Please could you give an overview of what you’re working on and your research background?
I'm currently working at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, where I focus on the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The Office serves as the umbrella for a range of international treaties related to arms control and disarmament. It provides the space where diplomats come together to negotiate critical issues such as the weaponization of outer space, lethal autonomous weapons systems, and, of course, biological weapons.
My academic background is rooted in science. I hold a bachelor's degree in Biology, a Master’s in Biomedicine with a specialization in Neuroscience, and a PhD in Molecular Biology, with a focus on Developmental Biology.
What do you consider some of the main challenges and or barriers for science when informing policy? Is it easier the other way around?
A few years ago, one of the main barriers was that not enough scientists were trained in science diplomacy. As scientists, we’re often taught to work with complex data, spread across long reports and detailed analyses. But in the policy world, things work differently. You might have only 30 seconds, or if you’re lucky, a couple of minutes, to spark someone’s interest, get invited to a follow-up meeting, or deliver a message that sticks. Rarely do you get an hour to explain your research.
I think we’ve made progress on that front. Today, more scientists are trained to communicate effectively with policymakers. The challenge now is creating the space for them to do so. Opportunities for scientists to engage in policy in a truly meaningful, two-way dialogue are still limited. What we need is more institutionalized, sustained mechanisms where diplomats can say, “Here are our political challenges, what can science offer?” And scientists can respond in ways that are timely and relevant.
Take the Biological Weapons Convention, for example. After 50 years, States Parties are still discussing the creation of a science advisory mechanism. It’s widely recognized as necessary but differing political views on what that mechanism should look like have stalled progress. This illustrates the broader challenge: science-policy interfaces are still not consistently built into governance structures.
That said, there are promising models. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), for instance, has a functioning Scientific Advisory Board. Another interesting model is presented by the work of the International Science Council, the InterAcademy Partnership, the Global Young Academy and many more where they train scientists in science diplomacy and also build bridges with International Organizations to provide scientific advice. The key now is to build on these examples and institutionalize them more widely so that science can genuinely inform policy, and vice versa.
What steps did you take from when you were a postdoc to get to where you are now? How did you decide that was the route you wanted to take?
While I was working on existential risk during my postdoc, I was engaging with organizations like the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Biological Weapons Convention, as well as participating in forums linked to the G7 and G20. Much of the work involved raising awareness…essentially saying, “This is who we are, this is what we do, and here’s why this matters now.” It was a combination of advocacy, public engagement, and strategic positioning.
That kind of visibility led to further opportunities. I was invited to contribute to reports, give presentations at G7-related webinars, and participate in foresight discussions. These moments helped me see where my research on existential risk could actually land and make a difference.
It also made me ask important questions: Is existential risk more likely to be taken seriously in the context of security? Disaster risk reduction? Disarmament? You start to map the ecosystem, understand the key players, and figure out where your efforts can have the most impact. That’s how I found my way into the disarmament space…and I’m still learning as I go. Nothing is fully figured out, but each step helps refine the path.
Did you engage with the Postdoc Academy? e.g. training, workshops, other events?
Yes, I engaged with the Postdoc Academy through the Borysiewicz Interdisciplinary Fellowship, which they supported. We worked closely as a cohort for a year, receiving training on a range of topics and being given the space and support to develop our own projects. That’s actually how I first got involved with the United Nations University where I became a Senior Fellow and spent some time in Geneva (and online) working with them.
As part of the Fellowship, the Postdoc Academy also supported me in taking the Chief Technology Officer programme at Cambridge Judge Business School. It was a year-long course, mostly online with three days in person, and it was incredibly valuable for my professional development.
Has it been useful to keep in touch with the Postdoc Academy? If so, how have you done this?
I left Cambridge about a year and a half ago, but I’ve stayed in touch with several people from my Borysiewicz Fellowship cohort, especially Lorena Escudero Sánchez who is a Particle Physicist and writer. She worked as a postdoc at the University of Cambridge but now works at Rand Europe on policies of science and emerging technologies.
We got to know each other well through a project we worked on during the fellowship. Our project focused on how to communicate existential risk to the public. We created a series of comics, and Lorena also collaborated on poetry with SJ Beard, an existential risk colleague. We showcased these pieces during Science Week in Cambridge. It was a creative and meaningful way to bridge science and public engagement.
Why do you think it would be good for others to do the same to maintain that link with PdA?
I think it’s incredibly valuable to maintain a connection with the Postdoc Academy because of the unique way it supports researchers, not just in developing their scientific skills, but in exploring how those skills can be applied beyond academia. During my time in the programme, I saw colleagues working on diverse projects: some were developing apps to improve communication around climate change via gamification, others were developing a start-up to monitor fetus development and others, like us, were using the arts to communicate complex scientific concepts, such as existential risk.
The Academy also offered training in areas like entrepreneurship and brought in speakers from major companies like Amazon. That kind of exposure really broadens your perspective. It’s reassuring to know that there’s an entity within the University of Cambridge that actively supports this kind of thinking and development. You never know what your next step might be.
While some researchers remain in academia, others (like me) take a different path. I now work for an international organization, supporting disarmament efforts under the Biological Weapons Convention. We focus on preventing the development and use of biological weapons, which pose a serious threat not just to humans, but to entire ecosystems.
Keeping an open mind about where science can lead you and staying connected to communities like the Postdoc Academy can make all the difference.
What was your proudest achievement while a postdoc?
One of the achievements I’m most proud of from my postdoc time was working on a project that combined the arts with the communication of existential risk. At the time, existential risk wasn’t something you heard discussed outside of a few research institutions. But now, it's increasingly part of global policy conversations…even at the United Nations, where it's being integrated into long-term thinking about the future.
Back then, we wanted to find new ways to raise awareness. We knew that if you want people to remember something, you have to trigger emotions. That’s where the arts came in, as a powerful tool to complement scientific work. Our project aimed to evoke feelings and spark reflection, beyond just the facts and figures. It became a creative and meaningful collaboration between artists, social scientists, and life scientists.
Today, as conversations grow around rearmament and the rise of “unconventional weapons” which may refer to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, I hope more people will understand the concept of existential risk and why it matters. I see that early work as a small piece of innovation that helped shift the narrative in a more human and accessible direction.
What would you suggest for postdocs who are interested in following a similar career path to you?
For postdocs interested in a similar career path, my first recommendation would be to explore the field of science diplomacy. That was the turning point for me: understanding how science can inform diplomacy, and how diplomacy can, in turn, shape scientific agendas. It helped me see how scientific expertise can contribute to policy debates and support more evidence-informed decisions on the global stage.
To help others get started, I’ve put together a LinkedIn post that compiles science diplomacy training opportunities, organizations, and useful videos that shaped my journey. I’m always happy to share it so others can reflect on their own interests, make connections with people who’ve worked in this space for years, and consider how they might bring a science-policy lens into their own institutions.
What was the most useful bit of professional development you did that helped you get to where you are? (an opportunity, training, a mentor?)
One of the most valuable professional development experiences I had was working with the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER). Through that role, I was able to engage with a wide range of stakeholders and gain insights into different fields, particularly how science intersects with global risk and policy.
While at Cambridge, I was focused on existential risk, and one of the areas I explored was the threat posed by bioweapons. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic—though a naturally occurring event—highlighted global vulnerabilities to biological threats, which further reinforced my interest in this area. That combination of real-world events, my scientific background in molecular biology, and the policy-oriented work on existential threats helped crystallize my path. When the opportunity at the Biological Weapons Convention came up, it felt like a natural next step. It was the right convergence of timing, experience, and purpose.
Would you see the value in engaging with current postdocs now and if so, what sort of things would you hope to get out of it?
Absolutely, I see a lot of value in engaging with current postdocs, particularly those with expertise in compliance, verification, and emerging technologies. These areas are essential to the work I do now at the Biological Weapons Convention. Despite the Convention turning 50 this year, it still lacks a formal compliance and verification mechanism. That alone shows how politically sensitive and technically complex the issue is.
And yet, without such tools, it’s very difficult to build trust between States Parties. If we want to verify that a country isn’t developing or stockpiling biological weapons, what steps should be taken? Do we rely on satellite data? Do we inspect laboratories, review genetic sequencing logs, or audit biosecurity measures? These are highly technical questions and ones that scientists (life and social scientists can help to answer.
I’d really welcome the chance to connect with postdocs from Cambridge and beyond who can contribute their expertise. Their insights could help diplomats better understand the challenges of verifying deliberate bio-events and the opportunities offered by new technologies. Collaborations like this could play a key role in shaping more effective and forward-looking disarmament policies.
If you could give your former self one piece of advice in your first year of being a postdoc, what would it be?
If I could give my former self one piece of advice, it would be to go to the Postdoc Academy right away, as soon as I started working at the University of Cambridge. I think I only got involved after a year or so, but I wish I had done it earlier.
I would have introduced myself, shared what I was working on, and asked others what they were doing, what they needed, and whether there were opportunities to collaborate or learn something new (about the University or beyond). It’s such a valuable space for connection, growth, and opening doors you might not even know exist.
Is there anything else you would like to mention?
I’m genuinely grateful for my time with the Postdoc Academy. They weren’t just facilitators or programme coordinators; they acted as mentors at key moments in my journey. One moment that stands out is when I faced a challenging situation at work. Their support was exceptional. They listened, offered guidance, and helped me navigate it with clarity and confidence. That kind of backing can make all the difference, and I’ll always appreciate it.