Soapbox Science 2026

Soapbox: Did you choose a scientific career or did the scientific career choose you? Can you tell us about your journey into the world of science and what inspired you to pursue your particular field?

Ioanna Garefalaki: I definitely chose my career. It was not a straight line to where I am now, but I always knew I wanted to be a Biologist. I had a lot of opportunities to do something else, and I always returned to study life. What inspired me to work on Evolutionary Epigenetics is that it adds an extra layer to the already established field of Evolutionary Genetics and goes beyond the fixed code of DNA. We have Genetics that studies the “recipe” of life and Epigenetics that explains how the “recipe” is actually read. It adds an extra layer that connects the DNA to the physical traits that make life forms so remarkable.

Soapbox: During your journey as a scientist, what challenges have you encountered along the way? And if you had the power to alter one (or more) aspect(s) of the scientific culture, what would you change and why?

Ioanna: I’ve struggled with something I know many of my colleagues feel: the blurred line between performance and identity. A lot of times I felt that if I wasn’t the best at something, I didn’t “belong” or wasn’t “made for it” – which is not true at all. We study science because we’re driven by curiosity, motivation and joy. Especially now with AI I have been thinking about questions like “If a machine can write better code than me, then who am I?” The answer is that we are more than our output.

I would like to change the business model of science if I could. The current way science works is based on limited resources and strong competitive pressure. I would like to move away from the “Publish or Perish” nightmare, towards a system relied on long term discovery. Take for example SpaceX’s returnable rockets: that innovation only succeeded because the company could afford to take huge risks, failures and building knowledge on top of those. In science today, the culture of scarcity and hypercompetition makes failure feel like an ending rather than a lesson. We need a system that funds the explorer’s curiosity, not just the safest bet.

Soapbox: What attracted you to Soapbox Science in the first place? Sum up your expectation of the Soapbox Event in three words.

Ioanna: Excitement, curiosity and connection.

Soapbox: What role do you believe science communication plays in bridging the gap between researchers and the general public?

Ioanna: Think of science communication as the secret ingredient in a recipe. It’s a “Galaktomatopoiitis” in Greek, which means emulsifier – an ingredient that binds oil and water together (which they never mix on their own). Science communication has a foot in both worlds: the raw, complex data of the lab and the everyday lives of people. It blends them, creating a smooth connection where there used to be a gap.

Soapbox: What misconceptions do you think people often have about scientists, and how do you aim to change those perceptions?

Ioanna: I want to kill the myth that scientists are these cold, perfect figures. We aren’t machines! We’re basically just professional children – adults who kept that sense of wonder about the world. My goal is to use my personal experiences to show that science is a human journey, filled with mistakes and passion, and not a place for “inhumanly” smart people.

Soapbox: How do you think diversity and inclusion in the scientific community contribute to innovation and progress?

Ioanna: I think that if we want better science, we have to change the environment of our labs to be as diverse as the world we are trying to study. No two brains are identical. Our unique biology and life experiences shape how we see the world and thus, how we interpret and approach problems. This means we have multiple perspectives for the same question and a higher probability to get a solution. If we only include people from similar backgrounds, we are just looping on the same ideas.

Also, when the scientific community has no diversity and does not value inclusion, then particular questions may never be asked. I do not believe that an organization that excludes minorities from its hiring practices would genuinely invest in studying or understanding those same groups. For example, females are 20% more likely to be killed and 70% more likely to be seriously injured in car crashes than males because historically the crash testing used male bodies as test dummies. Studies show that the most excellent research happens at the common ground of diverse experiences and perspectives, and in environments which value and promote diversity.

Soapbox: What advice would you give to someone interested in pursuing a career in science, particularly young women who may be hesitant to enter the field?

Ioanna: Go for it! Don’t let the inequality scare you – because if not you, then who?

Soapbox: What is your day-to-day scientific-superpower and how does it help you with your work?

Ioanna: I want to say the constant sense of wonder I have, but my superpower is visual illustration, actually. Taking something very complex and simplifying it through drawing. All my undergraduate notebooks are filled with hand-drawn sketches of everything from signaling cascades to animal anatomy. I’ve realized that if I can draw it, I truly understand it.

Soapbox: Do you have any fascinating do-it-at-home experiments, books, podcasts, or talks that you’d suggest for a good laugh or some interesting insights?

Ioanna: I love the YouTube channel of @SamONellaAcademy. Top tier science communication with funny sketches. Just check “Top 10 Worst Animal Skeletons”! I also like the blog and book called “WTF, Evolution” which catalogs weird natural selection’s critters as if evolution was a slightly unhinged person making them.