Academic life scientists are currently well-funded, but they need to develop better advocacy skills in order to exert some influence over issues related to their work.
These are among the best of times for many in the life sciences, with p government and industrial support helping to develop a burgeoning community which makes an important contribution to both scientific discovery and public life. During such times, it makes sense for the community to ensure that it speaks with a clear voice, not just in the corridors of power, but also in or broader society, where so many voices are striving to be heard. So it is unsurprising that biologists in both the United States and the United Kingdom are striving for more effective representation from their professional societies and related advocacy groups.
A similar set of issues concern these scientists on both sides of the Atlantic. Close to the top of their agenda is graduate education. There is a growing realization within the community that the attraction of young people into a lengthy period of very hard work for very little money, to be followed in most cases by gradual disillusionment as the prospect of a tenure—track position fades, is a sub-optimal approach to career development. Increasingly pervasive restrictions on the use of research tools and research data make up another area in which academics need to speak up, before their voice is overwhelmed by industrial interests. Scientific integrity, animal care, cloning and genetic engineering are all issues in which the community can help itself and the public by communicating a coherent and credible point of view.
In the United States, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), which publicly represents 17 scientific societies, has emerged in recent years as an influential voice in public policy. But it competes for attention with rivals such as the 40, 000 p American Society for Microbiology and the American Institute of Biological Sciences, a federation representing whole organism biologists.
This fragmentation is not ideal, but FASEB has nonetheless proven its influence, especially in campaigning for money for the National Institutes of Health. It makes sense that it should seek to extend this success into other spheres. In Washington, it is particularly important that the academic community make itself heard: unlike the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, academics cannot afford to peddle influence by paying large sums of money to sympathetic politicians.
In the author’s eyes, FASEB might prove its influence if it（）
A. campaigned for a big sum of money for the companies
B. enabled academic community to be more respected
C. extended its success into other spheres
D. competed for attention with some rivals
