In this episode of Under Review I chat with Jason McDermott who is a senior research scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory where he has spent over two decades working at the intersection of computer science and biology. He is a leading expert in systems biology, and specialises in the use of computational models to understand how complex biological networks, such as the interactions between a virus and a human host function and response to stress. He is the hand behind the Red Pen Black Pen cartoons. The evolution of Red Pen, Black Pen began over a decade ago when Jason found himself seeking psychological relief from the frustrations of academia. He began doodling cartoons that captured the duality of research: the ‘black pen’ of creative discovery and the ‘red pen’ of harsh, often systemic, critique. What started as a way to vent about the deep cuts of lab life and peer review quickly resonated with a global audience of researchers and students who saw their own struggles reflected in his work. Jason argues that while science communication is traditionally stuffy, humour and metaphor are essential tools in a scientist’s toolbox, serving as icebreakers that can humanise complex data and highlight systemic issues without appearing heavy-handed. However, this creative approach to science is not without its risks, particularly for junior researchers. While Jason feels secure enough in his career to use humour, he cautions postdocs and graduate students to be thoughtful about their audience, as the academic establishment can sometimes view artistic flair as a ‘dumbing down’ of research. Despite these anxieties, Jason advocates for a shift away from the superficial metrics that currently blight the field, such as the obsession with publication counts and the h-index which he believes incentivises quantity over quality. He suggests that the neglected truth of science is the role of luck and happenstance, a reality often obscured by survivorship bias. To combat this, he envisions a future university system that prioritises formalised mentorship and team science over the individualistic, competitive model. Ultimately, Jason’s vision for the future of academia involves a fundamental rebranding of rejection. Rather than seeing reviewer three’s critique as a failure, he encourages scientists to view it as critical constructive feedback that acts as a valuable resource for improvement. By fostering a culture of kindness and collaboration, and by protecting the fundamental basic science that underpins all applied breakthroughs, the scientific community can move toward a more sustainable and engaging model. For those looking to follow in his footsteps, Jason’s advice is simple: start small in low-stakes environments like departmental seminars, focus on the story rather than the quality of the drawing, and remember that even the most complex grant is, at its heart, an exercise in communication. You can find Jason via these links Bluesky: @redpenblackpen Instagram: @redpenblackpen Facebook: @redpenblackpen LinkedIn: @redpenblackpen Substack: https://redpenblackpen.substack.com/Academia has a 'wicked problem' - actually, it has several. Welcome to Under Review, the podcast where I give guests an opportunity to stop tweaking the edges and start reimagining a future where things might work better. What would stay, what would we build from scratch, and what needs throwing into the Under Review rubbish bin? It’s time to put the system itself.. ‘under review. I’m Andy Tattersall and I’m a research communications consultant with 25 years previously working at a Russell Group university and over the course of this podcast I will speak to some of the sector’s boldest thinkers to bring us their most radical, left-field and blue sky ideas for reform. Find out more about me and my services via the following links https://linktr.ee/andy_tattersall Music courtesy PineAppleMusic https://pixabay.com/music/beats-sky-up-hip-hop-166453/
