Interview Primo Schär
Primo Schär is Professor for Molecular Genetics at the Department of Biomedicine and, since August 2024, Vice President for Research. The Grants Office asked him about his priorities for the next four years, and about his own experiences and plans as a researcher and mentor.
As Vice President for Research you are responsible for various topics for and related to research. Where do you want to set priorities in the next four years?
The priority should always be to enable and facilitate research and education at the university and that has implications on how we actually design our activities. If I say enable, it’s about creating an environment that allows ideas to be inspired and projects to be designed and implemented in an optimal way. If I look at it from the perspective of a Vice President, enabling doesn’t mean to decide top-down or define the research areas. We have to create that fertile ground and let ideas grow. We have to give the researchers the freedom, the opportunity, the education, and the confidence to design and move their research in a fruitful direction and to achieve their ambitions. We can also build bridges where institutional gaps result in constraints on success. This is how I see my role as Vice President for Research and also as a research group leader.
Since the beginning of the year Switzerland can once again participate in almost all Horizon Europe Calls, this in particular opens up opportunities for our researchers to apply for Grants from the European Research Council, as well as the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Actions. What does this news mean for research here in Basel?
We have highly motivated excellent researchers at the University of Basel and in the surrounding area. Without access to Horizon Europe, they were forced to play in the national league. That is a limitation. Being in Horizon Europe is about the richness and diversity of the larger community and about having a critical mass for healthy competition for best ideas. If you like soccer, it’s like the difference between the Swiss National Football League and Champions League. Our researchers have the ambition to be at the forefront of their field and this can only happen in a larger environment.
They have the capacity for the international competition and having access to Horizon means being able to do this. This is a major advantage and I hope it stays that way.
On a national level the gap between requested funding and available funds has been increasing dramatically over the past few years and thus putting pressure on the success rate. With the proposed cuts to the Federal Budget for research, innovation and education, this is not likely to improve. What does this mean for you as a researcher and group leader and how do you think this will affect the research landscape in Switzerland?
This affects us as a university and the individual research groups in a similar way. Competition for research grants is important for a healthy development of our research culture. Competition is important to avoid overlaps and redundancies and it forces us to take a step further with our ideas and ambitions. You have to do your best and you have to accept that sometimes you are successful and sometimes not. Problems arise when funding levels drop below a certain level so that even excellent projects can no longer be funded. Excellent projects that then fall into the so-called “approved but not funded” category create a lot of frustration, for those who spend lots of time, energy and emotions writing proposals, for those who evaluate the projects and for the research community in general. It is therefore important to maintain a funding rate in Switzerland that is adequate, otherwise we risk damage to the scientific community as a whole and, as a consequence, to the excellence of research in Switzerland.
You mentioned the significance of sufficient funding for research. What are the most important aspects of grant writing for you and your research group?
The most important thing is taking the time to elaborate a good and ambitious research question and then break it down to manageable and feasible approach. This can be a challenge but it’s probably the most creative phase of a project. I always have an idea of what needs to be addressed but when I’m planning a new project I read and discuss a lot before I commit to certain research direction. I am of course also involving my team and collaborators as sparring partners. Writing grants really gives you the opportunity to think about the long term development and the best next steps to advance your research. This is highly rewarding in the end for me personally and for the research group. That’s the reason why I still apply for grants and why I still enjoy being a group leader.
You have been and still are a reviewer and panel member for several funding agencies. What do you look for in a proposal in order to recommend it for funding?
The quality of the research question is what matters most for me. It has to address an original, important question and cover an important gap of knowledge. It has to be the one question to ask, to make a step forward. And then the translation into a high quality methodological approach and feasibility is key. If that is given, then that’s it.
When I look at projects I see a high correlation between the quality of a question and the quality of the methodological approach. Finding that right question is the hardest part and those who can do that, they usually come up with suitable approach to address it. So, I’m really very much influenced by looking at the research question. I maybe shouldn’t say this, but I don’t look so much at things like the previous achievements of PIs, to be honest. In that sense, I’ve always used a “DORA” approach, long before there was DORA, because again, I think there is a high correlation between a good question and the ability to make significant progress.
How do you support early career researchers in your group, especially when it comes to acquiring their own third party funding?
I try to motivate them to write grants and support them with the preparation and I do involve them when I write my own grants. It’s a valuable skill for their future careers, so motivating them to participate and obtain their own funding is important. But of course, it is a challenge for young researchers to commit themselves to writing a grant when at the same time they have to make progress in their current project and accomplish the next steps of their career, and then there is always the competition and the chance of not being successful. My advice is “do try and do it early,” there are several options for postdoc financing and there is a fair chance of success.
What was most surprising to you when becoming Vice President?
I don’t just jump into such things without careful consideration. I was talking to Torsten Schwede a lot and I knew what to expect. So, I didn’t have many surprises. Maybe the biggest surprise was that I was elected :-)
When I started, I was pleased with the environment I came into as a member of the rectorate. It’s a very inspiring and collaborative team. We work hard but it’s also fun and interesting. And, it’s pleasant to see that there are really good people working together with me in different in the teams.
Last but not least, what are your personal plans as a researcher?
To find the good questions!
