STEAM Spark - Think STEAM Careers, Podcast with Dr. Olufade

Without NSF funding, we lose the next generation of American innovation.

• Dr. Ayo Olufade • Season 3 • Episode 5

Share episode

Dr. Adriana Bankston shares her expertise on advocating for science and research at the federal level, explaining why NSF funding remains crucial for America's competitive edge in innovation and STEM development. She provides a congressional insider's perspective on the consequences of science funding cuts and the importance of sustaining support for basic research.

• NSF was created in 1950 following Vannevar Bush's vision, supporting basic research that leads to major innovations like GPS, LASIK surgery, and AI
• The federal government provides the largest proportion of research funding, which private philanthropy cannot replace
• Program officers at NSF are scientific experts who make critical decisions that can shift entire fields
• Cuts to programs like GRFP (Graduate Research Fellowship Program) threaten to create a "lost generation" of scientific talent
• Early career researchers report low morale and uncertainty, with many considering leaving the US for countries with better research support
• Diverse teams produce better science, making inclusion essential to scientific integrity and advancement
• Community engagement through science fairs and classroom initiatives helps demonstrate the value of scientific research to legislators
• Current challenges are temporary, and America's scientific talent remains unparalleled despite present difficulties

Reach out to your representatives and let them know why NSF funding and basic research matter for our nation's future. The innovations we take for granted today began as government-funded research projects, and tomorrow's breakthroughs depend on today's investments.


Support the show

Speaker 1:

Today we have a guest that is going to help us understand what is NSF and how she's advocating for science and research and STEAM at US House of Representatives. She's doing a phenomenal job for us. Her name is Dr Adriana Bankstock. She's a PhD and she's an advocate for scientific research and innovation at the federal level. For close to a decade, adriana has worked to nurture US competitiveness in science and technology through numbers of roles with the university, nonprofit and scientific society. As the first ever AAASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow, I believe Adriana is going to explain what that is.

Speaker 1:

Adriana currently works to support sustained federal research funding in the US House of Representatives. Previously, adriana supports scientific research and the FutureSTEMP pipeline as principal legislative analyst with the University of California, where she advocated for the university research priority with the Congress and prior to this role, adriana advocated for federal funding research in neuroscience. As a policy and advocacy fellow with the Society for Neuroscience, where she provided staff support for special and ongoing projects, including the SFN's annual lobby event and society annual meeting. Adriana contributed to policy entrepreneurship with the Federation of American Scientists to make the work of policy makers more impactful. She is also a member of AAS Section X steering group and previously served as CEO and managing publisher of the Journal of Science, policy and Governance. In recognition of her work to support the US scientific enterprise, adriana was awarded the inaugural IRIS Emerging Broader Impact Leader Award and the Top 20 in the 2022 Award for Excellence in Advocacy from the Advocacy Association. Adriana earned her PhD in biochemistry, cell and developmental biology from Emory University. Quite an accomplishment, adriana. Good morning, how are you doing?

Speaker 2:

Good morning, just drinking my coffee. Hope everyone listening is doing well.

Speaker 1:

Thank you. Thank you so much, Adriana. Did I miss anything in the introduction? Because I want to make sure I do some justice. Because I want to make sure I do some justice.

Speaker 2:

That's very good. I can explain some of the acronyms. Asgc2 is American Society for Genome Cell Therapy. It's one of the partner societies through the AAA social program and they're continuing this year. That was interesting. Dignifest family. Thank you for the introduction.

Speaker 1:

Thank you so much, adriana. Adriana, let's do a little icebreaker. Do you remember a moment or experience that first made you feel the power of science to shape life or community? I ask you this question because, as I was reading your accomplishment, your profile, your bio, you have put a lot of energy into science and are now advocating for science, and we all know we're going to talk about the benefits of science and why we celebrate the 75th anniversary of NSF. The 75th anniversary of NSF. Can you please share with us the moment or experience that first made you feel the power of science to shape life and community? What sparked your passion for working at this intersection of innovation and equity?

Speaker 2:

I think I always wanted to make an impact. I come from a family of scientists. I've always been around it. One moment that really stood out is I like to mentor, you know, girls who are interested in science, because that's been and started me growing up and I think during my postdoc I gave a talk at a high school back into the classroom of girls, really looked up to me and trying to be a rare model. I think that really, you know, gave me this idea of we're really responsible for the people coming after us, Seeing all those cute little bears looking up to me as a scientist and thinking I can do that too.

Speaker 2:

So I think women in science has been a big kind of driver for me, being also a girl who's great at it and to make a name in the field. But then also I had a female PI in graduate school who was one of two faculty in the department and I really saw her dedication and stuff to deal with the almost male-only department. She was in academia for about 25 years and then she went to biotech. That was another big moment of seeing her be a strong role model for us. She taught us a lot about how to organize day-to-day things, how to speak up for the things we wanted to do and celebrate small things that were going on in the lab every day. So I think there were kind of two big moments. One is talking to little bears but the other one is being mentored by a woman who was very strong, and most of those have impacted a lot of what I'm doing now.

Speaker 1:

I'm very happy that you're doing that because my daughter is currently pursuing engineering. I always believe when they can see you then they can imagine themselves that way. We know about the low representation of women in engineering and computers and I thank you, especially in today's environment when there's going to be a 55% cut to NSF and NSF has a lot of programs that support the inclusions of young women in research, in innovation. So people like you who advocate for programs such as that, people like you who are part of the innovation, people like you who are part of the innovation, when my daughters and other girls see people like you, they can imagine themselves like you and even doing much better, which is good for the United States of America. Thank you so much for what you do. I also noticed you have spoken about the legacy of Vannevar Bush and the 1945 report, the Endless Frontier. How does that founding vision still resonate or fall short in today's landscape of science and policy?

Speaker 2:

Yes, I guess I have a little bit of background for people listening to this about who he was. So he was an American engineer. He was actually the first ever presidential science advisor to Fagber Roosevelt his career Revolve Day on Science. He was a strong champion for scientific research. He really wanted to see the fruits of research realized and were a tour because obviously things changed. He advocated very strongly for government funding for basic research in universities, colleges and research institutes, which is still really at the forefront of American innovation is still really at the forefront of American innovation. Envy has been a strong supporter of training the next generation of talent in science, which is really again top of mind nowadays.

Speaker 2:

Right, but it's interesting to see that this was 1945 when this vision started. He was one of the few, one of the few people who championed it then, which the text it says, which the text itself, I must volunteer, made the case for creating a new agency to support basic research. The NSF was created five years later, in 1950. And, as we talked about, the agency is a strong supporter of basic science and education, drives a lot of different technologies like AI and cybersecurity, energy work, fusion, energy, also manufacturing semiconductors and other areas, as you mentioned, the programs have expanded to support more underrepresented trainees as well. That's been nice to see. It's an interesting history. I think it's come for a circle that we need to continue fighting for basic science. But there's a historical precedence, I guess, for why this matters, and you know 1945,. People are already championing this. It's not a bad idea. We have to keep fighting for it. I feel that's helpful.

Speaker 1:

Does it really matter anymore? Really matter anymore? There is some sector of the population that feels that the role of NSF should be given to a private organization and cut it.

Speaker 2:

So, yeah, I think what I may say is that federal government funding is the largest proportion of money that goes into research, philanthropy, other sectors they're trying to compensate. There's been a number of efforts to help folks that lost their funding from NSF, through philanthropy, for example, but it doesn't come close. I think that's still going to be needed for our continued move forward, because federal government still funds most of research and should. I think there's a larger relevance to national security, economic development and job creation. Nsf programs also help create the workforce that will drive different elections in the future, so it's still very much relevant. Those of us in Congress right now are trying to fight and they don't fight where we are, so we can talk more about that later, but I think we definitely don't want to lift the burden and pressure that MSF is not relevant. I think we're just in a low point. We'll come out of this, hopefully. Excellent, excellent, come out of this hopefully Excellent.

Speaker 1:

You have seen the impact of humans behind this organization. There's a human factor that people don't see. So what do you think some people are misunderstanding about the role of NSF. Where is the misunderstanding? Can you please help us tease that out?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think so, and I love this theme of people behind the science. You can throw money at people, but at the end of the day, you have to treat people well who are doing the work. Money is good, but let's not forget that these are real people doing the work. One thing is, you know, agencies play an important role in the scientific ecosystem. From my experience when I was working with the Ulysses of California, we were able to organize meetings with program officers from NSF to talk about different opportunities connecting the institution to the opportunities that exist at the federal level, and being that liaison is pretty interesting. Being able to think about what opportunities exist that maybe were not as visible creates opportunities for folks that maybe didn't know they could apply for certain things, right. So that is to say that the agency is a good resource for researchers in academia to learn about what exists, what kind of grants they can apply to.

Speaker 2:

And to your question about what people misunderstand about the program officers, they're definitely not just administrative folks, right. They're really scientific experts who make decisions in grant funding and can shift the whole field if they decide to fund certain grants. That can really be a paradigm shift in a lot of ways. They're really innovative, they're really smart people that are selected for the expertise in that particular field. They drive that and bring peer reviewers on board. The other big thing, too, is we want to make sure that we can save the American taxpayer dollars by funding promising research projects that are going to move this country forward. But I think most of there are scientific reasons to that. So if we want to fund maybe you know new ideas that no one's ever heard of, fund a young person who's doing something groundbreaking, those sorts of things. This is like building up to the pipeline also, but also, what new things can we discover right and stuff through this ground? So again, we're really pivoted to what's being funded at the agency thank you so much.

Speaker 1:

I would like to talk about personalizing the moment. We're living in a time of broad shift, termination of a lot of leadership, resignation and there's so much scaling back of public science. What made this moment personal for you? We did our first podcast together two years ago when the former president of Congress passed the Science and Chip Act, so you were at the forefront of that. That's why I invited you to do a podcast with me on that. What makes this moment personal for you? Why do you care so deeply about what is happening?

Speaker 2:

That's a good question For me, I've been a lifelong advocate for scientific research. I guess we talked about my upbringing from seeing people that really supported research, that I could learn from them, and I think you know. For me it really comes down to the future of science, and you know who can we help? Who are we not representing? How do we make sure people feel like they belong, they're treated well and they can make great discoveries in science? We're looking towards something bigger, thinking about what the future of science is going to look like in this country. And again, that comes back to the people that are doing it, especially the students, trainees and staffs who are currently doing that. Keep that in mind. This is for the next generation and that's a driving point.

Speaker 2:

And just now, having been in Congress, I think I've gained another perspective, thinking more about government workers, public servants, rather than Congress or the executive branch, who are fighting to support science. Like we talked about these program officers you know leadership and agencies. I think that you know we're going to really appreciate those dedicated folks that work long hours to make sure that American science continues, because it's not an easy job. But, as I said, we have two sides of this One is who are we doing this for? Let's not forget, this is for the next generation, also considering all these public servants and government that are continuing to do this work regardless of what's going on. Should not forget that either.

Speaker 1:

Thank you so much. Thank you for what you do. Truly, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you. The reason why I thank you also is because I have daughters. I'm coming to a sunset of my own career, but we have young people that are coming along. They need opportunities. America needs to be at the forefront. America needs to be competitive. If you don't fund the business, the business will not be prosperous.

Speaker 2:

That's actually a good point because NSF does fund, you know, tech transfer, sort of commercial research, commercialization while required. So maybe we didn't mention that there is not just the basic science but also highly trusted that into the market. A lot of this comes back to the same thing historically what they've funded, like our credit program and other similar things that help some of these ventures get off the ground from research.

Speaker 1:

I'm glad you elaborated on that because people need to see the connection, how basic science can be converted into commercialization. Take, for example, gps. The research started from basic science but all of us now cannot do without GPS. I remember a time when to travel from one location to another we used to use the paper map. But now I have my cell phone, I can't get lost, I can go anywhere, all right. The space industry is successful, elon Musk is successful because of GPS. But all of this starts with the basic research. So wife just had her eyes done.

Speaker 1:

Imagine many Americans who now benefit from the things that make their life much better. They benefit because of basic research. I believe it's very important and I'm so happy that you make that connection between basic research and commercialization upscaling. But I also feel like people are frustrated sometimes because it's difficult to see the importance of basic research, because it takes a little longer, about the people that argue that the NSF should be cut and leave all of this to private organization. But the problem with the private organization, with businesses, is I don't believe they have the time for the long game because their interest is to make money immediately.

Speaker 1:

People need to consider that the benefit we're reaping right now as a nation in regards to the GPS right, in regards to the LASIK surgery right in regards to progress in pharmaceuticals, which can be traced back to human genome science. By understanding genes and diseases caused by genetics, then you can develop vaccines, medicines, drugs that can target these diseases. Let's not forget the mRNA to help us fight against COVID-19, right, all of that idea came from basic research. Thank you so much for linking that. Do you want to add more to that?

Speaker 2:

I was going to say, because you mentioned the CEPH, I don't say it would not exist without an CEPH because of the science and tech funding would not exist without NSF because of the science and tech funding. A lot of devices and things we use on a daily basis probably have some relevance to NSF or they're funded by NSF at some point.

Speaker 1:

Thank you so much. So let's talk about equity and disappearing pipelines. You have worked closely with a program like GRFP that aims to broaden participation in STEM. Can you tell us a little bit about this program? What do these programs do, and what do they do well? What's at risk if they are paused or cut entirely?

Speaker 2:

Yes, I think broadly there is support, stem talent development, providing opportunities for scientists, including trainees and students from all backgrounds. Grfp is very competitive. I'm not sure exactly how many they fund per year, but it's something that can really kickstart someone's career if they get a GRFP of having their own funding and all that makes them independent, but also really, you know, it's good for their reputation in the future if they want to pursue research. Unfortunately, I think GRFPs work cut in half nationwide and a few other startups and early career trading programs have been cut. That's a huge problem. As I said, nsf is now looking for alternative services to fund the GIFP so maybe they'll be able to award more in the future.

Speaker 2:

But again, that's very difficult for supporting grad students, and Upsquare includes institutions that have less funding that are not urban, maybe rural, or places that again there's a synergyod down in this country which we don't see because they don't have these opportunities, and so ArtSquare was created to expand to different areas, to a variety of different institutions and states that have less funding, which can help expand this opportunity nationwide. So it's very important that people see themselves in science and if these things have caught students of color and women and young people who benefit from these to kickstart their research careers. We'll have that. I think we're losing a whole generation of talent. We're already losing them to other countries like Europe and Canada. Other places are recruiting them together, and so we're losing our competitiveness because of that too. What's a larger problem that you think? You know it's just a student glam, so that we're cutting, but that really has large consequences for our country as a whole.

Speaker 1:

Very good point. Very good point. There is a growing narrative that equity-focused research is a merit base. Some people argue that let's cut it. So how do you respond to that? Why is inclusion essential to the integrity of scientific innovation?

Speaker 2:

Yeah. So when I think about this, people of color and from certain backgrounds are overburdened and we don't want to impose more burden on people that are already underrepresented so they're not supporting them. A lot of times I think people will stick a person of color on a panel saying, okay, now we have a diverse panel, but that's not the way to go. I would argue for merit-based in terms of judging, not judging only people that have really good credentials. They've demonstrated their scientific expertise. What we could probably do is, I think, same in same hiring practices. They bring the names and their feathers so you can tell what people look like. Even names, I think, can be biased in hiring.

Speaker 2:

There's some studies of how if somebody has a certain name, they'll assume that's a female or something like that, and then look at that different one day, look at their resume or something. So I'd say, broaden everything and then just look at their scientific accomplishments, regardless of what they look like, what stage they are, what their name is no bad really for science. It's well known that diverse teams produce better science. So this literature on that, but I think, just because coming back to this idea of america being the land of opportunity, trying to spread opportunities everywhere and I said the former directors did a great job of that and championed the Upsquare program and includes to get some of those opportunity and talent from everywhere. We really need those different perspectives to come together because it really does need to better science and can, at the end of the day, move our country forward by having more perspectives like this. It's all in the day move our country forward by having more perspectives like this.

Speaker 1:

It's all in the name of moving our countries forward, like that. So let's talk about disruption and brain drain. I feel there's beginning to be a brain drain with all the cuts. I read a few months ago of a scientist that decided to take his research to another country because the United States is now becoming an unconducive place to do research, and I feel that that's a disappointment. So let me ask you what are you hearing from early career researchers and students right now, because there are new generation of scientists, engineers that are coming along and they see this happening. That can really be impactful. So you've talked to a lot of people, people. So what are you hearing from early career researchers and students that are coming along, especially those in underrepresented, with underrepresented background? How is this climate affecting?

Speaker 2:

morale and retention in Steenfield. I think it's as you might expect. Those are out of uncertainty about their future in science, whether they still want to do it, whether they can succeed, if their jobs will exist when they finish, depending on the stages they're in. I think a few things. You know. Those things keep changing every day, but there's situations where offers have been made and rescinded by last minute, which is really terrible. Obviously, grants being terminated. If you have students that are halfway through and they can't continue to your point, it definitely hurts. Those of people saying I want to go to canada, europe, you know this is no longer number one for science. I don't want to stay here. They might go to industry. Some of them are thinking about how do I use my degree if they finished? You know, maybe they're in a postdoc and thinking of leaving that and maybe using their. They might go to industry. Some of them are thinking about how do I use my degree if they finished? You know, maybe they're in a postdoc and thinking of leaving that and maybe using their PhD elsewhere. You know industry, I think, is becoming more popular.

Speaker 2:

The morale is pretty low, which is really sad to hear. Because I like meeting with students. I want to hear what they're saying. There's only so much we can be doing. It's important to hear what they have to say on their day-to-day, how they're impacted, what that looks like. I think they feel like they don't really belong in science anymore, especially underrepresented trainees. It's just getting worse. Now. We have to reassure them that we're doing what we can from where we stand and we can talk about this. We still need them to do science, science wherever they decide to do it. Canadian TV degrees are still valuable for a lot of different careers. It's a tough time. I would encourage students to speak up more if they can. I know a lot of people aren't. They don't want to get their names out there. Happy to you know, talk to people anonymously. We're actually conducting a survey that started yesterday to get views of treaties, I think, trying to make the case that this is hurting the next generation. We can't keep doing that.

Speaker 1:

Thank you so much. Let's talk about rebuild and action, because you have hinted for the young people what they need to do. You have hinted for the young people what they need to do right In the face of budget cuts, staff attrition, skepticism towards public institutions, what practical steps can leaders, educators, community take to rebuild trust and sustain the scientific workforce here in the United States of America?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, that's a key question. We can think of that as two phases how we can recruit new students who are looking at graduate school and saying this is not for me. I don't want to do this versus people who are in it thinking about building their careers or maybe early on. Same issues, but different things, right, because people don't even want to go into science anymore. So we have bigger problems.

Speaker 2:

One thing I can speak to this from the Congress perspective. It's important for us as staffers to hear stories from students and the impacts. We have done all we can to include that into different mechanisms that we have. For example, we can write letters. We have written letters to the administration saying how those NSF cuts and filings are impacting the next generation, how it's impacting the workplace of the agency. That is one mechanism to say okay, all those numbers of congress are speaking out on this. They have given speeches, a lot of this. Again, it's encouraging to see. I think people don't think of congress as being prescient necessarily all the time. Only some of them are. So I think now being in congress, it's been interesting to see how many of them actually care and what they're doing, and we can encode the concerns that we hear into actions that we can do, like speeches, letters, legislation and so on. Keep doing that because we are listening.

Speaker 2:

So the other side of you know, I mean I think there's an effort to you know, restore faith in higher education. I guess Some of that comes from trying to increase belonging in the institution. Advisors can try to support it also. I think now because there's so many uncertainties probably providing more counseling, mental health, different activities you can do on campus to help with that and kind of create a good environment. I think there's been some flexibilities too because of the grand funding stopping and starting. We're trying to give flexibility in hours if people couldn't do their work because of this. So I think some institutions are doing well with that.

Speaker 2:

Educators, I think, also just being a little more flexible. Teach things in the classroom Also just being a little more flexible. Teach things in the classroom thinking. One of the things that has come up that's sort of new is related to AI. How do we teach? Because even teachers are not trained in AI, right? So the next generation is going to want to know and this is going to be probably in all the classrooms in five years from now, so five to 10 years when they want to learn about AI and we have to teach the teachers. That's something I think to the future education needs to change.

Speaker 2:

And then the final point you had about communities. I think when I think about this public engagement, science fairs a lot of times even members of Congress will go to conferences or even science fairs in their town town halls or those sorts of things. So I think trying to get science in front of members of Congress is good. But then these science fairs where kids are doing experiments, that is a way to spark their interest. Do a small experiment, get people to come by and see that and maybe give them some confidence to in, you know, doing something at a science fair. They are a big fan of that.

Speaker 1:

I like that point. I truly like that point. The invitation of representatives to the science fair. Prince George's County Public Schools Science fair is one of the best for all the representatives that are out there. Charles County Public Schools their Science Fair one of the best. Montgomery County Science Fair is one of the best. So I'd like to encourage all the congressmen and women to please, don't wait for the school to invite you, Invite yourself. Please, Don't wait for the school to invite you, Invite yourself. Please, you know, just be part of the. Bring your colleagues from a colleague that doesn't agree with or doesn't see the benefit of NSF. Bring them along. That goes a long way.

Speaker 2:

I have been to the end for science first in the past because I like to see students and their projects and they're so excited to talk about them, even if they're young kids. There's this kind of things, which a lot of it is NSF funded, like robotics, competitions, math, olympia, those kinds of things. So there's a lot of education and research that would not exist without NSF. These science fairs are great.

Speaker 1:

You have shared a message of hope and I love it. So what gives you hope right now and what do you want this audience on LinkedIn, youtube, all across the world, wherever my podcast is streaming, to hold on to as we imagine the future of STEAM in this country.

Speaker 2:

I do want to list people on a positive note, even on a personal note. It's been curious ever since this administration started. It's been heartbreaking just to see every day reading the news at some point. We have to get out of this because there's no choice. We have to rebuild this country because the talent that we have here get out of this, because there's no choice. We have to rebuild this country because the talent that we have here is still unparalleled. America is still one of the superpowers. There's no reason why that shouldn't continue. It's still one of the greatest countries and we have so many nobel prize winners in that very part.

Speaker 2:

You know resonates, as we've talked about. You know cell phones. You know all kinds of things which were produced by US scientists. I would say to the young people I meant to give up on science because we need your talent, your voice, your expertise and your passions for science. You're driving the future.

Speaker 2:

I know it seems hopeless now, but my hope is that we'll you know, know, get out of this situation eventually and start rebuilding slowly and again like from the perspective of congress, because I've met with a lot of students from multiple institutions who share common problems. I can see that this is hard because they're trying to figure out how to keep doing this even in the face of this. I think having public servants that are hard I think from my perspective too, working with colleagues in the office and in Congress that were support sides is really inspiring to see. I mean, they work really hard. They do a lot of things to try to hide whether they're Democrats or Republicans. I think the other thing that gives me hope besides seeing young people who are still trying to stay in science and coming to us and saying, how do we do this? Help us do this more the other side is people who are really fighting for it in Congress, and the public servants are doing that. So you have allies. Thank you so much, ershil.

Speaker 1:

Thank you so much, adriana, for all that you do, and I would like to thank all the people in Congress that are also working so hard behind the scene and trying to save NSF and also trying to continue to put our country at the forefront of innovation. We'd like to remind everyone please connect with Dr Adriana Bankstock. Please connect with her. She's truly advocating for you, and there are many like her in Congress. Spread the good news. Reach out to your neighbor. Let them know the benefit of NSF and basic research and science and STEAM. Why it is important for our country? Because we see nations like our competitors really advancing. The government of those countries don't have any hesitation supporting their scientists, their innovators. That will explain why there's so much progress in their industry and they're becoming to be more competitive. So think about 10 years from now without United States supporting our scientists, our innovators, where are we going to be? How will your life be? Will your life be better, or are you going to be relying on other countries in order for your life to be better? We wish well for everyone, but at the same time, we also want to be in the forefront and even leading innovation. Nsf has done a wonderful job. We'd like to congratulate and celebrate NSF funding and supporting scientists, innovators, basic research, basic science many benefits that we enjoy today, like GPS.

Speaker 1:

I love my GPS. Don't take away my GPS, please. I don't want to go back to those days where I'm using the map on the paper to try to find my location. No, I don't want that. To try to find my location. No, I don't want that. I'm rooting for Elon Musk to go to Mars, to land boots on Mars, but without GPS, the space industry will have difficulties locating asteroids, exploring any planets or any celestial object out there. So, but let's bring it back home, all right. So let's bring it back home. All the basic necessity that we enjoy, like the LASIK surgery, for example. It's due to basic research Support. Basic research Support, nsf. Talk to your neighbor, especially those that don't understand. Read, do your research. Don't take my word for it. Take Adriana seriously, because she knows what she's talking about. She's been doing this for years.

Speaker 2:

I think, just to earn down. You know, looking to the future, because we talked about AI, which I think is going to be in all the different industries, like health and education, and you know, like we talked about in the classroom, that definitely is going to happen and would not exist without NSF. So we certainly need it and it's going to change everything. It will be AI. Think about your kids, right, and future scientists. They're going to change everything. It will be AI. Think about your kids, right, and future scientists. They're going to need that.

Speaker 1:

Absolutely, arianna. Thank you for bringing us back home again. I'm an educator. I know the importance of personalized learning. Now AI can literally help your child personalize learning Depending on the class. Teachers can do so much within a classroom and parents work all the time, but learning doesn't stop. Preparation for the future cannot stop. Imagine having a virtual assistant that can help your child enhance and augment their learning tenfold, twentyfold, thirtyfold. That's a game changer. This AI that Adriana is talking about starts from basic research. This is why programs that Adriana is advocating for is very important. Thank you so much, adriana.

Speaker 2:

Thank you so much for having me.

Speaker 1:

If you enjoy what we are sharing, what we bring to you through Think STEAM Career Podcast, please consider supporting and subscribing to this program on YouTube and wherever we are streaming, like on Buzzsprout, amazon, spotify, linkedin so I do post this on LinkedIn too. Please check it out and also please connect with our guest today, dr Adriana Bankster. Thank you so much. Have a wonderful Memorial Day.

Speaker 2:

Thank you, take care.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Dr. Ayo Olufade, Ph.D

Host