Episode 31: One Goal, Many Fields: How Prevention Science Connects Us
===

[00:00:03] Michael Donovan: Welcome to the Evidence to Impact podcast, the podcast that brings together academics and their research partners to talk about insights and real-world policy solutions in Pennsylvania and beyond. I'm Michael Donovan, the associate director of the Evidence to Impact Collaborative here at Penn State. In this episode, we'll be discussing One Goal, Many Fields: How Prevention Science Connects Us. I'm very happy today to be joined by my guests. They are Patrick O'Neil, doctoral candidate in Penn State's Human Development and Family Studies program, and Hayoung Donnelly, postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. Thank you both for being here today. I really appreciate it. I'd love to just have a little bit of introduction from both of you, if you could. Pat? 

[00:00:53] Patrick O'Neill: Yeah. Thank you for having us today, Michael. My name's Patrick O'Neill. I'm a doctoral candidate in Human Development and Family Studies at Penn State, and my research is largely focused on evidence-based policymaking and how we can use science to improve the policies written that affect wider populations.

[00:01:12] Hayoung Donnelly : Yeah. Great. Hello. Hayoung? Hello, I'm Dr. Hayoung Donnelly. I'm a computational psychologist and prevention scientist. My work is at the intersection of suicide prevention mental health, and data science, including large language model and data harmony- harmonization. And thank you for inviting me today, and I'm excited for. 

[00:01:38] Michael Donovan: Wonderful. Wonderful. Thank you both again for being here. So to start things off, I'd love to just talk a little bit about what each of you has been working on individually in your own work and beyond what you've described already here, and also how your current work connects back to the larger idea of prevention science. And I'd love to hear, in your own words, how you define the larger kind of hybrid field here. And maybe we could start with Pat? 

[00:02:06] Patrick O'Neill: Yeah, absolutely. So a lot of my work is focused on understanding the gap between research evidence and it being generated and then being used in the creation of policy and how we can influence the kind of interjection of research into policymaking, how we can increase the amount of evidence that's used in policymaking with the idea being that there's a lot of good science that's not being used outside of traditional academic silos. And so a lot of my work is focused on understanding that relationship between research and policy, and then how we can break down some of those barriers and form those connections and relationships across those boundaries, whether it's direct relationships between researchers or policymakers, or serving as an intermediary bridge between the groups of researchers and groups of policymakers. A lot of my work over the past couple of years has been very broadly in this area. But my dissertation work and where I'd really like to take some of my research is more specifically in the substance use and child maltreatment areas of policymaking. And I can touch on that later as regards to how I got interested in focusing on those areas specifically. But I'd like to narrow down my research into those specific topics of research and policy, but very broadly, yeah, focusing on integrating research into policymaking activities in various different avenues.

[00:03:35] Michael Donovan: Great. Thank you. And just as a follow-up, Pat, for our audience members who are maybe less influenced by the field of prevention science or in the field of prevention science, could you give a little bit of a rundown on what the field is, and how it is defined i- internally?

[00:03:53] Patrick O'Neill: Yeah. So it's very very broad. And that's something I've really struggled with over the past few years in this area, is where do I sit? Because a lot of this work is, I don't really know if you can call it its own field. It's like a like a recipe when you're cooking where you've got a little seasoning of this, a little seasoning of that. The field takes a little bit of prevention science, implementation science in terms of interacting with the policymakers some dissemination aspects where we're figuring out the best communication methods and formats for interacting with policymakers. So it is , an area of work that's very heavy on the intersectionality between different aspects of prevention science in terms of the overall goal being to use evidence-based policymaking as a preventive mechanism for adverse events, like I said, whether that's substance use, child maltreatment, whatnot. But also, like I said, some different flavors of like dissemination science, im- implementation science, and then even some of the more not basic sciences, but some of the more, More solidly defined fields like developmental psychology and stuff that produces research on, the impacts of child maltreatment, and then it's up to us to take that research and kind of use the other, slices of the different fields to get it into policymaking.

[00:05:10] Michael Donovan: Wonderful. I'd love to hear from you, Hyung, as well on, on some of your current work, particularly in the suicidal ideation and prevention efforts there. And also, how you think of , in your world what prevention science and how it means to you. 

[00:05:24] Hayoung Donnelly : So currently I'm working on developing AI tool to score the quality of safety plans to give the timely sensitive feedback to clinicians who are working with patients at suicide risk. Suicide is considered as a preventable death, but that's not all the case. The patient should be supported by healthcare with good quality services, but there are variation of quality that patients get. So my work very focused on, like, how to increase accessibility and quality of healthcare by providing tools, like AI tools or other tools that can help clinicians to provide better quality services, but also they can better understand their clients. So my work is very interdisciplinary, and that's what Patrick said, I agree that prevention science field is very interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary. And somehow because of that the space they created as an interdisciplinary community, I think it's also very creative as well. You don't need to limit yourself or your work within to try to fit in the one discipline. They share the goals of improving promoting people's health and their wellbeing, but within that shared goal, like the title of today with the shared goal, there are, like, wide range of method or implementation strategies or theories are involved within prevention research. So I think that's the good definition I can provide what the prevention research looks like for me.

[00:07:06] Michael Donovan: Yeah, I love the characterization as as a creative discipline, thinking that, the kind of lost space of ambiguity that Pat was mentioning actually is a strength that really bringing in many disciplines to bear on really challenging social problems and individual and biological problems can be embodying what team science really can be as opposed to one particular discipline. And particularly around, the discussion we had earlier, Pat, about increasing protective factors and reducing risk factors in particular challenges I'd love to hear a little bit about each of your kind of trajectory in your academic and ultimately into your career pathways. Pat, could you give me a little background on y- you as an academic, and what led you to be so interested in this space to, to dedicate yourself to it? 

[00:07:59] Patrick O'Neill: Yeah, absolutely. Whenever I think about this a- and think about how I ended up here, I always come back to this idea. I ended up here on accident. It's certainly not the avenue or the area of research that I planned to go down when I first started , my research career in undergrad. So in undergrad and in my master's program, I'm a clinical psychologist by, initial training. And in my undergrad I went to the University of New Haven in West Haven, Connecticut, and my work there was really focused on understanding the effects of child maltreatment in college populations. And because you know, going into college, I had this idea of I wanted to understand the impacts of child maltreatment. And my thinking there was if we can understand the impacts and what causes child maltreatment, then we can do something about it. We can try to prevent it. I had that thought process from when I started going down this path, and it wasn't until the last couple of years where I was really, So I've always had a prevention-oriented aspect of my work, but I never knew about the field of evidence-based policymaking, never knew really that prevention science itself was a standalone field. And it wasn't until I graduated my undergrad during the winter of 2020 into 2021, so right at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, where, I had applied to clinical psych PhD programs, wasn't hearing back from them, and trying to figure out next steps, and I started a post-bacc position with a research translation platform that is housed similar to the Evidence to Impact Collaborative under the Prevention Research Center here at Penn State. And that's where I I was like exposed to, okay, it's child maltreatment-focused, but it's really evidence-based policymaking. I saw the ad, and I got connected. I was like, "Okay, this is child maltreatment-focused." I wasn't thinking, "This is evidence-based policy focused." And so I really just initially viewed it as a different lens, exposure to a different lens on child maltreatment work. And so as I started working with the research translation platform, and then as I continued on to doing my master's the following year at Columbia University also, like I said, , in clinical psychology, I stayed working with this group here at Penn State. And I really... I would say it was in those years, like 2022, 2023, I really had that shift of this is an avenue where I can understand, the, not necessarily the impacts of child maltreatment, but understand that this is an avenue where we can do something about it and, theoretically affect a large group of people through policymaking efforts. And so that, I ended up in this field by accident. But once I landed here and was really able to take a look around, I was like, this is a really impactful way to, do some of the work that I wanted to, but just maybe with a different lens than I was initially planning, with the potential to also affect other topic areas, like I mentioned, with substance use or some of those broader social issues as well. I would say, long story short, ended up in this space by happy accident 

[00:11:03] Michael Donovan: Wonderful. That's the journey, right? To keep expanding and being opportunistic around new opportunities that come around. Ha Young, how about yourself? How has your trajectory kind of been shaped over your academic career?

[00:11:17] Hayoung Donnelly : Yeah. Patrick, I like how you said happy by accident. I grew up in South Korea, and I originally started as a mechanical engineering student, and I took some classes in child psychology and education, just hope to be a good mom in the future. But I loved the classes and teachers there, so especially some mentors that I still working on, they are amazing people. So I do my double major in psychology and education, and then that leads me to the graduate school in the same major, and then I moved to US to do PhD in applied human development, and now I'm in psychol- a psychiatry department. And throughout the journey, I think one of the topic that I was always just naturally interested in is so South Korea is having highest suicide rate among high-income countries, and there are lots of stigma, lack of understanding of mental health in general. But suicide ideation is especially considered as a individual's decisions or choices rather than health issues. So since I moved to US or even before, I was like, "What makes Korea high suicide rate? Also, what shapes people's perception of those suicide is a decision rather than the health issue?" So I started to do research, more exploratory in the beginning, but now I just like to do more and more. I actually wanted to help people with struggling with suicide ideation. Just that leads me, like, why there are big gaps and how we can find the protective or risk factors and how we can actually implement those knowledges to improve the society vibe more so supportive. Yeah, and personally, I also found myself I love to play with data. I also thought about should I go to counseling psychology or clinical psychology so that I can actually directly interact with the patients? But I found myself more introvert and just love to play with data in my home, so I choose to that direction so that I can contribute to suicide prevention in a way that I also personally can enjoy and I think one of the area that I can drive the most. So yeah, that's where I ended up where I am right now. 

[00:13:50] Michael Donovan: Wonderful. Thank you for sharing. I'm really struck by not just the interdisciplinarity that both of you have referenced and the adjacent fields that have led you in the directions that have got you to where you are now but also really interested in the action-oriented dimension of both of your fields or your areas and the field of prevention science overall. It feels obviously a direct connection to having practical responses to social, biological, psychological ills and societal challenges that are very complex and thus requiring that kind of fusion center response. And then lastly, , my thought was, what's really dynamic about the field of prevention science is the places and spaces that it is practiced. Like how you're mentioning the particularly thinking about clinical settings in your current environment but also thinking how prevention is practiced in school-based environments. Talking with Pat around, various dimensions of the halls of government, whether that is at the highest level to thinking about state agencies or local agencies that are actually being the front lines of delivering programs. That's just a fascinating dimension to prevention science, which I think is relatively unique because it is trying to bring as many skills and players to bear on really complex challenges. So are there ways that we can better improve this coordination across disciplines? I find that in my wanderings across academic circles, I have been able to attend the Society for Prevention Research, for example and also the European Society for Prevention Research annual meetings. And I find them to be so valuable to understand what is happening in fields just adjacent to our own or, thinking about how the... an analytical lens from one discipline can be incredibly valuable to addressing another challenge. I wonder if there's... if you have any creative ways of trying to open up the aperture for the field how to break down the silos that specialization in higher education and research tends to do. Any ideas? 

[00:16:06] Patrick O'Neill: Yeah. I think one thing that, that our team has started to work on in a few different projects is this recognition that at least in terms of the academic sphere, there's not a ton of incentive or reward for, like tenure track research or tenure track faculty members or research professors. There's not a ton of incentive or m- motivation for them to engage in some of these, non-traditional research activities, if you will. In a lot of cases, this sort of public engagement facing work, interacting with policymakers attending Hill days where they get to, to share science with policymakers in their own state capital or in DC, those sorts of activities are not typically factored in or recognized during things like tenure track promotions. Or when a professor goes up for tenure, it's more the typical, publish or perish. What's your track record of publishing in high impact journals? What's your funding history look like? Those sorts of things are, s- typically rewarded and kinda baked into the structure of academia. And I think that what's needed is some structural change that incentivizes broader, not necessarily even prevention scientists, but like people in the HDFS department or people in psychology. I- in broader fields, there needs to be some sort of change that incentivizes and motivates them to engage in some of this work because as we're all academics. We all, it feels like, don't have any time to spare for anything outside of our work. So I think in order to have a larger change, there needs to be some sort of, structural change that will incentivize researchers. 

[00:17:54] Michael Donovan: Hi, Young. Any ideas on how to break out of this traditional framework of incentives and rigidity when we know that the challenges facing us as a species and societies are complex and spill over different systems? 

[00:18:10] Hayoung Donnelly : Yeah, that's good question. So I think similarly what Patrick said, but currently higher education like how we trained, like graduate program or PhD training curriculums are very focused on their one discipline. Like in classroom that you are assigned to read the articles that from, like your disciplines. So there are not many encouragement to faculty to include like diverse like articles or textbooks in their classroom. So I think that's why like students who are trained in higher education, when they become a researchers or the policymakers, they are just not familiar with what the concept of prevention science or what other disciplines are doing. So I guess that's one of the kind of things that we can work on more, that including the concept of prevention science or just encouraging faculty to include more information on other disciplines beyond the program they are, like foundation programs they are having in. I think it's good to have a foundation from one discipline, but still the opening the opportunities for trainees to be more exposed to different fields and prevention science, I think that would be helpful to have more prevention scientists in the future.

[00:19:39] Michael Donovan: Yeah, I love that. Having increasing exposure to try to broaden the aperture of what challenges we can try to address. That, that brings up an interesting point around research agendas and how they are formed and what opportunities we might have for further co-creating those agendas. We recognize that funders whether they be national governments or philanthropies or foundations or from corporate environments as well play certain roles in, in shaping research agendas. How can we better involve the lived experiences of those communities that we're looking to serve in these challenges, right? We're particularly thinking about prevention science, looking at the developmental stages in adolescence, for example. How do we authentically engage those in adolescence in that research agenda? And what does that do to strengthen the science? I don't know if you had any thoughts on that. Research agendas are, it's an expression of power, and it's an interesting it's an interesting topic.

[00:20:46] Patrick O'Neill: I can I can chime in. It's a little bit i- interesting and a difficult question for me to answer because while the outcome that I'm interested in is improving the lives of children and families through preventing child maltreatment or looking at substance use outcomes, the work that I do, really the population that I work with is not necessarily those families, it's more the policymakers themselves. And there's, I would say not a ton of co-creation in this space. Some of our messaging work in terms of reaching out to policymakers has been to understand w- you know, what sort of framing, what sort of communication methods do they engage with the most. And so it's not necessarily co- co-creating an intervention with the population of interest, but it is evaluating and understanding their behaviors and adjusting our methods as a result. So it's not co-creation in the sense that it's typically defined. But I would say that there is some sense of input from the population of interest in terms of some of that work. And then in some of our qualitative work again, not necessarily sitting down with a policymaker and saying, "Hey, this is the sort of intervention that we're implementing with your legislature," but we've been able to ask some more qualitative-focused questions on what do you need? What sort of research is helpful for you when crafting a policy, and that sort of thing. And, that's given us some insight into y- research that they're more likely to use research that's timely, that's relevant to their policy priorities. And so we can adjust our efforts as a result of that. And that's, again, co-creation, not. But I also feel like it's hard to truly, by the letter of the law by the definition of co-created research, it's difficult to follow that to a T with the population being, policymakers and public servants. 

[00:22:44] Michael Donovan: Sure. There are feedback loops that exist to strengthen the questions being asked and make them , more authentically connected to the community. But, it's different in every subfield, for sure. Hayoung, any ideas on this question? 

[00:22:58] Hayoung Donnelly : Yeah. I definitely agree what Patrick said. It's ideally we want to invite everyone, but realistically it could be hard. But I think as a researcher, we can be more responsible to build th-those collaboration. Like I found sometimes communities don't know , we have open doors to invite them or collab- not invite them, collaborate with them in our research. So I guess we more advertise ourselves that we are here, that traditionally it's more like one direction reach out. We as a researchers have a research questions, design the research, have a questionnaires, and reach out to community, and that's not really participatory community research. I think from the beginning shaping the questions with the community or let them reach out to us when they have a problems they wanna solve or that they have data but they don't know how to analyze to improve their programs. I think the more being available or being visible as a academic institute, I think that's important to develop our research agenda, especially for addressing the issues with vulnerable population or the child or adolescent. Hearing their voice from the when we are developing research, I think that would be helpful developing our research more sensitive way. 

[00:24:32] Michael Donovan: Yeah and something that you reminded me of that I wanted to discuss is, many of the population studied across the spectrum of prevention science could be characterized as vulnerable communities in certain respects individuals or communities. What part of your training and how do we really respond to this, , to studying and also trying to ameliorate the conditions for vulnerable communities? How do we do that ethically? How do we do that with the right amount of care? Of course, we have institutional review boards and we have data security plans, and we have all of the structures there. But from where you sit what are your roles in that?

[00:25:12] Patrick O'Neill: Again, I think I'll default to Hayoung there because while my work is trying to affect those vulnerable populations, it's not necessarily working directly with them.

[00:25:23] Hayoung Donnelly : So one of the more practically in my research setting is in addition to IRB process currently at Penn, we have a AI data governance. So you have to go through that process first before you go to IRB. So you have to submit their approval first if your research is involving AI, no matter whether that AI data is collected directly from patients or it's gonna affect the patients. It doesn't matter whether it's actually interact with the patients or not, you have to go through those process to make sure the AI design will be as much as we can. So that's one of the thing practically I found helpful for build the research, especially because my population is highly vulnerable. Also suicide risk is one of very sensitive topics when you do research. So even from the screening part, sometimes as a researcher you can be tempted to have a more participant in your research because always number of participants have more kind of , credential of your data and research as a research paper. But as a researchers, make sure that you're strictly , doing screening or recruiting participant that are not gonna be negatively affect from your research. Yes, I want to help the people with suicide risk, but I don't want my participants put under risk by participating my research. So I guess from the screening part and throughout the research process, having those safeguard, not because we have to do because of the IRB, but because we genuinely care. So I think that's very important, minimizing my ego to do the large number of research versus to make sure that vulnerable populations are actually safe. 

[00:27:27] Michael Donovan: Absolutely. That's the ultimate check on, speed and the challenges that, there are real lives at stake here and the mission of this work is to improve outcomes. We have to think about safeguarding, as you mentioned their data, their rights, their conditions. You brought up another idea there that was interesting as well to think about as you both have gone through your trajectories in your training and continue in your training. Especially considering the really acutely dynamic conditions of artificial intelligence and adjacent technologies that are so rapidly changing what kind of changes would you like to see in early researcher training or researcher training writ large? What should the next generation of prevention scientists really be, be taking in augmented from your own or the same? It's such a dynamic environment and we're seeing other challenges that we need to rapidly address. I just wonder if you have any thoughts on what the next generation will have to take on. 

[00:28:29] Patrick O'Neill: Yeah, I think at least from like a student perspective, I would say don't be closed off to opportunities and experiences outside of your direct field. Like I mentioned as coming from a clinical psych background, certainly if I had said, "Oh, this policymaking internship or whatnot, it's not really, it's not clinical focused. I wanna go do my clinical psych PhD and whatnot," maybe not a good fit for me. If I had closed myself off to that avenue artificially, I wouldn't be here doing the research that I am and be where I am today. So I would say, I would encourage, students and early career researchers to be open to ideas and opportunities outside of your direct field, as we've talked about throughout this whole podcast, that the field or the intersection of prevention science is really interdisciplinary. And I'm also encouraged by seeing more and more explicitly defined prevention science graduate programs pop up. I know when I was applying for PhD programs the last cycle around or the last time I applied around, so it was like 2022 into 2023 I believe it was I believe at the time there was maybe five or six prevention science PhD programs across the country, and there's more and more popping up, master's programs as well. And so it's encouraging to see the more defined prevention science work pop up that is interdisciplinary. So I'd say, explore those avenues and don't be closed off to things outside of your field.

[00:30:02] Michael Donovan: I love that. I think ultimately a core facet of prevention science is curiosity around different approaches or methods all trying to be action-oriented towards improving outcomes for those at risk. Hayoung, any thoughts on maybe the next generation and any particular ways to position them in the best way possible?

[00:30:25] Hayoung Donnelly : Yeah. I love that you brought up the programs that labeled and the focus on prevention science, and that definitely helped to make more prevention scientists , who are more feel comfortable to define who they are and then explore different topics. Another thing I can think of is, Like older generation sometimes are more like negative or like skeptical about like using AI in the classroom. But I think it's not possible to not use, to ask to not use AI to students, especially when they are like grow up with them. I think one of the thing that I found really interesting I hear somewhere is like when Google pop become popular or when Wikipedia is out there, like the previous generation was like, "No, that's not really studying. That's not really l- learning anything." But now, like using Google or like searching articles rather than library, like searching articles in the Google Scholar is common thing. Nobody really argue with that. So I don't know where it's gonna, we are gonna go with the AI thing. I'm not saying like it's totally okay to use AI for your learning process. But I think more open-minding like older generation or faculty can be more open-minded with that. That creates more like honest conversation with students what they are actually using or what's even they can have concerns like, "Oh, if I use it, am I gonna have a, like penalty from my like grading or stuffs?" So I think that would be the way we can help, like future generation still learning but the way that fits for their actual real-life settings. And I found many university are trying to figure out the policy on grading or AI use in their research and, teachings or like assignment. But currently it seems that because we, this is new to everyone each faculty is more charge of developing their syllabus and developing their policy under the broader policy of the university. And that confuse students, younger generation that, "Oh, this professor want this. That professor want this." Like it's like they are very confused. So I think it's important to we don't need to rush because that may not helpful but like definitely aware the needs of building the common like agree of what the policy we wanna share with the students so that they can feel comfortable to use but also within the boundary that is safe for them, also still provide them opportunity to learn.

[00:33:18] Michael Donovan: Yeah, as every new technology, there have been laggards and pioneers, and we're very much at a really r-remarkable inflection moment about how the academy responds to these novel technologies and how they're developed, but also o-opportunities around informing the design of prevention interventions that could be supported via AI coaching or momentary assessments leveraged by AI. So there's lots of opportunity as well at the same time of consternation. That's always gonna be the reality. And the Google example is a really good one how that has changed over time. So what I'm hearing really is, as with academia being such a complex system that is really defined by specialization providing space and providing a home for those who are interested in really interdisciplinary approaches to attacking variety of ills, whether they be social, behavioral psychological, biological and r-really trying to lean into it with a pragmatic and practical approach. I think that really is the key to what prevention science is. And recognizing that our inter-interconnected systems are complex, and they require complex solutions. I think that's really key to it. So I wanna, think about what kind of advice you would give to someone who might be really catalyzed by that notion or that idea. What would you say to your former self a few years earlier , in your trajectory? 

[00:34:54] Patrick O'Neill: I think I would definitely say don't be afraid to think or work outside the box in terms of how you can have an impact. Because for the early stages it was all about, especially before applying to grad school, as much research experience as I can. At that stage obviously I wasn't necessarily publishing research papers, but getting, as much kind of notes on the paper or, lines on the CV for, to demonstrate, oh, my, I'm having an impact. But I would say think more about not necessarily unconventional, but just think about different ways that you can have an impact and ways that your work can have an impact outside of the traditional structures of academia of, publishing in high impact journals and presenting at conferences. And that kind of, ties back to what I was saying earlier about some of the structural changes in academia to incentivize people to engage in this sort of outside of academia work almost. So definitely say look at other avenues of impact as well, not just the traditional routes of, what my H-index is or how many people cited my articles and as an indicator of doing worthwhile work. Kind of that shift in mindset.

[00:36:08] Hayoung Donnelly : I would definitely say you don't need to rush to define who you are. When I was the same. Many students I found that when someone asks, "Oh, what you're interested, what your research is" or they like hesitate to say because it define who they are forever, but it's not. You always can change your interest. You always can define yourself differently. So I would say that you don't need to be rush, and also find the people who are having similar journey. It doesn't have to be stick with your discipline, but someone ha- define themself as a provisional scientist or interdisciplinary researchers, they can inspire you how to navigate your path and how to define yourself as a professional. When I started my PhD program, so I was in the human development program, but there were different faculties with different backgrounds of their training. And one of the, my mentor currently Dr. John Jaffe in Northeastern University, he-- I ask him like, "Oh," because he is psychologist or a clinical psychologist, developmental psychologist, but also very quantitative person. So I ask him like, "Oh, how would you define yourself?" And then he says, "Oh, it was actually take a time, and I now define myself as a psychological scientist." So okay, yeah, that's one kind of way that you can define who you are. And then you can add more about details of what your research is. But I think having someone like mentors or like colleagues or the peers that have a same thought or had the same thought would be good to be supportive emotionally, but also practically help you to brainstorming of who you are as a future professional. 

[00:38:14] Michael Donovan: Yeah I love that. I think that keeping the door open to growth is something we are increasingly open to in, as a society, whereas I think perhaps a, an older guard of the academy was a little more rigid in that respect. And ultimately professional definitions and in what place we, we put ourselves, they're, heuristics to simplify the complexity of one's portfolio of work. And, we have lots of interests and lots of methods to employ to get at challenging questions. What might be on the horizon for each of you in terms of your intellectual interests your professional interests? What could you forecast or, hope to forecast the body of some of your work in the next few years?

[00:39:06] Patrick O'Neill: So I'm I just finished my third year of my program. And so the next two, last two years of my program here at Penn State, I'll be working within the Child Maltreatment Solution Network's T32 training grant program, where I'll be able to do, in f- for my dissertation work, I'll be able to do an evaluation of one of our research translation models for working with policymakers called the Science Communication Optimizer for Policy Engagement, or the S- the SCOPE model. So I'll do an evaluation of that model with regards to child maltreatment policy. Really, like I mentioned earlier, narrowing in on my specific area of focus that I'd like to ex- work on more in the future. So thankfully, I'll be able to do some of that work as the core dissertation work over the next few years. So very excited to, to do that. And then beyond that obviously I'd love to stay in this same research policy space. But, who knows what'll happen when I hit the job market, where I'll end up. But I'd love to, to, in some way, shape, or form, stay in this science policy area. 

[00:40:13] Hayoung Donnelly : So more intellectually, like research-wise I have to confess that implementation science was new to me, like a year or two years before. And it was fascinating because we always talk about im- application or implementation in some way, but I didn't know there are full like area or discipline or science field that are committed to that. So I know Michael do those work, Evidence to Impact Collaborative work is all about it. So I want to learn more about implementation science, not by pursuing the degree on it. It's more like collaborating with other implementation scientists so that I can deliver more what I found or what I develop is actually implementable to the real-life settings. And personally, I will be transitioning to UT Austin as a faculty from this summer, so that's really exciting for me that I can invite students for my lab and help them to develop their own identity as a professional and also encourage them to explore different disciplines. So yeah, that's one thing very excited for me. And one other thing was one reason I really like, like about SPR, Society for Prevention Research, is actually the name of it because many of the D psychology, D education, D social work, those like conference or associations start with American Association blah, blah, blah. And they didn't started to be the w- the biggest association, but they started within the American settings, but it becomes the, like international conference or international association. So I don't know the name really affects that, but like for me, who grew up in Korea, when I was in master program in Korea, I didn't like could go American Association for something. Like I thought that's for American community. So what I like about SPR is they name their big branch as a SPR, Society for Prevention Research, but they have a European SPR there, but Asian SPR. So I want to more involve in Asian SPR so that the more prevention scientists in different like part of the world can be trained well and then also exposed to the prevention science. So that's one of thing take a while, but like I wanna contribute to that in the future.

[00:42:57] Michael Donovan: Excellent. Yeah the large tent approach of prevention science can make it challenging to define sometimes and make it obtuse to some, but ultimately it's a strength. I wanted to give both of you the opportunity for any final comments that we haven't touched on that you'd like to, to reference or bring up to conversation

[00:43:22] Patrick O'Neill: I don't think I have anything else to to add. I know it's a hard time for science in general right now, so any time, any chance to even get to talk about the science almost feels rejuvenating. Especially as Hyaong mentioned, the Society for Prevention Research our annual conference was two weeks ago. And that was another great opportunity and reminder to to be reminded that it, we're not alone in this almost fight for our work. So it's nice to be reminded that there's people out there that, that care about the science, that want to have these sorts of conversations a- and whatnot. And yeah, just as a thank you for having us on today as well, Michael 

[00:44:05] Hayoung Donnelly : Yeah, same. Michael, I have actually one question, , How would you define prevention science, and then what make you really want to be involved in prevention? Patrick and I had to think many audience also interested to know your perspective and your journey and how that ends up to be prevention science.

[00:44:26] Michael Donovan: Sure. Yeah I really have attached to this field because of the pragmatic nature as I have, I've already hinted at a little bit there that we're really trying to address challenges that are affecting people's lives today and tomorrow and this, it's really expansive in its scope. That's what I love about the field of prevention science that we can address challenges in different ways, at different levels, at different universal to secondary to tertiary. We can go to various levels and domains. So it's almost the broadness of the field I find to be such a strength. And that's really orients me because I have really tried to orient my work towards impacting human lives as much as possible. And that does not mean that there's any any way that I'm detracting from basic research that, that may not have an application today. But the applied work, I think is really what gets me out of bed every morning and recognize that we have populations that are vulnerable in particular for a variety of reasons, structural often, and we need to recognize that we have a responsibility to support in different ways. I love the complexity of it, but also the fact that there's some universal trends towards it in many ways. Yeah, but that's what gets me excited and I really appreciate Pat also, orienting it towards the fact that this work does matter that there are huge constituencies of human beings that their daily lives are improved every day as a result of this hybrid and action-oriented field. And that, the dust will settle and the science will come back as best we can. But ultimately, we have to , keep thinking about the populations that we're trying to improve their outcomes. With that, I will bring this rich conversation to a close. We will be sure to include resources and, links to any of the topics discussed that our discussants would provide us with and their own academic work that we can link to for further insights to our audience. And also of course links to both of our guest organizations and the broader kind of community that they are a part of for those who would like a little further depth. But I really would love to thank my guests today for the really rich conversation. So again, I wanna thank my guests for such a rich conversation today. I was joined by Patrick O'Neill, doctoral candidate at Penn State's HDFS program, that's the Human Development and Family Studies program, and Hayoung Donnelly, post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. And again, Hayoung congratulations on your new posting as well. Very exciting at UT Austin. Thank you, thank you both so much for your time today, and we look forward to getting this out in the world. 

[00:47:20] Patrick O'Neill: Thank you for having us. 

[00:47:21] Hayoung Donnelly : Thank you