Anastasia Ailamaki fondly remembers her first experience serving on a grant-application review committee for the US National Science Foundation (NSF). Through working with peers to evaluate and rank grant proposals asking for spectrometers and other instruments, Ailamaki, a computer scientist now at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, gained valuable insight into what makes an application clear and convincing. “I adored that experience,” she says. She credits it with helping her to prepare her own successful application for an NSF early-career-development grant.

But like many researchers, Ailamaki has at times been overloaded with requests for her service. “First reaction is that I'm very flattered that I have been invited,” she says. “Second is that I realize I really don't have time, by any possible measure, to be on that committee. And the third reaction is to say yes.” She has served on committees of all types, including those dealing with promotions, department management, campus events and conference and workshop organization. Although many of these experiences have proved valuable, she now tries to consider requests more carefully before accepting them — weighing, for instance, whether she is uniquely qualified for the spot or whether the committee chair could easily find someone else.

Committee work is tricky for scientists to navigate. On the one hand, it can offer many benefits: opportunities to network, learn about the state of the field, get ideas to improve research and influence funding decisions or policy. On the other hand, some researchers become overburdened — they sacrifice research time to sit in meetings, they draft recommendations that go unused or they get dragged into political disputes. And institutions may lack concrete guidelines for service requirements, making it difficult for researchers to gauge whether their workload is fair.

Credit: Tinbee/Shutterstock

But careful strategizing can help scientists to make the most of their service. They should gather information about committees before agreeing to join, consider the work's potential impact and proactively seek assignments that they feel passionate about. To help committees to run smoothly, members should actively aim to keep discussions on topic and treat peers respectfully. And as leaders, committee chairs should ensure that the process is efficient and professional (see 'The ruling of the chair').

Junior researchers might feel obligated to accept every committee request. At some institutions, women or researchers from under-represented minorities, in particular, may be recruited more often than their peers to increase diversity on a panel, and so might feel pressure to serve as a representative voice. But before deciding, scientists should consider whether the assignment is worthwhile for them personally. “You've got to get something out of it as well,” says Patricia Molina, head of the physiology department at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans. She also chairs the National Hispanic Science Network, a virtual organization that promotes research on issues important to the Hispanic community and fosters development of Hispanic scientists.

The power to say no

It can be hard to work out which invitations to turn down because service requirements are sometimes vague and guidelines vary by institution. A regional university with a limited graduate programme might expect faculty members to be heavily involved in university governance — for example, developing policies that are related to undergraduate education — whereas a research-focused university might value service with national and international professional associations.

Researchers should ask their department heads, mentors or colleagues for advice on how to evaluate a request. Senior faculty members might know how much work a committee entails and the extent to which it will benefit a scientist's career. They might also warn of political landmines, such as two departments that fight constantly over the same resources. For instance, a curriculum committee could be time-consuming because of a knotty battle to change entrenched teaching methods, says Maryrose Franko, senior science programme manager at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Janelia Research Campus in Ashburn, Virginia.boxed-text

Scientists should also investigate the potential impact of the group's work. People are often eager to serve on committees that advise federal government agencies because the invitation makes them feel important, says Tom Cech, a biochemist at the University of Colorado Boulder. But he adds that they should ask the chair about the fate of their findings. In some cases, the agency is committed to funding the recommendations, but in others, reports are simply circulated to political staffers with no guarantee that anyone will attempt to implement the ideas.

For some scientists, the chance to influence important issues might be worth the risk of wasting time. In 2011–13, geophysicist Steve Hickman served on a committee that advised the US Department of the Interior on improving safety of offshore development of oil and gas. Hickman, who now directs the US Geological Survey Earthquake Science Center in Menlo Park, California, did not know whether the group's advice would be followed. “It is a gamble,” he says. “But if we don't get involved, decisions will be made in the absence of scientific input.” Their work paid off — some of the group's recommendations, such as setting up an ocean energy-safety institute, are now in place.

Service can also pay off in networking opportunities. Members of a department seminar committee, for example, have a chance to invite speakers in their field whom they would like to meet. These visitors might give the scientist feedback on ongoing projects or write reference letters in the future. Serving with a professional association could enable graduate students and postdocs to meet potential employers, and organizing a conference will earn a researcher name recognition in the field. In 2011, when Megan Carey organized an international neuroscience symposium at her institute, she became acquainted with many of the speakers she had invited — some of whom later asked her to give talks. “It was an incredible networking opportunity for me,” says Carey, a neuroscientist at the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown in Lisbon, Portugal.

And some committee members forge personal, not just professional, connections. When Hickman chaired a science-advisory group for the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program, the team took trips to drilling sites around the world together, which helped to build camaraderie. “Some of my best friends I've made in my field have been on committees like this,” he says.

Committee phobia

For scientists who loathe committees and simply want to do their research, service assignments that benefit their immediate working environment may be the most palatable. By participating in faculty searches, for instance, researchers can select colleagues who could positively influence their work. “Being able to shape your environment is something that's important for all, even for the person who says, 'I just want to get my science done,'” says Jeremy Boss, an immunologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. A new colleague could suggest ideas to improve research, such as studies to read or experimental techniques to try.

Researchers may also volunteer for committees that appeal to them, instead of waiting for requests. “The worst thing is to get assigned to some random committee that you have no passion for,” says Cech. Once they have chosen committees for themselves, scientists can use those service obligations as reasons to decline less-desirable assignments.

After committing to a group, scientists should execute their duties diligently — it is always possible that the committee chair will evaluate them for a promotion later.

If the committee's goal is vague or discussions are unfocused, researchers can ask the chair to clarify the mission with administrators or to provide agendas in advance. During meetings, members should avoid making comments that do not directly serve the committee's purpose. For instance, when developing policy, people often tell anecdotes to show why the regulation is necessary, says Boss. “All it does is waste time,” he says. Instead, the team should concentrate on the wording of the policy and ensure that it covers the necessary scenarios.

If we don't get involved, decisions will be made in the absence of scientific input.

Researchers outside traditional universities may encounter a wide variety of expectations and styles. Scientists at the Janelia Research Campus have minimal service obligations so that they can focus on research, whereas those at the Wilderness Society, a conservation organization in Washington DC, are encouraged to serve on committees that influence policy and management decisions. At the Champalimaud Centre, a small group of neuroscientists has been shaping the direction of the budding programme. Faculty members are involved in more types of service than are those in academia, and their meetings can be more intense and efficient. For example, they all participate in hiring decisions, but rather than interviewing candidates over several months, they gather for a one- or two-day symposium to see applicants give talks.

Scientists should discuss committee-service expectations during their job-offer negotiations. A supervisor might even be able to provide precise requirements. Molina expects junior researchers in her department to spend no more than 5% of their time on committee work; mid-level researchers are expected to spend 10–15%.

Ultimately, science cannot run without service. Researchers need to review each other's proposals, contribute to professional organizations and help universities to foster strong research and student development. Faculty members who avoid all committees risk isolating themselves from the community or being perceived as slackers. “In science, people are expected to be givers and sharers,” says Molina. Still, that is no reason to feel guilty for setting boundaries. “I believe in participating and volunteering,” she says, “but there's a limit.”