Category: YAE news

Interview with Prof. Renaud Jolivet, awardee of the André Mischke YAE Prize for Science and Policy in 2023

In 2023, at the Annual General Meeting of the Young Academy of Europe (YAE) and the joint YAE and Academia Europaea Building Bridges Conference in Munich, YAE awarded the André Mischke YAE Prize for Science and Policy to Professor Renaud Jolivet from Maastricht University. The laudatio of the awardee and his talk can be viewed here (from 03:17:04), as well as on our homepage. On this occasion, Katalin Solymosi, the Chair of the YAE interviewed the awardee about his scientific and science policy related activities, goals, and visions.

Katalin Solymosi: First, I would like to congratulate you Renaud for the Prize, which was named after the first Chair of the YAE, the late André Mischke, and which is relatively unique in its aim to recognize researchers who are excelling both in science and in science-policy at an international level. In this interview we will hear a little bit about how you came to work in science-policy, and some of your ambitions for science-policy.

Renaud Jolivet: Thank you, Katalin, for this opportunity.

K.S.: As a first question, could you describe your background? How did you come to be a researcher and which twists and turns took you to this point in your career?

R.J.: I grew up in Switzerland, and studied physics first, then neuroscience. After that, I did almost a decade of postdocs in Switzerland and in the UK with research stays in Japan, before landing my first faculty job back in Switzerland. After almost 6 years in Switzerland, I had two offers to move abroad again, and moved to Maastricht University, where I am currently Full Professor and Chair of Neural Engineering & Computation.

I cannot remember how or when I decided to become a researcher. I am a first generation academic. No one around me had gone to university or knew how to become a researcher. It was thus not the most obvious path, but I was an avid reader of science fiction, and then later of popular science books, and so it seemed natural to me at an early age to want to become a physicist. I also grew up close to CERN, which at that time organized regular science outreach evening lectures, and my parents drove me there on several occasions. By chance, higher education is easily accessible in Switzerland.

K.S.: You gave an excellent and inspiring talk at the Building Bridges Conference about your research related to the neuronal network in the brain. How did you choose neurobiology as your main topic? 

R.J.: I did not. I wanted to work at the interface between physics and biology, and accidentally fell into neuroscience. 

K.S.: What are the most important scientific questions you have worked with or intend to work with in the future? 

R.J.: For me there is today one central question in neuroscience, what is the role in physiology and pathophysiology of non-neuronal cells? We probably have a decent understanding of how neurons operate and communicate. By contrast, we know far less about non-neuronal cells, despite mounting evidence that they are crucial for understanding the brain. I am convinced that this is the great question of our time in neuroscience. There is also an interesting link to AI here, as we know what the brain is capable of, but we fail to understand how neurons and non-neuronal cells contribute together to learning and cognition. I think that if one would at least partially solve that conundrum, this could lead to better performing AI systems, which for now mostly mimic the brain as a big neural network. This and other related questions form a relatively new subfield that is called NeuroAI.

K. S.: If you had all the money, instrumentation, and staff necessary to do it – which scientific question would you try to answer first?

R. J.: If I had all the money and resources in the world, I would create in Europe a large research center at this interface between neuroscience and AI, which would embrace the brain in all its complexity rather than seeing it merely as a big neural network. I personally believe that it is unavoidable for the field to move into this direction, and I am concerned that Europe is not being more proactive about this, while our competitors in North America and China have already taken steps towards such initiatives. I have been calling for the creation of such a center in various fora, so far without success, but these things never happen overnight.

K.S.: I hope that your voice will be heard! Now, let’s move from pure science to science-policy. What was your major motivation to become involved in science policy? What is your experience in this field?

R.J.: As a first-generation academic, I promised myself as a postdoc that if I ever made it to a faculty position, I would invest some of my time mentoring early-career researchers. This was driven by the realization that being a first-generation academic comes with its own set of struggles and challenges if no one helps you navigate the unwritten rules of academia, which was the case for me. Because of this, I got involved ten years ago in the Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA) and have been mentoring ECRs over the last 5 years. Then, however, this parallel career took on a life of its own. I went on to serve in the board of MCAA, in the board of the Initiative for Science in Europe (ISE), and later was appointed by ISE, MCAA and other like-minded organizations to represent individual researchers and innovators in the European Commission’s European Research Area (ERA) Forum. Finally, I was appointed very recently as a Fellow of the International Science Council, and I am looking forward to continuing this parallel career at the international level.

K.S.: It was a nice thought and motivation from you to want to help the next generation of researchers. I know how much work it is to be involved in the above organizations, and that it comes with various types of activities or streams of work. What do you consider to be your most important achievement in science policy?

R.J.: There are two achievements that I consider important. First, MCAA started a mentoring program. I played a small part in that, as this was a proposal that Marco Masia and myself put forward already in 2017, and it took a few years to concretize. Second, our organization’s being invited to send a representative to the ERA Forum was the result of a lot of work by numerous people over the years, and I am proud to have contributed a small part to this. The ERA Forum matters, because it is today the high table where the European Commission, the Member States, and stakeholders, shape the future of European science.

K.S.: If you could reform one thing in the academic landscape – where would you start? What is the most challenging issue?

R.J.: There are many areas where academia obviously needs reforming. A lot of excellent work is currently done in Europe within the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). There is one area that I see less often discussed however, and I’d like to focus on that here. In my work at the ERA Forum, I have come to realize that I am probably the only active scientist around the table, and among the few attendees who have actual research experience. This is not to be construed as a criticism of my colleagues within the Forum, who really have at heart to do what’s best for Europe, and bring to the table expertise that few scientists, if any, have. I do feel, however, that we lack in Europe better integration between scientists and the government level. By contrast, I think that this is done relatively well in North America, with big scientific institutions such as the National Institute of Health (NIH), where the Director might be called to report directly to the White House. Institutions such as the NIH, led by scientists, really cross the divide between performing science, funding science, and shaping science policy. I don’t believe that we have anything similar at the EU level, and I really think we should.

K.S.: As someone working as a professor and an independent PI and also involved in so many science policy related activities, I am really curious to know how you manage a work-life balance…

R.J.: Now, my work-life balance is quite good, even though I do very many different things in parallel (teaching, leading a research group, participating in some of the management tasks of our department and faculty, service and committee work in my research community, and service and committee work in science policy). This was not always the case, however. As a postdoc, I struggled to take a break from my work. I am afraid this is inherent to that career stage in very competitive fields like mine. I am not quite sure how that can be changed if many more people enter postdoctoral careers than available junior faculty positions. In that sense, tenure does make your life easier.

K.S.: Do you have any tips you could share with your peers or postdocs struggling with work-life balance and time management?

R.J.: I have a few tips, or rather a system. As academics, we are increasingly asked to take on more and more diverse tasks. In my opinion, not all are necessary however, and if you are a group leader, you can probably delegate a lot of them to your team. Obviously, you need to pay attention to your team members’ workload and career progression, and not overload them with work that does not benefit their career. My system is as follows. First, I am trying to develop the instinct to say no to as many requests as possible. Second, I ask myself whether someone in my team can do that task and learn something from it, in which case I delegate that task to them. Third, I aggressively manage my time. I keep track of where my time goes every day in a big spreadsheet, and I regularly review the aggregated time I have spent on various tasks, and how it compares to what I get out of them. This last point is essential in my opinion, as otherwise you run the risk of losing lots of time in unproductive or unnecessary tasks. This has also helped me develop a sense for when you have spent enough time on a task so that it is done well, although maybe not perfectly. Lastly, I have learned that certain things happen on their own time, no matter how much you would like them to go faster, and sometimes you can only wait.

K.S.: Thank you very much, Renaud, for the interview, and on behalf of the YAE we wish you all the best for your scientific and science policy related activities.

Later a longer, podcast version of this interview has been also recorded and published on our YouTube channel. For more details see here or on the link below. The European Review paper by Prof. Jolivet summarizing his award talk and antitled “Lessons from a First Decade in European Science Policy” is freely available at the following link.