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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk1ODY=