When I began graduate school I had three summers of independent research, plus a senior research project under my belt. I knew which way the pipette turned and how to use it! In contrast, when I started a job in science policy, I knew that I couldn't wear jeans to work anymore, but beyond that: a mystery!

Luckily, I began working in policy through a AAAS Diplomacy Fellowship. Before I began my job at the State Department, I was prepared with a two week orientation to all things Washington, DC and was well-supported by the fellowship staff for my two years in Washington, DC. As I've mentioned in previous articles, I recommend the AAAS Science and Technology Fellowship path to anyone who wants to begin a career in science policy.

I've found that working in science policy is a distinct experience from working in basic research. The most striking differences are the methods of communication. In the lab if you need help or a reagent, you walk over to your colleague and ask for it. In policy, you write an email or make a phone call. In the lab, you hold a meeting to share information and receive constructive feedback from your peers, while policy meetings are focused around a decision making process. Even though this decision making process may be stretched over several meetings, policy meetings are generally more action-oriented than laboratory meetings.

I've focused on email and meeting-based communication as two examples of the differences in the culture of the lab and the policy desk. In deciding whether science policy is a career you're like to explore, it is important to understand the differences between it and what you're doing now and to determine whether these are differences you can live with.

Emails written outside the laboratory setting have an entirely different context from those you write as a graduate student. The emails I wrote to other researchers requesting reagents, where brevity, politeness and information were key, are most similar to those used to communicate in policy circles. When you send and receive 60-100 emails a day, it is critical to state the purpose of the email in the subject line, to communicate the information as clearly and succinctly as possible and to keep track of these emails through good organization.

For example, a subject heading that reads "Cuba" sent to the Cuban desk office is about as informative as a subject heading that reads, "email for you." We are increasingly bombarded by irrelevant emails, so if the recipient is going to focus on your request, you must make the purpose clear in the subject line. Terms such as "ACTION REQUEST" or "REMINDER" immediately call the reader's attention to your email.

In policy, particularly in government, the culture of "carbon copying" or "cc'ing" is the source of a great deal of email traffic. Often the emails you're cc'ed on are peripheral, but it's still important to be able to put your hands on them if necessary. Cc'ing can also be useful for tracking completion of tasks. For instance, if your supervisor asks you to research a topic and get back to a colleague on it, you might cc your supervisor when you respond directly to your colleague letting your supervisor know that you've completed the task.

The "blind carbon copy," or "BCC," is a powerful tool when properly used. For example, if you email a colleague and get a less-than-optimal reply (as often happens) you can reply and BCC your supervisor letting him or her know about the difficulty you are having with a team member. I'm not advocating tattling, but you should make sure that your supervisor understands why you may have trouble completing the task. By the same token, always be careful of what you type in an email since it can be quickly further disseminated. A good rule of thumb is "don't write if you can talk, don't talk if you can nod and don't nod if you can wink." Especially, don't write when you're angry.

Telephone calls are helpful, especially since the tone of an email can be easily misread. I've received some seemingly inflammatory email messages that prompted me to call the sender and ask (politely) what he or she meant. Sometimes upon hearing the explanation, my irritation was completely disarmed. Other times the sender meant to antagonize me and continued to do so on the phone. It's a mixed bag, but if you're uncertain of the sender's intent, it's more professional to take a deep breath and call than to write a flaming email back.

As grad students and postdocs, we attend laboratory group meetings, usually once a week. These meetings generally consist of some small talk, discussion of general lab problems or concerns (remember to turn off the microscope, don't leave the restriction enzymes out etc.) followed by a data-heavy presentation by one or two members of the lab. These meetings can last anywhere from 1-3 hours and at the end everyone just kind of wanders off.

Meetings outside of the lab environment are very different. First, meetings are generally much shorter (thank goodness!) and each meeting has specific agenda items to discuss. During the meeting, the various participants may be tasked with action items to accomplish before the next meeting (writing a draft position paper or talking to a policy stakeholder). And depending on the meeting organizer's preference, notes or highlights of the meeting may be emailed around afterward complete with action items.

I focused on these two differences between the laboratory and the policy desk because I think that they illustrate an overarching difference between the two: the degree of professionalism. In policy circles, as well as other professions outside the laboratory, you are expected to present a polished, professional product every time. Whether this means pulling together a meeting at the last minute or drafting an email on short notice, each must be crafted and refined as if you had weeks to prepare. That being said, almost everyone in Washington works at the last minute, so it's critical to be able to endure the kind of pressure this environment presents.