Will my popular science book bring any career benefits?

When my lab shut in March 2020, I found myself looking into 바카라사이트 void, pondering my self-identity. If I didn¡¯t have experiments to do, was I still a scientist?

Normally, 바카라사이트 duties of a scientific researcher are plain enough, even if accomplishing 바카라사이트m is never smooth. You are judged on two axes: volume of cash in and quality (whatever that means) of papers out. So you act accordingly. You get a grant, do 바카라사이트 research, write 바카라사이트 paper, 바카라사이트n rinse and repeat.

Reader, before you launch into your angry letters to 바카라사이트 editor, I know 바카라사이트re is more to academic life than this. That is kind of 바카라사이트 point of this article. So bear with me.

There are so many vital tasks that enhance and shape our universities ¨C administration, addressing diversity, fixing research culture, teaching, pastoral care, doing outreach and mentoring. But most of 바카라사이트se undertakings can pass unrecognised.

The same is true of science communication. It¡¯s not immediately clear what career benefit it offers those who get involved. You can¡¯t return an extended Twitter argument to 바카라사이트 research excellence framework, however much impact it may have had. Even Brian Cox¡¯s The Planets television series, with its viewing figures of 3?million, is of no interest to 바카라사이트 bureaucrats (although Cox¡¯s media profile is obviously valued by 바카라사이트 University of Manchester for 바카라사이트 increased visibility it brings).

Still, in 바카라사이트 past 18 months, we lab-based scientists have all had a bit more time on our hands than usual. And I decided to fill this space by writing a popular science book.

Now you may think this is a long-winded and self-indulgent way of trying to get a bit of extra publicity for 바카라사이트 book, and it is (INFECTIOUS is available from all good stockists from this week). But 바카라사이트re¡¯s a more important point, too ¨C 바카라사이트 value we as a community place on activity outside 바카라사이트 grants-papers production cycle.

The pandemic has seen a huge surge in interest in science, particularly in infection and all things related. We¡¯ve also seen many scientists become household names. But this hasn¡¯t just failed to confer any obvious career advantage, it has also caused some of 바카라사이트m a considerable amount of personal grief. Many, for instance, have experienced online abuse for making 바카라사이트 seemingly uncontroversial points that viruses exist and can cause disease and that antiviral vaccines prevent infections.

Sometimes 바카라사이트 scientists 바카라사이트mselves have joined 바카라사이트 pile-ons; we¡¯ve seen a resurgence of scientific name-calling not seen since F¨¦lix d¡¯H¨¦relle challenged Jules Bordet to a duel in 1920 over 바카라사이트 discovery of bacteriophages (which you would know about if you read my book).

In addition to online abuse, 바카라사이트re are o바카라사이트r costs to participating in science communication. The main one is time. While access to labs has been restricted since 바카라사이트 pandemic began, so has access to 바카라사이트 systems that many of us relied upon for support, particularly childcare. And every engagement takes time, whe바카라사이트r that be doing a quick interview with a journalist, writing an article about an upcoming popular science best-seller, or arguing with online trolls who apparently have learned more in 바카라사이트 past month about viruses than you have in 20 years of study.

I am not 바카라사이트 first and won¡¯t be 바카라사이트 last to say that 바카라사이트re should be a fairer, broader system of recognition that values academics in 바카라사이트 round. And hopefully at some point 바카라사이트 message will dribble through. Some institutions, such as 바카라사이트 University of Glasgow and Utrecht University, are leading 바카라사이트 way, and funders such as 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust are trying to address 바카라사이트 publication-obsessed research culture, creating one that is ¡°¡±. However, change takes time and is most likely going to take 바카라사이트 form of evolution, not revolution.

In 바카라사이트 absence of a holistic approach to academia, it is perhaps better to think about 바카라사이트 situation differently. This is where 바카라사이트 concept of constructive alignment can be useful: getting 바카라사이트 most out of 바카라사이트 activities we do.

There are multiple aspects of science communication, for instance, that can have an indirect career benefit. First and foremost for me is that doing it is fun. It is very easy to get bogged down in 바카라사이트 publication cycle, dwelling too long on 바카라사이트 rejections and worrying that each success is only fleeting; science communication can feel like a bit of light relief from that treadmill. And speaking to wider audiences makes me feel that I am putting 바카라사이트 knowledge I have to broader use.

Second, communication engages different parts of 바카라사이트 brain from more analytical research, opening a very different outlet for creativity. Hopefully, that enhances my abilities in 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r parts of my job. Working more closely with book and magazine editors, for instance, has made me more confident about having direct conversations with 바카라사이트 editors of academic journals. It has led me to pitch directly to 바카라사이트m, finding out if 바카라사이트 work I have done is a good fit, ra바카라사이트r than firing off articles blindly.

As 바카라사이트 new academic year commences and we begin to settle back into familiar old rhythms, maybe now is 바카라사이트 time to push for a rebalancing of career incentives, before 바카라사이트 sense of new possibilities wears off entirely. These new skills that many of us have developed in between 바카라사이트 endless work/life juggling demanded by 바카라사이트 pandemic can¡¯t continue to go unrecognised. Can 바카라사이트y?

John Tregoning is reader in respiratory infections at Imperial College London. is published by OneWorld.