>> Marin Allen: Well good
afternoon again and probably
because I'm a child of a
certain period of time,
I'm always looking for
serendipities,
and one of the things that 
we're delighted with is the fact
that we're able to honor
Matilda White Riley yet
again this year.
And I don't know whether
this has been discussed
before, but I took a look
at what Matilda means,
and it's from the
Germanic and it is
strength in battle.
And I think that
her parents,
though she was raised
by a grandparent,
I think it makes kind of
an interesting thought.
And "strength" can sometimes
be called as well "might" so
I think we're in the right
time and the right place
celebrating the right woman
to look at the issue of
where we get our might or
our strength in the process
of learning about the
behavior of human beings.
I'm really honored and I'm
grateful to both of the
Bills for being here and to
OBSSR for having the
opportunity to be on
the same stage with
these fine women.
And I'd like to start with
asking Felisa Gonzales who
got her Ph.D. here in
Washington at GW and her,
I'm very glad, Master's of
Public Health from Berkley,
to tell us a little about
her work in sexual and
reproductive health and in
the areas of identity,
and some of the work that
she's headed toward doing
and how she got to
this stage today.
So please Felisa.
Yes, please, yes.
>> Felisa Gonzales: Okay.
>> Marin Allen: We're going
to get the questions after.
>> Felisa Gonzales:
Thank you.
[inaudible]
Thank you Bill, that is me.
[laughs] Here let's see, I 
think I can find it pretty quickly.
>> Male Speaker: Okay.
>> Felisa Gonzales:
Thank you though.
Good afternoon
everyone.
Apologies just let me find
where I'm supposed to be in
the slide order here.
I'm very honored to be
invited to speak on this
panel so thank you
for the invitation.
Today I'm going to be
sharing a little bit with
you about how I became
interested in the social
and behavioral sciences as a
means of reducing health
disparities and achieving
health equity which is my
line of work and interest.
My story really is one of
incremental realizations,
seized opportunities, and
supportive mentors who have
guided me along the way.
So I just wanted to start by
telling you a little bit
about myself.
I found the slide, but
didn't start the slide show.
Here we are.
Okay so I'm from the San
Luis Valley of Colorado
which is a really
beautiful place.
It's full of history
and culture,
but it's also a place of
poverty and poor health.
So as you can see here on
this map of county rankings
from the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation,
poor health in Colorado is
really concentrated in the
southern portion of the
state where I come from.
And I wasn't really aware of
this growing up because it
was all that I knew, but I
think it's definitely shaped
my perspective and my
research interests and so I
just wanted to point that
out here at the beginning.
I attended college at the
Colorado College and I
had a lot of really great
opportunities there
including small class sizes
which allowed me to get to
know my professors, and my
advisor was Bob Jacobs.
He's a hockey fan shown here
wearing his CC hockey
jersey, and he really
was influential on me
from the beginning.
When I was about
to graduate,
he handed me an application
for a post bac at SAMHSA and
I was really surprised
because I hadn't thought of
doing an internship in D.C.
It seemed very far away and
it really meant a lot to me
that he thought I could be a
competitive applicant, and
it was a vote of confidence
in my abilities.
And so I'm really
appreciative to Bob for
kind of singling me out and
pushing me to think beyond
the boundaries I
had set for myself.
I didn't apply for the post
bac because I received
a Watson fellowship which is
a one year travel fellowship
that allowed me to go
to Brazil, Guatemala,
and Sri Lanka for a year.
And my project was to look
at instances of spiritual
possession from
psychological, social,
and religious perspectives.
And it was sort of a
biopsychosocial project
before I knew what the
biopsychosocial model was,
but that was sort
of my natural
inclination and interest.
While I was in Guatemala, I
volunteered at a pharmacy
and I got to see firsthand
some of the challenges to
health in a
developing country,
but it also forced me to
reflect on the distribution
of health here in
the U.S. and differential
health outcomes
among some segments of
the population here.
When I came back, I worked
as a research assistant for
several years.
I worked on a project that
looked at exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke
at the National Jewish
Medical and Research Center.
When that project expired or
ran out of funding,
I moved onto Omni Institute
which is a research and
evaluation firm in
Denver, Colorado.
And then when I first moved
to D.C., I worked for a year
at the Pew Hispanic Center.
And through all of
these positions,
I really obtained a sincere
appreciation and respect for
the power of research to
understand and define a
question, to mobilize people
and get energy behind your
findings, and to evaluate
potential solutions to the
problems that you've
identified through
your research.
But I realized that I was
ever going to be able to ask
my own research questions, I
was going to need to have an
advanced degree and
so I decided to go to
graduate school.
And my supervisor at Omni
Institute, Jean Denious,
had gotten her PhD in social
psychology and encouraged me
to look into that field
given my interests,
but she wasn't the first
one to encourage me to
get my dissertation.
I put a picture of my high
school English teacher,
Barbara Kolepki
[phonetic sp],
here because she had written
on one of my like senior
portfolio assignments,
"Nice job Felisa.
I'd like to see
you turn this into
a dissertation someday."
And again that was an
example of someone
envisioning a future for me
that I hadn't yet envisioned
for myself, and I think
those little cues have
really helped me as I
reflect to help me get to
the place that I am today.
So I did actually enroll in
an applied social psychology
program at George Washington
University just a few blocks
up the street here, and I
see one of my colleagues in
the audience from GW.
Nice to have you here today.
This is a program that
really focuses on the
psychological, social, and
cognitive components of
health promotion so it was a
good fit for me and I was
lucky to be a member of the
Latino health research
center there and the
members are pictured
here at the top.
So through this Latino
health research network,
I had access to a strong
network of scientists who
really encouraged and
supported me along the
way in my journey.
There were a couple of
critical moments during my
training that have helped me
clarify my research
questions and interest.
In 2008, my first year in
graduate school which seems
like a long time ago now, I
attended the first NIH
summit on health disparities
called the Science of
Eliminating Health
Disparities,
and it was really inspiring
and motivating to see people
from science practice and
policy come together to put
an agenda forward and move
an agenda forward for
health disparities.
In 2009, I went to a press
release for a Kaiser Family
Foundation report called
Putting Women's Healthcare
Disparities on the Map, and
they had done this really
sophisticated analysis
looking at racial ethnic
disparities among women in
the 50 states.
And this report called
attention to the dire
circumstances really faced
by Native American women,
but because they are such
small sample sizes,
nobody really knew how bad
things were until this
report came out.
So I really found to be a
motivating experience.
And then in 2010, I took a
social epidemiology class
and we read this article,
Behavioral Science at the
Crossroads in Public Health
by Glass and McAtee,
and these guys really shaped
my thinking beyond the
individual.
So they argued that given
some unsatisfactory results
of large scale trials of
behavioral interventions
that we needed to move
beyond the individual and
consider the individual in
context,
that just focusing on the
individual without taking
into account their
environment and their
biological underpinnings
wouldn't yield the results
we were hoping.
And so I thought oh my gosh,
I should have been a social
epidemiologist, but I
didn't know what that was
at the time.
But through the cancer
prevention fellowship
program, which I began after
I obtained my PhD,
and I'll tell you a little
bit more about in a moment,
I was able to get a Master
of Public Health at Berkeley
as Marin mentioned.
And there I was able to
delve a little bit more
deeply into social
epidemiology which is the
study of the social
distribution and social
determinants of
states of health.
And you'll see the social
ecological model is a common
framework that's used in
this field to call attention
to the linkages and
interrelationships among the
multilevel factors that
influence our health.
And here I've put two
of my mentors from
that time period.
So currently I'm a cancer
prevention fellow at the
National Cancer Institute
where I am studying
disparities in cancer
screening, cancer treatment,
and survivorship.
And this is really a
phenomenal opportunity and
I'm fortunate to work with
several mentors who are
experts in their field and
who are really generous with
their time in helping me
craft a research agenda and
determine where I want to go
professionally.
So I've listed some of them
here and this is just a plug
to all of you out there who
might be coming up at the
end of your training
program,
your graduate program.
The cancer prevention
fellowship program is a
multidisciplinary program
and there are lots of spots
for interested social and
behavioral researchers so
they're currently accepting
applications through August
25th.
If you have any questions, I
would be happy to answer
after the panel --
[laughter]
-- or by email.
It's really a
wonderful opportunity.
So just quickly I wanted to
reiterate some of the things
we've heard from some of the
other speakers in terms of
lessons learned or what I
wish I knew,
and truthfully what I'm
still working on every day
in my career.
The first is the importance
of seeking multiple mentors.
I've really learned that you
can learn lots of different
things from different people
whether it be how to run an
effective meeting, how to
become a strong writer,
how to become a
strong mentor.
I think you have multiple
opportunities every day to
learn from peers, faculty
members,
and from people you meet at
conferences and professional
organizations.
It's important to work hard
and prove yourself.
I've learned in my own
experience that research
perhaps is just as much
persistence as it is
creativity and
critical thinking.
And if you work hard and
prove yourself,
you'll have people who
believe in you when you
don't believe in yourself
because sometimes the going
gets rough and it's really
important if you have
multiple mentors and you've
worked hard that people will
believe in you and kind of
give you that lift when you
need it most.
So I have here peaks and
valleys which Dr. Gallo so
aptly called the sinusoidal
wave of despair and elation.
I'm going to totally
steal that --
[laughter]
-- because it's much better
than peaks and valleys,
but I had the same
experience of where you work
so hard and you have
this accomplishment,
and in my experience, we
don't spend enough time
celebrating those
achievements.
It's always onto the next
thing, the next paper,
the next analysis, and then
we spend too much time in
the valley beating our
self-up when things don't go
well and so I'm striving for
equanimity and just trying
to really take time to savor
the accomplishments of our
hard work and not get stuck
in the valleys when things
are really challenging.
I've also learned that I'm a
butterfly not a woodpecker
in that I am interested in
lots of topics and I think
that's perhaps a result of
my training in social and
behavioral sciences because
it can be applied to
numerous outcomes.
So that's not bad, but it
can be difficult if I don't
want to go into academia and
specialize and become an
expert in something.
So there's a tradeoff and
that tradeoff can involve
never feeling
like an expert,
always having to learn a new
field of research.
So that can be stimulating,
but it can also be
challenging if you have
time crunches or yeah,
if you're not able to
develop a deep expertise,
you trade breadth for depth.
Things always take longer
than expected which I'm sure
all of us can understand,
especially manuscripts.
So I got some good advice to
build in margins so you
don't let the project finish
you before you finish the
project.
[laughter]
I've also learned that
conflict can be good or
helpful, if uncomfortable.
I think as women we often
shy away from conflict and
that can be more damaging in
the end.
So I'm trying to work on
engaging in the conflict,
always assuming positive
intent,
and moving forward through
that storming phase that is
common in a lot of
collaborations.
And then lastly I think it's
important to be mindful of
our motivations.
You can't say yes
to everything,
although I'm sure we're all
tempted to sometimes,
and if we do things because
we feel we should rather
than because we want to, I
think it can decrease your
enthusiasm and joy for
the topic that you're
committed to.
So I try to remind myself to
be mindful of what I came
into pursue and see what's
bringing me joy.
So I'm keeping all of these
things in mind as I move
onto my next stage, moving
on from the post doc in the
next year.
So this is how you can find
me if I can tell you about
the cancer prevention
fellowship program or answer
any other questions or
follow up on anything
I've touched on today.
Thank you.
[applause]
>> Marin Allen: Thanks
so much Felisa.
Next we're going to have an
opportunity to hear from
Physician Scientist Tiffany
Powell-Wiley who did her
medical degree at Duke and
who did her Master of Public
Health at UNC, and is
particularly interested in
special determinants of
health as both obesity and
cardiovascular health.
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley:
Thank you so much and thank
you to the organizers for
today's meeting for allowing
me to speak.
I'm very honored to be a
part of this panel.
I'm going to take my -- I'm
going to combine kind of my
training, some critical
moments in my career
trajectory, and to get to
describe where I am now,
the positions that I hold at
this moment.
And I would say I'm going to
take it all the way back to
my parents because that's
really -- those are the
folks who really served as
the catalyst for where I am
today.
I've probably developed my
love of science from
particularly my father who
was a person -- he wanted to
be a dentist, wasn't able to
be a dentist,
but always instilled in me
this interest in health and
the human body and whatnot.
And so that love science
combined with my mother's
love of reading because she
was a librarian,
and her bringing books and
emphasizing education really
combined to my trajectory
through my training.
So my training is little bit
circuitous,
but I do think there is some
common threads and I would
say again my love of science
is probably that common
thread, but also my interest
in quantitative methods in
particular and my interest
in research,
but also in thinking about
how do we care for -- how do
we better care for
individuals in the medical
field.
And so based on a love of
chemistry and mathematics as
a high school student, I
learned about engineering as
a field and really wanted to
do biomedical engineering in
preparation for
medical school,
but was pretty much forced
to go to the University of
Michigan by my parents,
partially because of a
scholarship that
was available,
but also because it was a
great school to be at.
And so I did a bachelor's in
science in chemical
engineering, realized
quickly that engineering
wasn't necessarily the field
for me,
but really was able to learn
quite a bit as an engineer
really thinking about how to
work in teams,
how to think about trying to
solve difficult questions in
a quantitative manner, how
to be okay with not doing
exceptionally well
in everything.
When the mean on a
test is 42 percent,
you realize that you're
doing okay if you get a
little bit above that, and
so learning about those
things in undergrad really
prepared me for going into
medical school.
In thinking about the type
of doctor I wanted to be,
I knew that I wanted to not
only practice medicine,
but also take care or do
research and really think
about research on a public
health scale.
And so I looked for medical
schools that would allow me
to do a master's in public
health,
but also that would allow me
to do research and that was
the impetus for going to
Duke for medical school.
It allowed me to take a year
to focus on research,
but you could also use that
time to do a second degree
and that was the reason for
doing a Master's in Public
Health at the University of
North Carolina Chapel Hill.
I focused on epidemiology in
my master's because again my
interest in quantitative
methods and in mathematics
really made me realize that
epidemiology would provide
me a foundation in public
health in quantitative
methods that I could use in
research in any direction
that I decided to go.
And so while -- during that
year of research in -- at
Duke, I did my -- I started
my master's work at Chapel
Hill, but while I was
learning about the
opportunities for that year
off,
I actually learned about a
research program at the NIH
called the clinical research
training program.
And that was a program that
allowed medical students to
come for a year of research
at NIH to work in either --
to work with a mentor in a
program with other medical
students where you'd learn
about what was going on at
NIH, but you'd have your own
project for that year.
And so I applied for that
program thinking oh well if
I -- I really want to do my
master's,
but let's see what happens.
And when I came to NIH to
interview,
I fell in love with NIH and
it really made me think I
would love to be able to
finish my master's,
but also do research at NIH.
The program leads at that
time, Dr. Ognibene,
Fred Ognibene from the
clinical center,
was gracious enough to allow
me to defer my year as a
part of the clinical
research training program so
that I could work on my
master's and come to NIH for
a second year off during
medical school to do
research.
And so I would say those --
that experience,
being able to come to the
NIH,
was probably one of the
major catalytic moments in
my career to really show me
or have the opportunity to
learn how clinical research
was conducted,
to be a part of the project
where we were doing stem
cell research, and looking
at the ways in which stem
cells might be able to treat
end stage coronary artery
disease.
But in that time in that
year at the NIH,
I really was exposed to
fantastic mentorship.
I worked with Dr. Richard
Cannon at NIH who really
focused not only on teaching
us the mechanisms of
research, but also making
sure that we understood
about the opportunities
within research,
whether it be working on
papers,
whether it be becoming a
part of professional
organizations like the
American Heart Association,
or getting the opportunity
to present at national
meetings.
And so that experience
taught me that I really
enjoyed clinical research,
that I really wanted to be a
part of it in my future
career,
that I wanted to also see
and utilize the
epidemiologic tools that I
would -- had gained in my
master's, and it also began
my interest and curiosity in
cardiovascular medicine.
Once I finished at Duke, I
went into internal medicine
at Brigham and Women's
Hospital in Boston.
And one of the main reasons
I also was able to or was
very interested in going to
Brigham and Women's was
because of mentorship that I
had gotten at NIH,
the emphasis on going to a
place that allowed you the
opportunity to gain research
skills,
but also excellent training
in medicine.
During my time at Brigham
and Women's Hospital,
I had many moments.
I would say many catalytic
moments,
but that time was probably
the most enjoyable as far as
training in medicine just
because of the collegiality
of the individuals with whom
I worked,
but also the emphasis on
excellent patient care no
matter what the patient --
how the patient presented,
where they came from in
their -- in their life,
what resources they had.
That was the emphasis for
that program and I felt that
made me a better doctor
because of it.
During my internal medicine
training,
I decided that cardiology
was in fact the path that I
wanted to pursue and with
encouragement from mentors,
I decided to do
cardiovascular medicine
training at the University
of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center.
And one of the things that
mentors encouraged me to
think about as I chose the
fellowship for cardiology
was thinking about again
would you have the type of
mentorship that you would
need to pursue an academic
career in medicine?
And one of the main reasons
that I chose to go to UT
Southwestern is they were
leaders in the field around
clinical research, but also
some -- there was a
burgeoning project there
called the Dallas Heart
Study which really would
allow me to do quite a bit
of cardiovascular
epidemiology.
And so those were -- that
was my thinking as I pursued
my fellowship training.
So some of the catalytic
moments that occurred in
fellowship were rather
serendipitous as a opposed
to things that I would say I
pursued in a -- in a
intentional manner.
I would say probably one of
the biggest things that
happened was going to
national meetings.
I went to the American Heart
Association meeting quite a
bit and was able to engage
in -- with faculty members
there in conversations that
you might not necessarily
have at -- when you're in
the hospital when you're
taking care of patients.
At one point during one of
the -- during one of the
meetings, I was able to talk
to our program director
about my interest in public
health and cardiovascular
disease prevention.
And he happened to talk
about a project that he had
been pulled in as a
cardiologist that was just
getting started, and it was
a community based
participatory research
project in churches in
Dallas, Texas.
And he said, "Well given
your interest, you know,
you'd be a great fit for
this project so why don't
you serve as kind of the
cardiology department lead
in this project?"
And because of that
conversation that happened
probably, you know, in the
-- at 9:00 at night at a --
at a bar -- at a meeting, I
was able to become a part of
a project as a community
based participatory research
project that was at -- just
beginning and really was
able to gain mentorship from
the head of that project in
community based
participatory research.
And so because of
that connection,
I was able to really see how
I could do clinical research
in a community based setting
and identify that as a piece
that I would like to build
into my future career path.
Now for all intents
and purposes,
I had -- I thought
especially in choosing to go
to Southwestern
for a fellowship,
I thought that I would stay
at Southwestern for faculty,
but life happens and as I
always tell people,
life happens.
And at that time my husband
was in Boston and we were
trying to figure out how we
would actually end up in the
same city.
And he ended up trying to
come to Texas for training,
but it was around the time
that the entire economy
crashed and so there was
really no opportunities in
Texas at -- for research,
and so he actually ended up
in Arkansas doing a post doc
at the -- at the FDA.
And so because he was in the
government and because his
opportunities for his career
path would be best in
D.C. at the FDA here, we had
to think about how could we
end up in the same city.
And so one of the places
that we wanted to look at
was Washington, D.C. as a --
as a place where we could
both work and live together.
And so when I looked at --
looked for positions after
fellowship, when I was
thinking about career and
early career positions as
a -- as a academic
cardiologist, I had -- I
reached out to my mentors
and the head of the programs
at NIH to get a sense of
what opportunities might be
possible for my -- for an
early career investigator.
And so because of the
input from Dr. Cannon --
Dr. Richard Cannon from --
Dr. Ognibene at the -- in
the research program I
was in,
they were able to translate
my interest in the
epidemiology of
cardiovascular risk and
community based
participatory research into
a position at NHLBI as
an assistant clinical
investigator where
I started in 2011.
>> Male Speaker: Maybe we
can come back to your NHLBI
experience.
>> Marin Allen: Is
that okay?
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley: Oh
sure.
I'm sorry.
>> Marin Allen: Okay, great.
Thank so much.
[applause]
And we'd like to hear also
from Kathleen Rowan who is a
fellow of the AAS and is an
expert in risk communication
in risk communication
in science,
science communication.
And I'm going to read
something that one of her
students wrote on Rate My
Professor.
>> Katherine Rowan: Oh
goodness.
[laughter]
>> Marin Allen: You just
never know, right?
"Professor Rowan is the best
professor ever.
Communications major or
not, you should take a
class with her.
She will change the way you
see the world.
She will teach you, inspire
you,
and make you want to jump
for joy just because you get
to go to class with her.
She's that good, really."
And that's from a
student [laughs].
[applause]
>> Katherine Rowan:
Thank you.
I have a student in the
audience, Farrah.
So thank you so much.
My name is Kathy Rowan.
I'm the Director of Science
Communication at George
Mason University and I
started life as an academic
getting my bachelor's degree
at George Mason University.
I went to the University of
Illinois.
Gosh who else -- who was it?
It was --
>> Male Speaker: Suzanne.
>> Katherine Rowan: --
Suzanne.
My experience there
was great.
The people -- the faculty
there were lovely.
I was an East Coast girl
too, but I got -- goodness,
they were just -- couldn't
have been warmer and nicer,
and then went onto get my
doctorate at Purdue University.
So let's see, on the job
experience.
One project -- some of the
funded work that we're doing
right now in the science
communication program,
we try essentially to help
scientists.
So we reach out to
scientists.
We ask them about their
communication challenges and
then we think with them
about social science that
would be useful to them.
For example, some of the
curriculum comes from the
National Academy's consensus
report on best practices for
informal science education.
That is science people
choose to learn.
You know, it should be the
case that if people want to
learn it, you know, they
turn on the TV or they go on
the internet or they go on a
hike and they would really
like to learn some science,
we ought to do a good job at
that point.
So right now we're working
with marine scientists who
want to communicate about
the health of the Chesapeake
Bay, how climate change is
impacting both human health
as well as the environment.
And we're thinking with them
about innovative methods for
sharing science so info
graphics such as the -- our
--the director of social
services for Montgomery
County was using.
We try to teach them to use
info graphics and things
like games or interactive
activities.
People like to be active
learning science.
They don't like to be
passive so we try to think
about ways to support them
in being active and one of
the best practices the
National Academy recommends
is to encourage the teaching
that you want to help the
lay audience learn not just
the results, but the method.
I know we all kind of go
crazy, you know,
every time we hear a study
on the news that says coffee
is bad for you.
Coffee is good for you.
Those are opportunities to
teach people about the
methods underlying the
science.
So those are the kinds of
things we try to teach.
Some experiences
that shaped me.
I had the privilege of
doing seminars on risk
communication for EPA,
Department of Agriculture.
I've spoken to the FDA and
Department of Energy about
risk communication and I
know this was part of my
education, but I think of it
as on the job training.
That last one in the right
hand corner there,
the George Mason University
forensics team.
Who is it?
Was it -- is it Nabil who
was the debater?
Yes so this is basically
competitive public speaking
training and I had a teacher
at George Mason University,
Mrs. Duffner [phonetic sp],
who would listen to my
presentations.
I think -- goodness, I think
she listened sometimes 40
times so there [laughs]
that's the kind of teachers
that I had at George Mason
who literally -- you get
pretty good after you've
done that presentation 40
times and Mrs. Duffner has
critiqued it 40 times.
So I learned from that
process to work on my public
speaking.
Okay here are the tough
tales.
So tale number one, here I
am.
I'm an assistant professor
at Purdue University.
I'm very proud of it.
I love the job, but the
publications are not coming
very quickly and the
conference presentations,
the competitive ones, are
not coming as quickly as
they should.
And it looks like maybe
tenure might not happen and
this would be bad for all
sorts of reasons.
One, I'd lose my job, but
it's also the case I happen
to be married to another
faculty member at the
communication department.
That would be really darn
embarrassing if I had to be
the reason that one of the
other of us had to leave
Purdue so -- and I know
Bill.
Bill and I are colleagues
from Purdue.
So I was trying to figure
out how and the heck am I
going to get on the
prestigious program of the
International Communication
Association,
and they happened to have a
session for short courses.
You could do a three hours
class on -- I'm sure we're
all familiar with that
format at conference
sessions.
So I decided to do a session
on explaining difficult
science, which is my
dissertation,
and that is essentially a
summary of research in
instructional design,
educational psychology,
and physics education.
So what do we know about the
reasons why things are hard
to understand in science and
what strategies are
effective for helping people
understand it?
So I did that and I was
lucky to have an official
from the Environmental
Protection Agency take the
class and she came up to me
afterwards and said,
"You know what you're
actually doing is risk
communication."
And so that led to an
invitation to come to Ohio
EPA to give a two-day
seminar on risk
communication, and I knew I
didn't have two days' worth
of material on risk
communication so I decided
this was a great opportunity
for audience analysis.
And so I interviewed the
people who would be coming
to the seminar and said what
are your tough challenges?
And boy did I learn a lot
and what I inadvertently did
was create sort of an
applied communication
research paradigm because
they told me stories I'll
never forget.
One of the stories was Ohio
EPA had to deal with an
elementary school in Butler
County,
Ohio where someone had
cleverly put the -- an
elementary school next to a
toxic landfill and the
parents were horribly upset,
and so Ohio EPA dealt with
this by having a public
meeting.
They had an auditorium just
like we have here.
They had lots of angry
parents sitting in the
auditorium from 7:00 to 9:00
p.m.
and Ohio EPA did their very
best to put up all their
charts and all their data
about why that landfill
sitting right next to the
school was not hurting their
-- the children.
Well as you might imagine,
they had video to show me
about this.
The parents were literally
leaping out of their chairs,
yelling at Ohio EPA about
how they were, you know,
you get the idea, very upset
and not appropriately
dealing with the situation.
So that taught me there was
lots to learn about risk
communication and I had the
privilege basically of
writing a series of papers
that got published and I got
tenure at Purdue University.
So story number one.
Story number two, got
divorced [laughs].
Life goes up, life goes down
and I think what that story
taught me is I had some good
professional years at Purdue
while that process was going
on,
but emotionally it was
tough.
And what I learned is I
needed to not just have the
teams that help me in the
early eighties,
you need to rebuild
your teams.
Probably everybody in
the room knows this,
that sometimes you got to
rebuild that support team.
So I rebuilt the team, got
wonderful new husband,
life is fine, and now
I'm at George Mason.
What did I learn?
With respect to research, I
think what I learned is
that, and I think several of
us has said this basic
point, is that
constantly be listening.
I think some people said
listen to your gut.
One way to translate that is
use Leon Festinger's
cognitive dissonance.
Ask what bugs
you, puzzles you,
frustrates you about every
presentation,
about every paper you read,
and take that seriously
because your feelings about
what's not quite right
expressed as feelings are
not researchable questions,
but they may become
research questions.
So you want to legitimate
your own concerns.
Remember that we're all, as
one of my colleagues said,
a bunch of plusses
and minuses.
I think I've had the most
troubles in life when I
became too focused on the
fact that I couldn't do some
complex statistical or I
just wasn't working hard
enough probably to do some
kind of complex statistical
process.
And what I've learned over
time is that everybody's a
bunch of plusses and
minuses,
and we do better when we
work hard,
but we also work in teams.
That team should include a
variety of very good
librarians like our
colleague Marin and I both
know Marsha Zorn [phonetic
sp,
former reference librarian
at the National Library of
Medicine who's one of the,
you know,
who'll send you 500 -- or
she's retired now,
but is an amazing person.
Reference librarians are
great people on your team as
are mentors, fellow graduate
students,
and current graduate
students.
So be thinking about those
processes and whichever path
you take, whether it's a
professional role or in
academia, you will make
contributions.
View your past projects,
your successes,
and your failures as part of
your toolkit for making a
contribution.
Your welcome to contact me
at the graduate program for
science communication at
George Mason University.
We're happy to help.
We find your challenges
really interesting because
that's what we study so
we're very interested in
your stories about what's
difficult.
We're also very interested
in your successes.
Thank you.
[applause]
>> Marin Allen: So Tiffany,
I promise to start off with
a question for you and I
think what we'd love to hear
is a little about what you
found the most challenging
part of the clinical process
and where you went from the
discussion you were having
at heart, lung, and blood,
and into your role now.
What were the real
challenges?
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley: So
I would -- I mean I would
say that as a clinician who
wanted to do -- I've always
wanted to do research.
Finding that balance was
always the most challenging,
figuring out how to build a
research program or research
opportunities into training,
but also understanding that
I am personally trained as a
cardiologist.
I bring to the table as a
cardiologist an interest in
or an expertise in taking
care of cardiovascular
diseases and when -- in
thinking about the
development of research
projects around social
epidemiology or in community
based participatory
research, I've had to build
collaborations with others,
with other experts whether
they be psychologists or
experts in measures of
neighborhood environment.
And so with all of that,
it's allowed me to build one
of the few population health
focused research programs in
the intramural program at
NHLBI to really have a
program where we do social
epi around how environment
impacts cardiovascular risk,
but also thinking about how
do we develop interventions
using community based
participatory research
methods targeting at risk
communities, at risk
populations.
And much of that is really
based on recognizing where
my -- as many people
have said today,
recognizing where my
strengths are,
bringing that to the table,
but also recognizing that
other people need to be at
the table as well.
>> Marin Allen: And I think
from my second -- thank you
so much.
I think for my second
question;
I'm going to eclipse Bob
Kaplan [phonetic sp] before
he asks the question --
[laughter]
-- but I'm going to ask it a
little different way.
What value do you, and I'm
going to ask each of you,
see in -- because we've all
-- we all have the
experience of having PhDs in
our classes who didn't go
into the academy or who
didn't go into research,
but I would contend that
having them out there in the
world doing different kinds
of things can sometimes make
a more inviting opportunity
for research collaborations
or be able to give us a more
informed citizenry which we
seem to be in need of in
terms of appreciating
science.
Do you think there's some
roles for those folks who
are not going into the
academy to get the level of
training?
Is it important for them to
get the same level of
training?
I guess I'll toss it to you
first.
>> Katherine Rowan: I --
we've been talking about
this a big part of the
afternoon.
I've been thinking about --
because I think, you know,
the model, if you have -- if
your job is all right,
I'm going to teach a class
so, you know,
give me a topic and we're
going to go through the
literature on that topic.
Well where's the career
training in there?
There isn't career training,
but maybe where -- maybe
where, you know, somebody
like me on the faculty has
an opportunity to help
people see their options is
in -- is really in the
projects.
So for example, when we do
these projects to assist
scientists in sharing
science, there's, you know,
good heavens, there's
projects, you know,
that every single public
affairs office in
Washington, D.C. needs
people who can share science
effectively.
You know, the nonprofits
need it.
The museum sector needs it.
So maybe what I need to do
is do a better job of
showing people here's this
research we're working
through in our graduate
class and here's -- here are
-- here are human beings in
the Washington area who use
that in a variety of
settings.
That's one possibility.
>> Marin Allen: Okay so what
do you think?
>> Felisa Gonzales: So the
first time I heard this
question earlier this
afternoon,
I was reflecting on my own
experience and one thing I
think that could really
benefit people who don't end
up going into academia
related to what you were
saying is learning how to
communicate to a lay
audience and that's
something that I don't think
I got training in in my
graduate program.
I learned to write very
scientifically and justify
my argumentation and have
citations for every
sentence, maybe more than
one [laughs].
And now I'm trying to figure
out how I take that skill
and communicate to the
general public who is
interested in the work that
we're doing and do have
opinions on the direction of
research and want to get
involved.
And we're not just doing a
very good job communicating
to them so I had to write a
blog for this science policy
discussion group that I'm in
on main campus,
and it was -- I think I
spent more time on that blog
than [laughs] some of my
published manuscripts
because it was really
challenging and I realized
how far I've swung to like
becoming a scientific writer
and how unnatural it is to
become a storyteller on the
same issue.
And so I think graduate
programs could do a better
job encouraging their
students to write op-eds or
write blogs or communicate
in some way,
get involved with the
community so that you can
practice that skill because
it's not -- I think it --
you can it have it
naturally,
but somehow I think I lost
it in graduate school.
>> Marin Allen: Well and the
focus flips.
>> Felisa Gonzales: The
focus flips.
>> Marin Allen: And one of
the things that we see is
folks who come in and say,
"You know,
I just don't think the labs
right for me."
And the immediate answer
then is to say,
"Well why don't you do
science writing?"
Well at that point it's a
completely other profession
and its kind of like well
I'm smart.
I can do that, but it's
actual different skill.
So if it doesn't come early
in the career training,
then we just sort of see
people who are trying to
reinvent themselves to
restructure something that
they hadn't even, you know,
considered doing before.
So I think there's some
value to thinking about that
in the training process.
I think you made a really
good point.
Tiffany.
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley: And
I would echo that.
I think you -- working with
not -- or individuals who
aren't PhD trained, working
in the community,
you're definitely -- you're
-- I'm forced,
my team is forced to
communicate our work in a
way that anybody can
understand.
And so I think that is
something that is being
emphasized even amongst
those of us who are working
in the intramural research
program at NIH is that we
have to be able to talk
about what we're doing in a
way that makes sense to the
lay public and whatnot.
And so I think that type of
training's fundamental.
I mean I -- my husband's a
PhD so I glean a lot of his
-- I learn a lot from his
experience.
And so I think, you know,
making sure that it's clear
that your trajectory doesn't
necessarily have to focus on
academia, that industry may
be an option,
that the government may be
an option in your -- in PhD
-- in the PhD training is
something that's especially
important right now with
funding being so limited.
>> Marin Allen: Something
that Uma said in a couple of
panels ago.
She listed all of her skills
and one that I thought was
inherent there, but she
didn't list, was survival.
[laughter]
How do you feel about
survival in the scientific
laboratory setting in
behavioral sciences?
And also are there any other
skills that have been
missing off the master skill
list today?
>> Katherine Rowan: I wonder
if that's a Tiffany
question.
[laughter]
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley: I
mean I would say probably
maintaining an understanding
of the importance of your
own health is crucial
because -- and not just
physical health, but mental
health because there -- in
your career, you're going to
be pulled in a lot of
different directions, but
the one person that you have
the ability to take care of
is yourself and that has to
be important to you.
The other thing I would say
that you're able to take
care of that regardless of
what happens is your
integrity, your scientific
integrity in particular.
Things may not go the
way you plan,
but the -- if you are able
to maintain your integrity
within your work and within
the community,
I think you'll be judged in
much -- in a much better
light.
But more importantly, I
think that opens many
opportunities that may not
otherwise exist if you have
a reputation for being
somebody who's not
trustworthy or whatnot.
And so I think, as many
people have said,
the research
community is small,
but the one thing I've tried
to think about is that the
one thing I have control
over is my personal
integrity.
>> Marin Allen: Excellent.
Bill?
>> Male Speaker: Back to
clear communication,
plain language, I, like you
Felisa and some others,
I did not grow up in an
academic family and I had
many publications like
books, awards,
and my parents wanted copies
of all of them.
And I remember visiting my
mother one time and I was
asking her about something I
gave her and she just -- it
was clear she hadn't read a
thing.
And I said Fiffy because
that's what I -- anyway I
said, you know, why do you
-- and I said,
"Why do you ask me for these
things?"
And she said, "Well so I can
show them to people."
She said, "I have to use a
dictionary too often to read
what you write."
[laughter]
So when I finally came to
work at NIH, she said,
"Oh thank god, now I can
just tell people my son has
a good job with the
government."
[laughter]
And that leads me to a -- an
actionable item,
as we do like to say in
government,
toward clear language and
the work that we do.
It was -- I think it was
Andrea Kelly who talked
about IMPAC II, the
shorthand term we use inside
for the grand NIH database
that everyone in America and
across the world can access
through
projectreporter.nih.gov.
And perhaps a first step all
of us could make is for all
of our grant applications
that include a -- the
specific aims and a short
public health relevance
statement, perhaps all of us
could pledge to write those
in plain language because
that is what is available to
all of the American people.
Well actually all of the
people of the world and from
that plain language
statement,
interested parties then can
look at other research
projects.
They also can look at the
academic literature,
but it is the specific
abstract and specific aims
that is the portal to all of
that.
And that might be a really
good first step for us to
take.
I don't know what you think.
>> Katherine Rowan: Should
we -- you want quick
comment?
Amen.
I think that's a great idea.
[laughter]
>> Marin Allen: I think that
was a rhetorical question.
[laughs]
>> Katherine Rowan: Well
actually and then there's a
rich and compelling
literature on basically
making knowledge
understandable to people.
And what's really kind of
fun to think about is what
constitutes simple, what
constitutes plain.
You know, we can all tell
stories of context where a
simple two letter word like
the up, pull up.
Pull up in an airplane
doesn't mean anything if
there's only buttons.
The control tower and the
person who's the pilot is
Chinese and has no idea what
pull up means so what
constitutes plain is more
complicated than it seems,
and there's really
interesting research on how
do you -- basically it's
human factors research,
but human factors for
communication.
So it's a great -- it's a
great goal to do that.
>> Marin Allen: A question
please.
>> Female Speaker: I want to
begin by just thanking this
panel and the previous
panelists for being so
self-reflective.
Thank you.
My question has to do with
mentoring.
Mentoring was a clear theme
in every presentation this
whole afternoon on this pane
and the previous one.
And my question is is the
mentoring that you referred
to as so important to you
something that was a
structured part of your
program or something that
you just organically took
advantage of?
And if the latter, do you
think that there are
components of the mentoring
you sought out and received
that could be structured in
a meaningful way?
>> Felisa Gonzales: Sure, I
can start with that one.
I think I've been fortunate
to benefit from both formal
and informal types of
mentoring.
So currently at the National
Cancer Institute,
I do have a preceptor on
paper and the roles and
expectations are clearly
defined,
but I've definitely branched
out beyond that to seek
advice from people.
And I think I consider
people mentors who may not
even know that they're a
mentor for me,
but I can ask them questions
about professional
development or ask them
questions about balance.
So to me they're a mentor,
but I've never said thank
you so much for being my
mentor in this area.
It's just sort of a natural
friendship or relationship
that's evolved, but I do
think having a structured
contract is helpful so that
someone is looking out for
you if you don't have a
natural connection or there
isn't someone readily
apparent.
I had another opportunity
through the National
Hispanic Network to
participate in an
interdisciplinary research
and training institute and
they connected me with
someone outside of my
graduate program when I was
graduate school,
and we had a similar
contract of we would meet
regularly and have email and
phone conversations,
and these were my goals for
our time together over the
two years.
And it was so tremendously
helpful to have someone
outside of my graduate
program to whom I could turn
and talk about my
difficulties and my
challenges, and she could
give me an impartial
response without getting
into the politics of my
immediate environment.
So that was an example of a
really helpful formal
relationships that was
external to my immediate
environment, but definitely
I think, you know,
I've mentioned benefitting
from people.
I think NIH has a taxonomy
of like nine different types
of mentors, advocates,
networkers, sponsors,
lots of different types of
mentors that I've been able
to take advantage of in my
program.
And you talked a lot about
mentors as well.
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley: So
yeah,
definitely think both types
of mentors are crucial.
I -- as I was saying
previously,
one of the benefits of
coming to NIH as a medical
student in the research
program that I was a part of
was that there was a
structured mentoring
program.
So you not only had your
research mentor,
but you were also assigned a
mentor outside of that
project who would help you
find your mentor,
but would also help you
navigate the research
process and thinking about
what you needed to do as a
part of your yearlong
project at NIH,
and also think about where
you wanted to be in your
career.
So one of the -- like I was
saying,
one of the reasons why I
wanted to train in Boston
was my mentor at -- as a
part of that program really
encouraged me to think about
that -- doing medicine
training there.
And so I now have the
opportunity to serve as a
mentor for other -- for
medical students who are
coming to NIH for that
research program.
And so I've tried to instill
some of that -- what I
learned from my mentors as
far as thinking about what
you wanted to get out of a
research project,
but also thinking about
where do you want -- where
do you see your career
trajectory,
and how do you navigate
academic medicine,
and those types of things.
But as Felisa was saying, I
think informal mentors are
just as crucial.
They're people that, you
know,
I've met at national
meetings as being a part of
national organizations that
have really served as
mentors as well.
>> Katherine Rowan: I'm
getting to -- maybe I'm --
hoping I am being a mentor,
but I would say my fondest
memories are, you know, that
teacher who listened to the
speech 40 times
and at Illinois,
the faculty really
bent over backwards.
We were frequently
invited to dinners.
Two faculty members went to
dinner at the cafeteria with
us every Thursday and these
-- I was a master's student
at that time and
I, you know,
I think about that now and I
think that's a standard
that's hard to achieve and
do and balance your family
work life, but very, very
supportive faculty members
are incredibly, incredibly
helpful to your emotional
support, to your attachment
-- to your attachment,
your secure attachment at
that stage in life,
and probably are key to
launching you as a
professional.
>> Felisa Gonzales: I think
on that last point,
one thing that I just
remembered.
We did a survey of the
cancer prevention fellows
last year and one thing that
came out that people felt
they weren't getting so much
and had a stronger desire
for was someone who could be
a networker for them and
give them opportunities for
visibility.
And I think that might be
one part of the mentoring
relationship you asked about
in a structured agreement,
what's something that could
be added.
I don't know if people
always think about launching
people and so providing
opportunities to sit on
panels or coordinate
symposia or --
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley:
Serve on editorial boards.
>> Felisa Gonzales: -- serve
on editorial boards.
So opportunities outside of
the immediate academic
environment that can serve
you if you go into academia
or if you don't, if you
decide to pursue an
alternative career, those
types of opportunities can
introduce you to a new
network of people who might
have access to alternative
jobs or provide you with
skills that you're not
getting in your graduate
program.
So that might be one thing
that could be added to a
structured formal mentoring
relationship.
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley: And
-- oh just one more point.
I think that's one way that
you can interact with your
mentors in a more -- less
formal manner.
It's really utilizing the
national meetings that occur
around professional
organizations.
Those are times when like I
was talking about the
interaction with my program
director -- my cardiology
program director.
Those aren't opportunities
that you're going to have
when you're busy doing your
research or in clinical
practice.
And so trying to use the
national meetings as a way
of networking and really
engaging mentors that may be
all over the country is very
important.
>> Marin Allen: Well said.
I have one more question for
the three of you and it's
more of a projection kind of
question.
Almost everybody either is
thinking about or hoping to
see Hamilton or has.
[laughter]
And it's sort of the theme
of discussion here right now
in Washington, and the one
line that we're all familiar
with is that one about in
the room where it happens,
the magic of wanting to be
in the room where something
happened.
And I wonder if each of you
would think about a time you
wish you'd been in the room
where it happened related to
your research or other
research or something you
want to see in the future.
>> Katherine Rowan:
That's a tough one.
[laughter]
>> Marin Allen: It's
supposed to be.
I can take the answers
from the audience.
[laughter]
>> Katherine Rowan: Oh
well, you know,
I think you want to -- you
sort of want to be in the
room when they're deciding
whether or not to accept
your article or whether or
not you're --
[laughter]
-- you know, whether or
not you're --
>> Marin Allen: Sort of
[laughs].
-- you pass your
dissertation or whatever it
is, but yeah that would be
interesting to be on the fly
on the wall and listen to
that discussion of your own
plusses and minuses.
One possibility.
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley: I
guess something similar that
came to mind for me was
thinking about the
development of the NIH
strategic plan.
I'd love to be in
the room for that.
>> Katherine Rowan: That's
a great one.
That's a nice area.
>> Tiffany Powell-Wiley: But
just to kind of see who's
there, A, but also to hear
kind of that discussion.
>> Felisa Gonzales: Similar
to that,
I'm currently doing a detail
in the Office of Health
Policy and so I think --
when I think of I'd like to
be in the room just thinking
about how policy is made and
how our research can be used
to inform policy.
Like how can we get our
research in that room and
how can our voices be
represented?
And the voices of our
constituents or our
community participants,
bringing that to the
policymaking process.
>> Marin Allen: Those are
terrific.
Thanks so much.
You now understand why I was
excited about moderating
this panel.
So thank you all very much.
[applause]
