At the end of 2023, Cure Parkinson’s set up an internship scheme for PhD students or early post-doctoral researchers to join our Research Committee for a one-year period.
This committee is responsible for rigorously reviewing each of our funding applications to ensure they are scientifically robust and fit into Cure Parkinson’s research strategy before making a funding recommendation to our trustees. This internship scheme provides insights for two early career researchers into the evaluation of grant applications and, for the second half of the year, an opportunity to contribute to this process.
This year, Cure Parkinson’s was happy to welcome our first two interns: Dr Chun Chen and Andrew Chai.
Dr Chun Chen is a post-doctoral researcher at Newcastle University, her research focusses on the role of mitochondria in neurodegeneration in Lewy body dementia, a form of dementia driven by build-ups of the protein alpha-synuclein.
Andrew Chai is a final-year PhD student at the University of Edinburgh. His work is investigating alpha-synuclein – a protein associated with Parkinson’s.
As they approached their final meeting as members of the committee, the Research Team at Cure Parkinson’s sat down for an interview with them to learn more about their experience.
Why did you apply?
Andy: I was at a sort of crossroads in terms of what I wanted to do after my PhD, I know that’s quite a big crossroads for a lot of people. I’d already investigated a fair amount into the industry side of things, doing a placement year – but the academic side, apart from word of mouth, is definitely something which I hadn’t experienced as much. The grant application process is such a big part of fellowship applications, postdocs, and if you want to start your own lab. So, I wanted a real taste of the nitty gritty of getting funding, and how that process is as an academic.
Chun: So for me, as an early career postdoc, I think that this was a great opportunity for me to further develop my academic skills for my future career development. It’s also a great opportunity to be able to network with academics with other expertise, and to get to know how charities function. I thought it might also provide me with more options for future career choices, or just to widen my eyesight overall.
How did you find the experience?
Andy: I found the experience super enlightening, there wasn’t any dumbing down of anything for us. It was very much – this is what a grant application is, this is what people send in, this is how we discuss it, and this is what the outcomes are. You very rarely see the backstage of how academia is run, and, generally, that’s done through funding from charities and grant applications. Being an equal part in the committee was quite empowering as a scientist, as was gaining confidence that I can write a grant application that is not going to be rejected straight off the bat.
Chun: I agree with Andy, I think it’s a very friendly group of people, and there are very open and inclusive discussions of both science and the strategic side of things. I think all of these also will really improve my skills in grant writing, and help in knowing what I should work towards in the future. So, I think it’s fantastic. It’s the best choice I made last year when I applied, I’m really enjoying it.
What do you think are the key takeaways for you? Will this change how you approach your work, or grant applications in the future?
Andy: It’s one thing to have an exciting idea but, for it to be viable, it needs to have a timeline where you can commit to getting results. I think that was a real takeaway, that you have to frame all your research ideas in a way that won’t just be an open-ended question that will then continue on to something else. It has to conclude in something. That sounds a bit simple, but I think having, for example, the five-year strategic ethos for translatability was a big takeaway – a lot of these primary projects need to have a definitive endpoint – I found that really interesting.
Chun: What I learned from this is that in order to have a successful grant you really need to know what the charity wants, and what their direction is. The other thing I learned is that networking and communication are very important in science, not just staying in the lab focusing on your own ideas and techniques. It’s communicating that work, and then listening to what other people say, and then seeing other people’s work. This means you are able to learn faster and progress more efficiently, I think.
What would you say to future applicants or those thinking about applying?
Chun: I would definitely say, yes – apply. Try every opportunity, see if you can do it regardless of whether you want to or what your career path is. I think, being able to sit on a panel like this, working closely with a committee and charity, is going to benefit you in almost every aspect in a scientific career path. Also try to be, I would say this to myself actually in my first and second meetings, be more confident and just say what you think.
Andy: There is quite a juncture after you finish your PhD followed by going into industry or academia, and I think it may be easier to have industrial experience as opposed to proper academic experience in terms of grant writing and doing fellowships. So I think my message would be if someone is at that crossroad, or someone who really wants to know more about academia in terms of getting funding – I think it’s really insightful. You don’t get that ‘behind the scenes’ experience from being in the lab or following your supervisor. I think that is a really valuable opportunity and they don’t come up very often.
If any PhD students or early career postdoctoral researchers who are interested in applying for the Cure Parkinson’s Research Committee intern position for next year, please visit our jobs page.
