This post was jointly written by Sarah Teichmann (Cambridge Stem Cell Institute) and Frank Bradke (DZNE), with help from Aidan Maartens (Wellcome Sanger Institute).
In 2023, we published an article in PLoS Biology – Key attributes of successful research institutes – in which we explored the critical role that research institutes play in the scientific ecosystem and the key features and processes that underpin them. We had enlisted the help of Aidan Maartens, a scientific writer working in the Wellcome Sanger Institute’s Cellular Genomics programme, which Sarah was leading at the time, to get our ideas organised and words on down the page. We were then helped by a host of generous readers and reviewers to refine our ideas, and by PLOS Biology editor Joanna Clarke who guided the overall structure and helped us get it over the line. The article seemed to strike a chord with many readers – people working at various institutes around the world and in various capacities have reached out to us regarding their own perspectives. Two years on, we look back on the genesis of the article and explore how our thinking has changed since then.
How it started: a sabbatical in Cambridge
Frank Bradke (FB): I’ve known Sarah since 2019, and had a 3-month sabbatical in her lab at the Sanger just before COVID-19 hit us all. I chose to go to Sarah’s lab because I am fascinated by the potential of single cell omics technologies, and her lab is simply one of the best in this field worldwide.
When I visited the Sanger, I did what I do whenever I visit a research institute: I tried to understand the ‘vibe’ of the place. What is the culture? How is research organized? What opportunities are there for the scientists at different levels, and how do they talk to each other? Do they question each other easily, or is there resistance to questioning a conclusion of somebody ‘higher up’? I am also always curious about other points that might not be related to science at first glance, but that I consider important. For example, how long does it take to get reimbursements back and how much effort are they? How much time do you need for buying and installing a computer? Ordering an antibody: a matter of days or weeks? Organization of seminars: who comes? Each visit leads to many impressions – just like working on scientific advisory boards does and, of course, working in one’s own institute, where day-to-day observation helps to shape its direction.
During my sabbatical, over coffee breaks and lunches, I was excited to learn that Sarah was also thinking along the same lines, and had also collected many of her own impressions over the years. Once I returned home, we continued our discussions over Zoom and, at some point, our discussions became more structured. We felt that we really wanted to learn from each other, and it was only a small step to bring what we learnt to a paper. To get the paper written, we enlisted Aidan Maartens, who collaborated with Sarah as a scientific writer, and who worked with us intensively to get our ideas on the page. We also wanted to learn from others, and sought input from scientists around the globe. Many of our friends and colleagues read our article draft and provided us with their perspectives on the topic. I enjoyed this part immensely.
Searching for what makes certain places special
Sarah Teichmann (ST): Much of our coffee time discussions focused on what makes particular institutes special. Over the past 3+ decades, I’ve worked at four very different UK research institutes for extended periods of time (MRC-Laboratory of Molecular Biology, EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Cambridge Stem Cell Institute), and at further institutes and university departments for shorter periods. I’ve also had the privilege of working in a global pharma company (GSK), as well as co-founding two startups (TransitionBio and Ensocell Therapeutics). This has given me a broad perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of different types of work environments, and what organisational structures incentivise particular behaviours (in good or bad ways), or nudge researchers towards one type of science over another.
In addition, the sheer length of time that I’ve been in this business has provided a perspective on how the scientific community and its organisations change (more or less rapidly) in response to changes in our society, changes in the law, and so on. And I feel that while there is certainly still plenty of space for improvement, we are generally moving in the right direction with respect to good governance, transparency, equality of opportunities and inclusion, integrity, and so forth. There is a lot of good practice out there, but we might not have the best ways of sharing it.
I was a group leader at EMBL-EBI and sat on the Senior Management Committee from 2013–16. The framework for the institute is the EMBL intergovernmental treaty organisation (founded in 1974) and this, coupled with the outstanding management and leadership of Prof Dame Janet Thornton FMedSci FRS, meant that the institute was exceptionally well run. As a result, we were also spectacularly productive in the early single cell genomics era, with great collaborations. It was a first-hand example of how an excellent environment can culture excellent science.
FB: EMBL – in Heidelberg rather than the Cambridge outpost! – was also very special for me. In many respects it is an ideal institute, even if I am probably idealizing it because it gave me my scientific imprint, starting when I joined the PhD program. Our first 3 months were basically a joint field trip through all different science programmes. The PhD students knew more about the different programmes than any other group of people at EMBL – they formed a kind of circulatory system that stimulated collaboration. It felt that there was not too much of a hierarchy within the institute: at seminars it didn’t matter who was asking or commenting. The rule was that any tough questions needed to be asked at this seminar. And believe, me there were many tough questions! This helped you learn to argue scientifically on a very high level, so when you presented your work elsewhere you were truly prepared for anything. What I also loved about EMBL is that people had a good sense of fun, humour, and self-irony, and I can still see the pictures of parties flashing back in my memory.
Always striving for positive change
ST: As our discussions progressed, we realised that although research institutes have existed for more than a century, they need to evolve along with our changing societies, in order to deliver the best science in an optimal way. We both saw how academic scientists are often extremely focused on their niche area of research – understandably given the demands of the job – but this means that institutes as a whole are sometimes behind the curve with respect to the most advanced, up-to-date, creative, and productive ways of operating. This can be a missed opportunity. In our paper, we wanted to raise awareness of this opportunity, and motivate our community to be ambitious not only with respect to scientific research itself, but also with respect to how we deliver the research.
FB: Research institutes shape and provide the resources and culture where ideas can blossom, and realizing this enables us to tap into these processes. We can ask: What is an environment that helps us to create novel and transformative ideas? How do people from different disciplines need to interact with each other to generate something new and good? I’m not sure that every scientist needs to think about this sort of questions constantly, but it’s definitely worth considering how much of your own research relies on your neighbourhood. We tried to bring this up with the central theme that “it takes a village to raise a scientist and her/his ideas”, which is probably the main thing I’d like readers to take home with them.
ST: For me, the key take home is that regardless of whether funded through philanthropy, commercial, or taxpayer’s funds, biomedical research institutes are precious assets to our societies, contributing to our economies, biotech/pharma, and healthcare systems both directly and indirectly. Their mission, structure, governance, and evaluation/review criteria and systems, require careful thought and consideration, both across the board and on a case-by-case basis, in order to realise the full potential of these important organisations.
Research institutes and beyond
FB: While we focused our article on biomedical research institutes, I think much of what we discuss in the article can apply to research in other environments, for instance universities and private companies. You need to understand the characteristics and underlying currents of the place. What we also tried in our article is not to run into one ideal scenario of an institute that needs to be reached by any means; we rather tried to depict different ways of running an institute, characterizing their specific characteristics and how these ‘specifics’ can be efficiently counterbalanced by different actions.
ST: For me, the really special thing about research institutes is that they are focused (to a greater or lesser extent) on what it says on the tin: basic biomedical research. This focus means that the organisations tend to be streamlined towards the delivery or research, enabling both a high level of productivity and a high quality of output. They tend to be evaluated based mainly on their research results, so achieving the same amount and quality of research is more challenging in environments that also have a teaching mission, or also have to deliver a product (e.g., medicines). This is obvious to some extent, but worth articulating nevertheless, and so in that sense research institutes are different from university departments on the one hand, or for-profit entities that need to deliver products, on the other hand.
FB: Another thing we discuss is resources: money is a key factor for success, no doubt about that. But while it is necessary, I don’t think it is sufficient. You still need to create a research culture that enables multi-lateral discussion across disciplines and hierarchical levels.
ST: While the success of research institutes will be to some extent coupled with the level of investment into them, I would like to mention the impressive institutes that I visited in India as part of a tour there as the 2024 Raman Chair of the Indian Academy of Sciences. They operate on a lower budget than UK/EU institutes, yet have inspiring and creative research activity. I was also struck by the history of Nobel prize physicist CV Raman, who made his light scattering discoveries with modest funding support, and founded the Raman Research Institute in Bangalore. This made me reflect on a few different questions regarding whether our institutes are recruiting the most talented scientists from all over the world, and whether we are making the most of the funds available to us. I suspect we can do better on multiple fronts, and I hope our piece can provide some ideas towards this goal, and inspire more thinking around this topic.
Learning from each other
FB: This leads to another point – institute collaboration across borders. We make a suggestion in the article about a ‘United Nations’ of Research Institutes that would serve to advocate but also to accelerate the sharing of ideas both scientific and cultural. My feeling is that EU-LIFE is the beginning of such an alliance. We should keep the diversity and not become too uniform: truly “United Nations”.
ST: I agree: there is undoubtedly a gain in sharing best practices across comparable organisations. EU-LIFE is an EU/UK organisation for mid-size institutes, and there could be similar global alliances for both smaller and larger institutes, or along an orthogonal axis for organisations with scientific missions that are aligned. There is scope for learning from each other.
This international angle comes across in the graphic we commissioned for the article, a version of which you can see at the top of this page. Created by Catherine Bone, a highly talented illustrator and animator I have worked with on various projects, it also embodies how the structure (both architectural and organisational) of institutes can promote the personal interactions that drive science forward.
An ever-evolving ingredient list
FB: Looking back, I hope that the article has served to stimulate conversation and thought about how to create the best scientific environments. While we came up with a set of key ‘ingredients’, this is in no way and exhaustive or final list.
ST: That’s exactly right, and I’ve been thinking recently about another key ingredient we didn’t discuss so much in the piece: the need for strong institutional governance. By this I mean governance of elements such as HR processes, operational systems, etc. that are not part of a traditional research output review. All of these small things such as annual appraisal systems, space allocation systems, and access to platforms/facilities, are ultimately a function of the management and leadership quality of the institute, and in total send messaging to the community of an institute. However, they are rarely inspected or governed, and this means that the quality of the management can be variable. A historical example of egregiously poor space management was the review by Nancy Hopkins and her female professor colleagues at MIT that showed a “gender gap” in space allocation for labs at MIT. A governance system (e.g., an oversight board, with a board chair) should have the role of ensuring that the director(s) and management run an institute with high standards on all these fronts. Sadly, there are still examples nowadays of poor practice that are not ‘caught’ by the governance systems of institutes. This is an example of a new key ingredient – we’d love to hear readers thoughts about more!
Leave a comment here or get in touch via Aidan Maartens:
Top image credit: Catherine Bone medicalart.co.uk