4

URoL: Multidisciplinary Research, Education and Training, and Broader Impacts

The final workshop in the series to discuss cross-cutting topics related to the goals of the URoL program—multidisciplinary research efforts, how education and training can fit in to support the convergence of scientific disciplines across research spectrums, and broader impacts—was held on March 28, 2023. Twelve URoL PIs (representing four URoL:Epigenetics projects, four URoL:MTM projects, two URoL:EN projects, one Synthetic Cell project, and one Life with an RNA Genome project) participated in a live discussion. Seven of the PIs completed a pre-workshop questionnaire, which informed the discussions. These PIs were joined by two moderators—Stephen Fiore (University of Central Florida), a professor of cognitive science, and Jeanne Garbarino (Rockefeller University), who currently serves as executive director of RockEDU Science Outreach. Sixteen individuals watched the live webcast.

To set the stage, Garbarino reviewed the key programmatic goals of the URoL program (see Box 4-1) and how the program supports multidisciplinary research across the United States. Research teams funded under the epigenetics, synthetic cells, microbiome, and emergent networks programs include scientists representing a diversity of scientific specialties in the biological, physical, chemical, engineering, social, computer, and mathematical sciences (see Figure 4-1).

MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

Fiore started off the discussion on multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research by commenting on the importance of paying attention to the definitional distinctions between “multidisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary.” He added that in looking at the responses to the pre-workshop questionnaire, it seems that the PIs have been able to meet some of their goals when it comes to multi- and interdisciplinarity. He noted that the PIs’ responses mentioned the importance of building strong interpersonal relationships and asked the PIs to share some of their approaches to and experiences with building trust and relationships.

Co-Development to Enhance Multidisciplinary Research

A common theme discussed by many of the project PIs during the workshop was the co-development of a product (e.g., diagram, conceptual figure of the project, grant-writing, general presentation, paper, training materials) with their interdisciplinary research teams as an important step in solidifying the team dynamic and structure, and breaking down barriers to collaboration,

such as differences in understanding scientific lexicon and concepts. During the project development phase, co-development of grant proposals, including the creation of graphics that depict the concepts and research design of the proposed projects, served to inform, and are informed by learning about other fields, asking clarifying questions, and designing experimental approach as highlighted by participants who completed the pre-workshop questionnaire.

The researchers in Hollie Putnam’s team, for example, co-developed a conceptual paper that served as a primer for their ideas and a mind map to illustrate the different components of research involved in the project. The team gained experience working together to clarify concepts between scientists who generate empirical data and those who model, and created an environment in which team members could discuss their data and scientific activities in a nonjudgmental environment, Putnam said. Similarly, Zachary Freedman (University of Wisconsin–Madison) described how his research team members co-authored a concept paper to crystalize the key concepts associated with their project. By participating in this process, the research team built a “foundation of true friendship” and helped to address language barriers among disciplines. Fiore stated that the process involved in co-developing a product is often more critical to fostering successful team science than finishing the product itself. He said that this process allows team members to gain confidence in having a safe place to discuss the research and make mistakes, a situation he refers to as “psychological safety.”

Defining Clear Team Structures and Roles

Garbarino highlighted a theme that emerged from Putnam’s research group, which is the clear definition of team structure and roles, which she said contributes to smooth meetings. Putnam’s team held regular, all-hands group meetings, run by postdoctoral fellows, during which all team members, from PIs to students, could contribute in a safe and supported environment. Tina Eliassi-Rad (Northeastern University) described her team’s approach, which focused more on learning about research related to their project through a reading group on network analysis of biological data to help educate different team members about relevant research and data outside of their fields. Among the first topics discussed by the reading group were the similarities and differences between social networks and biological networks, about which one of the co-PIs investigators gave a talk. The group read research published by members of the research team and other scientists to understand the various problems associated with biological data. Although this reading group was initiated within Eliassi-Rad’s research team, its reach expanded worldwide when one of the team members shared this information on Twitter. Within the reading group, students were encouraged to present research papers outside their areas of interest; Eliassi-Rad said that this provided an opportunity for team members to offer clarifications if the students misunderstood concepts, experiments, or results, which also contributed to their training. Another workshop participant emphasized the value of convening regular meetings, especially with students, to address differences in lexicon used in the research project.

Overcoming Power Dynamics Among Research Teams

Several participants pointed out the limitation and downsides of group meetings. In particular, power dynamics based on gender, minority group identity, discipline, and hierarchy can hinder the ability to foster open and honest discussion, establish a collegial environment, and

resolve disagreements if they arise. Erika Szymanski (Colorado State University) underscored the importance of team disposition in identifying and working through such power dynamics, which can create fault lines ripe for conflict. Putnam offered several concrete suggestions for breaking down barriers caused by power dynamics, including the following:

• Having PIs establish a welcoming environment and open culture, including by setting the stage for a welcoming, open, collaborative research environment at the first all-hands group meeting.
• Having postdoctoral fellows lead meetings.
• Establishing an external advisory board to prepare an annual report on the project’s progress, provide feedback to the research team, serve as subject-matter experts in disciplines relevant to the project, keep track of external perspectives about the research, conduct mid-term reviews to assess the team’s progress, and signal when and where communication is unclear. These solutions do not fix all possible problems, but they do help to anticipate and reduce potential problems early.
• Ensuring all researchers on the team are aware of the norms and expectations of the team. For example, these expectations can be captured in a living document to which all team members have access.
• Ensuring that the collaborating groups understand the expertise of each other and recognize where overlapping expertise exists.

Putnam said that employing these practices within her project allowed researchers of all levels to contribute substantively and enabled scientists to view their contributions from different lenses. For example, the modeling group revised their work to include an empirical scientist. When asked about whether students, particularly undergraduate students, were comfortable asking questions, she acknowledged that anonymous surveys of areas for improvement between hierarchies could be helpful, even though this was not included in their URoL project. Fiore suggested using an external facilitator, such as an integration expert or research development professional, to assist collaborating teams during project development and to address both interpersonal issues (i.e., power dynamics) and integration of knowledge. Sandra Loesgen (University of Florida) highlighted that one positive outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic was that it helped to address problems with power dynamics because it enabled scientists at all career levels to participate in team meetings and discussions about authorship and project aims.

Prior Collaboration Is Not Necessarily a Prerequisite for Success

Several participants described the ease with which research teams could work together if they previously knew each other, a situation described as “bottom-up” by Jizhong Zhou. Zhou described the opposite approach to building a multidisciplinary team (i.e., a team that may not have worked together previously) as “top-down” approach. Participants differed in their views about which approach they thought worked more effectively. James Strange (The Ohio State University) emphasized that working with previous collaborators was helpful, particularly for informing the overall grant structure of his team’s project. However, others described building successful collaborations without such a history. Leonora Bittleston (Boise State University) said that her research team had not met prior to initiating their project, a collaboration among scientists from four research institutions who all serve as co-PIs. To build working relationships,

they used various online tools to facilitate communication and information sharing, including Zoom for meeting and Google Docs for team collaboration. Use of these online tools allowed the researchers to familiarize themselves with how different people think within a collaborative environment and enabled graduate students to interact with other research teams across the four laboratories.

Enabling Leadership Among Graduate Students

From the trainee perspective, Lucas Miller, a graduate student in Lydia Contreras’s laboratory, described a unique opportunity for graduate students to receive on-the-job training working in multidisciplinary research. He serves as a liaison between his laboratory and its collaborator on their URoL project. As more trainees joined the laboratory, they were offered opportunities to serve as liaisons between research groups. His research team also has established a reading group, which expands the students’ knowledge about research areas relevant to their project. He said that the students actively learn from the experts with whom they interact and added that this system, which was not designed in advance but emerged organically, provides learning and leadership roles for trainees, further enhancing their education. As with other laboratories, the two collaborating laboratories would meet in person in one-on-one meetings, but during the pandemic, these meetings occurred virtually. Miller suggested that graduate students also can serve as “boundary spanners,” on the research team and said that rotating this leadership role among graduate students in all collaborating laboratories can be an effective approach for building and maintaining collaborations and trust among research teams.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS

Education, training, and professional development are important aspects of the URoL program. Fiore asked the PIs how they learn while working on their projects, and Garbarino asked how the PIs create educational materials or train the next generation of researchers. In response, participants highlighted several approaches for education and training to enhance multidisciplinary research, including:

• Attending field-specific or academic conferences;
• Reading scientific and science fiction literature;
• Incorporating multidisciplinary science concepts into existing training programs;
• Facilitating laboratory exchanges and in-person meetings;
• Recognizing the research story that led to a published scientific paper (referred to as “paper unwind”);
• Creating tailored educational experiences; and
• Acknowledging broad connections by engaging both academic and non-academic audiences.

Ramesh Goel (University of Utah) described training of students in his research team as highly participatory. In addition to working on the research itself, students are involved with the researchers at all collaborating institutions to co-create training programs on multidisciplinary research. Students are given roles during the co-creation meetings, such as taking minutes that are shared with the entire research team, which simultaneously imparts leadership qualities and

helps to build knowledge about conducting multidisciplinary research. Students also participate in “minute exercises,” during which they rotate across laboratory groups to gain additional exposure to different research environments. Finally, students lead the preparation of a review article about the project, which helps them identify the breadth of research relevant to their project and is included in their dissertation.

Emma Frow (Arizona State University) said that developing educational materials, such as practical guidance, collectively by research teams can help to introduce multidisciplinary science to undergraduate students. Co-development of such teaching materials could help the research team to identify and unpack their assumptions to educate students about the types of perspectives and resources used in research design and conduct. Frow and Zhou noted that they ask students to plan seminars, workshops, or professional conferences as part of their training. The use of participatory approaches for development of teaching materials and meeting or conference planning and participation was discussed by several URoL investigators as an effective way of teaching students about multidisciplinary research.

Like Goel, several URoL investigators noted that they include trainee exchanges to expand students’ and postdoctoral fellows’ knowledge and expertise working in multidisciplinary research environments. Strange, highlighted challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically the inability of the postdoctoral fellows and students on the research team to travel to collaborating laboratories, an experience pointed out by participants in the topic-specific workshops. Although these exchanges continued remotely rather than in-person, Strange emphasized the importance of thinking about such opportunities at the proposal stage so that the costs and planning can be built into the overall project.

The Altered Pace and Venue of Publications Can Impact Careers

Eliassi-Rad described the conflicts that her trainees face as they prepare for a career in computer science while practicing multidisciplinary research. The pace of computer science publications is every 3 to 6 months, whereas “in the more traditional sciences it could be years, so that won’t work.” Furthermore, the journals are different; “I have to say, ‘You need to publish in my discipline if you want to get an assistant professor job somewhere.’” She recalled a mentor once cautioning her that “you need to have a discipline first, then you could be interdisciplinary … somebody within academia has to claim you.” “I’m not sure if we can change that,” she said, although she suggested that NSF seek a way to incentivize multidisciplinary projects. The difference in publication rates is a particularly difficult problem that affects both advisor and student, she added.

BROADER IMPACTS OF RESEARCH UNDER THE URoL PROGRAM

To set the stage for a discussion of the broader impacts of research under the URoL program, Fiore mentioned how seven PIs responded to the question on the pre-workshop questionnaire about characterizing their work as basic or applied (on a scale of 1 to 6) (see Figure 4-2) and provided some background information about basic and applied research in the United States. The system of basic and applied research was established more than 80 years ago, following World War II, with the passage of the Endless Frontiers Act and publication of a white paper authored by Vannevar Bush and requested by President Truman.

Fiore noted that more recently, interest in use-inspired research has shifted the focus from basic research to more applied research. Several participants questioned the definitions of applied research given the need for basic knowledge about how biological systems work before they can be developed for specific uses. Eliassi-Rad stressed that a lot of basic research has resulted in interesting applications regardless of whether the scientists categorized this research as basic or applied. Freedman suggested that the term “applied research” needs to be redefined as knowledge or solved knowledge, citing examples of research on land destruction, climate change, and ecosystem complexity as applied research, all of which draws on the field of soil microbiology. Keith Slotkin, who considered the research he did previously while in academia as more basic and what he does now at a not-for-profit research institute as more applied, said he is not doing anything different but now understands the commercial application of his work. The key, according to Szymanski and Eliassi-Rad, is to focus on the problem the work is intended to address rather than approaching research as basic versus applied.

When asked about broader impacts of their work, the PIs highlighted a range of scientific and educational contributions, including:

• A game that explores top-down versus bottom-up control of ecosystems;
• A resource for undergraduates to learn technical concepts in synthetic biology;
• Information on native microbiomes relevant to coral reef preservation; and
• Evolving the understanding of DNA and RNA genomic information and its diverse uses.

One participant also highlighted the challenge of explaining research results while maintaining scientific accuracy and not “overselling” the outcomes of research. Still, participants highlighted several broad societal issues that URoL research could address human, animal, and plant health; food and agriculture production; health of the environment; climate change and associated risks; environmental sustainability and remediation; STEM education; and bio-based industry and the bioeconomy.

Challenges and Pitfalls of Assessing Societal Benefits and Risks of Research

Participants highlighted difficulties in assessing how basic science will impact society whether positively or negatively, and in identifying what kinds of frameworks or scaffolds may be needed to connect their work to societal needs. Slotkin reiterated that in his work, the research itself has not fundamentally changed but he now has greater awareness of industry interests and needs and, as a result, has become more attuned to the potential for commercialization. In addition to commercial products and services, he added that applications to science and other fields also may result from basic and applied research.

Frow said that she focuses on defining basic proofs-of-principles, which for her research involves the creation of genetic circuits that allow the cell to learn, but that she can imagine societal implications of this work and tries to balance a design-based approach with conducting the research. Eliassi-Rad expressed concern about “ethics washing,” in which biases and ethical implications of the research are only considered after the work has been completed and said that she tries to look through the lens of communicating her research to high school students, museumgoers, and other young people who may be interested in science and its uses within the broader community.

Szymanski said that she prefers to focus on currently outstanding research and scientific problems, specifically on developing the fundamental knowledge and lexicon for designing and building genomic RNA, which does not conform to the design-build approaches for DNA, as a foundational platform. She stresses that the development teams need to have nuanced approaches to their research and think broadly about systems, specifically what they do and how they work. She expressed concern that focusing on forecasting societal implications puts researchers in a service, or auxiliary, role. Bittleston commented that, in the context of microbiome-related research, risk is being addressed too early. Her research focuses on changes in microbiome community function across time and space, and since this is a relatively new area of research, she said that the findings may not necessarily be universal or translatable to other microbial communities.

Eliassi-Rad and Putnam stressed the importance of considering opportunities for mentorship, public engagement, and enhancing diversity and inclusion. Eliassi-Rad suggested increasing the focus on mentoring and evaluating multidisciplinary teams and scholars, and suggested that biology podcasts could be used to convey assumptions that biologists make to broader audiences. Putnam shared a recent article that she had co-authored, which focused on developing inclusive metrics to address discriminatory practices in research enterprises.

Maximizing the Broader Impact of Education and Outreach Through Partnerships with Established Organizations

URoL projects can enhance educational opportunities for primary school students, underserved communities, and local communities in which research is conducted. Several participants described how partnering with established groups helped their teams effectively engage communities in education and outreach. Sandra Loesgen’s team contributed to a lifelong learning event in which senior citizens can volunteer as scientists. Such efforts are uniquely valuable because resources are limited, if they exist at all, for these individuals compared to teachers and students, for whom more resources are available. Loesgen worked with a local organization that has an established program for lifelong learning, to ensure that the program

benefited the individuals and community. Bittleston’s colleague worked with Girls Who Code¹ to simplify their research, allowing the girls to develop video games about the work. In addition, she takes advantage of her university’s undergraduate research program and partnership with a local community college to offer paid and volunteer experiences allowing students to work in a laboratory setting. Eliassi-Rad works with Align² to engage students who are not in STEM disciplines and offer some basic knowledge in STEM. She shared an example of her work with first-generation students from an underrepresented group who was excited about being able to speak “the language of math.” Eliassi-Rad highlighted the reciprocal benefit of learning from her students. Putnam, whose team has a field research site in French Polynesia, described working with a local educational nonprofit organization to co-develop content and training through the lens of the local history and culture. She stressed the need to think beyond traditional aspects of research and focus on place-based knowledge, stewardship, and the value of local knowledge. Zhou noted that he focuses much of his educational outreach on high school students, providing them experiences to help them think about their futures.

Understanding the Concept of Rules of Life and Common Principles of Biology

Fiore posed the question of whether the research teams have the necessary competencies to assess the benefits of their research and also to identify rules of life. This led to a discussion about whether rules of life exist at all. Several participants suggested identifying all the rules or common principles that make biology work rather than focusing on specific rules of life. They contrasted rules commonly described in physics research with what exists in the life sciences. Zhou identified species acceleration, different data generated from different systems, and differences between plants and animals as examples illustrating the challenges of identifying specific rules. In the context of microbiology, Freedman, who studies function over time across systems, said that the mixing of different types of data, data structures, metadata, and data standards contribute to the challenges in conducting research and assessing common principles. One challenge was to identify mitigation strategies if the existence of rules of life is unknown.

As a way of possibly identifying rules or principles, Putnam suggested that having the capacity to interact with different research groups working in different systems and fields and on diverse systems but all searching for rules of life can provide invaluable opportunities to identify common principles that may span different systems and scales. The outcomes of such efforts could be enhanced if led by an external facilitator, she added.

Examples of Gaps and Needs in Science Communication

A recurring theme throughout all four workshops was the importance of effective communication of complex scientific topics to researchers in other fields and to non-scientific audiences. Garbarino highlighted the importance of science communication or science engagement to strengthen multidisciplinary research. An essential requirement for communication is that the communicator be well-versed in the subject matter. Resources, such as manuals and the Team Science Field Guide,³ may help students gain the confidence to

___________________

¹ See https://girlswhocode.com (accessed May 1, 2023).

² See https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/programs/align-masters-of-science-in-computer-science (accessed June 5, 2023).

³ See https://brdo.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/teamscience_fieldguide_reduced.pdf (accessed June 5, 2023).

participate actively in different environments. Frow suggested having graduate students teach courses in order to push them to think about what they are communicating, and from which perspectives are they communicating.

To wrap up the workshop, Garbarino asked the PIs to reflect on what they took away from the discussion. Examples of participant takeaways and suggestions are presented in Box 4-2.

This page intentionally left blank.