Philip Ko
After receiving his PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience, Philip Ko spent many years studying the neural correlates of visual memory and how they change with different states of awareness, age, and dementia. After a postdoctoral fellowship and teaching psychology and neuroscience at Vanderbilt University and Austin Peay State University, Philip decided to pivot careers into science policy. Currently, Philip is a AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow at the National Science Foundation (NSF), working on communication and outreach for "Science and Engineering Indicators" which is a Congressionally mandated report on the science and engineering enterprise in the US and abroad.
Can you describe your academic and professional background? What path led you to pursue this field?
My academic background is in cognitive neuroscience. My research examined how visual memory and attention changed with age, dementia, and different states of awareness. I also held a few teaching positions as a professor of psychology. I was always fascinated by psychology and how people perceive the world. I don’t have a good intuition about how people think and why they behave the way they do, so I was attracted to fields that sought to understand those things. My first job out of college was as a research assistant in a laboratory that studied cognitive changes in people with dementia and brain damage due to stroke, and that work was so fascinating that I pursued a doctorate in cognitive neuroscience.
I now work in science policy and communication at the National Science Foundation. Throughout my scientific career, I was interested in engaging with the community, and writing for non-scientific audiences. I engaged with the press, wrote science news articles, participated in podcasts and community events. Over time, I felt that the scientific community was not doing a great job communicating its stance on important issues in our world. I thought that my background in science and interest in communication could help me serve as a bridge between the scientific and non-scientific communities. I was attracted to working at the government level, because I worry about the eroding trust between the public and scientific institutions.
How did you find this particular position, and what was the hiring process like? Is there a typical structure for this in your field?
I’m currently in a program called the Science and Technology Policy Fellowship by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which places scientists, doctors, and engineers in government offices. The basic qualifications are American citizenship and a terminal degree in science, engineering, or medicine (PhD for scientists, MS is acceptable for engineers, MD, DVM, etc.). I had heard about this program when I was a postdoc, and it was one of the first things I thought of when I decided to pivot my career.
The program has a year-long application and hiring process that consists of several essays and research memos, an interview with the program officials, and finally a week of interviews with various offices in Washington DC. The program places fellows in all branches of the federal government, but most fellows work in the Executive Branch at agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), the US State Department, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Can you tell us about your current responsibilities? What is a typical day or week like in your role?
At NSF, I work in a division called the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), which is a federal statistical agency (like the Census Bureau) charged with collecting data on all aspects of the science and engineering enterprise in the US, including STEM education, the workforce, research and development, and technological innovation. I work on a team that works with the National Science Board (NSBO) to integrate all of this data into a congressionally-mandated report called “Science and Engineering Indicators (SEIs)”. The report is incredibly rich with high-quality data and analysis, and it is free to the public.
My job is two-fold: to promote the report and collect data to measure its impact. The promoting part means taking pieces of the report and turning them into Tweets! That also means serving as a liaison between my office and the National Science Board Office, accounting for the needs of both offices. I also write blogs, make infographics, and help other communications-related people in the division with internal communication and communication infrastructure.
The impact part means tracking media mentions, web analytics, reports from policymaking offices (government and nonprofit), academic citations, and other sources. I routinely collect these data and synthesize them into monthly impact reports that are issued internally, and help leadership at NCSES, NSF, and the NSBO understand who reads SEI and why they read it.
In addition to working in my office at NSF, I work on the AAAS blog and podcast platform called “Sci on the Fly”. I am Executive Producer of the podcast, so I organize producers to solicit interviews relevant to science policy, and then I assist in writing, recording, editing, and posting the podcast. I’m also the social media manager for “Sci on the Fly”, so I will spend time on Twitter and Instagram doing promotional work. Finally, I serve on the editorial board of the Journal of Science Policy and Governance, which means that I’ll review a paper, suggest structural change, make fine edits, and serve as a point of communication for the authors.
So, a chunk of my day will entail scraping the news and processing web analytics. Another chunk of the day will be dedicated to composing social media content, another chunk creating graphics, another shaping up my impact reports. I’ll spend some time editing audio and recording pieces for the podcast. Throughout the day I have lots of Zoom meetings, I field email, sometimes hop onto Twitter to promote a new blog or podcast.
What do you enjoy about your current job and work environment?
I feel very active and engaged at all times. The work pace is faster than when I was in a laboratory. I feel like my current work environment is more collaborative and directed toward a common goal than when I was a scientist or professor.
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?
There’s no way to avoid the bureaucratic aspects of working in a government agency, but I have it better than most. Sometimes my work product will essentially go nowhere because it gets stuck in a process or my bosses don’t like/care about it, but that’s okay. I also find it difficult to avoid getting lost in the weeds of any work, sort of a symptom of having had a scientific research career; I have to work much faster and efficiently than I did before. I think there’s a common growing pain of transitioning from academic to government work of spending so much time in meetings and having no time to actually do the work assigned in those meetings (maybe that’s common in lots of non-academic work environments, especially now in the Era of Pandemic/Zoom).
There is so much I wish I did before working at NSF:
- brush up on how government works (how is a bill made again?)
- listen to more podcasts
- actually have a Twitter or Instagram account
- take at least one course in communications
- collaborate with social psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, public affairs specialists
- take more writing courses
- work at a newspaper
- Use Microsoft Outlook
- Understand project management lingo
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?
My event horizon is about one-year long: I need to get a job after the fellowship! Many folks in my shoes have gone on to work in government, non-profits, charitable organizations, and advocacy groups. Many of those jobs are in Washington DC, but alumni fellows work across many sectors.
What’s changing in your industry? Are there any future trends we should be aware of?
The coronavirus pandemic has changed what the non-scientific community understands about the scientific process. They are seeing the sausage being made: the virus was such an immediate but unknown threat that health officials did not initially understand the importance of masks and the messaging around that has been mixed. The public is seeing struggles in science policy, vaccine development, and the rush to scientifically understand an immediate threat. So, I see a need for science communication to be more nuanced than it has been in the past. As a scientist, I think that’s a good thing.
What activities, internships, or organizations would you recommend someone get involved with to help them break into this field?
If you’re a scientist, take every opportunity to engage with the public, work with the press, develop a social media presence, write general audience pieces, and organize community and educational events. If there’s a problem in your work environment or your community, work to develop a solution. If you’re interested in science policy and there is no outlet, form a journal club or an organization. There’s probably no better way of getting involved in science policy than taking up some kind of leadership.
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?
The analysts around me are PhD-level economists or social scientists, but many of the communications professionals around me do not have scientific or academic backgrounds. I use some of my research background to my advantage – I do some data wrangling and I also think about visual attention and memory (my research background) when creating social media content. I promote a technical report, so my scientific background helps me process it more easily than if I didn’t have it. Teaching has helped me with being a clear communicator (although I could always improve). The primary disadvantage that I see is that I could get stuck in the weeds of some data or a process for much longer than is practical or efficient. It’s hard to get past details that bother me.
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?
Changing careers can be very difficult. I was once a scientific expert and I knew exactly how to run a lab, and now I feel like I know next to nothing about my own job. I wish that I developed a strong habit for professional networking and job hunting when I was 20-something.
I think it’s useful to consider your educational path and your career paths as related, but separate. Your college major and graduate work don’t lead to one job, they lead to hundreds of jobs. That mentality will help you be more flexible and adaptive.
Don’t get caught in the fallacy of sunken costs. All those years spent in a laboratory were not wasted if you decide to pursue something different. I underwent a long process of introspection and deconstruction of my professional identity. That might be hard, but I think it is worth it. I have less certainty about my career than when I was an academic scientist, and that can be stressful, but I’m actually much happier at work now. And I feel like making the transition was, itself, a major accomplishment.
