Working Scientist

A paper co-authored by Tatsuya Amano was rejected recently without review because its level of English did not meet the journal’s required standard. His research suggests that 38% of researchers who are not fluent in English have experienced similar rejections.Amano, whose first language is Japanese, describes how dismantling language barriers will result in improved knowledge sharing, and in the long run, better research.Journals, he argues, can help by taking steps to distinguish the quality of science from the quality of language when assessing manuscripts. And conference organizers can adopt a range of measures to support presenters and attendees whose first language is not English.The biodiversity researcher is one of eleven scientists leading TranslatE, a project which strives to make environmental science more accessible to non-fluent English speakers.AI and translation tools can bring huge benefits to researchers like him, he says, but they won’t all have been trained on many of the world’s estimated 7000 different languages, deepening inequities in science. Cost is another factor, particularly for those in global south countries. “People from high income countries may be more likely to benefit from those emerging AI technologies,” he says. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rana Dajani studies epigenetics of trauma in vulnerable communities around the world. A molecular biologist based at the Hashemite University in Zarqa, Jordan, her research explores what genes are turned on and off through trauma and if they are transferred to future generations.In the second episode of an eight-part podcast series to accompany Nature's Changemakers in science Q&A series, collection, Dajani, a daughter of refugees, talks about some formative influences and how she now collaborates with Jordan’s Circassian and Chechen populations, who were violently evicted from their homelands almost two hundred years ago. “I had a treasure trove in my backyard to discover novel gene risk factors for disease that nobody else had discovered, because of their very unique gene pool,” she says.Changemakers launched last year as a follow-up to the journal's Racism in Science special issue.Listen to launch editor Kendall Powell discuss the series' aims and objectives with Deborah Daley, global chair of Springer Nature's Black Employee Network. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In her role as director of Bioprotection Aotearoa, a New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence, Amanda Black works with local communities to protect the country’s natural and food-producing ecosystems.Black says the Indigenous values that she applies in her role include te pono, which stands for truth, honesty and integrity, te aroha, encompassing respect and reciprocity, and te tika, a term that means doing what is right, in the right way, for the right reasons.The soil chemist is the first of eight scientists to feature in a podcast series to accompany Nature's Changemakers in science Q&A series, which launched last year as a follow-up to the journal's Racism in Science special issue.Listen to launch editor Kendall Powell discuss the series' aims and objectives with Deborah Daley, global chair of Springer Nature's Black Employee Network. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nature's 2022 special issue on racism in science spawned a follow-up Q&A series with researchers who champion inclusion in their workplace or community.Now eight of the 21 Changemakers who have appeared in the series so far revisit their stories in a podcast series that also explores their career journeys and the impage of their research.Kendall Powell, the senior careers editor who launched the article series in May last year, explains how and why it came about, and the criteria for choosing a Changemaker.“The inclusive practices that these researchers follow result in richer collaborations and ultimately better science,” Powell tells Deborah Daley, who is global chair of Springer Nature's Black Employee Network, and the series host. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the final episode of this six-part podcast series about hiring in science, Julie Gould asks what it takes to be the perfect candidate for a science job vacancy.Lauren Celano, a careers coach who co-founded Propel Careers, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009, defines a high-calibre candidate as someone who hits up to 70% of the technical things being asked for in a job spec, plus being a strong team player with good communication skills.David Perlmutter, a communications researcher at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, says recruiters today are seeking what he terms Renaisance people who are able to demonstrate eight or nine qualities and qualifications. Thirty years ago, there might have been just two requirements listed on a job ad. “We’re asking too much of them, so of course they’re coming up short,” he says.Julie Gould tests Perlmutter’s hypothesis by comparing a 1995 job ad in Nature for a postdoctoral researcher with one posted this year, at the same organisation. The results are revealing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the penultimate episode of this six-part podcast series about hiring and getting hired in science, Julie Gould investigates how artificial intelligence (AI) is being used by recruiters to draft job ads, process applications and shortlist candidates. She also asks how recruiters feel about jobseekers using it in their applications, and whether or not they can even tell.Jen Heemstra, a chemistry researcher and lab leader at Washington University in St. Louis, warns of a mismatch when a candidate submits a thoughtful and reflective application, but these qualities aren’t evident at interview. Fatimah Williams, an executive careers coach at Professional Pathways, based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, recommends using it as a “thinking partner” by giving it appropriate prompts to help with documentation and identify career goals. Holly Prescott, a careers transition specialist based in Birmingham, UK, suggests that candidates who are looking to move, say, from academia to industry, could use AI to explain jargon in a job ad. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Three researchers and a career coach discuss if there as much scope to negotiate salaries in academia as there is in industry.In either setting, they say, negotiation should not be a battleground. Hiring managers should not take advantage of a beloved future colleague who may have zero experience of negotiating anything, says David Perlmutter, a communications researcher at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, who writes about hiring and salary negotiations. Nor is it like a car sale, adds Jen Heemstra, a chemistry researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, after which the two sides part company forever. “In an academic negotiation if there’s a winner and a loser, then you’ve really both lost,” she says.Perlmutter advises early career researchers to build confidence by practicing salary negotiation with a colleague before doing it for real. “No matter what’s going on, try to be respectful, friendly and positive,” he says.Margot Smit, a plant molecular biologist at Tübingen University, Germany, and Lauren Celano, a careers coach who co-founded Propel Careers, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009, lists non-pay elements to work into a negotiation.This is the fourth episode in a six-part podcast series about hiring in science. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Should you tailor your job interview style based on the age, gender and cultural background of the person asking the questions?Margot Smit and Dietmar Hutmacher compare their approaches to hiring and how generational influences might shape how they respond to candidates.Smit, a plant molecular biologist who became a group leader at Tübingen University Germany, in late 2023, and Hutmacher, a regenerative medicine researcher at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, list what they look for at interview. Coming from different generations, one with a background in industry, do they differ?This is the third episode in a six-part podcast series about hiring in science. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Julie Gould compares hiring practices across industry and academia by seeking perspectives from Tina Persson, an organic chemist-turned-careers coach based in Malmö, Sweden, and Lauren Celano, a recruitment consultant who founded Propel Careers, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009.Persson, whose coaching business is called passage2pro, tells Gould why it typically takes longer to hire scientists in academia. Margot Smit, a plant molecular biologist who now recruits scientists for her lab at Tübingen University in Germany, reflects on her own experiences as an academic jobseeker in 2022. It involved panel interviews, lab tours, team dinners, and, in one case, a symposium where all candidates gave a talk. Now, as someone who recruits scientists to her lab, she involves junior colleagues in hiring decisions.Jen Heemstra tells a similar tale. Her search for a department chair position in 2022 meant moving not only herself but also her entire chemistry research group to Washington University in St. Louis. She explains how she updated her colleagues and addressed their questions and concerns about the impending move.Finally, Rachel Howard describes how she hopes to make the process quicker and easier for hiring managers at the Francis Crick Institute in London, where she is head of talent acquisition. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Successful job candidates aren’t necessarily the smartest or most confident people in the room, Ilana Wisby tells Julie Gould in the first episode of a six-part weekly podcast series about hiring in science.Wisby, a physicist and former chief executive of Oxford Quantum Circuits, which builds quantum computers from its base in Reading, UK, says recruiters use interviews to gauge a candidate’s values, their emotional intelligence, and their growth potential. Asking someone how they received difficult feedback, she adds, is a test of their humility and willingness to admit mistakes, and what they learned from them.The episode begins with Linda Nordling, a freelance science writer who led coverage of Nature’s 2024 global hiring in science survey, talking about some of the surprising things that caught her eye in the data.Future episodes include insights from a careers coach about industry hiring trends, and how an academic research institute based in London is centralizing its postdoc hiring process. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.