For this Career Corner interview, we are interviewing Dr. Adam Kuszak, an alumnus of the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellows (STPF) program (2014-2015) who currently serves as the Director for the Analytical Methods and Reference Materials Program at the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements. We are also chatting with two incoming Fellows: Dr. Stephanie Davis and Dr. Cameron Kieffer, who are starting their STPF placements this Fall at the NIH and the Department of State. Dr. Davis received her Ph.D. in Molecular Pharmacology from the University of South Florida, Dr. Kuszak received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 2009, amd Dr. Kieffer received his Ph.D. in Pharmacology from Creighton University in 2018. In addition to their participation in the STPF program, Dr. Davis (2018) and Dr. Kuszak (2013) are past participants of the ASPET Washington Fellows Program. Dr. Davis current serves as the Chair of the ASPET Young Scientists Committee.
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed by Drs. Kuszak, Davis, and Kieffer are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPET, AAAS, NIH, or the Dept. of State.
What initially made you interested in a policy career?
Adam Kuszak (AK): My interest in a career at the intersection of biomedical research and policy started during my time as a postdoc at the National Institutes of Health. I joined a special interest group on science policy about a year into my fellowship and I was captivated by the case studies of how federal and state policies, regulations, and funding programs are informed by scientific research, and in turn how policies and programs influence public and private sector research and development. These discussions propelled me to pursue several opportunities in an evolution of my career path, and my experiences with the ASPET Washington Fellows Program and volunteering with a non-profit science policy group ultimately lead to my applying for the AAAS STPF.
Stephanie Davis (SD): I was always involved with my student government associations during my undergraduate career and graduate school. These experiences made me realize that I was arguably more passionate about issues related to graduate education than performing experiments. I am also very interested in solving “big picture” problems and interacting with people, so I knew fairly early on that a bench career was not in the cards for me.
Cameron Kieffer (CK): Here is my science policy thesis statement: Policies can enable scientific discoveries or be a barrier to them. While we scientists solve lots of interesting basic science questions, I am interested in supporting the translation of those discoveries to improvements in day-to-day life. There are a lot of intricate systems involved in making these translations and it is important that science is represented in the formation of the structure of those systems.
How did you find out about the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellows Program?
AK: I first became aware of the AAAS STPF through my participation in the NIH science policy special interest discussion group. Several like-minded post-docs in that group were looking for a way to apply their graduate training to public health and society in areas away from the lab bench, and the AAAS STPF was discussed as a kind of gold-standard experience for accomplishing that type of career transition.
SD: I first found out about the STPF Program through the director of my graduate program, whose former graduate student had completed the program working at the NIH. Also, talking to several Alumni Fellows helped me learn more about what the program entailed and how I could make myself into a competitive applicant.
CK: I initially heard about the STPF Program from a member of my mentoring group (s/o the ASPET mentoring program). My current supervisor is also an alumnus of the program and he encouraged me to apply.
Adam and Stephanie, you both participated in the ASPET Washington Fellows Program prior to applying to the STPF Program. How did this experience help you with the application and/or interview process?
AK: The ASPET Washington Fellows Program was incredibly beneficial for my application to the AAAS STPF, and for my overall career development. Being a Washington Fellow provided invaluable experience in understanding how scientists can better communicate with elected officials and general audiences. That experience in distilling down a complex issue and preparing a succinct presentation with actionable policy recommendations provided real-world training which I was able to then apply to the policy memorandum portion of the STPF application process. Furthermore, I believe having a letter of recommendation from the then-Director of Government & Public Affairs at ASPET helped to strengthen my STPF application.
SD: The Washington Fellows program was my first experience advocating on Capitol Hill for scientific issues, so it definitely helped me realize that I would be happy pursuing a career in public policy or advocacy. Not only did I highlight this experience in my application, but I was able to convey to my interviewers during the semi-final Skype interview that I was very experienced in communicating with lawmakers who had very different political beliefs from me (in my case, it was lawmakers from Kentucky, where I completed my postdoctoral training). I would highly recommend the Washington Fellows program to ASPET members who would like to “get their feet wet” and determine whether they are well-suited to this type of career.
Describe the STPF interview process and explain what led you to choose your placement office.
SD: The semi-final interview process required all applicants to create a policy memorandum on one of three potential topics and present it to a committee of ~10 policy experts during a skype interview. The applicant then has 5 minutes to explain their recommendations followed by 5 min of Q&A from the committee. This part of the interview resembled an abridged version of my thesis defense. For the remaining part of the interview, the committee members asked me about my background and my qualifications for the program.
The best analogy that I can use to describe the interview process is that it reminded me of the time I went through sorority recruitment in college. Finalists choose their offices through a process of mutual selection; although the number of interviews varies per person, going through 11 interviews in three days was one of the most exhausting experiences of my life. Thankfully, all but one of my interviews went really well, so by the end of the week I had several great offices vying for the top spot.
Ultimately, I ended up choosing the office that I did (the Office of Small Business Research at the National Institute of Aging) because I have always been very interested in entrepreneurship and commercializing new therapies. As a postdoc, I completed an internship at the University of Kentucky Office of Technology Commercialization so I had experience working with scientists/entrepreneurs, and I enjoyed playing a part in helping researchers bring their discoveries to the market. I am looking forward to continuing this work and combining it with my policy knowledge at my new office.
CK: There were way more steps to the application process than I originally realized when I applied (see Stephanie's answer for a detailed description). I found the intense number of interviews and activities during the interview week exhilarating, but would definitely die if I had to do that all the time. Candidates have 30-90 minutes to learn about each office that they are interested in and for the office to learn about each candidate. Since placement is a matching process it is important to honestly assess your interviews for fit with regards to both the job responsibilities and the people. I had a fun interview with the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement at the State Department. I liked my interviewers and the position combined my interest in international policy, data analysis, and pharmacology perfectly.
AK: Stephanie and Cameron both described the interview process well. One thing I have learned from talking to many fellows is that the nature of the interviews was not exactly the same for any of us. For example, Stephanie mentioned how her video interview ended with questions about her background and qualifications, whereas my interview focused exclusively on the justification and implications of my policy memo recommendations. And I’ve heard from others that they were asked very unexpected questions, like what they would say to the Director of NSF or NIH if sitting next to them on a Metro train. My point is that in my experience the interviews can go down a lot of different roads, and I think that is by design – I believe at times the interviewing committee wants to see how candidates react when they are pushed off their prepared remarks or outside their comfort zone.
For me, meeting with prospective offices during interview week was very much like interviewing at different graduate school programs. Host offices select which candidate fellows they want to meet in advance, but candidate fellows can usually arrange additional interviews with other offices they are interested in. I interviewed at various offices at NIH, NSF, and DoD, and I chose placement at the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements for several reasons, namely that there were clearly defined projects and programs that aligned with my interests and that the office is collaborative in all its activities with a mission to coordinate research efforts, meaning my fellowship would include program administration work with potential policy implications across many NIH Institutes and Centers but also offices at HHS, FDA, USDA, NIST, and CDC.
Although many fellows with biomedical research backgrounds end up with NIH placements, Cameron, you are beginning your fellowship at the Department of State this fall. Did you initially plan on branching out, or did your interest in State develop during the week of interviews?
CK: I always planned on branching out. The STPF is designed to infuse scientific knowledge into the government and I feel that my scientific background can be most useful in an office where I am surrounded by non-scientists. Also, the STPF is an opportunity to try something completely different. The State Department combines both aspects, as well as international diplomacy and opportunities for travel. Finally, I did not completely move away from the biomedical fields and would describe my position in the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement as “pharmacology adjacent.”
Did your research experience and expertise in pharmacology provide specific knowledge that is relevant to your STPF position? Why or why not?
AK: Indeed it did, the Office of Dietary Supplements sought me as a fellow in large part because my degree in pharmacology filled a specific need in the administration of their programs. The programs that I work with all have goals to support and promote rigorous biomedical research on the health effects of natural products and dietary supplements, and this can involve many of the same kinds of research paradigms, challenges, and problem-solving that you learn in studying molecular and behavioral pharmacology and drug-development. I think it is safe to say some aspect of my pharmacology training and postdoctoral experience was (and still is) called upon nearly every day.
SD: I definitely think my knowledge of pharmacology will help me in my STPF position. Since I am going to be working with scientists/entrepreneurs looking to fix problems associated with an aging population, I believe that my passion for drug discovery will be especially useful for small pharmaceutical/biotech companies focused on finding new therapeutics. Furthermore, since my background is in neuropharmacology/neurovascular diseases, this will allow me to provide insight on new drugs or devices for individuals with diseases such as Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and vascular cognitive impairment.
CK: My pharmacology adjacent office will allow me to leverage my familiarity with drug names, mechanisms of action, and receptor pharmacology. My office is also interested in utilizing the programming and data analysis skills from my PhD work. More generally, I think the evidence-based, scientific way of thinking will give me a unique perspective in my office. It is not always evident when surrounded by scientists but we (scientists) think about solving problems differently from non-scientists.
Adam, you transitioned to a permanent position at the National Institutes of Health after you finished your fellowship. How did your fellowship help with your success in your current position?
AK: First off, the AAAS STPF allows you to tap into an amazing network of past fellows who are now working in almost all corners of both the public and private sector, so your ability to develop personal contacts and identify career opportunities is greatly enhanced. For my fellowship, the position was actually designed by my mentor/supervisor to be a stepping stone to a permanent position in the same office. And that is exactly what happened. I did go on job interviews at a few NIH offices about a year and a half into the STPF, and the tasks and accomplishments achieved under the fellowship made my CV much more responsive to the specific duties of the programmatic jobs I was applying for. It definitely gave me a leg-up as a candidate at these job interviews. I took a permanent position at my STPF placement office because the work was varied and very satisfying, I really clicked with the whole office, and I made some major contributions to several efforts. There were a lot of opportunities to further develop the programs I worked on and expand my professional experience, as well as a clear career path towards a leadership position.
What piece of advice would you give to young scientists who are interested in applying to the STPF program?
SD: Talk to current and alumni fellows! I cannot stress this enough, because there are things about the application process that aren’t disclosed or made clear on the AAAS website. If you are looking for Fellows/Alumni to get in touch with, #ScienceTwitter is the way to go. People are generally very candid and willing to share their experiences.
The second thing is to remember that academic achievements don’t matter as much as you’d think to host offices. For instance, I was never once asked about my number of publications during my interviews, but this is arguably the most important thing when applying for academic jobs. If you have opportunities to get involved with your campus science policy group or at the level of your scientific society (such as the Washington Fellows Program), this will be very beneficial for your application.
CK: In general I would encourage you to be interesting. It is important to stand out from the other great scientists who are applying. Create something concrete that demonstrates that you are interested in topics outside of the bench. Do something to prove that you are a fast learner interested in diverse issues. Also, many of the offices want you to immediately have skills that will help them achieve their strategic goals. Communicating to and writing for diverse audiences, digital design, data analysis, and programming are some examples of valuable translatable skills. Try something new and highlight it in your application!
AK: Cameron’s and Stephanie’s points are worth echoing. Learn as much as possible from as many STPF fellows as you can. Ask them how they composed their applications, how they approached their policy memos, how their interviews played out. I don’t think there is any one ideal candidate, but it is important to demonstrate your commitment to a career in science policy and your ability to contribute to prospective host offices. Pursue experiences that show your ability to communicate, create, organize, or lead. Take the time to learn how different federal agencies operate and identify different areas where you could see yourself. Overall, figure out what areas of research, development, policy, communication, program management, analysis, advocacy, etc. you are passionate about, and have that passion on display in your application and interviews.
Do you have an example policy in mind that you would like to work on?
AK: Much of what I’ve worked on could be described as program development, management, and evaluation, all of which can inform an Agency’s internal policies and decision making. I’ve contributed to the development and writing of strategic plans and research roadmaps for my host office as well as for NIH-wide and trans-Agency nutrition research. I’ve contributed to pilot evaluation studies of NIH policies on Dual Use Research of Concern and the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies. One of my major efforts has been guiding the implementation of more systematic program evaluation in my office, which strongly influences how investments are prioritized and monitored.
SD: I have a few issues that really motivated me to pursue a career in policy, but arguably one of the biggest issues that I would like to address is the “distribution of wealth” for research grants. I am sure many of you all are familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which sought to address income inequality between the uber-wealthy (the 1%) and the rest of the population (the 99%), but this issue is also present among government-funded researchers. A small percentage of researchers are disproportionately well-funded, but this does not necessarily increase scientific productivity. Although it did not end up going through, I would be very interested to see a new policy similar to the Grant Support Index, which was proposed in 2017. This measure or a similar policy would not only give more researchers the opportunity to receive funding, but also ensure that our tax dollars are being used effectively.
CK: One topic area in the field of international narcotics that I am interested in is combatting the flow of synthetic opioids coming from China. While US deaths from prescription opioids have plateaued, deaths from fentanyl and its analogues continue to rise. I am eager to learn about which policy and operational mechanisms are available to the US to decrease deaths domestically by stopping synthetic opioid production abroad.
Describe an aspect or area of the STPF program that exceeded your expectations as well as one aspect of the program where you feel that improvements can be made.
AK: I really enjoyed orientation week at the start of the fellowship, that was a great way to get to know your colleagues along with a good crash course in federal agency history, organization, R&D efforts, law making, and budgeting. The monthly professional development seminars and workshops offered by AAAS throughout the fellowship were another aspect of the STPF that exceeded my expectations. One area that I think could benefit the program is if there was a way to better communicate to incoming fellows just how much their experience will be dependent on the host office. I don’t believe the host offices adhere to any set template or blueprint for what the fellow’s experience should be, and of course different offices and Agencies will afford vastly different opportunities. The fellowship really is what you make of it.
SD: I never expected to walk away with as many new friendships as I did during the interview week, but I was pleasantly surprised at how much of a bonding experience the final week turned out to be for all of us. Moving to a new city can be daunting, but I feel like I am coming to Washington with a built-in friend group and it is a wonderful feeling.
As for improvements in the program, I think that the “mutual selection” process could be way more efficient if it was more similar to the process used for matching medical residents or sorority recruitment, i.e. where all finalists get a single offer at the same time. I also think that the program needs to be more transparent about the process required to obtain security clearances, since these are required for many of the positions.
CK: Compared to my rather insular experience in academia, I was glad to meet so many other cool fellows from diverse backgrounds during the interview week. I am looking forward to building camaraderie with a large group of like-minded, policy-focused scientists. On the negative side, AAAS keeps parts of the application process intentionally obscured which can be exceedingly frustrating. I wish that there was increased communication about security clearance requirements earlier in the application process to help with expectation management.