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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk1ODY=