The 2020 Golden Pipette

Congratulations to Julika Neumann for winning the 8th Golden Pipette at the 2020 virtual lab retreat.  

Brutally tough competition this year - the quality of science is just constantly rising year after year. I was really tempted by Orian's UMAP analysis (it looks like an elephant!):

But for that single piece of data that just speaks for itself, it is hard to go past this crystal structure of a point mutation found in a novel primary immunodeficiency gene:

Well done Julika!

Julika receiving the Golden Pipette from past winner Lidia, in our virtual happy hour

Lab retreat 2020 edition

Our lab retreat is a real highlight of the lab, with the Leuven and Cambridge teams getting together to share ideas and progress, brainstorm and socialise. We usually have a couple of retreats a year. Unfortunately our first was cancelled in 2020 by the lockdown, and we decided to make the second one virtual.

Having spent many, many hours on zoom calls over the past six months, I was quite worried about three solid days of a virtual zoom meeting. Fortunately it was a great success! Excellent science (of course) and the level of interaction was as good as an in-person retreat. I don't think it can ever replace in-person meetings, since the success builds on the already-existing personal connections, but perhaps a virtual retreat will substitute for every second retreat going forward?

Secret tips for a zoom retreat:

• Planning in advance. We sent out a spreadsheet with all the links, talk times and titles, discussion blocks, social activities, etc. There was a lot to plan, so I delegated tasks to lots of people, but that still means a lot of follow-up to make sure people have actually done their bit and communicated it. The investment in advance is worth it though! We were lucky to have Dr Loriana Mascali to coordinate much of the retreat, and there was great investment by many lab members on different sections.
• Have a dynamic schedule. Lots of small talks with breaks is easier to handle. For several people we broke up their talk into several subtalks to make sure that all talks were between 10 and 30 minutes. We also arranged to be zoom-bombed by Daisy the goat, to break up the rhythm. Enough discussion time needs to be added, otherwise you'll end up consuming the break time.

• Stick to the schedule as much as possible. Talks that start to really drag on are often those where there are big problems - there is only so long it is helpful to hammer home those points. Build some flexibility into the schedule (so you can keep positive discussions going even if they go over time), but don't let it derail the entire program. Having breakslides is also useful, so that people can always see when the talks resume by looking at the screen, rather than needing to check the program and try to remember if they were five minutes behind or not.
• Actively try to stimulate discussion and interaction. It does not happen organically on zoom, so you need to promote it. I used secret "cheerleaders and shade-throwers". A cheerleader needs to make a positive comment on a talk, while a shade-thrower needs to make a critical comment. They then pass the duty off (in secret) to another person. The net effect is that people get used to making comments, and you have a 2:1 ratio of positive:critical comments. It makes for a lot of conversation and use of the zoom chat. Eventually everyone catches on, but the habit is already established by then! We also used polls, with pre-defined multiple choice questions on each talk. If you see someone not participating, a private chat message can encourage them to engage once, after which they are more likely to engage again.

• Social activities. We had lab bingo running each day (with custom words), which people really got into. Zoom werewolf was a huge success. Virtual escape room was fantastic, which for us was custom made "escape from the lab cold room", but there are plenty of paid options available. Break-out rooms for social interaction are good, but should be broken into smaller groups to get conversation going (6-8 people are good).

• External guests. We invited several potential post-docs / students and long-term collaborators to join. I made it clear up front that they weren't expected for the full three days, and they had the program so that they could jump in for the sessions that interested them the most. A nice way to get expert feedback from people who are not the same old good. 

The ingredients for a successful lab

Trying to reflect on what constitutes a successful lab, these are the 11 ingredients that I work towards bringing together:

A diverse set of experienced staff. Junior staff come in with a passion and enthusiasm that is second to none. However they also are all being trained in the same environment. By contrast post-docs and senior technicians have been trained in different environments, so they bring with them novel experiences. Having a mixture of staff at different levels and with different educational and life backgrounds optimises the chance that the key idea or skill set will be available. Having at least a few staff members with a long-term perspective in the lab is one of the most potent advantages a lab can have - it means the institutional knowledge is shared between multiple staff, and not all residing in the PI.

A dynamic and supportive lab culture. A successful lab is one with high morale, where people see that effort leads to results. The lab culture should be interactive and supportive. A community feeling, where everyone will jump in to get a project over the line, is critical. A place where everyone feels open to speak up and can live with being criticised is a place where experimental design can be optimised before hitting the bench. A healthy lab is one where the PI is only one voice, and there is just as much peer-to-peer flow of information and ideas.

Output spread across the lab. If the output is concentrated in a handful of people it is suggestive of wasted potential, and puts the lab at risk when the productive people move on. Ideally, every researcher should be getting a first author paper every 3 years.

A healthy portfolio of funding. Ideally this includes a mixture of small and large grants, with a long horizon. The reason why I specify a portfolio is that having all of your funding via one large grant creates a difficult problem when that grant is ending.

A pipeline of research projects. A strong research pipeline includes having high potential projects in the incubation stage, development stage, submission/review stage and published. It can be difficult to manage a pipeline, because you need to switch gears between different projects that need different styles of management and cost/benefit analysis. However the advantage is that there is always something cooking, so it doesn't create the problem of synchronised publication and then a long research gap while you start from scratch.

Balance of diversity in research projects. Focus on a topic gives synergy between projects at both the technical and intellectual level. Diversity of topics brings opportunity and reduces risk. Finding the sweet-spot between focus and diversity is difficult but brings advantages.

Creativity and innovation. A successful lab does research that isn't being done somewhere else. This means creativity and innovation, rather than doing the next obvious thing a little faster than the competition. This can come in different forms: developing new tools, to answer questions other people can't, coming up with creative approaches that other groups haven't thought of, or simply asking different questions.

A reserve of soft money. "Soft money", not tied to a project or time-limited, is precious and difficult to obtain. The advantages are enormous though, allowing investments that later lead to grants. A key advantage is that a reserve of soft money can be used to buffer long-term senior staff between grants. Knowing that you can fund senior staff even if there is a year gap between grants helps you keep the most essentially staff in the lab - even if you never need to actually use the reserve

Quality collaborations. A balance between working in isolation and acting as an academic CRO for other labs. Quality collaborations are usually reflected through bidirectional help, where they contribute to your work and you contribute to their work.

Access to high-end equipment and facilities. High level science is increasingly dependent on high level equipment and specialist staff, beyond what can be built and maintained in a single lab.

Supportive institutional and administrative staff. All the ingredients can be there, but if the departmental head is against you or admin work against you, the lab can be crippled. A group leader spending >50% of their time on admin, or research staff spending >25% of their time on admin, is a warning sign.

Congratulations to Julika Neumann!

CCongratulations to the very talented Julika Neumann, who successfully defended her application for a competitive FWO PhD fellowship!

Just starting her PhD, Julika already has several major successes under her belt, including identifying a new primary immunodeficiency (stay tuned!) and spear-heading an open science study on COVID pathology.

We anticipate more great successes from Julika during her FWO fellowship!

The CrispR revolution

Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna have just won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. They have been my picks for the prize for years now. Nobel Prizes are often awarded decades after the fact, but CrispR has been such an obvious winner that it is a surprise it took until 2020 to be awarded. (Largely, I guess, due to the politics of several competing claims and patents, that have been going through the courts). 

This Noble is a well-deserved recognition of one of the seminal breakthroughs in biology of the last several decades. The award recognises elegant basic biological experiments that identified a novel immune mechanism that bacteria use to fight off viruses. The key insight is that the chemistry of this system allowed simple modifications to rewire this bacterial system into a tool to edit the genome of essentially any living being. A striking example of blue-skies research on basic science having an incredible translational effect. The CrispR system ranks up there with identifying the structure of DNA or the sequencing of the human genome - indeed, for the first time it allows us to really use the information gained by these earlier revolutions. CrispR tools are used daily across the globe to create new vaccines, generate gene therapy, design bacteria to help industrial processes. Essentially, the discovery of CrispR as a genome-modification tool has put biology on steroids - dramatically accelerating the pace of both basic research and translational applications