Workshop takes grad student from the lab to Capitol Hill

New graduate Archana Verma (MS 24, PhD 26) shares lessons from a recent AAAS CASE Workshop on translating research into policy and public impact.

Suppose you were a time traveler, standing before Paul Revere with a box of smartphones. How would you convince him to use this technology to spread his message? Would you describe wireless communication with Ben Franklin’s experiments or by analogy of a fleet of instantaneous, resource-free, invisible riders? My instinct as a researcher is to prioritize accuracy, but when speaking to the public, that instinct can be detrimental.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering (CASE) Workshop was held in Washington, D.C., from April 12-15, bringing together 160 student scientists from across the country. As a fifth-year graduate student, I often questioned why my research matters. Graduate school trains scientists to generate knowledge, but by default, rarely to translate it into public impact. My outreach work through Graduate Society of Women Engineers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign had already shown me the importance of making science accessible at a personal level. This workshop was specifically designed for those with limited prior policy experience and expanded that idea to turn that into a career path. Over three days, we learned how the federal budget process works and practiced communicating our research to a policy-focused audience.

Ultimately, we met with Illinois Senate and House offices, advocating for increased federal funding for science and personally meaningful issues.

When I told my advisor I was traveling to Washington, D.C., his advice was simple: brace yourself to feel discouraged. That sentiment isn’t uncommon in academia, where funding cuts, program reductions and scientific literacy concerns are constant. While acknowledging that real damage has been done, the workshop speakers additionally emphasized that Congress has combatted many proposed cuts, and the broader historical lens tells a more optimistic story. To paraphrase writers and public educators Hank and John Green, the most important news story for the last 30 years should read: fewer children died today than any day over the last 5,000 years. In a polarized environment, the emphasis on empathy and collaboration felt refreshing.

Many graduate students enter science motivated by a desire to improve lives, yet relatively few of us consistently engage with the communities we hope to serve. In the discussions, we considered how science can feel removed from everyday priorities and lived experience in communities without strong ties to universities. The challenge, much like in the opening Paul Revere analogy, is translation across audiences: what scientists view as evidence-based adaptation, the public may see as inconsistency or confusion. This gap exposes questions scientists rarely consider: who is your audience, what do they care about, and how do you reach them? For example, AAAS uses full page newspaper ads to reach members of Congress. Impactful advocacy requires sustained, accessible engagement. Even small actions like keeping yourself and your family informed accumulate. Through practice pitching our work, improv exercises and group strategy sessions, we built confidence communicating with congressional offices.

Our advocacy on the Hill focused on the lever Congress directly controls: funding allocation. Just as policymakers may not understand research infrastructure, such as how grants support graduate students, scientists often have little understanding of how federal funding is allocated. The White House proposes a budget across 12 appropriations bills, which the House and Senate develop separately before reconciling through negotiation. Though linear in description, the process is highly iterative: agencies, programs and priorities all compete for finite resources. During the workshop, we simulated this process with groups of five students divided into two unequal parties. We were given prior-year budget data and tasked with constructing a new appropriations proposal. In most cases, however, the process proved difficult to complete within consensus, resulting in a simulated government shutdown.

On the third day, the Illinois student delegation met with the offices of seven Congresspeople on Capitol Hill. Our legislators agreed on the harm of academic funding cuts, but we, as students, additionally drew attention to how instability alone can push international and underprivileged individuals out of science. Funding cuts disproportionately impact minorities, and DEI infrastructure is essential to scientific advancement by defining whose voices determine valuable pursuits of knowledge. The staffers shared current proposals, sought our input and requested follow up data from our universities, demonstrating a commitment extending beyond one conversation.

At the end of the day, science is advancing faster than we can support it, which means we need to bring the public along. If I were standing beside Paul Revere today, I would not focus on gaining his trust of the technology, rather on the trust that his message reaches those who need to hear it.