The breadth of content that Annual Meeting offers is like a five-star buffet: you can't possibly have every dish on offer. The feature professional development slot Saturday from 2pm to 4pm slot is all about a key skill in practicing your own story. This is critical for scientists working in funding environments such as the USA and Australia, because we have to persuade funders that we are worth investing in. Not just our research, but us too, as if we are the olive trees that will produce oil year after year for the nation's benefit.

To run this show, Leann Fox kindly invited Amy Showalter (www.showaltergroup.com) to be our facilitator and friendly critic. In response, I managed to miss two-thirds of it, because I valued listening to Marcus Zweckstetter talk about intrinsically disorder proteins.

It wasn't at all an even contest. (Sorry Amy.)

In hindsight, I think this choice illustrate just how mismatched expectations are between many career scientists, and the politics that drives funding. We complain that basic research isn't being valued enough. We try time and again to shoehorn our main passions into applications so as to receive a second look from the more health-focused funding agencies.

Even so, our funding conversations all too often get stuck around "what's in it for me, my society, or my electorate?" Some people simply can't be persuaded, no matter how we shape our message. Perhaps we should change the conversation by literally changing the people we talk to. That is, by increasing the number of scientists in policy making, advocacy, and funding bodies.

This is the question that I did ask myself when I joined a political party*: "Should I enter politics, so that I can improve science funding for all of my colleagues?"

After all, there is noteable overlap between the roles of science ministers and funding chairs, versus those of directors and society presidents. Many of our more famous colleagues possess excellent political acumen - precisely the skills needed to interact with diverse scientists, admins, donors, congresspeople, etc. Wouldn't it be easier for all of us grant writers if we were writing to people who have participated in the whole bug-to-drug pipeline, and appreciate both the foundational and translational?

Science communicators can then spend more effort telling people how awesome science is, and scientists more time on not-grant-writing.

* Science Party of Australia. Not exactly a rain-maker as of the time of writing.