and he was the catalyst for my move to the UK. We have collaborated with each other both at work and at home – we have two children, Fiona 17 and Oliver 6, several joint grants and research papers.

SS: So it sounds like you were inspired from a young age and that you are continuing to get support and inspiration to this day. What is it about you current research that you find the most fascinating?

AV: I am working on understanding how the blood sugar lowering hormone, insulin, is transported for release to the blood stream. We use biochemical, molecular biology and imaging techniques. Research is a bit like finding jigsaw puzzle pieces for a constantly changing picture. It is very exciting when you are looking for the ‘right’ piece and you find it. It is even more exhilarating when you find an unexpected piece that fits and can totally change the original picture and thus you discover something new. Research is unpredictable and no one day is the same. You can never know everything and new knowledge is added every day. I think the most fascinating aspect is that our learning does not have borders.

SS: That does sound fascinating Aniko, it must keep you very busy. So what was it that attracted you to join Soapbox Science this year?

AV: I feel that science as a career is not currently accessible for children. It might be helpful for them to see a few ‘real’ scientists (including myself) on the day.

SS: And if you could sum up how you are feeling about the day in one word what would it be?

AV: Apprehension.

SS: Well we are sure you are going to be fantastic and we cannot wait to hear what you have to say. If there was anything you could change about the scientific culture right now what would it be and why?

AV: I believe that a break (e.g.: maternity leave) during the most productive stage of our academic career has a longer lasting effect than the length of the maternity leave. Imagine that you stop reading papers and doing nothing that is your job today; and in a year time you need to pick up the pieces and carry on like nothing happened. It takes time to gain the confidence and knowledge back. It would be very helpful if Research Councils would extend grants if the PI herself is on maternity leave (imagine that the PI is absent for 1/3 of the grant duration and has to compete with someone who is there all the time – it is not a brainer to guess who will get funding during the next round of application); or if they would have a scheme where you could apply for funding to cover your teaching to focus on research. This wouldn’t be very expensive and would keep those research-active who either had a brake or who had to do some substantial research administration for their University (such as REF submission).

I would make research as a career more accessible/visible for children. When my daughter was young I could take her with me to the lab and show her around easily. Even the public could walk around in our labs as it was part of a hospital (John Ratcliffe in Oxford). She has grown up knowing what I am doing and she is now doing science subjects for her A-level. My son on the other hand doesn’t know anything about my work because I could not bring him near the lab due to health and safety regulations. We need to be safe but making research totally inaccessible/invisible is not helpful. If we want student to choose science as a career then they need to have a chance to see it and not just on Open days or exhibitions but in real life. I would reintroduce summer schools where students could get their hands dirty and resource these activities with appropriate funding.

SS: Thank you for sharing you thoughts with us about this today. Finally before we go what would be your top recommendation to a female PhD student considering pursuing a career in academia?

AV: Produce publishable data and publish them; get independent funding early; plan your career carefully. Maternity leaves/career brakes have negative impacts on an academic career and there is no way around it. Enjoy the time with your children and don’t feel guilty because you need to go to work (easier said than done). Don’t expect privileges just because you are a female but support your fellow academics (male or female) if their career is disrupted due to family commitments or other personal reasons.