Jacqueline Robinson-Hamm

Jacqueline Robinson-Hamm, PhD, is a Science Policy Analyst at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). She received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Washington and her PhD from Duke University in Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering, respectively. Jacqueline is a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program recipient as well as an American Heart Association Predoctoral Fellowship recipient. She also served as an Associate Editor of The Journal of Science Policy and Governance and was a Clinical Trials Results analyst at ClinicalTrials.gov through ICF. Currently as a science policy analyst at FASEB, she focuses on graduate student and postdoctoral scholar training and career opportunities.

Can you describe your academic and professional background? What path led you to pursue this field?

I received my B.S. in Bioengineering from the University of Washington (UW), which is where I began my research career. At UW I volunteered in the laboratory of Dr. Michael Regnier studying gene therapy for heart disease. Through this experience I became enamored with the potential of gene therapy and decided to pursue my PhD. At the time, I thought I wanted to do the “traditional” academic path and become a PI, but I also knew that a PhD would likely open doors in all sectors that may be shut to me with only a B.S.

Following my undergraduate training, I pursued further gene therapy research in Dr. Charlie Gersbach’s laboratory at Duke University. My research focused on genome engineering for muscular dystrophy. While at Duke I became very involved in activities outside of research: student government in my department and for the Graduate School, Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE), courses outside of the traditional path such as bioethics and law, various task forces and committees, and SciPol.org. By my third year of graduate school, I had solidified that I no longer wanted to pursue the “traditional” academic route. Academic research is grueling; my doctoral degree was wearing greatly on both my physical and mental health, and I could no longer envision another 10+ years before securing tenure—if I was even lucky enough to obtain a tenure track job. Additionally, I found myself often being more excited thinking about ethical and policy implications of research than my research results. This was a clear signal to me, and I ramped up the number of informational interviews I conducted in sectors outside of a wet lab bench job.

It did not take long until I became enthusiastic about a career in science policy. I obtained a science policy certificate from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, networked, and increased my involvement with SciPol.org. Science policy requires close reading of relevant texts, like a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or reports federal agencies publish, followed by critical thinking to craft a response. These are some of the tasks I enjoyed most about research, and a career in science policy would allow me to continue that without staying in the often toxic cultures of the ivory tower.

Following my PhD, I became a results analyst for ClinicalTrials.gov. Currently, I am a Science Policy Analyst at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB).

How did you find this particular position, and what was the hiring process like? Is there a typical structure for this in your field?

If you’re interested in science policy jobs I highly suggest you follow the #scipol and #scipoljobs hashtags on Twitter; that is how I found this position. The hiring process was fairly standard. I submitted my résumé and a short writing sample and came in for interviews with the team. While I can’t speak with firsthand experience in other organizations, I do think this appears fairly typical. Certainly, you will need a writing sample to submit, and it can’t be a scientific abstract or article. If you want to prepare for a job in science policy be sure to have a lay writing sample.

Can you tell us about your current responsibilities? What is a typical day or week like in your role?

My portfolio focuses on graduate student and postdoctoral scholar training and career opportunities. Many science policy analyst jobs will be much broader than this, but I am thankful to have a relatively narrow scope on a topic I care deeply about. Also note that many science policy analyst jobs are combined with a legislative affairs/government relations job. At FASEB these are separate roles within the Office of Public Affairs. I have colleagues who cover hearings, federal budget, and all things Congress. If a piece of legislation comes out that involves trainees then we work collaboratively, but I am largely not required to keep up with legislation. FASEB is fairly unique in this way; if you’re looking to pursue science policy, definitely ask folks during informational interviews how much of their portfolio is legislative affairs duties to get a sense of expectations for the role at that company.

Every day I read the Federal Register and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guide to look for any relevant meetings, notices, requests for information, or similar. FASEB has a focus on federal agencies; for training and career opportunities I spend most of my time covering NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF). I also attend pertinent Advisory Council meetings, and if they issue a report or a draft report, it may be relevant for FASEB to respond.

As a federation, FASEB’s members are scientific societies. Therefore, we issue consensus statements. Representatives from member societies have opportunities to shape our responses through various committees. I am staff liaison for the Training & Career Opportunities Subcommittee. If FASEB needs to respond to a report, Request for Comment, or similar that focuses on research workforce and trainees, I typically will draft a response and convene the Training & Career Opportunities Subcommittee. Their comments are incorporated into the draft, which is then reviewed by the Science Policy Committee. Similarly, the Science Policy Committee feedback is integrated. Finally, the draft is shown to our Board of Directors. If approved by the Board, the statement is transmitted to the relevant parties and published on our website. 

Responding to Federal agencies and covering the relevant meetings keeps us relatively busy. When there is downtime though I work on longer-term projects where FASEB aims to be proactive rather than reactive. Again, these ideas all stem from Training & Career Opportunities Subcommittee discussions so our members have a stake in what activities FASEB pursues.

Understanding the current trainee landscape is of utmost importance, so in addition to keeping up with federal agencies I also attend a plethora of community calls, read Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education regularly, attend webinars focused on the STEM workforce, and do my best to keep my finger on the pulse—Twitter is very helpful for this. In addition to federal agencies I also try to monitor and/or participate in other offerings from excellent organizations such as the U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Graduate Career Consortium, National Postdoctoral Association, Council of Graduate Schools, and more.

I don’t have a super typical day or week depending on what projects I’m juggling, but overall I do a lot of reading, thinking, engaging our volunteer leaders (especially those on the Training & Career Opportunities Subcommittee), and writing.

What do you enjoy about your current job and work environment?

My current work environment is a small, tight knit, very supportive team. I feel free to express ideas before they are fully formed and get feedback along the way. There is a lot of room for me to take the lead in pursuing ideas I am interested in, and my manager always ensures I get the credit I deserve. I love getting to be critical about policies that shape the work environment and future careers for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars on a daily basis. FASEB is essentially paying me to watch seminars and be engaged in meetings and readings I used to sneak off to participate in while I was a graduate student. Being able to help shape academia and the broader research workforce through policy without having to suffer through climbing the academic ranks is an ideal position for me.

What are some of the challenging aspects of your job? Is there anything you wish you had known about your job or industry before joining?

Tight deadlines are always difficult, especially since we do our best to always follow process to allow for as much member society input as possible. But sometimes notices are published with a 30-day comment period, and you cannot do anything about that! 

Writing consensus statements can also be tricky. Incorporating everyone’s point of view can be difficult, and occasionally our volunteers are against an idea I bring forth. Being less progressive than I have hopes for can definitely be frustrating, but I remember to not take any of it personally and that every step forward, even if they are smaller steps than I had hoped for, is still a step in the right direction.

Do you have any professional plans for the future? What are some future career paths that could open up for someone in your position, 5-10 years down the road?

Being in science policy almost necessitates having a large local network of professionals in a variety of fields. I am currently enjoying science policy tremendously so do not have plans to change career paths. That being said, the skill set developed and network created while in science policy creates many open doors for the future in a variety of sectors—everything from think tanks, consulting, and science writing to professional development and more.

What’s changing in your industry? Are there any future trends we should be aware of?

There is an increased focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, as it should be! Much of science policy is reactive, so it is difficult to predict future trends. Currently there appears to be an increased focus on artificial intelligence and quantum computing, as those are interests of the administration. That being said, funding for science is largely bipartisan and some topics seem to remain relatively constant even with administration changes. For example, the STEM workforce, animal use in science, funding for science, reduction of administrative burden, and rigor and reproducibility in science are long standing issues.

What activities, internships, or organizations would you recommend someone get involved with to help them break into this field?

Learn to write well for a non-scientific audience. This can be achieved through formal courses or volunteer opportunities that are, unfortunately, typically unpaid. The Journal of Science Policy and Governance is a great place to submit original work, and occasionally they also take volunteer associate editors.

Student government is an excellent way to find committees, task forces, and similar efforts to get involved in. Generally, the more you put into student government opportunities the more you get out of it. It can be a time commitment, but not only can you make a meaningful impact in your direct community, you can also gain valuable experiences to list on your résumé which you can speak about during interviews. Through opportunities stemming from my involvement with student government, I gained experience developing consensus statements and recommendations, which was extremely beneficial when interviewing to work at FASEB. 

Create a network outside of your department. Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE) was pivotal for me. Not only did I have genuine friends and an excellent peer support network during graduate school, many of those people are still amazing friends and now they are indirect work colleagues. While we do not work in the same organization, there are plenty of folks from WiSE I know I can contact when I have questions or am looking for guest speakers or general insights about a topic. Certainly, your department is full of great people, but expanding your network to a variety of fields will benefit you substantially, especially if you expect your career to leave the bench.

Is it common for people in your field to have a scientific/academic background (i.e. have PhDs)? Can you think of any advantages or disadvantages someone with a PhD might experience while pursuing or working in your field?

Requiring a PhD for science policy analysts varies company to company; it is not absolutely required throughout the sector, but anecdotally I do think it is becoming more common. FASEB does require a PhD for our science policy team. Personally, I believe having a PhD is a huge advantage. With a PhD you have an innate understanding of academia and how scientists think because you have firsthand experience. PhDs can critically evaluate policies—on all topics ranging from workforce and sexual harassment to visas and grants—with some level of ease because these processes likely make more sense to someone who has been through graduate school than someone who has not. The perspective you bring to science policy with a PhD is incredibly valuable.

Writing policy statements often requires crafting arguments based on facts, so being comfortable reading and critically assessing literature is key. This skill is almost universally emphasized in PhD programs, so translating that to a different topic for a science policy job is a smooth transition. 

As with everything in life, there are also disadvantages. I acknowledge that these are sweeping overgeneralizations but be weary of these potential pitfalls. PhDs tend to be perfectionists. In many jobs, science policy included, you simply cannot hang on to a piece of writing forever. There comes a time where something is good enough and it needs to keep moving along through the process. Timeliness is key in science policy, so you cannot let your desire for perfection become a roadblock. Introverted graduate students may also struggle with the amount of networking that is required to be in science policy. I certainly find it uncomfortable but manage to push through. Finally, science policy is similar to graduate school in that there is always more work to do. As with scientific literature for my thesis topic, there is always more I could be reading for my job. Burnout potential is real, so you need to be able to set strong boundaries for yourself and have clear communication with your manager. Occasionally I work after hours or weekends to meet a deadline or attend a conference but maintaining my mental and physical health always comes first. If you have spent 60+ hours a week in the lab, I would highly suggest that you learn to set boundaries to avoid burnout in any job sector.

Do you have any final words of advice for those navigating these career questions? Is there anything you would have done differently given what you know now?

Conduct informational interviews! If you can do 1-2 informational interviews each year, I think you will be well equipped to understand what a certain job requires and how to make yourself an ideal applicant. Additionally, try to speak to people who actually have the job you would be applying to; speaking to a CEO can be very illuminating about the company’s overall goals and mission, but they won’t know what the day to day entails in the position you are interested in. Additionally, do not stop doing informational interviews after speaking to a single person in a certain career. That really limits your view of the job. Talk to multiple people at different companies to get a more complete picture of what that job title means for you practically. Do not be afraid to reach out through LinkedIn or your alumni network; you’d be surprised how willing folks are to give their time to help guide your career path—even from a cold email. 

I prepared fairly rigorously for this career path while still in graduate school, but I was meek about following up with webinar/seminar speakers to try to find a career sponsor. I had no problems conducting an informational interview, but even when I connected well with that person I had a hard time following up to keep them in my network. Frankly speaking, someone cannot open doors for you if you are not actively on their radar. I have obtained both of my jobs post-PhD from cold applications, so it can be done, but networking your way into an opportunity is going to have higher success rates. Make a concerted effort to find a career sponsor, or several, who will open up doors for you.

If you have any additional questions, reach out to me on twitter @JRobinsonHamm