When I think of the choices I’ve made along my career path to arrive at this particular point, I cannot help but think of the Robert Frost poem, The Road Not Taken, in particular the last lines which read,

This is a long way of saying that a career path in science policy is nonlinear.

Going back to the helpful definitions provided by Merriam-Webster, if science is defined as knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding and policy is prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs, then science policy might be defined as prudence or wisdom in the management of knowledge. Sound impossibly broad? That’s why careers in science policy are so nonlinear! Everything from writing talking points on scientific topics for policy makers to organizing scientists to provide input to the policy making process or deciding which topics should be prioritized for government funding ahead of others qualifies as science policy.

As I mentioned in my last column, the entry points to this career path are numerous. To give you a more concrete understanding of the differences and similarities between some of the career options in science policy, I’ve decided to compare and contrast the experiences I’ve had working for the U.S. Department of State and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. In doing so, perhaps aspiring science policy makers will see where their interests and skills fit best.

In addition to the skills I mentioned in my last column, multitasking and communicating, other similarities exist between science policy in the public and private sectors. Working in a team environment has been critical to my work at the State Department and at the Sloan Foundation. In preparation for representing the United States at bilateral and multilateral meetings, State Department coordinated the opinions and interests of the various U.S. government technical agencies (i.e. NIH, NSF, NIST, NOAA, DOE) to create a unified U.S. government position. Once we reached an international meeting it was critical to listen and collaborate with the other USG delegates to ensure we were representing a balanced viewpoint. Similarly, the Sloan Foundation’s weekly staff meetings provide an opportunity to offer constructive feedback to other program directors’ proposals. Listening to the feedback around the table from bright, curious individuals ensures that a proposal is strengthened after the weekly discussion.

Another similarity I’ve discovered is the importance of discretion and carefully wording comments, either on or off the record, to individuals from outside the organization. Discretion was critical to my work at the State Department for reasons of national security, and remains an important aspect of my work at Sloan because of the competitive nature of the grants we make to a select group of grantees. Discretion is something we learn as scientists, especially working in a competitive field. When you or your colleagues run the risk of being scooped by a competing lab, discrete discussions of data and conclusions are critical. Unlike working in a lab, where you are representing yourself and your intellectual property, working for a federal agency or a philanthropic foundation means that you represent an organization larger than yourself and requires you to think more carefully before making a personal assertion.

I would be remiss, however, if I did not also point out the biggest difference between working for the federal government and working for a private foundation: the manner and scope of influence one has over the process of science policy formation.

As I alluded to above, unless you are the president or a member of Congress, working in the federal government means taking your orders from above. As such, science policy is informed by, though not created by scientists. My role as an AAAS fellow was often to act as a translator. During one particularly interesting project, I spoke to basic research scientists working in an environment to which the U.S. wanted to preserve access. Through conversations with the scientists and the lead policy makers, we were able to incorporate the scientists’ expert opinions in the U.S. policy. Although the battle to maintain open access for scientists to this particular environment continues, I know that by connecting the policy makers with the scientists and ensuring that each understood the challenges that the other had to face, I helped to create a more scientifically sound U.S. policy.

In contrast, the Sloan Foundation does not directly contribute to the formation of U.S. science policy. The foundation often helps fund workshops, meetings or other gatherings to facilitate conversations on policy issues, though as one of the foundations that is viewed as non-partisan, we are reluctant to become too embroiled in political issues. One issue the Sloan foundation has worked to encourage discussion of is the Science and Engineering Workforce.

Through early grants to encourage formation of Professional Science Masters (PSM) degrees, the foundation provided undergraduates enthusiastic about science and engineering with an alternative to the lengthy PhD-plus-postdoc path to a professional science position. There are now over 100 such two-year degree programs, at more than 50 U.S. universities, with similar programs emerging in other countries as well. Most are designed and taught by graduate science departments, and the coursework required often includes the bulk of the courses required of PhD candidates. The "plus" elements of the curricula focus on intensive coursework and real-world experience in adjacent non-research skills such as marketing, business, and communication. In addition, PSM programs typically maintain close relationships with local employers seeking recruits with knowledge of both science and business/management.

While this program does not directly change the U.S. workforce policy as a bill in Congress or a new federal guideline could do, by supporting programs that we think will actually change the U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce, the Sloan Foundation may actually make the change happen. Additionally, national organizations such as National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and the National Governor’s Association (NGA) have recently taken notice of PSM programs as a way for universities and local lawmakers to boost the Science and Engineering Workforce at a local level. If these organizations communicate with national lawmakers or if their members go on to serve in a national office (as former NGA members President Clinton and President Bush recently did) PSM degrees may receive exposure on the national political scene.

I’ve been very fortunate to work for both the federal government and a nonprofit foundation influencing science policy. The similarities make each a rewarding workplace and the differences make them unique in style and scope of impact. If you are interested in pursuing a career in science policy, I urge you to think, based on my account and the accounts of others, about which approach to the "management of knowledge" appeals to you and choose a sector (public or private) accordingly. One thing is for sure, with so many paths diverging in this field, you’ll get to go in many directions – just be sure to make a difference.