GIGA 2023 ANNUAL REPORT
Editor Brigitte Malgrange Graphic design Aurélie Gouverneur Pictures ©Geoffrey Meuli - Photography & Images Shutterstock ULiège GIGA
2023 annual report 1
2023 annual report 2 2023 annual report 3 Edito Didier Mattivi, RISE A new chapter at GIGA: embracing change and upholding excellence The GIGA represents a remarkable story of ambition, achievement, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Established twenty years ago, the GIGA has not only been at the forefront of scientific discovery within the life sciences but has also set a precedent for interdisciplinary work, bringing together over 600 researchers across diverse scientific fields and housing state-of-the-art technological platforms. This pioneering spirit of interdisciplinarity is what sets GIGA apart, fostering a unique environment where innovative ideas and approaches flourish. As GIGA stands on the brink of a new era, ushering in a change in leadership, the institution faces a series of challenges and opportunities. The departure of Michel Georges, its former director, a figure of notable brilliance, marks a significant transition. The focus on the sustainability of its technological platforms, structural reorganization, the new start of its doctoral school, and the valorization of research findings are pivotal in this next phase. From the perspective of someone who has closely collaborated with GIGA, albeit from the outside, it’s evident that the institute is not merely navigating a change in leadership but is evolving. The commitment to ensuring the continuity and enhancement of its technological platforms underscores GIGA’s dedication to maintaining its edge in research infrastructure. Structural reorganization is aimed at nurturing a more dynamic, collaborative environment that promotes cross-disciplinary innovation. The evolution of its doctoral school is particularly noticeable. It signals GIGA’s commitment to educating and nurturing the next generation of scientists, underscoring the importance of interdisciplinary learning and research. Furthermore, the focus on the valorization of research outcomes highlights GIGA’s drive to ensure that scientific discoveries translate into tangible societal benefits. Looking ahead, the path is set with challenges, but the potential for groundbreaking discoveries and advancements in the life sciences is immense. The collective efforts of GIGA’s talented researchers, dedicated staff, and visionary leadership will undoubtedly continue to push the boundaries of what is possible. GIGA’s tradition of excellence and its pioneering approach to interdisciplinary research are what make it a standout institution, poised to make even greater contributions to science and society in the years to come. As the Director of RISE, I am committed to providing unwavering support from both myself and my team as we embark on a collaborative journey with GIGA. Together, we aim to showcase the exceptional quality of research at ULiege, bringing it to the forefront of academic excellence in the coming years. Didier Mattivi "Looking ahead, the path is set with challenges, but the potential for groundbreaking discoveries and advancements in the life sciences is immense. The collective efforts of GIGA’s talented researchers, dedicated staff, and visionary leadership will undoubtedly continue to push the boundaries of what is possible".
2023 annual report 4 2023 annual report 5 DIRECTION New On December 21, Michel Georges, Director of GIGA for the past 8 years, passed the torch to Brigitte Malgrange, Vice-Director, who thus becomes General Director, surrounded by a management team comprising Laurent Nguyen, Scientific Director, Clio Ribbens, Medical Director and Sandrina Evrard, Administrative Director. VISION New In 2023, GIGA celebrates two decades of existence, marked by its emergence as key pillar of biomedical research within the University of Liège. With a thriving community of 600 members and benefiting from cutting-edge technological platforms, GIGA can also relies on a robust administrative system. At the same time, the GIGA innovates by creating IT solutions aimed at simplifying the daily lives of researchers. GIGA aims to contribute significantly to improving human and animal health by conducting innovative research, developing effective treatments and generating valuable scientific knowledge in the biomedical field. Many challenges still remain, including funding, massive data management, ethics and regulation, clinical translation, industrial translation, interdisciplinary collaboration, public awereness and communication. 5 domains The new management team of the GIGA has decided together with the GIGA Pi community to reshape the GIGA Institute scientific structure by replacing the existing 10 thematic units by 5 research domains to foster collaboration between researchers working on similar themes: - Cancer - Neuroscience - Immunobiology - Metabolism & Cardiovascular Biology - Molecular & Computational Biology Structure Left to right : Clio Ribbens, Laurent Nguyen, Brigitte Malgrange, Sandrina Evrard
research 6 research 7 STRUCTURE New Cancer Neuroscience Immunobiology Metabolism & Cardiovascular Biology Molecular & Computational Biology 5 domains GIGA PIS BY DOMAIN * = Administrators of the domaine CANCER Akeila Bellahcène Arnaud Blomme* Vincent Bours Didier Cataldo Alain Chariot Pierre Close Alain Colige Christophe Deroanne Christine Gilles Michael Herfs* Stéphanie Herkenne Pascale Hubert Guy Jérusalem Claire Josse Erik Maquoi Denis Mottet Carine Munaut Agnès Noel Marie-Julie Nokin Christel Péqueux Olivier Peulen Francesca Rapino Nor Eddine Sounni Ingrid Struman* Marianne Voz Luc Willems NEUROSCIENCE Julie Bakker* Christine Bastin Lucien Bettendorff Vincent Bonhomme* Fabienne Collette Charlotte Cornil Laurence Delacroix Athena Demertzi Dominique Engel Ira Mercedes Espuny Camacho Rachelle Franzen Gaetan Garraux Olivia Gosseries Sophie Laguesse Jean-Marc Lassance Didier Ledoux Brigitte Malgrange Pierre Maquet Virginie Neirinckx Laurent Nguyen Anne-Simone Parent Christophe Phillips Bernard Rogister Christina Schmidt Vincent Seutin Aurore Thibaut Renaud Vandenbosch Gilles Vandewalle* Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse
research 8 research 9 IMMUNOBIOLOGY Frédéric Baron Fabrice Bureau Jo Caers Dominique de Seny Emmanuel Dejardin Christophe Desmet* Grégory Ehx* Nathalie Esser Julien Guiot Nathalie Jacobs Marielle Lebrun Sylvie Legrand Edouard Louis Renaud Louis Thomas Marichal* Marie-Alice Meuwis Catherine Moermans Clio Ribbens Catherine Sadzot METABOLISM & CARDIOVASCULAR BIOLOGY Jean-Olivier Defraigne Olivier Detry François Jouret Patrizio Lancellotti* Patricia Lassaux Cécile Oury Natzi Sakalihasan MOLECULAR & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Vincent Bours Carole Charlier Franck Dequiedt* Thomas Desaive Tom Druet Thibault Gendron Michel Georges Liesbet Geris* Julien Hanson* Philippe Morimont Bernard Peers Souad Rahmouni Stephane Schurmans Alain Seret Haruko Takeda Jean-Claude Twizere Anne Van den Broeke Kristel Van Steen Nadia Withofs
research 10 research 11 tigators (PIs) and ~500 members under the directorship of Jacques Piette and Catherine Sadzot: one of the largest real (as opposed to virtual) research centers devoted to the health sciences in Belgium. As a consequence, our actions would inevitably be of consolidation rather than creation. Ambition. Our (i.e. Brigitte and I) priority at the time was to promote GIGA as a center of internationally recognized academic excellence. In our opinion, the rest, including the development of innovative medical solutions, would naturally follow this condition sine qua non. The mistake, too often made by eager decision makers and politicians, is to “put the cart before the horse”. First and fore most academic excellence! We realized full well that the European research space is rapidly evolving towards a two-tiered landscape with a shrinking number of elite universities producing most of the knowledge. In Belgium, two universities lead the pack: KUL and our sister university, RUG. They consistantly rank within the top 100 universities of the world. It is also those two top universities that attract most of Belgian ERC funding, helped in that, to a considerable extent, by the exemplary Flemish Institute of Biotechnology or VIB. We were, and still are, convinced that this is not a fatality. It only depends on us to reverse this trend and to become part of the best, at least in selected disciplines. And that is what we wanted to help achieve through GIGA, for the benefit of our university and its region. GIGA has the potential to be a perfect instrument and model for our university to improve its rankings. GIGA is sometimes accused of being “elitist”. It is not about being better than the others. It is about being one’s own best, to do one’s very best, and to be lucid about where others stand.I believe this to be laudable. In fact, I think it is our duty. Challenges. If you want to improve, you may want to start with a bit of candid introspection, and identify limiting factors and potential areas of improvement. We referred to these as “challenges”, amongst which we distinguished global and local challenges. The first was to get the community to recognize that we had/have to collectively lift our performances as measured by objective criteria. For example, the h-factor, corrected for age, is ~20 points higher for VIB PIs as it is for GIGA PIs. Secondly, GIGA PIs were/are, on average, raising insufficient research funds. In particular, the proportion of funds from European grants – by far the largest “pot” - was well below 10% in 2016. Quite illustrative in this regard, ~50% of VIB PIs are ERC awardees, while this percentage is closer to ~5% for GIGA PIs. Thirdly, we were/are not sufficiently visible and attractive internationally. A particularly striking figure, raised by several of our scientific advisory boards (SAB), is the < 5% proportion of non-Belgian PIs. Fourthly, life sciences are increasingly turning into data sciences, and our PIs were/ are insufficiently prepared for this important transition. Of note, these four challenges not only apply to GIGA but to our university in general. In addition, we identified a number of local challenges. The most important was the fact that our place as an interdisciplinary research unit in a faculty-dominated university landscape was uncomfortable, as testified by sometimes tense relationships with faculties/authorities, the lack of recurrent core funding and adequate representation in decision making organs. It seemed to us essential to re-establish a win-win relationship with faculties. Also, the involvement of GIGA in continued education and innovation, essential components of GIGA’s initial mission, had dwindled over time, transferred to a large extent to the university’s tech transfer office. MICHEL GEORGES Interview Michel, how would you sum up your eight years as director of GIGA? Historical perspective. When Brigitte (Malgrange) and I took over the directorship in 2016, GIGA existed for more than 10 years, with ~90% of its members (re-)located within 250 meters from each other and from the university hospital. GIGA was already a mature organization, the largest and arguably most notorious research unit of the University of Liège. It is worth reminding the younger ones that GIGA was created in 2004 by three laboratories (Martial, Georges, Rentier), and that it grew rapidly - with the impetus of vice-rector of research and then rector Professor Rentier, Professor Martial and Dr. André Renard (GIGA’s first director) and with major financial support from the FEDER – to reach approximately 100 principal invesAt the end of December, Michel Georges completed his 2 terms at the head of GIGA. We asked him to answer a few questions about his 8 years at the helm of GIGA.
research 12 research 13 Roadmap. In light of the above, we spelled out a series of specific goals (2017-2021 Roadmap) that included the following: (i) redefine membership (core and associate PIs) to promote excellence yet create an effective collaborative community, (ii) create research professorships to improve conditions for local PIs and more effectively recruit internationally, (iii) update, consolidate, and streamline the operation of core facilities (considered by most PIs as being GIGA’s most valuable asset) and administrative support, (iv) assist PIs in designing, writing, submitting and managing better grants, with special emphasis on ERC grants, (v) create an internationally acclaimed research graduate program and school to improve the recruitment, education, and support of PhD students (and post-docs), (vi) enhance GIGA’s collaborative potential and attractiveness by establishing large population-based cohorts in collaboration with the CHU and the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. This roadmap largely guided our actions throughout our term. Achievements. With regards to core facilities and administration, the main “additions” have been the creation of a bioinformatics platform, the reinforcement of CRISPR-Cas9 services in the viral vector platform (now referred to as gene-editing platform), the recruitment of staff to support cell culture and shared facilities, the stabilization – since 2016 - of five staff members who obtained permanent positions at the university (testifying of the steady support from the university; sincere appreciation to the authorities for this), and the development of a series of custom software applications to streamline the management of platforms and administration. Several software applications were also developed for PIs and made accessible through the “Page Perso”, which we invite interested GIGA members to use. We further set up GIGA grants, initially with the financial support of the Walloon region (Go-get-ERC project), and hired Marilou Ramos Pamplona to assist internal and external PIs in preparing ERC applications. This included to organization of Go-getERC “brainstorming” seminars which were fun and should be restarted. We also set up the GIGA doctoral school for which we hired Marianna Bevova as director. In the 20182022 period, GIGA’s doctoral school hired 18 PhD students “centrally”, originating from nine countries. All of them obtained a PhD fellowship from outside sources from the second year on of which 13 a FNRS aspirant mandate. More than seventy tutors taught courses to 300 PhD students over these five years. Taking advantage of the latest round of FEDER funding, we set up the ENSEMBLE project that is aimed to federate the local medical community around a joint cohort project towards the implementation of precision medicine. Animal cohorts (Resistomics) have also been assembled collaboratively by PIs from GIGA and the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. The creation of research professorships didn’t succeed as hoped for, as funding for the Back-on-the-Map project collapsed after the 2017 Walloon government crisis. Yet, under the leadership of then vice-rector of research Professor Fabrice Bureau, the university picked-up at least part of the ideas by returning ERC overheads in full to PIs and their research units. During our term, all thematic units have been evaluated twice by their respective scientific advisory boards (SABs), the support units have been evaluated once by a local administration advisory board (AAB), and the Board of Counselors (BoC) has met at GIGA twice. The BoC was supposed to meet annually. COVID has been standing in the way, and I have not been proactive enough. This is a regrettable and I apologize for it. Periodically presenting an overview of one’s achievements to respected peers through this advisory boards is an extremely salutary routine. What are you most proud of? I don’t think that personal pride would be an appropriate feeling here. The merit for what GIGA stands for goes to its community. But there are certainly some considerations that are a source of satisfaction. GIGA is a good place to be a scientist. The first is that I like to believe that GIGA members feel, as I do, that they are part of a community. We are happy, maybe even proud, to be members of GIGA. We are happy to have the privilege to be health scientists that may, one day, improve the care of patients. We strive to be the best scientist we can be, to use the resources that are entrusted to us as good as we can. We quietly know that GIGA is recognized as a center of excellence at least nationally, and to some extent even internationally. GIGA spirit in the time of COVID. The GIGA spirit manifested itself in remarkable ways during the COVID crisis. More than 175 young (and not so young) volunteers joined one of several task forces (sample reception and viral inactivation, PCR testing, biobanking, development of new tests, immune plasma characterization, etc.) for weeks if not months, just because they wanted to help. It was really uplifting and heartwarming to witness. I remain very grateful to all of them, yes, proud of all of them. GIGA ERC grants. Another source of satisfaction is the number of ERC grants obtained by GIGA. Altogether GIGA PIs have been awarded 10 ERC grants including synergy, advanced, consolidator, starting and proof-of-concept grants (of which seven since 2016). This corresponds to 38% of all ULiège ERC grants, and is probably the highest concentration of ERCs in one research unit in all French-speaking Belgium. The proportion of GIGA research funding from Europe now approaches 15%. It proves that top medical research is being conducted at GIGA and is a great signal for its future. It encourages and helps others to try as well. I like to believe (with no prove) that this is, at least in part, due to GIGA grants. Of note, two GIGA PIs have now obtained two ERC grants, and one even three! Congratulations to them for these exceptional achievements. Other. On a somewhat humoristic note (I do what I can), there is maybe one thing that I would like to take credit for: the GIGA terrace on the 5th floor with its exceptional view of the Ourthe valley. It is great to see young people gather there for lunch or to celebrate one or another occasion!
research 14 research 15 What have been your biggest difficulties? Shortcomings. One difficulty was the realization that I didn’t have some important skills needed to lead an organization such as GIGA: I am a very poor politician with very average people skills. I was familiar with the rules that apply to research and felt comfortable with them: if you want to increase your chances to be funded, just work hard, come up with better ideas, and spell them out clearly and concisely; if you want to publish in good journals, just work hard, perform insightful experiments, and describe the results clearly and concisely (I could add: when you manage a team, just worker harder than your team members, be honest, fair and supportive). That is at least what to expect in a properly working system, where projects and papers are evaluated by competent peers. This may not be the case for all funding bodies that we apply to, but at least for most. Leading a large research unit demands that you convince decision makers about the merits of your projects, or - more precisely – to be more convincing than most other people that sell the merits of their projects to people who too often know relatively little about the matter. And as lobbying is part of this process, this inevitably turns into a rat race (“foire d’empoigne”), requiring convincing power but also elbowing and seduction. Doing this properly demands a form of intelligence which I do not have. Yet I recognize – without any cynicism - the talents of several of my predecessors in this regard, and wish (and trust) that my successors are better at it than I could ever be - it is essential. GIGA deserves to be better supported per se. Our strategy was to kick-start projects as proof-of-concepts using own funding, with the hope that – if proven valuable – decision makers would take over and consolidate. One could argue that this is what happened to GIGA grants, which has been incorporated in RISE (the R&D department of the university), to GIGA’s doctoral school, which has been taken over by the conseil sectorial, and - possibly in the future - with the development of software solutions for administration and core facilities. Yet – in my opinion – these “transfers” denature the projects to an extent that dilutes their impact (I hope I am wrong). I thought that GIGA was the perfect “proximity” platform to deploy these initiatives and others (such as valorization) to the benefit of the university as a whole. I acknowledge that the centralization that we witness is in part due to limited financial resources. Full-time or part-time job. One could easily be occupied full-time as a director of GIGA. But I did not want to give up science altogether so tried to balance my time between the laboratory and the 5th floor. That I could afford this, is very much due to the major involvement of vice-director Brigitte Malgrange, as well as the dynamism of the administration – and I sincerely thank all of them for that. But I could probably have served the community better by being a full-time director. On the other hand, continuing to practice science as director anchors you in reality. What do you think should be GIGA’s main objective over the next few years? It is all about people. Continuing to promote academic excellence remains of the uttermost importance. A specific objective of our strategic plan was to help create an environment – in the broad sense - that would be conducive for PIs to conduct internationally competitive research. I believe – and I don’t take any credit for this – that the “material” environment provided by GIGA is outstanding. We benefit from very nice laboratories, adjacent to a large university hospital, in a gorgeous campus. Our core facilities are a success. They give each one of us access to a broad panoply of state-of-the-art techniques that one could only dream of in an isolated laboratory. But environment is more than lab space, equipment and platforms. It is, first-and-foremost, people, colleagues, sharing the same passion, open, generous, inquisitive, challenging, helpful. The growing number of collaborations between GIGA members indicates that GIGA already provides such synergistic environment. Yet, a recurrent comment, made by nearly all SABs, is that GIGA’s community (as for the rest of the university), shows signs of “inbreeding”. The proportion of non-Belgian PIs is too low. The proportion of non-Belgian PhD students is too low. The career paths of PhDs and post-docs lacks an international perspective. This is in part due to the local funding schemes in place, which are tailored to primarily support local candidates. Yet, GIGA (and our university) needs to open itself more to the outside world, and our young scientists need to open themselves more to the outside world. Financial autonomy. It is an unfortunate reality, but financial resources, or the lack thereof, ultimately determine what can and what cannot be done. All departments and research units solicit the authorities for more support, but there is only so much they can do. So autonomously raising more funds for GIGA is essential. I strongly believe that the best way to achieve this is by raising the academic level. If the proportion of ERC funded GIGA PIs doubled (to ~10%), and given the 100% return of overheads to the PI and research unit, GIGA’s situation would be very different. To achieve this, GIGA PIs’ have to work together towards that common goal, interact even more to improve their research, and be open to step out of their comfort zone, and we need to have a serious plan to attract “ERCeable” PIs, including returning postdocs, to Liège. GIGA can do its best on its own in this regard, but a direct involvement of the university, or even region/community, seems essential. How about giving faculties an academic position for every ERC grant (say consolidator or higher) obtained, whether it be through an internal or an external PI (in essence the Back-on-the-Map project)? Wouldn’t such incentive push the university in a desired direction? Interdisciplinarity. GIGA was set up as an interdisciplinary research institute, with “founding” members from at least five faculties (science, medicine, veterinary medicine, engineering, psychology and Agbiotech). The reality today is that 75% of PIs are attached to the medical school. So, the interdisciplinary character of GIGA is in fact relative. This is unfortunate as everybody knows that – especially in this era of data sciences, artificial intelligence and synthetic biology – solutions require a multidisciplinary approach. Possibilities at the interface between health science and engineering seem endless. It is essential to convince faculties, other than the medical school, to engage with GIGA and to ensure that – for them - having PIs at GIGA is an asset and not a loss – as sometimes perceived today. Building a win-win relationship with faculties remains essential. GIGA park. The next five years will see the B23 and part of B36 buildings being refurbished and the CRC members joining the rest of GIGA close to CHU. New buildings will be built to host start-up and spin-off companies next to the “GIGA bois”. This will free up the 3th floor of the B34, providing extra space for academic research groups and the lab hotel.
research 16 research 17 Thus, the infrastructure of GIGA will continue to improve and open new possibilities for GIGA’s leadership. How has research in general, or at GIGA more specifically, evolved over 8 years? Increasing demands on PIs. It is not so much the last eight years, but rather the last 20 years that have seen the profession of academic researcher change substantially. Nowadays, it is expected from so-called successful PIs that they raise substantial amounts of research funds in an increasingly competitive arena, that they professionally manage research teams and mentor early career researchers, that they regularly publish in high-profile journals, that they organize conferences, that they generate intellectual property and even spin out companies, all that in addition to being involved in education, graduate and undergraduate, as well as to participate in numerous university committees. Are these expectations reasonable? For sure, if you expect that kind of performance from your researchers, you better offer them commensurate working conditions. And that is what the better institutions do. The creation of GIGA in the early 2,000’s was in line with this evolution. GIGA aimed to provide a stimulating multidisciplinary working environment, access to a panoply of technologies through state-of-the-art core facilities, and efficient administrative support. It certainly was a step in the right direction. But more can be done, more has to be done. At least during the most productive parts of their career, the precious time of PIs needs to be protected. If they wish so, successful PIs (f.i. ERC grantees) should be exempted from sometimes hundreds of hours of undergraduate teaching. They should avoid spending too much time in often useless committee meetings. They should spend a minimum amount of time doing administrative work. It is noteworthy in this regard, that bureaucratic inefficiencies increasingly invade academic research: it sometimes feels more complicated to spend the money earned than to obtain a grant. Therefore, professional and engaged administrative support is more important than ever before. The best research centers routinely provide expert support for scientific writing and illustration. Proficient support for grant submission is of course essential, as is a strong educational and career building program for PhD’s and postdocs. The latter were the motivations for setting up GIGA grants and the GIGA doctoral school. And I am not even mentioning considerations on how to better support families with babies and/or young children. Finally, a topic that seems “tabou” in our circles, successful PIs at the height of their career should be eligible for financial incentives (f.i. from the returned overheads), if they so wish. The last thing you want, is for hard-working PIs with young families to have to worry about paying their heating bills at the end of the month, and this happens! All this may seem like a list of unattainable goals, but it is not. A reasonable increase in ERC funding could rapidly trigger a virtuous cycle, bringing in money to further improve such “services” which would increase the chance to obtain more funding. A good indicator of whether the environment that we offer is on par with other institutions is our ability to attract talented PIs internationally. Force is to admit that, thus far, this has proven difficult. How do you see the future of research in general and the GIGA in particular? GIGA is here to stay. GIGA now represents > 110 PIs and > 600 members. GIGA PIs raise more than 30 million € per year in grants, publish more than one article per day in peer reviewed journals, graduate a PhD every ten days. GIGA is led by a new team of dynamic and competent directors, and a new generation of enthusiastic PIs are engaged in the leadership of the thematic units. Although FEDER support is less than what it used to be, we are assured of renewed FEDER funding for at least four years, which will keep the core facilities afloat. So, the short- and medium-term future of GIGA are in essence assured and bright. An impression that I have from my own experience, is that science nowadays feels like a whirlwind: everything has to go faster, opportunities cannot be missed. We all have the nose to the grindstone (“le nez dans le guidon”), extending our research programs the easy way, stuck in our comfort zone. What would be beneficial for all of us, I think, is to organize collective “pose” sessions, to think together about where the new frontiers of knowledge in the life sciences really are, and what deep research questions we could try to collectively address. Our authorities have to decide whether they want ULiège to remain a research university, and act accordingly. Throughout my career, I have been convinced that what defines universities is that professors teach knowledge to which – through their research and activities – they have contributed. Doing good research demands an understanding of the field, and an intellectual rigor that few non-practitioners would have experienced. Transmitting deep knowledge and intellectual rigor is what university education is all about. Moreover, universities where new knowledge is generated are typically the places where innovative applications are being developed, hence spurring the local economy. Solid research is therefore the foundation upon which university education and impact rests. I am afraid to say that for a significant part of my time at our university – with one of the exceptions being the time of creation of GIGA (people will recognize themselves in other exceptions) – I have not found that research was carrying the weight that it deserves in our institution. I have always had the impression that doing research was fine, but not essential. Isn’t it perfectly possible to have an academic career at our university with relatively little research activity? I suspect that many other ULiège researchers feel like I do, and that the recent creation of ADERE is a manifestation of this. Another symptom of this state-of-affairs is the meager weight carried by FNRS research associates, our main research force, in, for instance, rectoral elections: less than that of the students. I have often wondered why that was. One structural reason may be that research conducted at the university does not have a sufficient impact on its finances. In the US, overheads of 50% and even 60% are commonplace. Hence, having scientists that bring in research funds has to be part of the “business plan”. In French-speaking Belgium some of our major funding agencies do not pay any overhead to the universities at all, while for others both agencies and researchers alike resent at paying less than 10% overheads to the university. I believe that this is short-sighted. I am not advocating for the US numbers, but there needs to be a stronger tangible incentive for the universities to encourage their scientists to bring in research funding. It is also, a question of “local culture”. For many members of our university, research just is not “the” academic priority, as it is for me and other researchers. Whatever the causes, I believe that our authorities should be clearer about their commitment (or not) to research and dare to take bold actions to show that the university of Liège resolutely choses to support its researchers and to invite external scientists to join its
research 18 research 19 efforts by offering attractive working conditions. It is the authority’s responsibility to come up with innovative strategies to raise the money needed to make this possible. The support of academic research by the Walloon region has to further improve. Funding agencies have a major responsibility in shaping the research landscape. It is not only about providing financial resources to the research community, but, equally importantly, it is about setting the conditions for access to these resources. If calls for proposals are opened transparently at pre-established dates with sufficient lead time, if the imposed structure of project proposals is to-the-point, focused on research rather than a multitude of abstract ancillary considerations, and the proposals exclusively evaluated by truly competent international peers without relationship to the applicants, researchers will have to work hard to come up with good ideas that are thought through and properly spelled out to obtain funding. This is a normal and very useful part of their job. It helps the community to do better research. If on the contrary timing for calls is erratic and not properly publicized, if it is important or mandatory to spend time to visit a non-specialist administration as part of the preparation, or even better to have private talks with politicians, if proposals require constraint, unnecessary relationships with local companies, if the proposals are evaluated by generalists, generating and thinking through good ideas will have little influence on one’s probability to obtain funding. Such practices do not help the research community to get better, on the contrary. In French-speaking Belgium we have two funding agencies/instruments that work properly: the FNRS funded by the “communauté”, and WELBIO (and now WEL-T) funded by the “region”. All the rest needs profound restructuring. The several years long process that our community just went through for the distribution of FEDER funding is a good illustration on how Kafkaesque things can become. The Walloon Region has sufficient money for research but it must continue to work on using it more effectively. What have these years at the head of GIGA brought you personally? When I proposed my candidacy for director eight years ago, I felt ready for it. I was already amongst the older PIs at the time, and I felt that it was my turn to step up the plate for a project that was close to my heart (i.e. GIGA). Indeed, I had been very much involved with Joseph Martial, Françoise and Bernard Rentier, and André Renard in setting up GIGA in its very beginning, and - with my laboratory – benefitted a lot from this new environment for years. It was time to give back. I think I had clear ideas about what I wanted to achieve and was prepared to invest substantial resources from our laboratory to make it work. Brigitte was somewhat imposed on me by the GIGA community and university authorities. This makes us (i.e. Brigitte and me) smile now. With hindsight it was an excellent “move”. I think we have worked together very well after some necessary adjustments in the beginning. To some extent I was entering in this adventure “Tête baissée”. I trusted that if our proposals were good, if we worked hard enough, things would work out. This is pretty much what I had experienced throughout my entire life. Our strategic plan was ambitious, but I was (and am still) convinced that our university needed something like that, and that it is doable: “To reach the possible, one sometimes has to aim for the impossible …”. Looking back, honestly, I am relatively disappointed about myself. I have not been able to help GIGA advance as much as I envisaged, as I wished. Some of our initiatives, such as GIGA grants and GIGA doctoral school, may soon die out (prove me wrong, please). It certainly has shown me the difficulties of leading large communities, especially academic. I felt pretty comfortable leading a laboratory of 25-30 people, which I suppose you can do being a tidbit individualistic, micro-managerial, not to say authoritarian. But leading 100+ “academically free” PIs and 600 people in a big university is “une autre paire de manches”. I feel that, to a large extent, things worked out reasonably well with the GIGA community. My (maybe naïve) impression is that the majority of GIGA PIs are very much on the same wavelength when it comes to overarching goals (maybe not entirely about the best way to get there). The real difficulties (for me) are higher up: the alternating rectoral teams, the alternating regional governments, with changing priorities, sensibilities and personalities. It is a distinct job, requires distinct talents, to be able to carry big projects at that level. I guess I may have experienced Peter principle first hand. This doesn’t mean that I regret anything. I am very happy of these eight years. It will have given more sense to my academic career. And I have very much enjoyed working on a day-by-day basis with wonderful people that I would barely have known otherwise. What advice would you give to the new direction team? What do you wish them? Of course, I wish them all the best (as I do to all GIGA members). I know they are full of energy and competent, eager to help our community. It was a good idea to go at it with a team of four, all with complementary expertise and focus. In addition to being a remarkable athlete, Brigitte – I believe – has the essential political skills. I don’t think they need my advice, and I certainly would not want to interfere. The only thing that comes to my mind is advice I got from my mother: “Doe wel en zie niet om …”, meaning, do what you have to do and don’t worry about what people think or say… Any last thoughts you wish to share? Having reached the end of my term of eight years as director of GIGA, I have a strong feeling of gratitude. Specifically, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the GIGA research community for the privilege of having worked with you for the last 8 years. It has given me the opportunity to get to know many of you much better than I would have otherwise, to experience – first hand - the diversity and many talents of our community. I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to all the members of the GIGA support units: administration, platforms, doctoral school and grants. I have worked with many of you, seen you in action, and witnessed your dedication and motivation for GIGA. In the name of the GIGA community: thank you for what you do, day in and day out, for all of us. My sincere thanks to the members of the bureau, and especially the director of the thematic research units, for helping to set GIGA’s course so that it benefits all. Thank you for having endured what were too often long monologues. Last but not least, I would like to thank Brigitte Malgrange, for putting up with me as vice director throughout these eight years. It would have been an impossible task without her dedication and efficacy. It has been fun to work together, as a real team. And I would like to close this interview by restating four values which I hope will continue to guide the GIGA community: balance, accountability, honesty/integrity, and kindness.
research research Droit de réponse du SPW-Recherche 24/03/2025 Dans le rapport annuel du GIGA 2023, en pages 10-19, est publié un entretien du Professeur Michel Georges, Directeur émérite de l’institut. Dans ce long texte figure un certain nombre d’inexactitudes ou contre-vérités à l’égard du SPW Recherche. Le SPW Recherche souhaite rectifier quelques-uns des propos tenus en rappelant certains faits. Le GIGA a été créé en 2004 grâce à une aide financière majeure de la Région et n’a cessé d’être soutenu par des fonds alloués par la Wallonie pendant toute son existence. Ainsi, rien qu’en fonds FEDER1 (provenant pour 40% de crédits européens et pour 60% de crédits walllons), plus de 61 millions d’euros ont été alloués entre 2004 et 2024 au GIGA, tant pour sa construction, son développement que pour la pérennisation de ses activités. Ainsi, sur les programmations FEDER14-20 et 21-27, le financement du GIGA représente respectivement 18,4% et 15.6% du total des fonds FEDER liés au financement de la recherche et alloués à l’ensemble des universités en FWB. Depuis 2016, sans que cela soit exhaustif, le SPW a octroyé le financement de 21 projets de recherche dans le cadre d’appels réguliers : Win2Wal, Win4excellence, Infrastructures, BIOWIN... Ce qui représente au moins 20 mil1 Les fonds FEDER ou « Fonds Européens de DEveloppement Régional » font partie des fonds structurels européens alloués aux régions présentant un retard économique par rapport à la moyenne européenne. Le but principal du FEDER est « l’investissement pour la croissance et l’emploi, en vue de consolider le marché du travail et les économies régionales » (source : https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/fr/sheet/95/fonds-europeen-de-developpement-regional-feder-) 2 En anglais dans le texte : “French-speaking Belgium we have two funding agencies/instruments that work properly: the FNRS funded by the “communauté”, and WELBIO (and now WEL-T) funded by the“region”. All the rest needs profound restructuring”. 3 En anglais dans le texte : “… we are assured of renewed FEDER funding for at least four years, which will keep the core facilities afloat”. lions d’euros en complément des fonds liés à la programmation FEDER. En outre, le SPW Recherche gère la convention WELBIO établie avec le FRFS pour soutenir spécifiquement la recherche fondamentale stratégique à partir de crédits liés au budget régional. Ainsi, dans le cadre de WELBIO, depuis 2017, 15 chercheurs du GIGA ont été financés par la Wallonie pour un total de 15.4 millions d’euros supplémentaires. Le GIGA est donc financièrement largement soutenu par la Wallonie. A plusieurs endroits de l’entretien, le Pr. Georges critique de manière très acerbe le mode de fonctionnement de « l’administration ». Vu que WELBIO et le FNRS sont décrits comme « les deux seules agences fonctionnant correctement »2, il est aisé de comprendre que l’administration du SPW Recherche est spécifiquement visée et que c’est elle qui, selon lui, « dysfonctionne » et qui nécessite d’être profondément restructurée. Le FEDER est ainsi décrit comme « un processus [...] kafkaïen de distribution des fonds ». Il est pourtant reconnu plus loin que les financements FEDER (2021-2027), « maintiennent à flots l’infrastructure essentielle »3. Ceci est interpellant, car le FEDER n’a pas pour vocation de financer structurellement des entités bénéficiaires. Il est notamment demandé que les projets présentent un rapport coût/bénéfice positif entre le montant du soutien, les activités menées, et la réalisation des objectifs, c’est-à-dire un retour positif sur l’économie wallonne. Si des financements FEDER successifs sont nécessaires au « maintien à flot » du GIGA, comme semble l’indiquer l’interview, on peut s’interroger sur l’atteinte de ces objectifs. Il est aussi reproché au SPW de ne pas lancer des appels récurrents ni transparents. Les porteurs de projets auraient l’obligation de s’entretenir avec « une administration non spécialisée » [...] « ou pire passer par des entretiens privés avec des politiciens ». Ces affirmations et accusations sont inexactes, voire calomnieuses. Les appels sont récurrents d’année en année à des dates prévisibles avec des délais de réponse étendus. La publicité en est faite sur le site du SPW, sur les réseaux sociaux et via les administrations de la recherche des universités. Ces appels rencontrent d’ailleurs un large succès. Les procédures des appels à projets initiés par le SPW Recherche répondent aux plus hauts standards internationaux de transparence et de traçabilité. Chaque dossier est instruit en toute indépendance du politique via une plateforme sécurisée par des agents qualifiés et spécialisés et des panels d’experts internationaux. Les dossiers évalués sont présentés à des jurys constitués notamment de représentants du Pôle Politique Scientifique (PPS) du Conseil économique, social et environnemental de Wallonie (CESE). Quelle que soit l’issue pour le dossier déposé, chaque porteur de projet a l’opportunité de demander une réunion durant laquelle l’évaluation lui est présentée par l’administration. Il reçoit de plus un résumé écrit de cette évaluation. 4 En anglais dans le texte: “… if proposals require constraint, unnecessary relationships with local companies, …” Enfin, en filigrane de l’interview, il est plusieurs fois reproché à la Région de ne pas assez soutenir la recherche académique d’excellence, c’est-à-dire la recherche fondamentale. Il est écrit que le SPW impose aux porteurs de projet des « relations inutiles avec les entreprises locales »4 et que les formulaires de propositions se concentrent sur des considérations annexes [à la science]. Cela laisse entendre que la valorisation économique est accessoire pour le GIGA, alors qu’elle est au coeur des objectifs des programmes FEDER et régionaux qui soutiennent ses activités. Ici aussi une mise au point s’impose. Comme pour l’ensemble des régions ou pays européens, le financement de la recherche en Belgique francophone est double. D’une part, le financement de la recherche fondamentale est réalisé par des agences de financement de type FNRS, FWO, ANR, SFI... et d’autre part, la recherche industrielle est soutenue par des structures rattachées aux ministères de l’économie comme le SPW, VLAIO, BAFA, IFD.... Le paysage du financement de la recherche en Wallonie est donc loin de faire exception. D’ailleurs, seul le soutien à la recherche industrielle (selon la définition européenne), donc « appliquée », est permis par le cadre juridique wallon qui balise les instruments de financement du SPW (décret wallon du 3 juillet 2008 qui est la transposition de la législation européenne). Dès lors, l’intégralité des financements alloués au GIGA par le SPW sont exclusivement dévolus à de la recherche industrielle. Certes, les missions de centres comme le GIGA sont de générer et transmettre des connaissances.
research research Mais ces structures, financées par les citoyens wallons, doivent surtout apporter leur contribution au déploiement socio-économique de la région en favorisant notamment la création d’emplois de qualité en Wallonie et en soutenant scientifiquement les grands secteurs économiques wallons. Depuis la parution de ce rapport annuel, la nouvelle direction du GIGA et celle du SPW-EER ont engagé plusieurs discussions constructives. Contrairement à l’approche précédente, où la valorisation économique de la recherche n’était pas une priorité, la nouvelle équipe de direction semble adopter une attitude plus dynamique en termes de partenariats avec le secteur industriel. Le SPW-EER accueille favorablement ce changement d’orientation et en accompagnera le maintien, tout en veillant au respect des accords de recherche appliquée conclus entre le SPW et le GIGA. Lionel Bonjean Directeur Général du SPW-EER
2023 annual report 21 research 20 425 79 new research projects in 2023 58 partner countries in the ongoing projects FUNDINGS Research MEMBERS x NUMBERS Key 625 The GIGA year 2023 in a few key figures 27 PhD theses defended 485 Publications Active research projects Members 59% women 41% men 38 nationalities 27% foreigners 16% UE / 11% Outside UE x x x 44 64 47 85 71 209 105 Academics Pemanent Researchers Non-academic Clinicians Contract Scientists Postdocs PhD Students Technical & Administrative staff
research 22 research 23 Overview of some of the best 2023 publications PUBLICATIONS 2023
research 25 24 research Human papillomavirus E6/E7 oncoproteins promote radiotherapy-mediated tumor suppression by globally hijacking host DNA damage repair. A multi-approach study conducted by researchers from the Laboratory of Experimental Pathology and their partners highlights that the expression of HPV16 E6 and E7 oncoproteins actively contributes to the radiosensitivity of HPV-positive cancers. By interacting with many proteins involved in host DNA damage/repair mechanisms and by redirecting them to viral replication foci, E6/ E7 oncoproteins promote the accumulation of non-repaired genetic alterations within the host genome (ultimately inducing cancer development). This phenomenon very likely represents the Achilles’ heel of virus-induced cancers and explains their high sensitivity to radiotherapy. HPV-positive cancers are traditionally associated with a favorable prognosis due to their high radiosensitivity. Two main parameters are commonly proposed to explain the elevated sensitivity to radiotherapy of HPV-related lesions: the wild-type TP53 status and the high density of immune cells detected within tumor microenvironment. Still frequently disregarded by both clinicians and researchers, the primary goal of the virus is to complete its life cycle (and not to promote cancer development). To do so, HPV must hijack the signaling cascades of its host cells to allow faithful replication of its genome and its rapid repair in the event of error(s). The proteins interacting with E6/E7 oncoproteins and involved in this process remained largely unknown. This study conducted by Michael Herfs (FNRS Research Associate) and his team Cancer Michael Herfs [more particularly Diane Bruyere (FRIA PhD student and then post-doc)] first showed that the sole addition of one viral oncoprotein from HPV16 is able to significantly increase intrinsic cancer cell radiosensitivity. The direct interaction between E6 and/or E7 viral oncoproteins and 19 key proteins (ALKBH2, CHEK2, CLK2, CLK2/3, DNA2, DUT, ENDOV, ERCC3, MNAT1, PARP3, PER1, PMS1, PNKP, POLDIP2, RBBP8, RMI1, RPA1, UVSSA and XRCC6) involved in DNA damage/repair mechanisms was then demonstrated. Not degraded following their interaction with E6/E7, these proteins have been shown to be less linked to the host DNA and to colocalize with viral replication foci, demonstrating their crucial involvement in HPV life cycle. The global impact of this phenomenon on host genome integrity has been also precisely characterized. Finally, a positive effect of E6/E7 expression on the cellular sensitivity to various DNA repair inhibitors (ex: PAPR1/2 inhibitors) was observed, opening the door to a potential use of these new anticancer drugs (in combination with radiotherapy) in the context of HPV-positive malignancies. Human papillomavirus E6/E7 oncoproteins promote radiotherapy-mediated tumor suppression by globally hijacking host DNA damage repair. Bruyere D, Roncarati P, Lebeau A, Lerho T, Poulain F, Hendrick E, Pilard C, Reynders C, Ancion M, Luyckx M, Renard M, Jacob Y, Twizere JC, Peiffer R, Peulen O, Delvenne P, Hubert P, McBride A, Gillet N, Masson M, Herfs M. Theranostics. 2023 Jan 31;13(3):1130-1149. doi: 10.7150/thno.78091. eCollection 2023. PMID: 36793865 Reference
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk1ODY=