SYMPOSIUM:
Graduate Students and Public Interest Research: Experiences and Opportunities
Washington DC, February 18th, 2000
By: Peter Defur
The second ASIPI symposium focused on graduate studies and public interest research. The event brought together a diverse group of graduate students, faculty and non-government organisations to discuss incentives and barriers to conducting public interest research, and to explore ways for encouraging and rewarding such research at the graduate level.
This symposium was organised in collaboration with the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) and the Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (CSARE). SEHN and CSARE are working together on a new project to encourage and support graduate students and advisors who are doing - or would like to do - public interest research. We would like to hear from you.
 What are your experiences, both good and bad, in public interest research?
 What information or resources do you need (e.g. information on programs and schools that support public interest research; relevant conferences, workshops and publication venues; case studies and articles)?
 What information and resources can you share?
 Would you like to be involved in this project (e.g. by helping to organise local workshops or larger conferences, or by contributing a summary of your research to help advise other students)?
Please contact:
Katherine Barrett
k.barrett@public-science.org
Introduction, by Peter DeFur:
Graduate students face substantial hurdles in completing their graduate programs in a traditional academic program. Among these hurdles are the problem of selecting a committee (and perhaps an advisor), taking courses, selecting a research project, satisfying the program requirements and advisor expectations, and all the while having some semblance of a life. Carrying out a graduate program outside the usual and accepted framework adds complications and intricacies that could end a graduate career.
Anyone who has worked in the area of "public interest" knows that this area is equally as filled with challenges and difficulties. Public interest research is difficult to fund, challenging to organize the multiple parties and often hard to explain to traditionalists who are only familiar with academic or "applied" research. Public interest work of any sort requires dedication and commitment to overcome obstacles such as working with diverse constituencies and dealing with government agencies.
Graduate students who seek to combine the two areas of interest and conduct their thesis research on an area of public interest work take on more than the regular load of problems than their compatriots. And those of us who pursue public interest work know that we need to nurture and assist these graduate students as the next generation of public interest scientists.
In this symposium, we are privileged to hear the experiences and perspectives of three people who conducted their graduate research on public interest topics.
Peter deFur, President of the Association for Science in the Public Interest, is an environmental biologist with experience in the NGO community and as an academic faculty member. He is presently a part time faculty member in the Center for Environmental Studies at Virginia Commonwealth Univ., and an independent environmental consultant to government and community groups. He has served on federal advisory groups, NAS committees and on the board for several environmental organizations.
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS:
1. OVERVIEW: BARRIERS AND INCENTIVES TO PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH AT THE GRADUATE LEVEL
By: Katherine Barrett
Before discussing barriers and incentives to public interest research (PIR), it is first helpful clarify what we mean by "public interest research" and how this might differ from other kinds of research. A recent paper published by SEHN, CSARE and the Center for Rural Affairs [Defining Public Interest Research (link to http://www.csare.org/pubs/pubs.htm)] describes PIR as research that aims at developing knowledge and/or technologies that increase the commonwealth. This seems like a reasonable place to start, but of course it is often difficult to assess whether or not knowledge or technologies do increase the commonwealth. For example, at least part of the debate over genetically engineered food is whether these foods will primarily benefit private interests or whether they will in fact benefit society and the environment. This is a complex and contentious issue, but the point here is that there are many different ideas of what best serves the public interest. We should avoid being too presumptuous about who "the public" includes and what might be in their "interest".
Despite these problems, it may be possible to outline some general indicators for PIR. The collaborative paper describes the following:
 Who are the direct beneficiaries of this research? Whose problems are being addressed by this research? Who will gain and who stands to lose? Are those who are paying for research, for example through tax dollars, seeing the benefits?
 How are data and results made available? Are research results published or distributed in an appropriate way? In general, the results of publicly funded research should not be proprietary or patented but made accessible and freely available in the public domain.
 Who has been involved? This may be the most important question in defining PIR. It is difficult to know what is in the public interest, and it is difficult to conduct research in the public interest, without involving the public in some way. Inclusive research processes help to ensure that research does in fact benefit the public, and provides a broad range of expertise and experience needed to address complex societal problems.
These indicators suggest that PIR is more of a process - a way of doing research - rather than a particular type of research project or a particular end goal. More specifically, PIR tends to be:
 "Active" or "engaged". PIR aims to address social and environmental problems in all their complexity; researchers often adopt a particular position on the issues at hand, and play an active role in bringing about change.
 Participatory. A broad range of expertise is helpful in addressing complex problems. But there are also ethical reasons for conducting participatory research, namely that the people who are directly affected by a particular issue should also play a direct role in its resolution, or even better, in its prevention.
 Multi-disciplinary. For similar reasons, PIR is often multidisciplinary, drawing on a wide range of fields and ideally including natural science, social sciences and humanities.
 Long-term. PIR involves a long-term commitment to the project and to the communities and individuals involved.
Unfortunately, academic departments that are increasingly specialised, discipline-based and/or dependent on private sector funding, tend to give lesser priority to participatory, community-based and multi-disciplinary research. In 1998, CSARE published the results of an exploratory survey on the rewards and barriers to conducting PIR [Incentives and Barriers to Public Interest Research (link to http://www.csare.org/pubs/pubs)]. The survey was targeted mainly to faculty in agricultural research, but also included several other disciplines and a small number of graduate students. This survey, as well as anecdotal evidence from graduate student colleagues and my personal experience, suggest a number of significant barriers to conducting PIR at the graduate student level.
 Lack of precedents, opportunities, mentors. PIR and community-based research are rarely presented as research options to incoming graduate students. Several students now engaged in PIR have reported initial difficulties finding advisors, developing research projects, and establishing a peer groups. There is a need to build networks of students who are doing PIR and faculty who are willing to advise these students.
 Inappropriate degree requirements. Many graduate programs and degree requirements may not be conducive to PIR, or may even function as barriers. For example, PIR projects may require broader representation on advisory committees, a different structure and/or evaluation process for comprehensive exams, and rewards for alternative forms of publication and community service.
 Narrow disciplinary boundaries. The added difficulties of conducting interdisciplinary research are often not recognised, particularly within discipline-based departments. Guidelines and resources for students doing interdisciplinary and public interest research, and for faculty and departments who are supporting such research would be immensely helpful.
 Lack of appropriate conferences and publishing venues. Many graduate students who are conducting interdisciplinary, public interest, or community-based research are faced with the question, "Where can I present and publish my results?" PIR conferences and proceedings would provide such a venue, and would help to build networks among graduate students, faculty and community members.
The Science and Environmental Health Network is currently addressing these questions through our Graduate Studies and Public Interest Research Project described above.
Katherine Barrett received her Ph.D. in botany from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, in 1999. She is currently Project Director for the Science and Environmental Health Network.
2. CASE STUDY: COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH ON AIR QUALITY
By: Jennifer Zipprich
Though a number of human health risks have been described as consequences of exposure to ozone and nitrogen oxides, the data supporting these exposure-response relationships are often unclear or difficult to interpret. Improved estimation of personal exposure is imperative to conducting rigorous health risk assessments. Three Richmond, Virginia neighborhoods were selected as ideal study sites for an exposure assessment based on their proximity to major highways and the high level of community organization and demonstrated interest in air quality issues. To elucidate the relationship between indoor and outdoor concentrations of these air pollutants to personal exposure, forty-eight volunteers were recruited to participate in a two-day study. Participants were asked to wear two passive badge monitors, one for ozone and one for nitrogen oxides, and to complete a time activity questionnaire which provided behavioral information over the course of the two day sampling period. Further, passive air monitors were placed in two rooms in the home, typically in or near the bedrooms and in a common area. Outdoor measurements were collected just outside of each study household and by four Department of Environmental Quality air monitoring compliance sites located just outside of the City. We intend to quantify personal exposures, identify sources of pollutants that may contribute to these exposures, and give recommendations to study participants and cooperating neighborhoods on methods to reduce personal exposures. Subsequently, these recommendations may help to reduce acute and chronic respiratory conditions among residents, particularly among susceptible individuals residing in these communities. This research would not have been possible without the cooperation and support of the study participants, William Byrd Community House, Environmental Justice Advisory Panel and my graduate advisors at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Jennifer Zipprich is currently completing her master of interdisciplinary studies degree with a focus in environmental health at Virginia Commonwealth University. She plans to defend her thesis research entitled "Development of a Nitrogen Oxides Exposure Prediction Model" in July 2000.
3. POST DOCTORAL SCIENTISTS AND PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH
By: Tracie Nadeau
Postdoctoral fellows have many of the same incentives and barriers to conducting PIR as do graduate students and other researchers. However, unlike graduate students, who are to some extent expected to spend time developing their research interests and projects over several years, and unlike more senior researchers who have already established their reputations and credibility and may have permanent positions, in the current system the postdoctoral represents a critical time during which an individual is expected to prove their mettle as a researching scientist in preparation for competing for research positions. Indeed, it is considered by many to be the most productive period "at the bench" of one's career, and consequently postdocs are hired for temporary positions with the understanding that they will produce; the primary metric by which "production" is measured being the number of research publications in peer-reviewed journals. The embedded assumption in this scenario is that a researching (basic/applied) position necessarily follows obtaining a science doctoral degree. Few dispute that most science doctoral programs are currently rather narrowly focused on training (academic) researchers, which presents several of the recognized barriers to performing PIR at the graduate level.
The barriers to PIR at the postdoctoral level may be enhanced if a student's graduate training was in a traditional, discipline-based department. There are few entry level options for a Ph.D.-level scientist; most positions, in any sector (academic, government, industry, NGO) require some postdoctoral or specialized experience. Thus, upon completing a Ph.D. postdoctoral work is often a necessary next step. In seeking a postgraduate experience, many people feel that the ONLY option available is to take a postdoctoral position in academics, industry, or a government agency.
 Such positions are well-advertised, and for the most part, widely available.
 It is generally within these sectors of the research community that a recent graduate, or their mentors, has contacts.
 There is a well-defined reward structure in pursuing this type of postdoctoral work. Productive postdoctoral years greatly increase the chances of getting a good, permanent position.
 There are prestigious fellowships available to work in the academic and government research sectors.
Amongst my peer group there are some barriers, other than the obvious counterpoints to those above, which have kept even those sincerely interested in pursuing PIR from doing so at the postdoctoral level.
 Fear of not being able to continue, or return to, basic/applied research.
 Risk of losing graduate mentor support. This could simply be a lack of understanding of WHY one would choose to do something besides academics (neutral), or could manifest itself negatively, such as in reference letters, etc., which could have a profound impact on one's future career.
 Financial hardship. Graduate students are generally not financially solvent, and are often forced to take any decent situation which presents itself to stave off being destitute; as discussed above, this is usually a "traditional" postdoctoral situation.
 Uncertainty of how to pursue PIR.
 Uncertainty of future employment possibilities.
Essentially, while the dichotomy exists between PIR and "other" types of research many postdocs fear they will be excluded from other types of research careers (via either subtle or overt mechanisms) if they direct energy towards PIR during what is considered to be a vulnerable time in their career. This, coupled with an unclear pathway to PIR, becomes "better the evil you know ..." for many postdocs. As support for PIR at the graduate and professional levels improves, so will many barriers be removed for pursuing such work at the postdoctoral level.
Tracie Nadeau received her Ph.D. in Biology, Ecology & Evolution Program, from the University of Oregon in June of 1999. During her doctoral research, she was involved with the Public Interest Science Conference, a graduate student run conference. Dr. Nadeau is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the U.S. Geological Survey.
|