17- Dr Nicolas Bonnet- Shifting to new research roads

Many researchers ask themselves how they may know what the right time is to move into industry after a research career in academia. There is probably not a single right answer as it will completely depends on your experiences and context.

Dr Nicolas Bonnet is someone who has recently made the jump and who is keen to create close connections between academic and industrial research. He shares with us some elements in his research career path.

This will get you thinking about:

·      Why early conversations between PI and Postdocs matter to help transition towards research independence

·      How seeing your capacity to develop new research ideas as an endless process support your research transition

·      What equilibrium are you seeking between the happiness of your family and your research career aspiration

Get the shownotes: https://tesselledevelopment.com/research-lives-and-cultures/shifting-to-new-research-roads

I write a blog post for each Podcast episode, inspired by the many themes discussed with my guests. The blog posts prompt you in your reflection journey.

Access all podcasts and blog posts inspired by the Podcast interviews from: https://tesselledevelopment.com/podcast

Register on the mailing list to receive Podcast updates: https://tesselledevelopment.activehosted.com/f/5

Get in touch for questions, queries or to suggest a brilliant contributor: sandrine@tesselledevelopment.com

Transcript

Sandrine: All right, let's go.

[music]

Good morning, everyone, or good afternoon or good evening, wherever you are. Today, I've got the pleasure of interviewing Nicolas, who is based in Switzerland, and who is involved with the FIDELIO-ITN network. Nicolas, can you tell us a little bit about your career so far?

Nicolas: My career start when I become a master's student, actually, because I was really excited by science and also by exercise, so I decide to move in a lab investigating the effect of exercise on the bone tissue. I would say that from here, everything start because I start to discuss in this lab with a lot of people. I decided to do a PhD and focus particularly on aging, of the effect on aging on the musculoskeletal tissue. There I start to perform my PhD in the lab of Daniel [unintelligible 00:01:08], which has a [unintelligible 00:01:11].

There, again, I start to improve my network. During my PhD, I move over in France in different labs, but I also move in US. Then when I finished my PhD, during a meeting, I met [unintelligible 00:01:31]. We've got a big lab in the University of Geneva, and I take a postdoc position there actually, and I stay there for more than 12 years, where I become a senior postdoc, then I become a fellow. Now, since two years, I'm working in Nestle actually, but I have the chance to stay involved in different academic projects.

Sandrine: Why did you make the choice of shifting towards working in an industrial setting? There is a lack of understanding of what it means to do research in an industrial setting. There are lots of assumptions that are made, particular in term of the-- People talk about academic freedom, freedom in studying what you want. I think that even researchers in academia are not as free as they think they are, because there is a lot of constraint within research funding.

Nicolas: It's not so easy. Of course, that's a mix. It's a combination of different things. I was performing more than 12 years in academia as a postdoc and fellow. I learned a lot and I understand that actually, this idea that in academia you are free is totally wrong, because if you want to be still alive in academia, you have to get some grant. If you have to have some grant, you have to be on the hot topic field with specific idea. For my personal experience, why I moved to industry, because I had a lot of different network during my postdoc.

I get a lot of different connection with industry. I have this opportunity, and actually all the assumption that stick to the industry was totally wrong actually, because when I was performing this research with them in term of collaboration, I've seen that actually we can do a really exciting research with really exciting question, and they get huge knowledge and sometime higher than in academia actually, I would say. I also start to work on the impact of nutrition, because when you do exercise, nutrition and the interaction is really important. That's why I decide to move to Nestle because they offer me a huge opportunity actually to develop new idea and to have a huge impact, I would say, on the health of the human being.

Sandrine: You've been working in Nestle for the last two years. How different does it feel to do research with them than the experience that you've had so far working in academia? Is there really a difference?

Nicolas: Actually, for me, there is not so much difference because I'm working in Nestle in a lab, asking some scientific question behind all the importance of having something at the end. I will say the huge difference compared to academia that I am talking about my personal experience, I always work in, I would say, small lab with not much more than 10 or 12 people inside this lab directly. Whereas in industry, you have to work and to be connected with a lot of people because you are not alone in your project. You have to also get some money. You have to discuss with the production team, you have to discuss with the patent team. The team is really huge. You have to learn to have some connection and to discuss with everybody. That's the huge difference compared to academia for me.

Sandrine: In a way, you have to interact with more stakeholders than probably is expected.

Nicolas: Exactly. That was mainly my big surprise. You have to discuss with really a lot of people, and it's useful actually. You learn a lot. I was not expecting to learn so much in so short time just by discussing with people from different fields than mine, actually. It was really a good thing for me actually at that time.

Sandrine: Why do you think that people have less of a tendency to do this in academia? Because it makes complete sense that engaging your end-users, even for research in universities, you would think that people will do it more. There is a push by a lot of the funders to get academics to do it, but at the same time, there are often resistance for people to do it. Why do you think there is still a resistance in the academic context?

Nicolas: I think that in academic, you still focus on specific question. You start to investigate, and you're going to dig it, dig it, dig it a lot, a lot, a lot in detail, and sometime forgetting, I would say, the first goal of your research, which is for me, for the patient, when you have the disease or to keep healthy people. When you forget that and you start to be in academia, you can lose five years, I'm digging on the detail of a specific signaling pathway, which is great sometime, but sometimes I would say that you are lost when you are on that idea, and that's why I think that will be difference with industry and in academia.

Sandrine: What do you think makes collaboration with people who have different roles, who come from different disciplinary backgrounds? In the last two years, you've had to interact with people whose drivers and interests are very different, but who all need come together to move a project forward. There are collaboration that are great collaboration, and there are collaboration that are really hard. In your case, what is it that you think that you're trying to do yourself to really make these interaction really successful?

Nicolas: Actually, the first few hours when you start to discuss with people is really, really important for the future. For me, that's why at the beginning or when you start to initiate a discussion with somebody which is new, the first things that I start to show them is that I'm exciting and quite highly motivated on this specific project. When they see that, actually they say, "Wow, this guy is quite motivated. I want to join his project." This change everything. It was exactly the same in academia. When I start to show the first preliminary result and the people--

The way you show your results, if you believe on your project, if you believe on your data, it change everything. Because everybody around you will see it and say, "Wow, this guy is used with a smaller insert like that. Look really exciting." It means that there is something behind, and by this way, they are quite exciting to be involved in this. This is true not only for the people from our field, I would say, but people from outside our field. When they see that, they are exactly the same thing. That's why I still use this strategy in Nestle, because whatever the field you are coming, they have this feeling.

That's why for me the motivation, expectation on a project is really key in order that at the end it would be a success. Otherwise, sometimes it happen that if I see that the project is not exciting enough for me, I prefer to stop it, and that's another difference between industry and academia. Because in academia, when a project start to have some bad results or something like that, you're still working on it in order to find some result which are exciting, and you can lose things. Whereas actually in industry, if you have some first results which are bad and which are not going on the good way, you stop it.

You're going to not lose your time to dig a little bit. Sometimes it can be a missed opportunity, that's for sure. Most of the time, actually, I think it's more useful to stop a project when it's not bad. It's happened. Your first hypothesis was wrong, you have to admit that. Actually, it's sometimes difficult to say, "My first hypothesis was wrong actually." That's the most difficult part in research for me that it's happened. You have to say a stop. I try once, two, three. You have to stop when the result is not there.

Sandrine: It's interesting you mentioning this because it's one of the reasons often that postdocs or PhD student decide not to move into industry because they have a feeling that if they have an interest, and they really want to push and push and push, and they feel that working in industry they may be stopped by line managers, and so by the company to really try to dig deep in that.

Nicolas: Actually, it's true that you have to have the results for that issue as really exciting result, and you are quite motivated, and you show that your result is totally important for the field. You will see that the line manager will follow you because that's what they are looking for. They are waiting for nice results and exciting results. If you show that, because you have it in your pocket, they will believe you and then they will go and give you all the money and all the expectation that you need in order to do your project.

For sure if there is something where the results are not clear, for sure, they will say, "No way I'm going to start your project because now it's more than one year or two year you're working on that and you have only one positive answer and two negatives. You cannot continue like that." Then, at the end, it actually takes time because sometimes it's difficult to say, "I need to stop this project." When the results are not there, you have to stop."

Sandrine: There are many opportunities that are out there that we can take, and opportunities that either we seek ourselves or that other people offer to us. Sometime balancing between the opportunities that we should be taking, that we're scared of taking. Reflecting on your carrier so far, the early years of your research careers, were there some specific opportunities that you took that really shaped the way you were able to navigate your career that really opened doors?

Nicolas: There is another word that for students is really important is mobility. Mobility in research can be key and change totally your life in term of position and also personal life, I would say. For me, the key step was to decide to move to Switzerland, because I started to learn a different way of doing research and science, I would say. Really this was really a surprise for me. Just by moving to a different lab, a different country, you have a different spirit, a different way of working.

Actually, for my personal career, it was really a key step because from there I start to have some international connection with a lot of people that I still have actually today. It brings me also a lot of friends. Friends in science is also really important. Actually this change also everything because you start to be connected with, I would say, people five years ago you were reading their publication, you were seeing that it's amazing job that they are doing, and now you can discuss with them in a meeting or have beer or coffee. This change everything.

Yes, for sure, mobility is a key step now job I would say, because sometimes it's difficult, but it brings you a new connection, network. This for science is really key, because alone you cannot do everything alone. The connection is really mandatory in order to have some new idea, new perspective, and everything. I think that mobility is really a key one in science.

Sandrine: Mobility could be anything. Could be moving to the US, to Australia, to Germany. In your case, what was your approach in deciding, okay, that's the right place for me to move? Sometime we don't know. Sometime we just jump into the unknown and have a go and see whether we like it or not. Did you have a strategy in choosing the group that you went to work with when you move to Switzerland?

Nicolas: Yes. Actually, at that time, it was a group of [unintelligible 00:15:30]. Actually, they are international regulations. That was the first goal. The second reason, and this is important also to be aware, was not from a science point of view. It was from a family point of view, because for my case if my family was not happy, I will say I will not be happy in my job. It's a balance between your personal career and the family. It's always hard to maintain. That's why Switzerland was really for me the best way because it was a good compromise between my science where I was really exciting and really it was amazing lab when I arrived in Switzerland.

Also to keep my personnel environment happy family, because otherwise, if I move in US and I get this opportunity in US or in Sydney, that I would have lost my family, for example, probably. This was totally not possible in my head. I'm sure I would have made bullshit, I would say, in terms of science if my family was not following me on that mobility strategy. It's a mix. You have to understand that it's a mix between your scientific expectation and your personal expectation.

Sandrine: Can you tell us about the barrier that you had when you worked at the university? What was it like in term of progressing?

Nicolas: First when I arrived as a postdoc, the first two years was really exciting because you're a postdoc, you can do, you have a grant for two years, so it was my case. I was quite happy and I was not seeing the future, I would say. At that time, no strategy for that. My goal was to perform the postdoc and publish. That's it. After I actually understand that to have a position in academia, it's quite hard because there is a lot of competition and there is few position. That's why I decided to perform a certain postdoc in the same lab, but in a different way by starting to understand that I have to have my own field, my own question independently of my mentor.

This was really important because when you are in academia, actually you work as a team. It's good for the leader, I would say, for the mentor. That actually for all the postdocs which are there, you cannot expect to have a position as exactly the same as your mentor, because academia will not give two position for two people doing the same thing. You have to now [unintelligible 00:18:34] important work in academia is to be independent. At the end of my first postdoc, now my strategy was not anymore to have some nice publication, but to live independently a scientific question.

This was hard time, I would say, because you have to start to say no to your mentor without fighting with him, because actually, he was starting for me to be a friend, his mentor because I learned a lot from him. It's a difficult time in this position. I would say you have to be independent but to still be under the supervision of your mentor because you are in his lab. and a nicer switch where you start to discuss with him and you ask him, "Can I submit my first paper as the last author?" which mean that you are independent, and you cannot submit a grant without you, your name on that grant.This is a true key step for me, which was really hard to get it because they have also to have their name in their grants, their name in their paper because they cannot do everything. That was a hard time for me.

Sandrine: From one country to another, that transition can look very different in term of the way the funding works. For example, in the UK, often people will be more likely to get their first independent funding, but may have to move to another institution. It's often not necessarily well perceived to stay in the same lab, because there is a perception by some of the funders that you're not truly independent if you stay in the same place. What was it like for you in terms of staying in the same research group and getting your independent funding? Because again, the thing of having to say no to the PI that you were working with before and still staying in the same environment, it's not necessarily easy. How did you approach that within the Swiss context of whatever funding is available, which may be different in another country?

Nicolas: Yes, no, no, actually it's very true. Actually, I get first, I get some small funding from specific foundation. Then I get some specific funding from Europe. I would say. I never get a, that's a new touch, the right point, I never get a Swiss grant, I would say, because there was already my [unintelligible 00:21:16] who get it and you cannot get it in the centerpiece, I would say. That was my hard time. Yes, for sure, when I was a fellow there, I was working only by a private foundation, a specific association, and then all foreign big grants were coming from Europe.

When I start to get there, I would say it's the reason that was my scientific question was totally different from my previous mentor. That's why I start to have my own field, I would say. This was really key for me, and I start there to have new network, new connection, totally different from the one that I had before, which were the same then I would say in my model. By this, we change everything. There I start to have a connection with industry, and with people that might not have didn't know before. There I was not seen any more as a postdoc of my mentor or like that, and I was the PI. This changed a lot in my mind and in the mind of the people in front of me, including the academia.

Sandrine: What was your approach to make that shift? Because when you've done a post-doc and you've spent several years completely focused on a topic, you have a sense, "Okay, this is my topic, that's my expertise." In a way, shifting the research questions that you're asking to something that's slightly different, that becomes people often use the term niche, the niche of your next topic. How did you navigate that period of transition, the conversation that needs to be had with the mentor that you have in term of the research questions that you may want to ask, maybe direction that the principal investigator want to carry on themselves? There is no point to be in competition and overlapping in terms of what you're asking with your mentor. Like you said, in term of asking for funding, it makes things too complicated. What was your approach to make a decision on, "Okay, that's going to be my next thing and my PI is okay with it. I know that I can be competitive in this area"?

Nicolas: For me, I decided because there was some fighting starting, and in order to avoid to be too much in this fighting, I decide to do two different meetings, to be with discussion with my PI and with few people at that time at the university in order to fix everything. This huge discussion that we have with my mentor was really hurtful for me and also for him also, I would say. That it changed also. It was really a key step, another key step in my career to have a really good discussion and tell everything that I had in mind.

I will say, I tell him what was my feeling, the way I want to work now, the best thing that I seen before, the good feelings, and the way I want to work now. We decide to build a-- it's not a strategy, but then he give me some good tips I would say, and for that, I am really quite happy that we have this discussion. At the end, he still support me, but in totally different way. Not officially, but just giving tips in order to improve my scientific question which was totally independent.

Then we start to shift into our own, I would say, scientific equation himself and myself. There I think that it was really good for me and I did it also by making some new connection at the university in a totally different field than my field. I was starting to discuss with more people coming from other phenology, from all the data bodies field. Actually, when we start to have this discussion and start to shift and to have our own world, everything was okay. It takes one year, I would say, of transition between finishing all my previous question, scientific question, and start to have some new exciting idea. It take one years to do that.

Sandrine: What you're saying is really fascinating because you use the word feeling, expressing feeling, which often people avoid doing in professional context. I think that the relationship, the interaction between PIs or mentors and scientists, young scientists, emotions are high in term of the research that you want to do, battles of ideas and feelings are there, and often these kinds of transition, there is a lot of anxiety and vulnerability from early career researchers, and having the space to express it with mentors is really important, but people often avoid doing it because it feels really a bit scary.

How do you think that you sort of prepared yourself mentally to have these early discussion, to be able to express how you want it to work with them, how you want it to change the dynamic of interaction in a way that you felt you-- where you kind of knew what you wanted, but we're really open to the conversation now.

Nicolas: Actually, I decided to do this discussion because I had a lot of frustration. I start to say no. It's not good to have this feeling, all this frustration regarding my scientific question that I was working. I think probably it was my mistake to stay focused always on this specific scientific question. I say I want to really keep this scientific question and I was believing that this scientific question was the only one, the most important one in the world.

I forget in that time but we can build new scientific question much more exciting and you can build, you have a range of question that can be built, which is amazing, and I forget that at that time, and when I understand that, okay, I need this scientific question. I moved to another one and of course, it takes you a lot of energy to build this new question. There you have a lot of doubt when you are doing that. That's for sure.

There when I shift to this new science question, I was so excited again, but now I understand that when the things start to be nuts, when the project or in this specific question, now I sat down, I discussed with few people and I say, "Okay, now we have an answer to this, to this point, to this point, we cannot answer to more than that. We have to stop and we have to take some time to build a new question." During all your carrier, we cannot stay in one signaling pathway. We cannot have only one scientific question. There are few people who is doing that, but most of the researcher will not be able to do that.

When I start to understand that that I would not be even be professor with my huge name around a specific protein or specific topic every time, I think that everything changed, and understand that you can have some fun and expectation on different scientific question, and it can be still exciting. That's why everything changed when I stopped doing this and that.

Sandrine: It's about being flexible and open to working on different things and in a way just keeping the flame going of your interest and your motivation .and just being fixed on one thing. One of the things I'll be really interesting to hear from you is what is it that you found the most challenging in navigating your research career, because at so many points in research careers, we have to make decisions with who we going to work with and those things that you've discussed several times, the questions that we're asking, the dynamic of interaction and choosing to publish here, there, or choosing to change institutions. Lots and lots of challenges along the research career. In your case, what is the thing you think has been the most challenging in navigating that space?

Nicolas: Actually, the most exciting was to build connection and the most difficult was to build connection, because the connection of a network for me was really key in all my career path, I would say, because I met different people, which bring me some knowledge and also some tips to continue in my career. Sometime you also met the wrong people, it can happen. Actually, you have some bad feeling at that moment when you meet such people, but you have to admit that's your life, I would say. You cannot meet always good people with good connection and with good tips.

Again, that it takes times to understand that it's quite useful to meet them because you understand where you don't want to go in term of research, but also in term of way of doing your research, which is really also important. In addition to the specific research question, the way of doing the research for me is really key in order to stay yourself, I would say, in the way you like to work and not to be frustrated by pressure or by any decision that you have to make, which is key. An issue, oh, I'm not feeling good when you take this decision and you do not have the smile when you go to your job, actually I think it's not a good thing. Everything that I take in term of decision was to try to keep me happy the most time that I can. That was my feeling.

Sandrine: That's a good place to be, and it's true that sometime the collaboration that you start until you are in the middle of them, you do not know what it's going to be like. How do you navigate yourself out of a collaboration once you realize, "Actually, I do not enjoy the interaction with this person. This collaborator actually doesn't have my best interest or isn't actually necessarily interested in what we're trying to do," and exiting a collaboration is hard.

In your case, what will you say is your approach when an interaction where you may have had a lot of hope at the beginning actually isn't turning out the way you want? Because you could carry on and then feel again very frustrated, but sometimes it's just better to stop it. What's been your approach in term of saying, "Okay, this has to stop and we have to move on now"?

Nicolas: Actually, at every step like that, the discussion is really of a key things, execution and clear decision, because if you keep a long time with not a clear cut decision, actually it would be wrong, it would not be good for all the interaction and the future interactions that you will build. I would say that first, it's discussion, and then is to make a clear decision and say the truth. It can be stupid to say that, but sometimes it's quite difficult to tell to the people the truth, I would say, and it's not easy, but it's the most simple thing that I would recommend to do.

If this happened to me for a specific scientific question, the connection that I got with a guy was bad, so actually I decided to stop it and it was a clear discussion, and there weren't any fight, I would say. Then for a totally different scientific question, we again do a connection with these people and it was really useful. I think discuss and be clear with the people for whom you are not, I would say, in the good shape at that moment it's really key.

Sandrine: Do you think that by working with Nestle, which is a big international company, in a way, the impact of the work that you want to do will be more impactful in a way in term of actually making a difference?

Nicolas: I cannot know, I cannot answer to that, but for sure, because there is a huge opportunity touching the public, but also the scientific world, because actually I'm in Nestle, but as you know, I'm also in FIDELIO, so I'm still connected with [unintelligible 00:35:15]. I feel that the connection between industry and academic is really key for science or research and actually at the end, for patient. Academia without any industry cannot do a job, and industry without any academia they cannot also produce product or do their job.

Actually, that's where I want to work again and improve my work, is between the connection between industry and academia. That's why I'm still trying and still have a lot of connection with academia colleague and friends. That's why I'm pushing towards to maintain this interaction and this type of work between industry and academia because I think that's a win-win situation.

Sandrine: Certainly with the COVID situation, it's certainly something that we see how important it is to have this collaboration. Nicolas, what would you tell your young research self in term of making the journey easier or the wisdom that you would want to give to yourself?

Nicolas: I would say that, keep to be exciting by your scientific question. If you are not excited, I will not wake up, I will not have a big smile during the journey. The main thing is to be sure you are excited by your scientific question. If you are that, you are everything for me.

Sandrine: Do you have a few tips maybe for some of the researchers out there in terms of having effective collaboration, because through the expenses that you've had in academia and in industry, collaboration is everything.

Nicolas: I think the most important things for me is to be yourself, Without that, actually the people that you would see will have a feeling that you are not yourself and actually they will not build on you and they will not help you. Everything for me, most of the collaborative connection that I made, I think it start to be some friends. This is really key for me. The connections is, be yourself and discuss a lot with the people around you in order to start with them to see how you going to build your new scientific question. This is really key for me.

Sandrine: Well, thank you very much, Nicolas. It's been really a pleasure talking to you. I do hope to maybe meet you during one of the FIDELIO meeting at some point.

Nicolas: Yes, I'd hope so.

Sandrine: Thank you.

Nicolas: Thanks a lot.

Sandrine: Dear listeners, three points to make from the discussion I had with Nicolas. The first one, do not be scared about research ideas and letting go of some of the topics that you may have worked during your postdoc. When you move on to your fellowship of your lectureship, you may have to build entirely new projects, and ideas are limitless. We should not be scared of having to push towards new ideas. Sometime we may have to let go of the projects that we've cherished for many years during your postdoctoral time to build new research questions like Nicolas says.

The second point is about really spending time in building your research network. Research networks are really the building block of our success in the research world. Some of us, myself included, always find building network extremely challenging. I think the best way of thinking about this is really to think about building a network through one conversation at a time. It's about making friends. It's about engaging with people through interesting conversation. It's about finding people who are interested in our ideas, finding people whose ideas we find interesting, and just talking.

The final point that I'd like to make is about also the truthfulness of the conversation that we need to have, being truthful in term of accepting that sometime conversation can be hard. Accepting that expressing feeling may be important when we are challenged in some of the relationships that we have in our professional environment, and sometime accepting that we have to say goodbye when relationship do not work in the professional context. Being truthful and being daring to have the conversation that we need to have. I hope you've enjoyed the podcast, and I will see you next time. Goodbye.

[music]

[00:40:34] [END OF AUDIO]