My goal is to make the session an active conversation between the panelists and attendees, with ample room for audience questions. ❓Have a burning question? Submit it in advance by commenting below, DMing me, or using the conference app (Whova). 🧪

Topics include: 🪞 Perceptions of Industry Communicators 🦘 Making the Leap to Industry 🔀 Agency vs. In-House Life 🧲 Persuasive Communications 📣 Public, Media, and Investor Relations 🚀 Marketing and Commercialization 🧩 Internal Communications and Community Building 🧪

| Summary | We'll share practical tips and personal reflections focused on transitioning into industry roles, developing key skills, finding success, and strengthening collaborations across the scientific ecosystem. 🧪

The panel will cover a variety of topics: 🪞 Perceptions of Industry Communicators 🦘 Making the Leap to Industry 🔀 Agency vs. In-House Life 🧲 Persuasive Communications 📣 Public, Media, & Investor Relations 🚀 Marketing & Commercialization 🧩 Internal Communications and Community Building (4/5) 🧪

The panel also aims to broaden perceptions of SciComm as a profession and foster candid dialogue between journalists and industry communicators to support more productive collaboration. (3/5) 🧪

We will offer an inside look at a variety of industry science writing and comms functions, with practical insights, skill-building, and career opportunities along the way. (2/5) 🧪

Most importantly, no political appointee should have blanket veto power over well-designed, peer-approved grant applications. Full stop. (11/11) 🧪

Grant evaluations and decisions should be: 📋 Governed by transparent, published criteria 🎓 Driven by qualified, expert peer reviewers ⚖️ Grounded in statutory authority and program requirements 📝 Accompanied by written, reviewable explanations (10/11) 🧪

As I have said before, there is just no good reason to impose centralized political control on such a productive, science-led system, even with its flaws. Russ Vought has no business overriding merit-based science behind closed doors. (9/11) 🧪

Should national priorities factor into grant decisions? Of course! But they have been since the beginning. America built the most successful research engine the world has ever seen. Rather than embrace the tremendous benefit it still affords us, partisan actors keep taking hacks at it. (8/11) 🧪

OMB Proposed Rule 2026-10817 (cont.) During the public comment period, the outcry from the public and the scientific community alike was overwhelming against the move. Shortly thereafter, Congress temporarily blocked it in a bipartisan fashion. (7/11) 🧪

NIH Paylines (cont.) Did they sometimes lead to the arbitrary rejection of good grant applications? Oh my, yes. But eliminating them created vagueness in the approval process and made it easier to reject high-scoring grant applications. (5/11) 🧪