Neuroscientist Stefano Cataldi believes that defending science through policy and advocacy has become as important as conducting laboratory research.
Credit: Alissa de Chasey
Stefano Cataldi, a neuroscientist at Columbia University in New York City, studies the complex cognitive abilities that shape social behaviour. But as pressure on science increases, he is considering an unexpected career change: leaving research to work full-time in science advocacy.
As President Donald Trump’s administration increases pressure on science, research funding becomes less predictable and federal science agencies face sweeping changes. Cataldi, a longtime science advocate, says protecting scientific research is now as important as conducting it.
Cataldi is a delegate to the United Auto Workers (UAW), which represents workers at many higher-education institutions. Through the Columbia University Postdoctoral Union, he represents postdoctoral researchers and associate researchers, advocating for better working conditions, higher salaries and increased science funding.
He also launched Science Careers and Opportunities in Policy and Education last year. Known as SCOPE, the virtual programme is sponsored by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. It helps scientists build careers in science policy, education and communication through conferences, peer networking and a centralized collection of resources.
How I advocate in Congress for America’s next generation of scientists
As an associate researcher, Cataldi investigates how the neurotransmitter serotonin influences complex cognitive abilities, including social interaction and aggression. Over the past year, however, he has devoted increasing time to SCOPE and the UAW. His work has been driven by growing attacks on science, the effect of union organizing on researchers’ working conditions and the need to involve more scientists in public policy.
Cataldi is now considering leaving the laboratory to focus entirely on science advocacy. He spoke to Nature about the daily realities of science advocacy and why he might make it his full-time career.
What does the Columbia University Postdoctoral Union do?
My role includes attending negotiations with university administrators to ensure that postdoctoral researchers and other academic workers can afford to live in New York City. We negotiate salaries, childcare costs, workplace protections and other conditions. Under the union’s first contract, which began in 2020, postdoctoral researchers received a guaranteed minimum annual salary of $60,000, up from $47,000.
The union also organizes campaigns on issues such as fair pay and protections for international researchers. For example, we negotiated a provision requiring the university to maintain a researcher’s employment for 60 days if they leave the country and cannot return.
We also advocate with state legislators to increase public funding for scientific research. This year, I spent several days in Albany, New York, and Washington, D.C., meeting members of Congress to explain my research and why continued investment in science is essential. Union members carry out this work at both the federal and state levels, sometimes visiting congressional offices and asking to speak with elected representatives.
What do you like most about your work?
It is deeply meaningful when I can help someone solve a specific problem. One postdoctoral researcher from the Middle East told me that union-negotiated salary increases and affordable childcare enabled him to bring his family to the United States. Those benefits made the move possible. Hearing that was encouraging and energizing.
What is your proudest union accomplishment?
One accomplishment I am particularly proud of is the university’s Bullying and Power Harassment Prevention Guidelines. This issue is personal for me because I experienced harassment during my PhD, and I understand how powerless postdoctoral researchers can feel in those situations.
Previously, university policies did not specifically address bullying or abuses of power. The new guidelines allow researchers to request separate workspaces or have a third party present during laboratory meetings. Those protections were not previously guaranteed. Universities must now act when a complaint is filed, and researchers can raise a complaint against the university if the guidelines are not followed.
Why are you considering leaving research to focus on science advocacy?
Since the beginning of President Trump’s second term, the political environment has made defending science feel more urgent than ever. Researchers need advocates who can build public and government support so that scientists can continue doing their work. Fortunately, my laboratory’s grants were not affected, but many researchers in my field have already felt the impact of political changes and are worried that future funding applications could be targeted. Some US federal grant proposals even warn that the use of words such as “gender” could be problematic.
Many colleagues, particularly those working on HIV research and public-health issues affecting minority communities, have seen projects shut down and public datasets disappear. I could not stand by and watch that happen, so I decided to act.
How one U.S. scientist is adapting to life abroad after DOGE cuts
I do not have enough time to do all three jobs as well as I would like: laboratory research, union advocacy and running SCOPE. I am being strategic about when I leave research because I love working in the lab. I will step away only if I find the right opportunity — a position that can improve people’s lives while supporting science.
That role could be at a scientific association or a private foundation. I recently applied for a position at the Dana Foundation, a philanthropic organization in New York City focused on advances in neuroscience. The role involves grant distribution, strategy and external engagement.
I want to find a position that is a good fit, but I also need to earn enough to support myself and my family.
Source: www.nature.com