SoapboxScience

Hilary Lappin-Scott is Professor of Microbiology and Pro-Vice Chancellor at Swansea University. Her research focuses on how bacteria shape and alter our everyday lives. She was the President of the Society for General Microbiology (SGM) from 2009-2012: this makes her the first female President of the SGM to be elected in 65 years and only the second ever female President of the Society. Prof Lappin-Scott was also President of the International Society for Microbial Ecology from 2006-2010, a founder of the European Academy of Microbiology and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology, the European Academy of Microbiology and the Society of Biology. Hilary is a role model for women in science, having juggled a family whilst getting to the top of the career ladder. She has been introduced as “the only female speaker at the conference” and is now committed to providing the support to young female scientists that she wished she’d had. Here, she explains to Seirian Sumner, Soapbox Science co-organiser, how she managed to get there and highlights the changes she’d like to see happening in the science community.

SS: Hi Hilary, Your enthusiasm and commitment to your career and your resulting success is a real inspiration to the next generation of female scientists. Can you share some of your secrets? What do you think were the main contributors to you being where you are now?

I was looking for a career that would be really challenging AND would present me with the chance to travel the world too. I decided to take science A-levels at school purely for these reasons, but my determination to be a scientist grew as I learned more about the world of Microbiology. During my PhD there were lots of other female students but I noticed that almost none seemed to be accepted/invited to speak at conferences or organize conference sessions and there were no female role models around. I’m always curious to find out what I can do so I offered to give talks as a post-doctoral scientist and do remember at one meeting being introduced as ‘the only female speaking at the conference’. I was cross about this remark but had to compose myself ready to give my talk!

Without doubt one of the biggest aids to my career has been the support of my family. When I returned from my post-doc in Calgary University I had only 5 weeks maternity leave before starting full time in my first academic appointment at Exeter University. I did ensure that I still attended UK and international conferences to present my research as I built up my group and often my son travelled with me.  Even up to a few years ago we had our holiday wherever my main conference was that summer.  My son grew up thinking all mums were university science professors and is now a scientist himself.

Of course there were some very challenging times as I was one of the very few women scientists at that time who had a family so there were no allowances to leave early, work flexible hours etc. We managed as a family but did constantly have to juggle a huge amount with childcare, childhood illness cover, school commitments, meetings all over the world, and running and managing my research group.

SS: Juggling family and work commitments is one of the main things that women in challenging careers worry about. You evidently had a very supportive partner, but what kept you going through those difficult years of juggling so much?

HLS: For me some of THE best moments of the job were when my students were presenting their research at conferences or graduating with their PhDs – priceless. Now, I get to travel the world every year and have presented my research many times on every continent except the Arctic and Antarctic!

SS: You’ve made it to the top! Looking back, can you tell us what would you like to change about the scientific culture of today, to help generate a better environment for the next generation of scientists, both male and female?

HLS: Our scientific culture measures success on ‘publications, publications, publications’.  These are of course important but we overlook other ‘outputs’ from our research, that is the crucial role of mentoring and training the next generation of scientists. To me this is at least as important as publishing our research findings. We must lead in scientific discovery but within this nurture and support those that come behind us. I’m very proud of the young scientists that I have trained and am pleased that they will continue to take forward the subject of Microbiology after me.

SS: Mentoring and nurturing the next generation of scientists is so important, and should be an opportunity for all scientists, irrespective of the time in their career. You take an active role in gender and equality issues in science, including advising government and research councils on this matter. Tell us your thoughts about the current state of play with respect to this. Would you like to see change? What is most likely to change in the near future?

HLP: When I started as a scientist I decided that the best way to encourage more women into science was to be as strong a role model as I could be and show that there are plenty of opportunities for women to succeed too. However the loss of females from the ‘talent pipeline’ is such an increasing concern to me that I feel I need to do more and am committed to do so.

My mentors were always men simply because there were no women to look at and think ‘I want to be like her”. I consider it is a big part of my job, and a huge privilege, to mentor younger female scientists. Recently I took on the lead role for Swansea University as the Equality and Diversity Champion, whilst initiating the exact same role for the Society for General Microbiology. I have to ensure that I make a difference in both of these roles and I would be very happy if, in the future, that there were other females in the senior management team at my University and that the Society for General Microbiology did not wait 65 years before there is another female President!

What I do find so heartening is how widespread the concerns and discussions are on gender balances in science and that so many males colleagues feel as strongly about this as I do.

SS: As well as an advocate for women in science, you are somewhat of a celebrity scientist, with various TV appearances and outreach activities! What made you decide to apply to be a Soapbox Scientist?

HLS: I like the idea of joining a group of female scientists, speaking in a public place and of sharing more about my subject of the invisible but crucial world of microorganisms. The whole day has an impromptu feel about it that I like. I normally speak in lecture halls and conference centres so this has a very different feel, being outdoors and speaking to an audience interested in science. I always love speaking about the many exciting things that microorganisms do so think this is a wonderful opportunity to share my passion with many, many others!

I read the tweets and blogs from the event last year and thought it was such a cool idea!  I found myself wishing that I could be there and I decided that day that I would apply to be part of it in 2013. I feel really lucky to have been chosen and am really keen that Microbiology is part of this great event.

Come and learn how microorganisms dominant our world from Prof Hillary Lappin-Scott on 5^th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London. Hilary will be talking about: ” From gums to bums, bacteria through the body”. Hilary’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship of L’Oreal For Women in Science, the Zoological Society of London and the Society of General Microbiology. Follow Hilary on Twitter @lappinscott

Sabrina Maniscalco is a quantum physicist and a Reader at Heriot-Watt University. She is the Leader of the open Quantum Systems and Entanglement group (www.openquantum.co.uk) currently consisting of 8 members (6 of them women!). After obtaining her PhD in Palermo (Sicily) she worked as a researcher in Bulgaria, South Africa and Finland, before finally settling down in Scotland. Her main research field is quantum physics and, specifically, quantum computers and other quantum technologies. Sabrina tells Seirian Sumner, Soapbox Science co-organiser, of the personal struggles she has endured for her science and that her survival tip is her passion for discovery.

SS: Your previous Soapbox Science blog on promotions, in which you reported how you were told to “start behaving like a professor”, received a lot of attention on Twitter. How you would like to see the scientific culture change, to make the career path fairer for women in science?

SM: Universities in the UK appear to use one criteria for promotion: the more money (grants) you attract, the more successful you are. In the personal development review (PDR) of our University, you only have “Excellent” if you managed to attract major funding. During my PDR, I was told that if I wanted to become a professor I had to start behaving as a professor, and when I asked in which way I was not behaving as a professor I was given as an answer: “You should have more PhD students”, meaning at least 10 or 15. So, what counts are the numbers, not the quality of supervision! I supervise 3 PhD students and 1 master student (+ 2 visiting PhD students); three other PhD student have graduated, but these were in Finland and apparently they don’t count! Big labs, big bucks sounds like a very male-oriented  criteria, and fails to acknowledge careful supervision and care for your students (which requires a lot of time), interdisciplinary collaborations and new high risk ideas that might take time to “take flight”, just to mention a few.

SS: You have embraced the international aspects of academic life, having worked in 3 different countries. Postdoc research abroad is becoming an increasingly important criteria in assuring success as a scientist. But many people, especially women, are put off by the upheaval of their personal lives every couple of years. Tell us how this has affected you and how you’ve dealt with it.

SM: My husband and I were able to find postdoc positions in the same groups in Bulgaria, South Africa and Finland. We work exactly in the same field so this, in principle is not easy. What was (and still is) really difficult, however, was to find a permanent position in the same place. As my contract in Finland was finishing I applied for a position at Heriot-Watt University and received an offer, so I decided to move. It was a difficult decision and, as my husband still lives and works in Finland, it is certainly not easy. It is true that working in the academia allows great flexibility, but eventually this is something that requires a lot of personal sacrifices and I would only recommend it if one really loves doing science and research, otherwise it may turn into a nightmare. I do not have children, so I think a long distance relationship can be managed (it requires, time and effort and a lot of flexibility, though) but I do not think it would be possible for a couple with children and, actually, this situation has certainly affected our choices in this regard.

SS: Of all our Soapbox Science speakers this year, you perhaps have the most challenging job: explaining quantum physics to the public! Tell us why you decided to take on such a challenge.

SM: I love sharing with others what I’m passionate about. It may be a little bit in my Sicilian nature: I really feel driven by the desire of sharing what I find beautiful, inspiring and fascinating. And Science is certainly something that, even after many years and struggles with “the Academic world”, never fails to fascinate me tremendously. I’m a quantum physicist and I find the ultimate laws of Nature so beautiful, mysterious, mind blowing. I guess that I was very much attracted by the idea of having yet another occasion to share these feelings with others.

I liked the idea of Soapbox as presents a combination of challenges: the idea of an event involving women scientists, the challenge of a direct one-to-one interaction with people passing by in the street, the challenge of trying to find (yet again) ways for communicating quantum physics, as it really requires a huge effort in trying to find a new language to share these concepts. I look forward to telling the story of particles being teleported, of the flawless dance of atoms whose motion is frozen by a watchful eye.

Take a crash course in quantum physics with Dr Sabrina Maniscalco on 5^th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London, where she will be talking about: “Playing the Quantum Computer Game”. Sabrina’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship of L’Oreal For Women in Science and the Zoological Society of London.

Ravinder Kanda is a researcher in the department of Zoology, University of Oxford. Since her PhD at Imperial College in human evolutionary genetics, she has spent time working in industry (paternity testing / forensic science) and as a schoolteacher, but found that she couldn’t stay away from her passion and eventually returned to research science. Her research focuses on the various evolutionary processes that shape genomes, in particular the endogenous retroviruses that infest the genomes of humans and other vertebrates. Ravinder tells Seirian Sumner, Soapbox Science co-organiser, the amazing story of how she took a U-turn in her career, and landed up at one of the best universities in the country. She attributes her success to a fabulous female role model (her mum!) and a school kid who told her that had given up the ‘coolest job in the world’…

SS: Hi Rav, as someone who has returned to academia after a spell in both industry and school education, you are an excellent example of ‘never say never’ again! Did you always deep down inside want to be a biologist?

RK: Yes, I got sucked back into research after giving it a break for a few years! Science was always one of the subjects that I enjoyed at school. I think I was fortunate that at home I was surrounded by people in the medical profession and from an early age had been exposed to the wonders of biology in a more practical sense, which fostered a healthy curiosity (thanks mum!)

SS: You taught science in secondary schools in the Midlands for a couple of years after your PhD. Teaching inner city teenagers is a far cry from the intellectual banter you were used to during your PhD in the leafy enclaves of Imperial College’s Silwood Park! What sort of unexpected challenges did this throw at you?

RK: Science is always one of the subjects that kids don’t seem to enjoy, and I quickly learnt that a huge part of the problem was in their perception of science and that the way that it was being taught, despite being factually correct, was failing to relay the importance, significance and wonder of science in everyday life – it was kinda dry. The challenge was to get the students motivated and enthused about the subject, to get them to understand how what they were learning related to them and real life situations. Luckily, Mission Impossible II had been on the TV the week before. Nothing like a cool spy movie with the threat of biological warfare to grab their attention!

SS: You are a rare example of a woman who left academic research, established a new successful career elsewhere, but then returned to work at one of the Uk’s top universities! You seem to have broken all the rules (yay!). Tell us why you came back into science.

RK: During my time out of academia, I realised that I missed the intellectual challenge that research provides. Being able to come up with an interesting question and figuring out how to answer it. Roles outside of academia were challenging in different ways, and I certainly enjoyed the challenges of teaching, but the more time I spent trying to instil in school children a passion for science, I somehow rediscovered my own passion for science. I remember during one science lesson a student asked me why I left research – it sounded like the coolest job in the world! (her words). I remember thinking – it was actually a pretty cool job… the work was interesting, there was no marking, the fact that its not a standard 9 til 5, which can sometimes be a good thing and a bad thing! At that point I realised 2 things – 1) it was the research side of science that I was truly passionate about, and 2) these kids were about to lose their science teacher!

SS: That is a really inspirational story, although unfortunate for the school kids! But getting back into science is no easy task (staying in it is difficult enough!). You now have a position in one of the most prestigious universities in the world: How did you manage to get back in?

RK: Coming back into science was not easy. I had been fortunate in that I had maintained contact with my supervisors and colleagues in science who were supportive of my decision to get back into research and provided lots of helpful advice. My route back in was to take up half a PDRA position – the previous postdoc had to move abroad for family reasons, and trying to fill a PDRA position for just 12 months is usually difficult as people generally prefer longer contracts. I had to be less choosy about what I would work on, and focus more on the skills that I had, and what I could work on. My previous research experience had all been with human genetics, but the position I took to get back into research was in virology. Some of the techniques required were the same, but it was a steep learning curve, and some very long days to get up to speed, but the approach worked and had its advantages. I gained a firm grounding in virology, and expanded my skill set. I was back!

My next research position allowed me to combine the 2 threads of my previous research experience – human genetics and virology, to work on endogenous retroviruses. So all in all, the sidestep into virology proved to be a good move for me in the end, but I think it is important to have a plan as to what direction you want your research to go.

My advice to someone in a similar position to what I found myself in would be to consider all the possibilities that come your way (beggars can’t be choosers!), and see if there is a way you can work an available opportunity into your grand plan, and perhaps end up pursuing a research direction that you had not previously considered. There are also a number of grants available now, specifically to help people returning to science after a career break

SS: The gender imbalance in secondary education is complete antithesis of that in academic education. Having worked in the female-biased school sector aswell as the male-biased academic sector, do you think gender bias really matters?

RK: The gender balance issue is a difficult one to address. I recall that the first few conferences I attended as a PhD student were certainly male dominated, and I can see how that would be a little intimidating. Coming from Imperial College’s Silwood Park campus, which is certainly more male biased than Oxford, it is interesting to observe the differences in working environment this creates. As a woman who is at an early/intermediate level of my career, it is nice to see a better balance, at all levels, of men and women within the department at Oxford. It is fantastic to have the opportunity to get advice and insight from senior women, and hear how they have managed to successfully juggle the work/personal life balance.

However, while it’s nice to have a more equal gender balance, its not the only thing that determines how friendly a working environment is for women. For example, despite being male biased at Silwood, because it is such a small, non-hierarchical, sociable environment, in my experience it was still a great place to work, although the lack of women at senior positions is certainly noticeable. Of course, it would have been great to see more senior women at Silwood – on occasion it did feel that perhaps the advice you were receiving did not fully account for your circumstances as a woman, and a female perspective would have been useful. For the students I think it also would have been good to see women in more senior positions. But you make do with what you have, and as it goes Silwood was fairly affable. I think Silwood maybe a little unique in this respect (as anyone who’s ever been there will attest to!), and perhaps not the best for a direct comparison with somewhere like Oxford, which clearly has a much larger department and a closer proximity to civilisation, which also greatly affects the dynamics of the department.

Things are certainly changing with regards to the numbers of women in science, and I am hopeful that eventually we will end up with a better balance at the more senior levels across the board.

SS: With a new career, new job: how does Soapbox Science fit in with your plans?

RK: Soapbox is a way of reaching those people who have left school with the impression science was not for them. Yet when they do revisit it, perhaps through an interesting news story, or personal experience (or encountering a crazy scientist in the pub or on the streets of London!), they find that they do have an interest and are usually fascinated by the research that goes on that they are not even aware exists. Soapbox is a rare opportunity to engage with the public and raise awareness of some very cool research! Soapbox is also going to be a fantastic opportunity to engage with other female scientists and hear what their backgrounds, experiences, motivations have been. I am really excited at being able to get on my soapbox (literally!) and embracing the challenge of explaining what I do without the conventional presentation tools!

Play the kid with DR Ravinder Kanda on 5^th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London, where she will be talking about: “Genome Invaders: Friend or foe?” Ravinder’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship from L’Oreal For Women in Science and the Zoological Society of London. 

Julie Dunne began life as an accountant for a construction company. She took to science as a mature student, and now, in her 50s, she is in her third year of her PhD in biomolecular archaeology at the University of Bristol. She is using molecular and isotopic analyses of absorbed food residues from 7000 year old ceramics from the Libyan Sahara to identify the inception of dairying practices in Africa.Her most recent research was published in Nature. Julie tells Seirian Sumner, Soapbox Science co-organiser, why she took a career change and how it’s never too late to follow your dreams.

SS: Hi Julie, you have taken a rather unconventional route to where you are now, having had a previous life as an accountant before diving into science as a mature student. You are an inspiration to those people who are lamenting that they didn’t study science! Tell us a little about how you landed in science.

JD: I took an undergraduate degree and then a Masters in Archaeological Science as a mature student.  I’m now 52 and in my third year of a PhD in the Organic Geochemistry Unit at the University of Bristol. Being able to follow my passion, and share that with others, has enriched my life enormously.

SS: As you know, Soapbox Science is not just about science communication, it’s also about raising the profile of women in science, and changing the game for the next generation of scientists to achieve a better gender balance. How do you think the scientific culture could be improved, to help achieve this change?

JD: In terms of ideas to change the scientific culture, I suspect that there may be improvements in communication between men and women that could help men understand the limitations women often have to work under, the adjustments and compromises they have to make, often on a daily basis, to get to positions that come much easier to a man. Conversely, there are areas where perhaps women may learn from men in terms of promoting themselves and their own work. I think this communication could partly be improved by more interdisciplinary collaboration on research projects (I would apply this to both science and the arts and humanities). Often scientists remain in their own ‘bubble’ of research groups with little interaction with other people/disciplines and I think it could be useful in many respects for men and women of different disciplines to collaborate on multi-disciplinary projects. This would promote more understanding and also certainly benefit research through the application of different perspectives from varying disciplines.

SS: We are really excited to have you as one of our Soapbox Science Speakers this year. We think the public will be really excited to hear about cutting edge research at the interface of science and humanities. But what made you decide to take on Soapbox Science?

JD: When I first heard about Soapbox Science I was immediately fascinated by the concept that I would be able to share my research with the public. As a biomolecular archaeologist, which involves using analytical chemistry techniques applied to archaeological artifacts to answer questions about how people lived in the past, I am constantly enthralled by what scientific techniques can tell us about the day to day lives of prehistoric people.  I thoroughly enjoy communicating my science to others and am really excited to be able to share this as I have always found that, like myself, the public remain endlessly fascinated by how our ancestors lived.

I think Soapbox Science is a great idea because it brings interesting science, carried out by women, to the public in an extremely accessible and informal format. In my case, I love the idea that people will share my passion and enthusiasm for how science can answer questions about how people lived in the past. I also believe that these sorts of events will raise the profile of careers in science for women, show young girls and women that science can be for them, and that it is fun and interesting at the same time.

SS: Did your unconventional route into science in anyway influence your decision to apply to be a Soapbox Science speaker?

JD: Absolutely. I think Soapbox Science is a great way to demonstrate to anyone who has a passion for science yet are not working in a related field, that it is always possible to change career and become involved in science.

Come and witness Julie Dunne’s passion for science on 5^th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London, where she will be talking about: “Milking it – how small molecules from ancient pots tell us when humans first started dairying”. Julie’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship of L’Oreal For Women in Science and the Zoological Society of London. 

Laura Piddock (@LauraPiddock) is a Professor of Microbiology at the University of Birmingham. She is also Deputy Director of the Institute of Microbiology and Infection, Chair in Public Engagement for the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, and Director of Antibiotic Action. She started her scientific career with her PhD in 1982, which focussed on the mechanism of action of the beta-lactam class of antibiotics (e.g. penicillin) and led to work on new antibiotic research and development.  Her current research focuses on understanding mechanisms of antibiotic resistance as a basis for antibacterial drug discovery. She has published over 150 original articles, plus 36 invited review and leading opinion articles. This blog details a conversation between Soapbox Science co-organiser Seirian Sumner and Laura. There, she tells us how her husband and a string of fabulous mentors have been instrumental in helping her realise her scientific potential. She calls for a re-setting of social norms, to make it socially and professionally acceptable for men to work flexible or part-time to accommodate family values.

SS: Laura, as one of the 8% of female professors in the UK, you are a role model of success for female scientists, and an inspiration to all young women in science. Tell us your story: how did you get to be where you are today? 

LP: I ended up being a Professor at the University of Birmingham because of the good fortune to work with two extremely supportive Professors during my early career, being able to take advantage of opportunities, collaborating with many generous and creative researchers in the UK and abroad, and working very hard including many evenings and weekends while juggling family commitments – none of which would be possible without my wonderful husband!

SS: Having a supportive partner certainly seems to be an important factor for retaining women in science: more on that later.  But first, tell us about life before your family appeared on the scene. What do you think played a key role in getting you to the point where your career was safely launched?

LP: I had a great mentor and advisor, Professor Richard Wise. I carried out my PhD and a two year post doctoral post with Richard at Dudley Road Hospital (now City), Birmingham, UK. He also helped me to gain a five year fellowship which I carried out at the University of Birmingham. This was definitely the springboard to my independent research career.  Richard was a staunch advocate and supporter of the junior members of his team.  As a very busy Consultant Microbiologist, he also led a team working on antibiotics from activity of new agents to pharmacokinetics in volunteers.  As Richard was so busy, he frequently delegated tasks to junior members of staff that would not normally have been given to individuals at such an early career stage.  Hence, we were propelled into situations where it was ‘sink or swim’.  Richard’s attitude was ‘if you don’t try, you don’t get’; he also set very high standards in the number and quality of publications and presentations at international conferences that he expected and considered the norm per annum.  Richard gave me the freedom to develop into my own areas of research interest and never ‘cramped my style’. The opportunities that came from working with him were second to none and without them, I would not be doing what I am doing today.

SS: Sounds like you had a great basis to work from, at the right time in your career. You were lucky enough to have an independent fellowship before you started a family. How did you manage once you had your family? How did you straddle family commitments and keep up a productive research life?

LP: I carried out my five year fellowship at the University of Birmingham, during which time Professor Alasdair Geddes was appointed the Chair in Infectious Diseases and became the Head of the Department of Infection.  He appointed me as a lecturer, and he gave me the freedom to develop and carry out research that interested me with the only proviso that if I could attract the research funding, he would allow me to pursue research topics of my choice.  More importantly, when I had my two children his support was invaluable.  He allowed me to become 80%FTE; although in reality I worked much more than 100% FTE, this allowed me to work reduced hours at the university during the working week and without criticism with the ability to do my reading and writing at home.  I continued with that status for ten years, only now do I realise the negative impact this has had on my pension.  Despite also being Course Tutor for the MSc in Medical Microbiology, with the support I received I was able to build up my research team.  In recognition for my hard work, and it really was hard work managing a young daughter and working many weekends and most evenings once she was asleep, I was rewarded with promotion to Senior Lecturer only two years after being appointed a Lecturer.  My son was born in 1999 and Alasdair allowed me to further reduce my office hours to 8am – 1pm because he was aware that I was carrying out a considerable amount of work at home writing grants and manuscripts.  Indeed, my most successful period of writing successful grants was while I was on maternity leave with my son!

SS: That is really impressive. But one of the great things about a career in science is that most of us are able to work flexibly, fitting our research activities around family commitments. It is also of great comfort to hear that you worked part time for 10 years when your kids were young: so often we hear that a scientist cannot work part time. Your success story should reassure more young women scientists that they can enjoy their family and have a productive scientific life.

LP: All the juggling of family and work did pay off. In 2001, to my delight and surprise, I was awarded the Bristol Myers Squibb Unrestricted Grant in Infectious Diseases of $500,000 US dollars.  I was nominated by Dr John Barrett, who sadly passed away a year after the grant was awarded, and so never saw the huge benefits this brought to me.  It directly led to being given a Personal Chair in Microbiology the same year, and it allowed me to pursue areas of research for which I knew I would not get funding.  It allowed me to change the focus of my research and explore the relationship between antibiotic resistance mechanisms and the basic biology of bacterial pathogens, which to this day my team is still researching.

SS: More recently, you have taken an active role in public engagement of science, particularly through the Antibiotic Action Initiative. Tell us how this happened.

LP: Due to my track record of clinical microbiology coupled with basic research on antibiotic resistance, I was elected President of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) in 2009.  This led to me re-engaging with healthcare professional colleagues in a way that I had not done for at least a decade. It also made me realise that my background was unique within the UK; I am one of the few people who have worked in a clinical microbiology laboratory developing new antibiotics and carried out basic microbiological research in academia.  I also re-engaged with Professor Richard Wise, who led a Working Party for BSAC investigating why no new antibiotics were being made.  This then led directly to the Antibiotic Action initiative (antibiotic-action.com) in 2011 and  then my appointment as the BSAC Chair in Public Engagement in 2012 and on which I now spend 20% of my time.

SS: Looking back over your career to date, what do you think has been the key to your success?

LP: I believe that many of the successes that I have had arose from serendipitous opportunities which I have been able to take up and exploit.  For instance, Dr Clifford Wray, Head of the Bacteriology laboratories at the MAFF Veterinary Laboratories (now the Animal and Veterinary Laboratories Agency) brought to my attention that resistance to the fluoroquinolone antibiotic, ciprofloxacin, had emerged in salmonella isolated from animals.  At around the same time Consultant Microbiologist Dr. Kate Whale, at Monsall Hospital, Manchester was isolating similar bacteria from people.  This led to a long and very productive period of work investigating the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance in food-borne bacteria and led to me becoming an advisor to the World Health Organisation in the late 1990s and becoming a member of the UK Food Standards Agency Advisory Committee for the Microbiological Safety of Food in 2004, and ultimately a member of the MRC Infection and Immunity board as well as membership of many other committees.  Opportunities also presented themselves to join, and lead, numerous multidisciplinary research consortia and collaborate widely with colleagues in the UK and abroad.  As the list of these collaborators is lengthy I have not named individuals here, but from my publications it is clear who they are and I thank them all for their intellectual generosity and creativity. I should also thank all the members of my research team, past and present, who have not only carried out high quality research but also accepted the restrictions on my availability due to family demands. This included coming to research meetings at my home when I was on maternity leave!

But, serendipity can only get you do far. The main figure and my most staunch supporter throughout my career has been my husband, Stuart Holden.  In 1999, when we had our second child, he made the decision that he would become self-employed and start his own business (now very successful) so that when I needed to work late or travel, which I was increasingly doing, that he would be available to look after our small children.  We also shared the working day; to this day I arrive at the office early and try to leave no later than 4pm and work again in the evening, whereas he is at home in the morning and works later and comes home early evening.  Without his considerable support, I do not think it would be possible for me to have developed and got to where I am in my career.

SS: So good mentorship, well placed opportunities, good ideas and a supportive partner, are things that women in science should be looking out for. 

LP: Yes – but the same is true for men too, the difference for women is that not all of these have always been available for women.

SS: Having made it to the top, despite the pitfalls, what would you like to see changed to make the career path easier for the next generation of female scientist?

LP: When talking with other women who have also reached a senior level in their institutions, whether in academia or elsewhere, it seems to be a recurring theme that they have been encouraged and supported both in the workplace and at home. If support is lacking in either environment then women (and men) are unable to succeed.  Perhaps one of the reasons that many women’s partners are not able to support them as mine has done, is that there is not the opportunity in the workplace for husbands to work flexibly and indeed it is frowned upon in some professions.  Therefore, the social norm I would like to see challenged is that men are able to work more flexibly without criticism or harm to their career so facilitating their support for their partner so that she can take up the career opportunities that are presented.

SS: Absolutely. It seems that most men would actually welcome the chance to take on flexible working roles to spend more time with their families. But, social norms make it less acceptable than for women: it is perceived as a man not taking his career seriously. This is something that government and indeed schemes like Athena SWAN can help address: once it is socially acceptable for men to work flexibly to accommodate family commitments (and that includes equal and flexible use of maternity/paternity leave), then the gender gap may start to close. And this applies to all demanding careers, not just in science.

LP: I also note that there is a perception among some young women that it is simply too difficult to juggle a young family and career development.  Yes, the juggling has been a challenge, but it has not been impossible.  Therefore, I suggest to young couples starting out in life together that not only should they discuss the usual topics such as finances and when (or if) to start a family, but also how they will support each other in their career development.  I continue to be shocked by the number of men who despite their assertions that they believe in equal opportunities think that their career should take priority over that of their partner. This is most shocking when the man is less able than his partner and the woman could be very successful. As the career opportunities that arise are never planned and usually come ‘out of the blue’ if couples have not agreed how to support each other and manage childcare or other family commitments, this will put stress on the relationship and typically leads to women not being able to take up the opportunities that are presented.  I rarely see this as being an issue from my male colleagues.

The third social norm that I would like to see challenged is the networking that takes place after 4.00 PM and almost always involves drinking beer!  Male colleagues vastly underestimate the positive impact that this has had upon their careers and the detrimental affect it has upon those who cannot participate.  Socialising at lunchtime seems to have almost disappeared in the workplace, but perhaps should be reinstated such as on a monthly basis so allowing everybody valuable networking opportunities.

SS: The after-hours networking culture is a really difficult one, and is discussed and reviewed over and over again by university departments, e.g. in the timing of seminars and discussion groups. If you cast your mind back to the days before you had a family, you too no doubt benefited from the ‘after hours’ networking, both with colleagues and with prospective collaborators at conferences. Moving to a more ‘continental style’ lunching lifestyle is a good solution, and one that can be led from the ‘bottom-up’.

LP: You are quite right. It is only when it is nigh on impossible to attend after hours that one realizes the problem with timing. I suspect that this is why many men and younger researchers are perplexed with the request not to hold seminars etc after 4pm. It’s not a problem for them.

SS: As you know, Soapbox Science Speakers competed to stand on our soapboxes this year. This is the first year that we ran a competition and we  thrilled to receive over 60 applications. We are delighted to have you as one of our speakers. Tell us what attracted you to be a Soapboxer.

LP: I believe Soapbox Science it is an excellent forum to promote Women in Science as well as bringing to the public accurate information about the science that I do, the issues over using antibiotics properly and lack of new drugs. I had a look at the Soapbox Science website, and saw that the inspirational Dame Prof Athene Donald from Cambridge had been a Soapboxer in 2012. I knew I had to be part of it. My expectations for the day are mixed.  On the one hand, fear of the unknown, I have never done anything like this before, but on the other hand, I have found engaging with the general public over the last few years to be extremely rewarding. So I am looking forward to it, but with trepidation!

Be inspired in person by Prof Laura Piddock on 5^th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London, where she will be talking about: “Antibiotic resistance and why we need new treatments”. Laura’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship of L’Oreal For Women in Science, the Zoological Society of London, the Society of General Microbiology, and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 

Jane Hill is a professor of ecology at the University of York. She studies the impacts of climate change on biodiversity – including northwards and uphill shifts by species to track climate changes.  Habitat loss is preventing many species from shifting their ranges: she studies where and which species will disappear as conditions become unsuitable – and if there is anything we can do about it. She has worked at the University of York since 2001. Her group works mainly on insects, including butterflies, moths, dung beetles and ants.

Jane and her partner are both academics. Jane tells us how her ‘no limits’ upbringing set her on a path for success, how she and her partner dealt with the ‘two-body’ problem, and how some ‘naming and shaming’ might be the solution to achieving a better gender balance in universities.

SS: Hi Jane, with only 8% of science professors in the UK being female, there are precious few role models for the next generation of female scientists. As one of these role models, can you tell us what was the most important factor in getting you to where you are now?

JH: I went to an all girls school and was taught by female teachers so there were loads of strong female role models and no suggestion that certain topics were off limits to females. I never had a career plan, and there weren’t many jobs for students graduating in the mid 1980s, and so I did an MSc and then a PhD and found myself following an academic route – the research I was doing was so exciting. It was tough being a post-doc for 10 years, moving around a lot, and never in the same place as my partner, who is also an academic. It took until 2002 for us both to secure lectureships at neighbouring Universities where we could live together. I think an important factor was just being pig headed and hanging in there until it all worked out!

SS: You have made it to the top of the career ladder. If you could change one thing about the scientific culture right now, what would it be?

It’s not necessarily just about changing the scientific culture. I think we need to try to change people’s perceptions about what they can achieve and what sort of careers they might choose to follow with a science education. A recent survey of Biology undergraduates at York revealed that even though students thought that males and females were equally good at STEM subjects, only 50% of female students thought males and females had an equal change of a successful career in STEM. So we perhaps need to give our early career scientists (from undergrad upwards), more support and guidance in their career options, to help them make strategic choices at the right time. Mentorship should be better recognized as ‘part of the job’ of an academic/scientist, and provided for all scientists at every stage of their career, to help expand horizons and achieve them. I would also like to see evidence-based initiatives so that new initiatives that are implemented are effective, not just done because they might seem a ‘good thing to do’.

SS: And what about measures to promote equality in science: what is needed to make the scientific community take a step forward in addressing this?

JH: A radical suggestion is to include information about an Institute/ Department’s gender ratio as part of the upcoming government assessment of Universities  (Research Excellence Framework (REF)). This might shake things up a bit, and start generating some interesting discussions! Isn’t it time to start naming & shaming…?

SS: We are thrilled to have you as a Soapbox Science Speaker this year, Jane. For most scientists, science outreach always seems to play second fiddle to everything else in academia. You run a very active research group in York, but you also find time to engage in science outreach with exhibitions at the Royal Society, and you regularly give up your time to talk to the press. Surely you’ve ‘ticked the outreach box’! Why take the time to be involved in Soapbox Science?

JH: I’d seen the publicity about it from last year and thought it looked like a fun (and different) thing to do compared with my usual day to day activities. It’s always good to try something new and step out of your comfort zone…hopefully I’ll still feel like that on July 5th!

SS: Soapbox Science is a very different way of communicating science, and throws up challenges that most scientists don’t face in their everyday lives. You are an experienced lecturer and plenary speaker: how do you feel about taking on the public on the 5^th July

JH: In a word: OMG! It’s always great to have an opportunity to talk about research but I wonder if people will understand? Will they be interested?

Come and tell Prof Jane Hill how much you understand on 5^th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London, where she will be talking about: ”It’s great up north! – species move to track climate warming”. Jane’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship of L’Oreal For Women in Science, the Zoological Society of London and the British Ecological Society.