What It Means to Be the ‘Scientist in the Room’

Dennis Brown, PhD, FAPS, joined the APS staff in July 2019 as the Society’s first chief science officer. He is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Program in Membrane Biology. Brown has held several leadership positions at APS, including serving as the Society’s 90th president. He talked with The Physiologist Magazine about his love of science and the challenges and opportunities facing the field today. 

Tell us about your role as chief science officer at APS.

I oversee a team that leads APS’ science policy efforts, government relations activities and the Science Policy Committee. We also deal with issues related to animal welfare. We work to protect our members’ interests, to try and increase funding, change policies or to advise on policies that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other funding agencies want to put in place that we either agree or disagree with.

One of the most visible things we do is meet with Congress. In June, we held 34 virtual meetings with various congressional offices to explain our point of view about aspects of science policy. In these meetings, we talk about issues that include funding for scientific research, the ethical use of animals in research and why these issues are important. (Read more on page 14.) 

We want to spread the word about physiology. I work globally to create and forge relationships on behalf of APS that often yield speakers to our successful scientific webinar series and the American Physiology Summit. Through my efforts, I am always trying to maintain the scientific excellence of the Society. My job at APS is to be the scientist in the room. I am not only a scientist but also a member. I’ve got one foot in the member scientist community and one foot in the administration of the Society. So, I’m in a unique position to bring the two together.

How has APS changed over the years?

The average age of our members is decreasing. It used to be in the mid-50s, but the largest increase in membership is now in the 35 to 45 age group. That is good news because it means we’ve got a lot of beginning career and mid-career people coming up through the ranks who can be future leaders. 

We are also trying to reach out more to people in what we would call non-traditional physiology fields. Many excellent scientists in different domains don’t consider themselves to be physiologists, but they are doing physiological work. We need to bring these people into the Society and tell them, “Yes, you are doing physiology.” This will help APS expand its horizons. We’ve got to open our doors to people who are doing great work but who normally would not come to our meetings.

The neurophysiology webinar series and the game-changer sessions at the American Physiology Summit are an effort to bring in unconventional lectures. They give other scientists exposure to what we do and what they can get out of our Society. So, my wish as chief science officer is that we’re able to expand the scope and the breadth of the Society to take in not only physiologists but also great scientists in general.

What are you reading about right now?

I try to read as much as I can about new developments in science, both from a scientific point of view, in terms of the results of the experiments, and the methodologies. Nobel Prize winner Sydney Brenner once said, “Progress in science depends on new techniques, new discoveries and new ideas, probably in that order.” Three things I find exciting right now are super-resolution microscopy, spatial transcriptomics and the CRISPR revolution.

What excites me most is to see progress. But progress can be frustrating. We got a new high-resolution microscope in my lab in April, and they already have a new version available! These things cost half a million dollars. The machine gets delivered, and suddenly there’s a better one. 

What are you concerned about? 

We’re in the middle of a data tsunami. Every time you open a journal, you see a new paper where they’ve just produced masses of data. My concern is that we’re getting swamped by data, and we don’t have time to analyze it. For example, you see papers that advertise the discovery of 120 new genes associated with Alzheimer’s disease. And you think, “Oh, that’s fantastic!” But then what? We must go a step further and answer the question “So what?” And that falls squarely in the domain of physiologists to go and do the deep dive experiments.

What’s your advice for the next generation of scientists?

Find something you’re passionate about and that you’re driven to do. This is not an easy life. You must ask for money all the time. You are judged all the time—in journals when you want to publish your work, when you’re asking for grant money and when you’re trying to be promoted. It is a constant life of being judged. You must be resilient enough to put up with that, to put up with the downturns, and to do that you have to have something positive come out of this. If you don’t really love this, then don’t do it because you’re going to be disappointed.

What’s your advice for working with mentors?

Find people who can help you in your career, but as importantly, allow them to help you. Don’t let your ego get in the way of people helping you. I’ll ask a colleague why they didn’t show me their grant. They’ll say, “Because I wanted to know if I could do it on my own without you.” That’s a laudable thing to achieve in the end. But it’s not going to do you any good if the grant gets rejected. Don’t think that just because I look at the grant that it’s not your work. I have other people read my grants before I send them off. You need to have somebody to help you, no matter how high you are in the pecking order. 

The biggest problem with mentorship is that there’s no recognition for doing it. Institutions should recognize mentorship more than they do. Many institutions have something like a mentor of the year award. And that’s nice, but you need more than that. You need that to be a factor in your promotion, in getting tenure, for example. Some places are doing that, but not enough are. You need to do more than just give people a plaque to put on the wall. There needs to be a concrete reward for being a good mentor. It’s one of the most precious things we can do for people who work with us. 

What is one of the biggest issues facing science right now? 

We’ve got a major workforce issue in academic science. And it’s a workforce issue that’s largely related to finances. Postdocs get a certain salary, but they know that they can go to industry and double it. We can barely keep technicians for more than two years. My institution has just mandated a 20% increase in all postdoc salaries. But it’s an unfunded mandate. As it stands, it means I could not fund all of the people that I’m funding right now if I were to give everybody a 20% pay increase. We all agree that postdocs need more money; there’s no doubt whatsoever that they do. But that will mean there will be fewer roles available until the NIH decides to increase its budget. We also need institutions to step up. 

What’s an underrated skill scientists should develop?

The art of small talk. Sometimes at a conference people will meet someone they consider to be their scientific idol and they stand next to them and they just talk nonstop about science. You know, a person doesn’t want to hear about science all the time. Instead, find out what that person’s like. What drives them? What do they like doing?

There’s a place to talk about science and a place to talk about just being a human. We don’t have to talk about science all the time. When you go to somebody’s office, look around. You’ll see pictures of kids. You’ll see sports medals and artwork. You’ll see things that you can start a conversation about. Look around, relax and use the visual cues in the room.

This article was originally published in the November 2023 issue of The Physiologist Magazine.