20- Dr Katharina Jähn-Rickert- Collaborating away from the big egos

Dr Katharina Jähn-Rickert discuss with Dr Sandrine Soubes about collaboration.

Not many people can say that they have had one of their experiments taken into space. Whilst Katharina did not get onto the astronomer career track, it did not stop her from having some of her experiments on bone biology make it into space.

I ask Katharina to reflect on her approaches to initiating and developing collaborations. She experienced early on the good and the ugly in collaboration, when she lost access to some equipment that was needed for her research. This led her to revisit her approach to her research and opened new doors of interest. Katharina talks about taking the time to get people to know where you are coming from research-wise. She reminds us that much of the challenges in research environments are not the experiments, but the big egos of some researchers.

The conversation will get you to think about:
 

Could the loss of a research avenue become the best gift for your research direction? 

Could an organic approach to initiating collaboration through just engaging in one-to-one deep conversations be the formula for the shy and introvert researchers? 

Do your collaborators know what drives you regarding your publication outputs?


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

Warning- getting a perfect transcript is really hard. This transcript may have mistakes. Be kind to us by accepting these potential errors. We hope that the transcript can be helpful to some of you! Apologies in advances for any mistakes in the transcript.

[background music]

Dr. Sandrine Soubes: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening wherever you are. Today on the podcast, I've got the pleasure to have with me Katharina Jähn-Rickert, who is a PI at the university in Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg, and you work in the department of osteology. I came across Katharina through one of the ITN programs, the FIDELIO ITN, where we have a bunch of PhD researchers working across Europe on lots of different topics to do with bone biology. Welcome to the podcast, Katharina.

Katharina Jähn-Rickert: Thank you so much for having me.

Sandrine: Let's start with the early years in your research life. Can you give us a brief overview of your career in research so far?

Katherina: Yes. I studied biochemistry in my home country in Germany in a place called Leipzig. During the study, I got the opportunity to take part in an Erasmus project which took me to Aberystwyth in Wales. There, I was involved in proteomics and on C. elegans. Somehow it was so exciting to work just within the research settings, and there were lots of international people, lots of exchange between the students, the post-docs. I got so excited that I thought, "Okay, I should really pursue a career like this."

Then, just I don't know, maybe a lucky coincidence or I don't know, I got the chance to meet a professor there who heard from me, and they came from Leipzig to do an Erasmus project, and he then started to connect me to people in Switzerland, in Davos in the AO, and that's where I did my PhD on bone biology, actually with a bioreactor. That was my start. I think really nice for me personally, to do that.

Sandrine: Why bone biology? It's often when I talk to researchers about why choosing a topic, it's sometimes we have a vague interest in a research based on maybe a lecture that we've had in our studies or on a master that we've done, but actually teaching a PhD topic is really challenging.

It's not necessarily the case that we have all of the opportunities in the world of working on something. When you were making the decision about the type of topic to work for your PhD, how did you really get around to choose? Because depending on who we meet, the opportunities that we have, or our daring we are to reach out to people, the choices that we make are very significant in shaping the rest of our career. In your case, what was the purpose of actually making this choice?

Katherina: Yes. What I just described was the initial spark, let's say, this international environment that really excited me and an opportunity that came along from the topics I have to say. During the biochemistry study in Leipzig, we had also lots of practical sessions in the different labs in and around Leipzig. One of the topics that I was super excited at the time, was the circadian rhythm. I tried to get involved with the group. I came very close to catching the position to do my diploma there and then go on to do my PhD or doktor [unintelligible 00:04:00] it would be in Germany at the time, but I didn't quite make it.

Then, I was invited for this interview with this opportunity that I just mentioned in Davos at the AO Foundation. I have to say, I just went maybe a little naïve as into the topic of bone. When I was there I was surprised, astonished, blown away. It just took me into a completely different world that I was not expecting because maybe some people can relate to it. I was thinking, "Okay, bone is rigid material that we have, what's so fascinating about it? What should happen? What's going on?"

There, there was so much research done, bone explants, mechanical loading, experiments that went to space, and tissue engineering. Mind-blowing is maybe a good word. That's why I decided, "Okay, I like the international idea. I like also the group there. The research topic was exciting and something maybe also out of the box in a way," that's why.

Sandrine: In a bio that I found of you online, it says that one of the projects that you worked on that was funded by the European Space Agency, and that got me very excited. Against it, there's been lots of documentaries about the studies that are made in terms of thinking of the bones of astronauts and so on. Tell us a little bit about this.

Katherina: [laughs] Yes. For this, I have to say, when I was a little kid, my first career choice was always to become an astronaut. Unfortunately, I cannot spin so fast, I get super dizzy [laughs] so I cannot become an astronaut like this. Then, in this research, I think during my PhD there was the opportunity to collaborate with other research on this project funded by the European Space Agency.

The idea was to look into high-frequency loading with low impact and what it does on bone metabolism if it's in any way, anabolic because as you probably know, one of the biological problems for astronauts being on a long space mission is the lack of gravity which really affects the musculoskeletal tissue and for the bone, you have a dramatic loss in bone material. To prevent, or at least to delay that loss, or reduce the loss of bone, the astronauts also on the International Space Station, they have to do quite a lot of exercise, but it's still not giving sufficient results, so they would still lose muscle mass, but also bone.

The idea of this project was to have a bioreactor. No animal experiments that was sent up to space, but a bioreactor with bone explants from-- What? I have to remember, I think it was bovine bone, so from the slaughterhouse where you would have your steak coming. We took the bone material and then took them for some time in space.

Sandrine: Oh, wow. Having your experiments go into space there, it's very exciting.

Katherina: It is, yes.

[laughter]

Sandrine: At the end of your PhD, then what did you decide to do?

Katherina: I think most PhDs have some critical point or at least that's what I heard. For me, there was also a point in time, let's say maybe halfway through the PhD where I could not work any longer with the bioreactor, that was the main part of my project, and that was all my experiments were based on this bioreactor. I got the challenge in a way from my supervisors that was, "Okay. This is your PhD, so you can either if you don't want to finish this as a master, or now this is your time to develop it further." I started to read a lot and what can I do, maybe some other [unintelligible 00:08:45] systems.

One of the stereotypes that we always investigated within the bone reactors and check the viability during these long-term cultures that we were doing was the osteocyte. During my reading, and what I could do, and maybe explore other ways to culture cells, or explants, ex vivo, it was coming more and more to my attention that the osteocyte was a new topic at the time. Somehow they said it was maybe a little bit forgotten in bone.

I seemed to have at the time all these other functions and I just got highly excited. I think it was a conference I was able to go to, where I heard the first time a talk from Professor Lynda Bonewald, who was at the time, I think at Texas, and then went to Kansas City, so in the US. The novel research that she presented the ideas together with that, that all had to do with the role of osteocytes in bone just totally spoke to me. I decided that this is something I would like to do, I would like to learn more about osteocytes and do research with those cells.

Sandrine: That's interesting because, in a way, it's about going from whatever the topic is, doing the PhD, to actually carving the research niche. The concept of the research niche is something that's mainly at the beginning of a research career. Also, the challenge of shifting from whatever the topic of the PhD supervisor is to actually what becomes yours in terms of making something, your own space, and creating something. One of the things that you just said about almost like a forgotten topic, something that is-- but they are forgotten topics that are not necessarily topics that you're going to get funding on.

How did you, in a way, navigate the space of going, "Well, this area, I'm getting quite excited about it, and that's something that can actually become my research in this thing that I develop"? How did you link to the ideas that you were building at the time to actually choosing a topic to work for your postdoc? Was the PI for the postdoc, somebody who already had a project, or did you design the project? How did you explore this transition?

Katherina: My first postdoc was actually done with the professor I just mentioned so Lynda Bonewald because I felt brave enough to contact her. I made an inquiry, so to say. Just an application out of the blue. I emphasized my research interest and what I had already learned from her papers and the way I would like to go. My main drive at that point was to, in a way, support osteocyte research and find more functions of these cells. Then I think we met online first and then later on in an interview also. She was suggesting a few topics to me to see also where my interest lies. When I started my postdoc refer, I had two major topics.

One of them was something that she was also funded for and she really liked. The other one was something where I could maybe develop it myself a bit further and that was another project that we later finished. It was a mix of the PI's interest and then also giving me the opportunity during this time to develop something also that I find exciting. At the beginning, to be honest, it was something that had to do with autophagy, so a different topic, and that didn't work out. Even though I was excited and I thought this could be something good, I didn't quite manage to pursue it. Also, technically at the time. It was then another topic that then went better and then also became my interest topic.

Sandrine: In a way, you're making an important point here in terms of also sometimes having to let go in terms of the technology isn't quite there to be able to do a set of experiments that I'm interested in. Instead of going down the rabbit hole to actually accept, "Okay, I need to move on." One of the topics that I'm particularly interested in exploring with you is the topic of collaboration. Often, having worked with many PhD students and postdocs, they often find really, really challenging, the first steps of developing their own collaboration. They rely maybe on the collaborators of their PI or their PhD supervisor. Early on in your career, how did you actually start seeking your own collaborators? One of the things that you mentioned earlier in terms of the project that you did as part of the European Space Agency was a collaborative project. Early on in your career, what was the way that you went about it?

Katherina: Yes, as you mentioned, so the space agency project was maybe the first collaboration I witnessed and I experienced, even though those were not my collaborators, those were the collaborators of my [inaudible 00:14:39]. I saw the good and the bad, I would say. One of the reasons why the bioreactor was also not available for my studies had to do with this collaboration and things that can happen, I guess, if people come together and have to discuss what has to be done or what not has to be done. I do have to say that overall, the experience working together has been a positive because from all the collaborations also now that I'm witnessing, it's gain that you get.

There's something that either you cannot do technically or you cannot understand maybe intellectually or just because it's a little bit out of your research background. To bring this together to a project or a consortium is just great to have that. It just expands everything.

My own collaborators, I find it personally easy to not particularly seek them, but actually, go about it in a way to-- the more you work together in teams and especially by moving around. I have been to Switzerland, I have been to the UK, I've been to the US, and you meet people, you work together with people, you go to conferences and maybe there's a person on your post that you just talk to for a very long time and you will meet them again.

You establish some connection, you will talk about your work, maybe about their work and these collaborations then happen in a way naturally. It's not that like totally naturally, maybe sometimes you have to say, "You remember we have met," or maybe it's, let's say a friend or so, and then you say, "Please, I have seen this advertisement, there's a grant and it would be a great opportunity to actually develop a project together. We had this idea." To go from these personal connections that you make, that for me was the best way so far to establish collaborations.

Sandrine: What have you found challenging in increasing the reach of people knowing you? Because in a way, when you go to a conference and you feel that you're a lonely PhD student or a lonely postdoc and you don't know anyone and you're not necessarily somebody who is very much of an extrovert in terms of really talking to anybody who is at the conference. Reaching out in the context of meeting a conference to get people to where you just want to have conversation, but also in terms of maybe you're missing technology for your research and you have to contact. What has been your own approach so that you were able to go out there so that people will help you to bring stuff for their project? Also when you felt that I can bring something to somebody else's project, how have you practically done about it? Because in theory, we know, say, "Oh, yes, you just contact people," but many people find that really challenging.

Katherina: I personally find that challenging too. I am still getting highly nervous if let's say there's a big crowd in a real auditorium, also in these online meetings and it's time to ask questions and have a discussion. It's just something, I guess, that is more nerve-racking for some people than for others. What to do when I have a pressing question and maybe want to connect to someone. For me, I have always liked to approach the person personally; that works best for me because then I also have time to maybe go a little bit deeper into the conversation.

Let's say I would like something from that person, some knowledge or some insight. Either after the presentation, after the session, I see if maybe the person is approachable, I can go there and just introduce myself and say, "I'm really excited about your work and I would like to know this and that," or to ask for help for me. Also, on these early conferences where, maybe I went alone or there's just not so much interaction because you are new to the field, I have always found the social events super good, where you meet the people in a little bit more relaxed atmosphere and maybe you have the chance to talk to your table neighbor sitting next to you and just have a conversation there and find out if maybe that person, just what they are doing. Obviously, find something else, where you can somehow connect and see if you can learn from each other. Both of these approaches, I really like them.

Sandrine: Sometimes on paper, somebody made to be your collaborator, because what they have could really answer research. On paper, in theory, this person will be the right person as a collaborator, but they are people that we don't really get on with. In a way, for you, when you're initiating conversation with people, what do you think is a total put-off that you start talking with this person, but then you feel, "Okay they're a total jerk"? Or, I don't know, it's like, "I'm not going to even try because the vibe that I'm getting isn't right"? In your case, what is the pull or push in terms of following on the conversation so that the person potentially becomes a collaborator?

Katherina: For me, I think it has to do with respect and that's exactly where your first question came from. If I'm the PhD student and I'm going maybe to a professor or an associate professor and I'm asking a question, if he or she is not really interested in even looking into my eyes and maybe just talking to the next person who was another professor who came later to ask a question, then I know that that's not something I can do because the collaboration would be not on the same ground, let's say it in picturesque words. That's definitely something where I thought, "Okay, then I will not address this any further or talk no further." If I find that the person, maybe, makes a joke, let's say there was-- actually, what I thought was a competitor from my previous boss was working on a similar topic on osteocyte viability at the time. I saw his presentation and I went to him and I wanted to ask him a question. My boss at the time was like, "Yes, yes, go and ask."

I was like, "Okay." Then I do it. Just after a first introduction then I was brave enough because he was smiling at me. I said, "I was a little reluctant to talk to you because I wasn't sure if we are competing with one another." He started laughing and yelled through the almost empty auditorium to my boss and repeated what I just said. Then they were both laughing. That's when I think that this is a nice person and you can just talk about your work. [laughs]

Sandrine: In a way, it's not avoiding the issue that, "Yes, we're working on the same thing," and it's like, "Yes, we are competing, but it's fine we can still talk," I guess?

Katherina: Yes. Then they were talking about the things that they have done together previously. Emphasizing that they are collaborating and things that maybe-- but I didn't know obviously because I didn't see it. That made it very comfortable.

Sandrine: Is there something that you do at the start of a collaboration in terms of the conversation that you have with people that really helps set the scene on how the collaboration is working? Because collaboration just starts with a conversation, but going from a conversation to actually doing really fruitful work together, there is a pass where things go well or not so well. Sometimes you may get really great research output, but the process was really painful. In a way, is there something that you do yourself when you're starting these initial conversations and then moving on that you think really are helpful in having really effective and enjoyable collaboration?

Katherina: Personally, I have to say, so for me, it also depends on-- so if I'm starting this and if I may be starting this a little bit with a person that I maybe don't know so much, I would always like to start with what's my background, what's the research I have been doing, and what's the research I'm doing now. Maybe depending on the person I talk to and if they are maybe a more high-up professor or a medical doctor that's more in the clinic, I maybe expand a little bit more. Maybe I say also the papers that I have published, or maybe I even mention the grants that I have obtained. To really set up, "Okay, this is what I have achieved and maybe you don't know this, but I would like to tell you this now."

Then, when talking about the collaboration I find it super helpful but also say what I personally would like to get out of this. If it is an opportunity for me to collaborate because maybe the person has samples or specimens that I could never obtain myself, then I would obviously emphasize this fact. Then say what I would really like to investigate with these samples to show them that maybe this is something they haven't thought of themselves, but also to say, "Okay, this is based on what I've told you previously. This is my area of expertise. I can really work with this in a collaboration with you."

Then, obviously, there will be these difficult and hard discussions about maybe then also authorships within your collaboration, but it doesn't have to be just within the collaboration. These are always difficult topics. I find it good to be open, it's best to talk about it. Sometimes obviously there is a person who has done the most work that will be the first author, but maybe there are two people who feel like they have done the most work. Especially if you start something, if you are collaborating, maybe one person leads or has to work on another project. This has to be discussed, I think it's the best. Sometimes the discussion might not go so well, then you stop it and you start again another day.

Usually, from what I have experienced, at one point you reach a ground where everyone is happy just don't give up talking, I find. If there's some bad blood in the way then just take some rest and start again the next day I think to discuss further.

Sandrine: It's interesting because also in terms of the interdisciplinary collaboration, in terms of discussing where the work gets published it can be problematic. What has been your approach in having this discussion with-- because the work that you do is quite interdisciplinary.

Katherina: It is, yes.

Sandrine: What is the parts of the conversation that you have when you discuss where the work is going to be published? Because, again, depending on your discipline what is valued in terms of the type of publication where you may be expected to publish is different than somebody else. In this conversation about where to publish interdisciplinary collaboration, what has been your approach so that everybody's happy with the outcome?

Katherina: As a younger researcher, I have to say I had a dream journal where I always would like to publish. I always wanted to have a first author presentation in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, so the JBMR. because that's the one that all the bone researchers will read. That was my wish, my aim. It took me some years and I was super excited when it actually happened. Why did it take me some years? Some projects; maybe not. There's a certain standard that obviously the journal requires and maybe your project is a little smaller. Some of my earlier work were maybe smaller, or maybe not in the interests quite, of the editor at the time. Then you have to seek for another journal.

Nowadays with these interdisciplinary projects now that I'm working on-- it's in a way a discussion, but it's still that I depend also on the suggestions of, they are still my mentors. If there is a suggestion there which is of high impact, so we all want to publish in high-impact journals, then obviously we will try, we will see maybe if we get some reviewer comments. Maybe we didn't make it, but these reviewer comments we have now, actually a manuscript that has not been published yet but we got very good reviewer comments from a high-impact journal. This has been super useful. I think the manuscript has been much improved. Maybe now, with the current review process that we are in, this will help us actually to get it published.

It's definitely a challenge because it is the aim to publish in high-impact journals. Personally, I prefer that the people of my crowds or my collaborators, competitors, that they are reading it, and then the best if they decide to sign it. We had a great opportunity also to publish in Frontiers journal and had a review process that is super open. All the reviewer comments are published online. This was a super good experience also for us because it gave us a chance to publish this work, we had trouble publishing this manuscript. Now, a lot of people, I think, it has over 2,000 views already so that makes me very happy.

Sandrine: It's interesting because that's an important point in terms of what you value as a researcher, as a scientist. From what you're describing, actually, having people read your work from your crowds, from your research community, in a way is almost more important, personally, than actually high impact. Everybody wants a high-impact publication, obviously, in terms of career progression, and so on, but actually being read by your community is really what drives you.

Again, that's something that between collaborators, what people value can be very different. Do you, in a way at the start, when you are going from conversation to actually putting in place the collaboration, do you actually discuss that from the start, or do you wait later on? In terms of what is the most important in terms of the outcome of the project, whether it's a publication or something else.

To actually sit down and saying, "Okay, that's really what matters to me in the way we work," or, "That's really what matters to me, in what I would like to have at the end of this collaboration."

Katherina: I have to say sometimes, and maybe now more than in the past, because of discrepancies that I experienced. I do find it useful to also when I talk about myself maybe mention, not just what I have been working on, and what I would like to do in the future, but also how I would like to work in a way. What matters to me personally, and also then in a collaboration, as in my own independent research too, is that the work is seen, that the work is appreciated, and that the work is also later on maybe discussed and referenced by other people. That it's actually of value. For me, this matters more, because even though I'm driven by this internal drive of finding out something new, just because that excites me, I would like that it contributes and helps the research in general, that is surrounding me.

It's also very, like a compliment to myself, if somebody then, based on a publication of mine, then contacts me and says, "We've tried to repeat your method, we cannot quite make it work. Can you send me how you did that?" Then if I see that paper from these people, of which it happened lately, then I'm super proud. I'm thinking, "Okay, so they could also do their work because of what we have done previously." Another new piece of data that's contributing. That's of value to me. Yes, I think something that is of importance, and I do that now more often as in the past because it does help to set a common ground. You find out if the person is appreciating the way you see research or if he's in a different world, and has other priorities.

Sandrine: In a way, it's about anchoring the relationship in really openness, honesty, and depth of conversation in saying what we need, I guess?

Katherina: Yes.

Sandrine: If you think about collaboration that has really not worked at all. Go back into the negative space of, "This really didn't work." What made it really such a challenging collaboration?

Katherina: Personally, I have experienced when egos are too big, too strong, or just have collided too much that that really causes a problem. That's a very personal thing. My personal experience with that, it was somebody else's ego. It had nothing to do really with me, but it impacted me in my project. The ego problem is probably not just in research, a big problem. That's really hard to do something about that.

Especially if it's maybe in your early career and you cannot quite help it by starting the conversation by yourself to maybe get them to start again and maybe see that they have a common connection. That's, I think, from my experience, the biggest problem that I have. As in for research, I think, let's say, that was my PhD project I'm thinking about where the bioreactor was not available anymore. I have to say, at the end of the day, it brought very positive things for me.

This trouble in the collaboration that was happening, that I have no influence on but impacted me so much because it led me then, to develop my own research. It started a process that was painful because it just stopped everything that was working. In a way, it created something more. How I see it nowadays is if a collaboration is really not working, and there is no way turning back, or maybe kitting that process, then I think it's okay to let it go.

On the other hand, I have a very good colleague and friend of mine, and we had a really bad experience getting a grant funded, and we're still trying again this year to get it funded. There were all sorts of things happening. One time, I did not submit the additional file. I think one time, she could actually not submit the grant because she had another grant already in the pipeline. There were lots of things happening. We were both getting really upset with one another over the process, which also impacted our friendship for some time. That we could keep, so it took some time, we both like research, we're still investigated in it, and we both appreciate the other person.

Then my tip is just to say, "Okay, if it's somebody that you have a good connection with, maybe take a break. Try again to talk in half a year." Actually, from my experience, if the drive is the research then you'll find you're getting it.

Sandrine: That's really a good point you make because the process and even the administrative process is not something that we think about very often in terms of actually making research work because there are lots of internal boundaries. Even in terms of research funding of working with different institutions, or people from maybe also working with people in industry and limits that can be put in building the collaboration in terms of intellectual property, and so on.

Often, they are structural barriers that are created not because of us, but because of the system, that challenge the interaction. If the starting point is that you appreciate the person, you appreciate their thinking, you're interested in what they have to offer, even if it's challenging, eventually you may reach a point and say, "Okay, let's start this again." That was valuable. In terms of your expense of interdisciplinary working, and also working with people outside of the confines of the university, what experiences could you describe, and advice that you have of making these collaborations work? Because again, if you're thinking about interdisciplinary work, you're adding a complexity in terms of the interaction. If you're talking about working with industry, it's another level of complexity. Could you describe an example of another interdisciplinary experience that you've had, or with partners outside of the institution where you feel it has really worked because?

Katherina: Yes. The best example, the most freshest one is maybe my current working situation. I'm in a research group, led by Björn Busse, the head of my group, who is really focusing on medical engineering, so bioengineering, so to put it in other words, the bone matrix, and all the functions that it has and all the ways to image it, and maybe to break it, or to investigate how it breaks.

The common ground that we had was the osteocyte, which is embedded in the bone matrix. I was focusing on the cell. The problem that we previously had and still sometimes have is the different languages in a way. If we are trying to work on something together, my view is totally based on the cellular function and maybe how it behaves there, maybe what it does with its surrounding matrix while the other side of view is totally on the matrix and things that I can, in my own words, to this day, not describe so much. The challenge here is to really find the way where the language is the same anyway. To me, this makes it exciting because I actually find it strange. In a way, inter-disciplinary approaches are the way to the future, I find, because, at the end of the day, we all started to learn something we have no idea about, doing our studies, or in school, then later on, as a PhD student.

It's not that I knew everything about DNA isolation or I knew how to count osteoblasts on a microscope before I studied it, and so it's a process. Even though maybe I am not getting involved to a great extent now with Raman spectroscopy because it's used so much in my group, but I am still being exposed to it through the discussions and presentation of the work, and then I am also answering the questions.

I think it just requires the open mind, and maybe also the acceptance sometimes that, I will not understand everything 100%, and maybe I have to ask a lot of these, what I also feel, stupid questions. At the end of the day, I have these aha-effect, and then maybe I can, later on, contribute with an idea that's based on because, "Oh, okay, so now I understand this, but then maybe that means this and that because altogether, this is what we need, right?"

I think maybe it's also ego, a bit, just in a different way because you have to accept, "Okay, I just don't know that. Maybe I will not 100% know that but I still would like to get as much involved as I possibly can because, at the end of the day, also my contribution will be also helpful to the other person who's an

an expert may be in Raman spectroscopy," so yes.

Sandrine: Thank you. I like to shift to the idea now of your role as the PI because going from being a postdoc to then running your own research group, the responsibilities that you have are different, and in a way, the role that you have in shaping the career of others become an additional challenge in your research find. If we're focusing on the idea of collaboration, what is your own approach to supporting your PhD student and postdoc initiate their own collaboration and work well within the context of building their, what I call, their collaboration potential?

Katherina: Maybe I'm sometimes a little bit protective. This might be good or not good. Everyone has to make their own experiences I find. I would like to say that I find it good, and I hope, I'm trying to come across like this to my own students in a way that I say, "Okay, when you go to a conference, the people that you interact with, the other students, those can be your future collaborators, so, in a way, maybe be the person that you are trying to connect.

If there's something or someone that you feel is either very helpful, that you feel very connected with, just go about it very naturally because this may be the future group leader, so when the PhD student is becoming a group leader, the connections are already made at this level. That's a very important point to consider. It's not just about talking to this great professor that you read 20 papers from and that you're highly excited to talk about, maybe it's about his student, his or her student that you sit to next to the table, and maybe this will be a person, in the future, that is super a failure.

Why am I protected? It's because obviously, what you don't want is that you have a person who is highly excited about research and maybe is so excited to share everything, so everything that is also unpublished may be something that is super exciting, but you have never shared this with anyone outside of your research group. That's just something that I find needs maybe a little talk to make the student also aware actually.

Please share but be careful. You don't want to maybe also, I suppose in a way, it's also a natural thing. If I'm meeting a new person, I'm not going to tell everything of my past, or all my secrets. I'm going to start and then I develop the conversation further. It comes from this excitement that's just if you have a person-- I think we all want that PhD student who is burning, has this internal fire to just do the work but that can then cause him or her to bubble out all the information that he or she knows. That's just something to say, "Okay, calm down. Ignore everything." [chuckles]

Sandrine: I like your analogy in term of sharing with somebody something about yourself from the start or not and how deep you can go because in a lot of the workshops that I run, I tell people that it's about really the connecting with others, sharing the interests but how far you can get, in terms of the openness with the research data that you have. It can be really hard to know what's the boundaries that you create. Again, I suppose it's about having conversation with your supervisor to make sure that whatever is you are working in the lab, what is for public consumption, and what is not quite ready yet. That's a fine boundary. It's quite difficult to--

Katherina: It's difficult. It just comes with practice, but everyone also has to acknowledge that. There will be situations to maybe say too much, "Okay, good," but then you learn for the future because you're creating a new research so, at one point, you actually will be fine. The other thing with indoor settings is also training your student maybe if they're presenting their work, for whom they are presenting. It's something I also find sometimes challenging.

What's the expectation? Are you presenting at the international conference, and you want to blow everyone away with your latest data, or are you presenting, for instance, now at the beginning of mid-term meeting, and you actually want to show also maybe not just your data, but also, you want to emphasize your interconnectivity with the other students that are involved in the consortium? That's something that is also of super importance. What's the crowd that actually listens to you, and what do they want to get from you?

Sandrine: Some of the final points I like to discuss with you is the idea of bias and gender. We've been talking about bias much more over the last few years, and, well, in the public sphere, but also in academia. How do you think that biases may have influenced your own collaboration, in term of the way that you have sought to collaborate with some people versus others, or whether people have reached out to you or not?

I think it's a very healthy question because often there are many biases that we are not aware, obviously. Now, we know we are not aware of our biases, but I don't know whether you've done any sort of internal work in terms of figuring some of these things out, or you've observed behaviors. What's your take, in term of biases and gender, in the context of collaboration, based on your own experiences?

Katherina: That's a tricky question. I agree that we all carry this bias. In research, we have to be super cautious also because of the work and that's actually where my mind was going. If I'm analyzing something, and I have to count something, I am always with this little person in my mind going, "Okay, don't be biased. Don't be biased." Maybe I know what the sample is even though I am blinded, and I should not know, I'm trying to be as objective as I can but there's a personal connection, and a collaboration.

I mean I can make it maybe a little bit more broad. I do think there can be a bias if a person is maybe more junior than a senior collaborator. The bias also that I would have is that the senior person is more experienced, people know this person much more, and that this would be a much better partner for myself to collaborate with. Maybe he or she is already so super busy, that maybe they don't answer my requests, my emails. This, I have also experienced, and then it is much better to consider the tune your options, as in gender-wise for bias. Personally, I don't have that, but I can see how this could be a problem. I'm hoping by just focusing on myself and saying so, I'm also not being biased. I collaborate with men and women so I would just like that everyone does the same.

I think it's totally fine to acknowledge that the way we are we're personally different. As you are different to me, you can go where I have the same sex. Maybe there are also some common characteristics of collaborating with a woman versus a man that I think it's a strength to view this because maybe not based on the sex but maybe this one person is in a way, more caring. In a collaboration, he or she will take more focus on if everyone is actually doing okay, or by doing the work, or someone is overwhelmed.

That is equally important as it is to look at the pure science. It might be good to have a person in collaboration who just focuses on the data. I would just like to encourage everyone to see it as an opportunity and not as a negative message. Maybe to sum this up at this point. I have heard the words that once a woman becomes a mother, it's not possible to be a scientist anymore.

Sandrine: [laughs] That's terrible [unintelligible 00:51:52].

Katherina: It's maybe not easy, but I also don't know what the fathers are doing in research. They also have challenges to master. Yes, just get over it. [laughs] The opportunities are then there to maybe, even though you're having a scientific discussion, to maybe share some joy and hopes. You see the little kid bouncing around in the background of the online meeting, and then maybe everyone gets a little laugh, and the meeting is more relaxed again so why not? If that's the benefit, okay.

Sandrine: How do you see your own role as a senior research leader, as a woman, in term of keeping other women in research careers because we keep talking about the leaky pipeline. We have many women as PhD student and postdoc, but then the transition to becoming a PI is much more challenging. What do you see as your role in helping women to, in a way, have a sense that they can have that type of career? What is it that you may do in your department, with your own PhD students? I think it goes beyond helping people to have confidence, but the way you're approaching your role as a mentor of other women in that space.

Katherina: I try to be myself as much as I can. That also means to me that I show that something is maybe hard. That I'm also maybe sometimes disappointed by some of the developments, maybe in a collaboration. I just start going about it by talking openly but also sharing that, I think there are different ways of doing things than we maybe see in general. I'm not living in the town where my workplace is based. I have an apartment there and I'm there nowadays with the pandemic maybe three days a week, maybe sometimes just two days a week.

I'm doing then the work that I would like to do at the time, at the place, maybe in the lab or maybe more face-to-face meetings, also things that I cannot do online. One thing is to set an example, but at the same time, also be honest. Nothing is worse than pretending how easy it all is maybe to get funding also. It's good to see the more and more you grow up with the research. I think it's natural and okay to start focusing on your project, especially as a PhD student.

At one point, when you become more relaxed about it and more experienced about it, you will see other things like maybe the political issues in your department, or maybe the problems in a collaboration. Maybe the need to get funding and maybe also the problems that you see in your PI having to write all these grants. It's good for everyone to experience that because only by seeing that, they can make their own suggestions.

I would always encourage people to stay in research and pursue this career, but I'm also not at all opposed of maybe finding different ways, maybe going a little bit to industries. I've heard of people doing that and then coming back, or I have seen great research being involved in pharmaceutical companies and doing fantastic job there. I think there's a multitude of way of how you can contribute if you like science. That's what I would like to portray also to my students.

Sandrine: At least one of the questions that I had for you, in term of what does it give you to work in academia, that you feel you may not get from other type of role because there, you can do research in lots of different contexts? Often working in academia, the salary is not necessarily mega high compared to what you may get into industry. In a way, for you, what's the buzz of carrying on research in academia?

Katherina: First of all, I have to say, so I know about the salary discussion, but then at the end of the day, I think one has to honestly ask, especially if I maybe 10 to 12 hours in the lab if I like to, or maybe I work in the evening and just finish before I fall into bed, so then, what honestly, do I need? How much money do I need to have a happy and healthy life, maybe also supporting my family? That's maybe one thing to consider, a personal note. I personally have not worked in industry. I was just about doing it. I was highly excited about it at one point, but I did not manage to have this opportunity. I can only speak from my view that I have.

I feel very free in the academia research environment, even though I've always had a project that was maybe also given to me. Maybe that wasn't my first drive to say, "Okay, this is the project now," but then there are so many opportunities where I could also then do my own work that I do value a lot, the openness. There's a lot of exchange with other researchers, international researchers alike that you have great opportunities to teach.

It doesn't always have to be a lecture at your university. It can also be on the lab bench or maybe you have a discussion about a future collaboration with your student and you want to make sure that he or she knows what's happening and what's about to happen. This, I value a lot and I value that you can arrange the time quite freely. As a pure researcher not being a medical researcher, so I'm not in the clinical or anything, I'm not an MD, I'm just doing research.

Obviously, there can be experiments that require a certain timing, and maybe you have meetings and so on nowadays, a lot. At the end of the day, if I feel like I'm exhausted, my brain is about to burst from all the information and I decide to take the afternoon off because I need to refresh my mind, but then maybe, I can also spend another hour in the evening to finish something I had to finish. That's a freedom that is not given with all other jobs. I find that very appealing with academia.

Sandrine: If you were giving yourself some advice to your young self, what will it be to be able to navigate the research life more freely, with more ease? What would you tell to yourself as a starting PhD student?

Katherina: Relax.

[laughter]

Katherina: I would certainly relax, for me personally. I find the best things have come to me also in my career when I just let it happen. Instead of coaching something through, it just makes me a better person and then researcher to relax into it. I've started my PhD, I had no own funding. It was already there so I could relax into it. Some of the opportunities that I've come across even though at the beginning they didn't look like or maybe they looked a little bit challenging. For instance, before I got my own first grant at the German Research Foundation that supported my salary, I was very worried. I was nervous and not sure what's going to happen to my career. At the end, it happened and it worked out. It's good to just relax. Be confident that it will happen.

Sandrine: To finish off, I like to ask my podcast interviewee about some tips. If you had a few tips to give to researchers to learn to navigate the research world, what will these tips be?

Katherina: The tips would be, so I think once you start going and navigate around in the research environment, you are already an expert in what you are doing. Be confident about that but don't stop reading. It's good to read as much as you can or maybe nowadays watch another webinar of a great scientist to get some insights into other fields. It will help you at one point even though you think, "That's not really my topic, it's not related to me." That's something as in the science world.

The other advice that I would say is try and be as much as yourself as you can be. At the end of the day, even though you are told maybe you have to be harder or you have to work harder or you have to be, I don't know, innovate more at a professional aspect but maybe just-- I'm thinking of this very stern woman that I met at the beginning of my research career. That's not something that I am personally am. I would like to be myself at the time while doing this job. That's, I think, my advice to other researchers just to be yourself because at the end of the day, that's how you make connections that are valuable also for your job.

Sandrine: It's very much about finding the right role models that not everybody in science is the right role model for yourself and that seeking to emulate behaviors that you're seeing that's the type of person I want to become instead of having a formatted idea of what you ought to be like.

Katherina: It's good to work with and maybe also work for different personalities to get the experience. At one point, it's great to make a decision, "Okay, that's maybe the person or some of the traits that I would also like to have for myself and be this sort of researcher." That's a good drive to have.

Sandrine: Thank you very much, Katherina, for the conversation. I really, really appreciate your time, really a pleasure to meet you. I hope that we get a chance to meet face to face maybe at some point. Thank you.

Katherina: That would be great. Thank you so much for having me. It was a pleasure.

Sandrine: Thank you.

[music]

Sandrine: I hope you've enjoyed the discussion I had with my guest. I'm very grateful that you've been listening to us. I hope that you enjoy more in the future podcast. I wish you a very good day. If you want to contribute to the podcast, I'm very interested to hear from you as I'm always happy to invite some new interviewee on this podcast. If you've got an interesting story about life in research and about the research environment, get in touch with me at sandrine@tesselledevelopment.com.

[music]

[01:03:52] [END OF AUDIO]