Natascha Bushati

What sparked your interest in science? And what kept you curious throughout your research career?

What drew me to science was my love for analytical thinking. In my career path, I moved from chemistry to cell and developmental biology, progressing through model organisms—from C. elegans to Drosophila to chick embryos. I was fascinated by how cells function, how they form organisms, and what goes wrong in disease. Curiosity is what kept me going. During my PhD, someone once called me ‘easily bored’—I didn’t understand where they came from at first. But now, looking back, I think there's truth to that. I enjoy learning about new topics, which eventually led me from the lab to editorial work, where things move quickly and you’re exposed to a wide range of science.

What were your early experiences in scientific publishing like, and what did you enjoy about the work?

My first editorial job was at EMBO Molecular Medicine, where the papers had a clear medical focus. After that, I joined Nature Communications when it was still a young journal—only seven or eight of us were handling all the biology papers. It was a lot, but also super exciting. I loved being able to use my analytical skills to dive into other people’s work and determine whether it was a good fit for the journal. Thinking critically about a wide range of research was something I really enjoyed. It was also the early days of a new service, the ‘manuscript consultation’ system: editors would communicate across journals to provide scientists with alternative options when their papers were rejected. Helping to shape this system—and building relationships with editors at other journals along the way—was both exciting and deeply rewarding. After a year at Nature Communications, I moved to Nature Cell Biology, which was my dream role at the time.

What was your experience like at the IMP, and how did it shape your path moving forward?

I was in Michael Glotzer’s lab at the IMP for a year, working on cytokinesis in C. elegans. We shared space with Jürgen Knoblich’s group—both labs were still rather junior, so there was this exciting, fresh energy. What really stood out to me was the international atmosphere and how open and supportive everyone was. Even though I came in with little biology background, I was given my own project and treated like any other scientist in the lab.

I still remember the IMP recess—those few days when the whole of the institute came together. The energy was incredible. As a young, inexperienced diploma student, I didn’t understand most of the talks, but I knew I wanted more of that environment. That experience is part of what made me decide to go for a PhD. The IMP didn’t take me as a PhD student, but I got a position at EMBL in Heidelberg—where Michael had done his postdoc. I probably wouldn’t have ended up there without my time at the IMP. That time taught me to take on challenges, even when I felt unprepared. It was the first time I dove into something completely new and made it work—and that mindset stayed with me throughout my career. Later on during my PhD, I even got to collaborate with Jürgen Knoblich, and we published a paper together, which was a nice full-circle moment.

How did the transition from research to publishing come about, and was there anything surprising about that shift?

During my PhD on microRNAs in Drosophila, I started realising that a long-term academic career might not be for me. I enjoyed learning about different topics and wanted more variety than what a PI path typically allows. Then my supervisor, Stephen Cohen, suggested that I consider editorial work. At first, I was completely intimidated—editing seemed like something only experts could do, and I wasn’t a native English speaker. But the idea stuck with me. During my postdoc in London at the National Institute for Medical Research, now part of the Francis Crick Institute, I worked on something new again—neural tube development in chick embryos, collaborating with mathematicians. But I soon found myself once more questioning whether I wanted to keep doing lab work.

I loved learning, reading, and thinking critically about science, so I decided to apply for a maternity cover position at EMBO Molecular Medicine. The great thing was I could pause my fellowship to try it out, which made the leap feel less risky.

Which challenges did you face stepping into your first editorial role, and how did you grow from that experience?

That first editorial role came with a steep learning curve. There were just two of us, both new and covering for maternity leaves, but we had good support. One of the biggest adjustments from academia was learning to make decisions quickly—knowing when I'd thought enough about a paper to make a call, and moving on. I also had to learn to say no, a lot, and not feel terrible about it. I tried to soften the blow by responding quickly and avoiding sending rejections on Fridays—small things, but they mattered to me. At EMBO, there was a strong emphasis on giving authors clear reasons for rejection. That was challenging as a new editor—writing precise, respectful letters and being prepared to stand by my decisions but also open to reconsidering if I had missed something. Sometimes scientists wanted to talk on the phone, and having those conversations, especially with senior scientists, was nerve-wracking at first. But I grew a lot from it, both professionally and personally—learning to be more diplomatic and open to other perspectives.

As a freelance editor, what are some common challenges scientists face when trying to communicate their research effectively?

One of the biggest challenges scientists face is making their work accessible—especially to people outside their immediate field. It’s easy to get lost in the details and lose sight of the big picture. Researchers often tell me, ‘I think I’ve got tunnel vision—can you take a fresh look?’ That’s especially important when aiming for high-impact or multidisciplinary journals, where clarity for a broader audience is key. We also help researchers understand how editors think. This is something I only learned once I worked in publishing. Editors aren’t just looking at the science—they’re assessing whether a paper fits the journal’s scope and the level of conceptual advance. Some journals are very broad and want big-picture, cross-field relevance; others are more niche. Scientists often miss the chance to present their work in a way that lets editors quickly see the value and novelty, and that’s where we come in.

With grants, it’s a different challenge. There’s often no fixed structure, and you need to clearly explain the knowledge gap you’re addressing, why it matters, and how your proposal fills that gap. And since reviewers are usually overworked and short on time, your job is to make things as clear and easy to grasp as possible.

But essentially the goal is communication. At Life Science Editors we like to think of the peer review process as a conversation that helps science progress, rather than just a series of hurdles to clear, such as ‘getting past the editor’ or ‘getting past reviewers’.

What kind of advice would you give to early career scientists that are curious about other paths outside of the bench?

Explore as much as you can—talk to people in different careers, try internships, and take advantage of any opportunities that come your way. If you’re just about to complete your PhD, you’ve got nearly 40 years of career ahead of you, so there’s no rush to figure everything out right away. And you can always change your mind. Some editors go back to the bench—I even kept my fellowship open in case I wanted to return. So don’t let anyone tell you that your first decision has to be final. Also, don’t try to plan everything too rigidly—life happens. I still have about 20 years of career ahead of me, and I keep discovering new interests. For example, I returned to Nature Communications from Nature Cell Biology to take on a management role without any prior experience. The company supported me with a management program, and I realised how much I love mentoring, building teams, and helping others grow. So really—stay curious, stay open, and say yes to opportunities when they come.