Author: Kees van der Beek

Sara Bolognesi: Laureate of the Summer 2021 EPS Emmy Noether Distinction

Kees van der Beek, chair of the EPS Equal Opportunities Committee, spoke to Sara Bolognesi of CEA-IRFU in Saclay, France, laureate of the Summer 2021 EPS Emmy Noether Distinction on her work, her interactions with other communities, research funding, reconciling work and family life, and mentoring of young physicists.

Kees van der Beek (KvdB): My very warmest congratulations with the Summer 2021 Emmy Noether Distinction for your contributions to, and, indeed, leading role in the CMS and T2K experiments! Can you explain what your current scientific interests are, why your experiments are important, and what the stakes are?

Sara Bolognesi (SB): My present scientific interest is in neutrino oscillations. Neutrinos are very interesting particles, but very difficult to study! This is because they are hard to produce, and once you produced them, they are hard to detect, because of their extremely weak interaction with matter. Therefore, very large amounts of neutrinos must be produced for any given experiment, and huge detectors are needed to obtain the necessary sensibility to pronounce oneself on physical effects related to them. However, building such huge instruments is well worth it, since neutrino physics is one of the most promising avenues to push our understanding of fundamental physics beyond our present interpretation, the Standard Model. The T2K (Tokai to Kamioka) experiment seeks to quantify neutrino oscillations (evolution of one neutrino type into another) through measurement of the so-called mixing parameters. This can, given sufficient sensitivity, unveil the symmetries in the neutrino mass ordering and flavour mixing, and most importantly, a possible violation of charge-parity (CP). This would be a crucial discovery, while CP-violation has been measured in quark sector, this would be a new fundamental source of CP-violation and the first in the lepton sector. We have, so far, made significant steps towards a measurement of possible violation of CP symmetry in neutrino physics, but experiments have to be made more sensitive – which is my aim and that of my team. Remarkably, since the collisions of neutrinos with the detector material involve their complex, many-body interaction with the multiplicity of particles composing the target nuclei, reaching the required accuracy requires an adequate comprehension of the nuclear physics involved. This is true for both the accurate characterisation of the emitted neutrino flux, as for the understanding of the scattering cross-sections in the remote detector. What I love about my work is the fact that it therefore involves many different communities – every day, I learn something new!

KvdB: Is the search for new physics the reason why you made a spectacular move from Higgs physics in the framework of the CMS collaboration to neutrino physics, and this, right after the discovery of the Higgs, when results were ready for the reaping? How did you decide this shift?

SB: Indeed, after the discovery of the Higgs, the entire team was extremely excited. However, in spite of the Higgs having been discovered, there are many questions to which the standard model cannot provide answers. In particular, it cannot possibly be valid to arbitrary high-energy scales, so there must be something beyond. An illuminating overview presented by Hiroshi Murayama from Berkeley at a Higgs workshop in 2013 made it very clear to me that neutrinos are an extremely promising window to such very high-energy scales. In particular, the standard model cannot explain why neutrinos have mass, nor why they oscillate the way they do. Both these phenomena determine the numerical values of a great many parameters, so understanding them would be a particularly important step into our further comprehension of nature, and, in particular, the existence of as-yet hidden symmetries. Practically, I was greatly helped by the job opportunity formulated by CEA-IRFU, that did not only propose a permanent position, but did not require previous experience in the field of neutrino physics – indeed, they were very open to candidates form other fields. This allowed me to settle and establish myself both as a scientist and in my personal life. As a particle physicist, the learning curve in neutrino physics was steep, but I feel I was truly helped both in my institute and by the welcoming attitude of the neutrino community.

KvdB:What are the most satisfying – and more difficult parts of your work?

SB: I love the interaction between many communities and between experimentalists and theorists that characterizes neutrino physics. The most difficult part of my position is securing the necessary financial resources – we are not trained for that as physicists! Here again, I see the need to go out and obtain funding as an opportunity to learn, even if this part of the job takes up more and more of our time. We, as physicists, should accept the manner the world we live in functions. We must, before publicizing our work in physics and asking for funding, stop and really ask ourselves whether what we project to do is truly worth of funding. To have to reflect on this and then explain to non-experts why society should fund physics is an important and necessary part of our job. For me, frustration arises when decisions are made based on political priorities rather than scientific arguments. While we need a realistic compromise due to the boundary conditions posed by the world we live in, our primary goal should always be driven by physics arguments.

More fundamentally, there are better ways in which a funding process could work. Notably, the very nature of fundamental physics research requires, at the least, medium-term funding based on a vision and multi-year strategy submitted by the team, lab, institute, or collaboration submitting the request, and not the calls for short-term, individualistic projects that we see all too often today. At the same time, I’m very worried by the inertia that comes with increasing size of the collaborations and cost of the experiments. This not only slows their development but also makes it very difficult to react and adapt the overall strategy to physics evidence when new results are obtained.

I, obviously, do not hold the perfect recipe but our compass should always point to the long-term objective of advancing physics, no matter how difficult this could be from a political or funding point of view.

KvdB: You are obviously very passionate about physics, and that since a very young age. Where did you get this passion, and how did you choose physics?

SB: (laughs) You will be surprised to know that at the outset, I first started on a literary, and not on a scientific path in my secondary school studies!  It was my professor of philosophy in secondary school who suggested that we read simple texts on modern physics to open our mind. These were simple texts that addressed issues such as particle-wave duality, the nature of light, matter, and their interactions, that had a very large impact on me. I realised that this touched on something so fundamental for the understanding of our world that I could not accept to ignore it: I wanted to learn more about it! My subsequent enrolment in the physics programme at the university of Torino has lead to two life-changing experiences. The first was my participation in the CMS-Torino group as of my third year of studies, a group with several women in leadership positions.  All had a rich social and family life, as well as being highly successful physicists, which allowed me to project myself in my own possible future. The second was my work at CERN, in a truly multicultural environment. This was, to me, as much as a scientific experience, a truly human experience that made me decide that this is what I wanted for the rest of my life. In the neutrino community, which involves close collaboration between physicists from Europe, Japan, and the Americas, I find this multicultural, tolerant, and very human ambiance once again.

KvdB: Did you ever have problems reconciling your work and your family?

SB: There have been some difficult moments, but, honestly, I am working in an environment and for an employer that is extremely respectful of the balance between work and one’s private life, to the point where the balance we can achieve here is envied by our foreign collaborators. For instance, when my partner and I adopted our children, my professional environment was extremely respectful of our choice and very helpful when I returned to the laboratory. I cannot help but think that this is related to the fact that the head of my laboratory, the head of the IRFU Institute, and the head of our CEA Direction are all women. A difficult moment was the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic and the first lockdown - even if I realise that the situation was much harder for so many others. Where I had, over two years, established a good work-family life balance, this was now, all of a sudden, overturned. Here I was working from home, with three children by my side, and required to school them! The real problem here is not, in my opinion, one of gender, but that of attaining equilibrium between family life and professional life in general, whatever the family’s composition. I am very fortunate in that my husband fully participates in family tasks, including during the COVID-19 period; having a family that supports me in my professional challenges is very important for me.

KvdB: You have had many role models in Torino. Do you consider yourself to be a role model now?

SB: I hope I am! All the more so since, in my group today, there are nearly as many women as men. We do discuss gender issues as well as family issues, especially with younger women. I tell them that their life choice is, of course, theirs. However, they should never make this choice based on fear. Being afraid that one cannot be a woman and a physicist at the same time, of “not being able to”, must never be a criterion for choosing work over one’s private life or vice versa. Taking responsibility for one’s choice however comes with effort, the effort to make it work, and the effort to find one’s correct personal balance. The message I wish to convey is: if you want a career in physics, go for it, if you love physics, you will manage!

Kees van der Beek (KvdB): You are in a position of ever increasing responsibilities. Do you have ideas on how an academic, scientific environment can help empower women active in its midst?

Sara Bolognesi (SB): That’s a tough question! There are no easy solutions to this. Nevertheless, I think two things can help. The first, and most effective in my opinion, is tutoring, through examples. When one meets a young woman in doubt about her career choice, having a role model with whom she can interact or a tutor that serves as an example and build her self-confidence can really help. At T2K we also have a Diversity group that reaches out to young women in this sense. The second, and more general point is that we all, women and men, should make an effort to make our professional environment less aggressive. Even though academic discussion can be passionate, we should always be careful to respect the other, and not try to, for example, undermine the other’s self-confidence. Speak out, discuss, argue, with passion and conviction, but do so as if you were speaking to a close family member, your daughter or son, with respect and understanding. Science is an environment for discussion, where no one holds the absolute truth.

Sara Bolognesi acting on the valves of the gas system of the near detector (ND280) of T2K - image credit: Sara Bolognesi

Emmy Noether, with her fundamental and revolutionary work in the areas of abstract algebra and on the conservation laws in theoretical physics, is an exceptional historical figure for all generations - past, present and future - of physicists.

The laureates of the Emmy Noether Distinction are chosen for their capacity to inspire the next generation of scientists, and especially encourage women to pursue a career in physics. Attribution criteria therefore focus on the candidate’s

• research achievements
• endeavours in favour of gender equality and the empowerment of women in physics
• coordination of projects and management activity
• committee memberships
• teaching activities

Nominators are encouraged to address these five points in their proposal.

The EPS Emmy Noether Distinction for Women in Physics is awarded twice a year, in winter and in summer.

The selection committee, appointed by the EPS Equal Opportunities Committee, will consider nominations of women physicists working in Europe for the 2021 Summer Edition of the Emmy Noether Distinction from the end of May 2021. As is customary for the Summer Edition of the Distinction, particular attention will be paid to early and mid-career candidates.

For the present edition, the nomination deadline is extened to June, 11th 2021.

To make a nomination, please, email the following information to the EPS Secretariat:

• A cover letter, detailing (in no more than 3 paragraphs) the motivation for awarding the EPS Emmy Noether Distinction to the nominee;
• The nominee’s name, institution and email
• The nominee’s CV
• The nominator’s name, institution, and email
• Optional: No more than 3 support letters

Download the distinction charter
Read more about the EPS Emmy Noether Distinction on the EPS website

The Winter 2020 EPS Emmy Noether Distinction is awarded to:

• María García Parajo

ICREA Research Professor and researcher at the Institut de Ciències Fotòniques (ICFO) in Castelldefels near Barcelona in Spain « for her outstanding contributions to nano-biophysics and to numerous programs to support women in physics ».

At ICFO, María García Parajo is the leader of the Single Molecule Biophotonics group of IBEC-Institut de Bioenginyeria de Catalunya. She received her Ph.D from Imperial College, University of London, UK, in 1993, from where she proceeded to take an Assistant professorship at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, where she worked for four years in the Applied Optics Group at MESA+ / Institute for Nanotechnology. She moved to Barcelona in 2005 and has worked there ever since.

María García Parajo has contributed decisively to several technical developments that allow the mapping and the direct visualisation of biomolecular interactions regulating life´s essential processes. The methods she has pioneered and used have provided profound insights on the spatiotemporal organisation of the plasma membrane of cells, which influence diverse processes in the immune system such as pathogenic infections (including HIV pathogenesis), autoimmunity and immune cell migration (with direct implications in proper immune regulation and cancer). One of her salient results (published in Cell in 2015) has led to the direct visualisation of chromatin inside intact cells, which allowed for the first time ever to correlate chromatin compaction to cell differentiation.

María García Parajo has contributed tirelessly to physics education via summer schools and training programmes as well as by the furthering of equal opportunities and gender equality in physics. María has contributed to and participated in a great many activities, committees, talks, seminars, round-tables panels, etc., oriented at creating opportunities for women scientists. Since September 2017, María García Parajo is part of the Gender committee at ICFO, where she has initiated a large number of actions to increase the visibility, awareness & empowerment of young talented female researchers promoting the successful construction of their academic career.

Prof. María García Parajo - image credit: ICFO

Author: Luc Bergé

Hatice Altug is professor in the Institute of Bioengineering at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland since 2013. She is also director of EPFL Doctoral School in Photonics. Between 2007 and 2013, she was professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at Boston University, U.S. She received her Ph.D. degree in Applied Physics from Stanford University (U.S.) in 2007 and her B.S. degree in Physics from Bilkent University (Turkey) in 2000.

At EPFL, she is heading the Bionanophotonic Systems Laboratory with around 15 talented graduate students and postdocs from around the world. Her research is focused in the field of nanophotonics and its application to biosensing, spectroscopy and bioimaging with the aim to introduce nanodevices with significant importance for fundamental life sciences, early disease diagnostics, and point-of‐care testing. Her laboratory is specialized to exploit novel optical phenomena at nanoscale and metamaterials by using nanophotonics, nanofabrication and microfluidics.

Prof. Altug is the recipient of the EPS Emmy Noether Distinction, Adolph Lomb Medal from The Optical Society (OSA), and the U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers. She received a Consolidator Grant from the European Research Council (ERC), an ERC Proof of Concept Grant, the U.S. Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award, U.S. National Science Foundation CAREER Award, Massachusetts Life Science Center New Investigator Award and the IEEE Photonics Society Young Investigator Award. She is the winner of the Inventors’ Challenge competition of Silicon Valley in 2005. She has been named to Popular Science Magazine’s "Brilliant 10" list in 2011.

Luc Bergé, President-Elect of the EPS and chair of the EPS Equal Opportunities Committee (LB), interviewed Hatice Altug (HA).

LB: Why did you choose to study physics?

HA: Since my early years in middle school I got fascinated with science subjects and encouraged by my physics teachers. I was getting curious about the scientific origin of the things that I was observing in nature, technological inventions and how machines work. In order to satisfy my curiosity and get a better understanding of science I decided to major in physics. I also knew that physics is a fundamental subject and if I studied physics I would be well equipped to get into different scientific fields more easily.

LB: Any worry to match your family life and a career in physics?

HA: Yes, it is not always easy to balance a family life and a career in physics. For example, travelling is important for a scientific career in order to attend or organize conferences, participate in consortium projects, committees or visit other universities. But, travelling also requires time and sometimes I find it challenging to accommodate it with family duties.

LB: Were you worried about finding a job in physics?

HA: There are different job options for a physicist including in academia, industry and education. I was aware that finding an academic job was more challenging than in industry due to the limited available positions. Academy is a competitive environment, irrespective of the gender, and, I knew that to get a good position it was necessary to produce high quality work which required consistent dedication and perseverance during my graduated studies. Rather than being worried I focused on my research to achieve my goals. Examples of successful graduates around me who made their ways to a faculty position gave me further confidence that I could also make it.

LB: What has been the personally most rewarding experience so far in your career and also the biggest difficulty encountered so far in your career?

HA: From my PhD times I still remember the excitement and joy I had when my experiments finally worked after many trials and failures. I also remember the happy feeling after my first scientific paper got accepted in a peer-reviewed journal. I live through the same joy and happiness with each of my PhD students every time they experience such milestones. One of the most rewarding aspects of my career is to be part of their academic journey and guide them to succeed. Currently, the main difficulty is managing the time. As you progress in career you tend to get more responsibilities, expectations, and obligations to fulfill and it gets harder to manage all of these at your best with limited time.

LB: Did you encounter any difficulty in finding funding for PhD or a post-doc position related to the fact that you are a woman?

HA: I did not feel that I was discriminated negatively in finding funding because of my gender.

LB: Any suggestion to guarantee a balanced gender representation in physics?

HA: Due to the leaky pipeline few women choose to climb in the career ladder in physics, and science in general. Young girls are interested in math and science at the start but they choose to drop it later. As one of the factors, associating the stereotypical scientist images with men cannot resonate well with young women. In this regard having more successful women physicists could serve as role models and inspire them to continue in physics. Family balance is also an important factor in the leaky pipeline and institutions should give more family support (child care, career breaks etc) to young women so that they do not give up their career.

LB: Any particular advice for a young aspiring researcher?

HA: Choose a research topic that you are most passionate about and work on a problem that you believe you can make a difference. This will give you the power, self-motivation and confidence to succeed. Also, keep your spirit of newcomer always alive as it helps to improve yourself continuously by learning new things.

LB: Do you have any female ‘physicist cult figure’ or ‘role model’?

HA: While I was in high school Marie Skłodowska Curie has been the female physicist cult figure for me. Once I started university, I got to learn other female scientists like Emmy Noether, Maria Goeppert Mayer, Ada Lovelace, Chien-Shiung Wu. At the same time, it is easier to take someone as a role model from your closer surrounding and get connected with. In my undergrad years I was the only woman in my class and there were no female professors in the physics department to look up to as an example. Still, I was fortunate to be supported by my advisors and professors irrespective of their gender and used my energy to focus on science. On a positive side, during my PhD years and also later in my career I encountered amazingly successful female scientists who continue to inspire me.

Prof. Dr. Hatice Altug

Maria Viñas’s research focuses on the physics of vision and vision psychophysics, with Adaptive Optics based visual technologies to image the eye, and study visual function and neural adaptation in polychromatic conditions under a very wide range of artificially-simulated-conditions. Her work on Adaptive Optics visual simulation in polychromatic conditions has contributed to different areas of research in Visual Optics and Biophotonics, like the study of chromatic aberrations in phakic and pseudophakic eyes and their impact on vision, the optical, visual and neural effects of astigmatism, the experimental simulation of complex multifocal solutions for Presbyopia, and the pre-operative simulation of post-operative multifocal vision with those corrections. Maria Viñas completed undergraduate studies in Optics and Optical Engineering in the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), followed by a predoctoral work at the Visual Optics & Biophotonics Lab, where she obtained her PhD in Physics in 2015. She is currently an IF-MSCA fellow with a joint position at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School (USA) and the Institute of Optics of the Spanish National Research Council (Spain). She is also founding member of the spin-off company, 2EyesVision, which develops clinical visual simulators.

Maria Viñas received several recognitions from scientific societies (OSA, ARVO). In particular, she was elected OSA Ambassador of The Optical Society (OSA) in 2019. She is past president of IOSA - Institute of Optics OSA Student Chapter - where among a wide range of activities she has authored a very successful book of optical experiments. She is currently the vice-chair of the Visual Sciences Committee of the Spanish Optical Society, and chair of the Women in Optics and Photonics committee of the Spanish Optical Society, where she fights gender stereotypes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

Luc Bergé, President-Elect of the EPS and chair of the EPS Equal Opportunity Committee (LB), interviewed Maria Viñas (MV).

LB: Why did you choose to study physics?

MV: I actually studied Optics and Optical engineering at the University Complutense of Madrid. However, I became more and more interested in the Optics/Physics behind the visual process and related technologies. That is why, when I finished my Master’s degree, I joined the Visual Optics and Biophotonics Lab of the Institute of Optics of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). The group, led by Prof. Susana Marcos, had a research line focused on the use of Adaptive Optics technologies, inherited from astronomy and only very recently focused on visual Optics, in order to study the optics of the eye and how the brain sees the world through it. I was fascinated by that topic. The same technology used to image the stars could be used to image the eye! Also, I did my PhD there, developing novel Adaptive Optics systems to study visual function and to improve optical corrections for visual problems, like Myopia or Presbyopia. And I am really happy to see that some of those technologies have jumped from the lab to the clinic, via a spin-off company, 2EyesVision, which I co-founded. Now, I am really excited to keep pursuing novel breakthroughs in the new phase of my career, starting now as an IF-MSCA fellow with a joint position at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School (USA) and the Institute of Optics of the Spanish National Research Council (Spain).

LB: Any worry to match your family life and a career in physics?

MV: Funny timing for that question, since I am now a postdoctoral researcher with a 5 months old baby, and that fact has a real impact on my work/life balance. I was not worried about this before; I did not even think much about it. I could see my female colleagues struggle, but I did not relate much. Now I am facing the real truth, I can say that this situation is hard, but doable.

We all know that research provides a very competitive environment, which requires carrying a high workload and a lot of travelling, among other things. Numbers of female scientists in STEM tell us that the struggle is higher for women. This happens even before we consider having a family; it is deeply related to gender stereotypes that affect us all. Also, the number of female scientists in STEM areas is lower, because of the work/life balance, which is typically harder to maintain for women. However, I am optimistic about the future. Things are changing. Research/Academic institutions are making an effort to attract female talents to STEM and to maintain it by offering more flexibility, looking for strategies that enable more diverse research teams or fighting stereotypes. There is still much to be done, but I really think if you want to pursue a career in STEM, this issue must not discourage you. It is so much fun to work in the lab (as Prof. Donna Strickland said in her Nobel Prize presentation) than the rest can be overcome.

LB: Are you worried about finding a job in physics?

MV: I think when you are at a postdoctoral stage you certainly worry about this. There are many options to explore, and you can join truly amazing groups and develop very interesting projects. However, getting a permanent position, in such a way that you can develop your own independent projects and lead your research group is not so easy. I think this is a common worry for many researches at this time: you love your work, which is quite exciting, but your career is not as stable as you’d like. In my case I have been very lucky so far, I cannot complain.

LB:  What has been the personally most rewarding experience and also the biggest difficulty encountered so far in your career?

MV: For me the biggest difficulty was the beginning. After graduating, I started working in Industry, nothing related to research. However, I desired something else. I knew I had found my path when I started my PhD. I really like what I do. My most rewarding experiences have to do with teaching, not only my students in the lab, but also students in the University or children in outreach activities. How their curiosity awakes, how they grow scientifically, is very rewarding.

LB:  Did you encounter any difficulty in finding funding for PhD or a post-doc position related to the fact that you are a woman?

MV: I was unaware of gender bias during my pre-doctoral years; I was happy because I could focus on Science, only lab stuff mattered. However, becoming a postdoctoral researcher changed my perception of things. Scientific structures are more willing to incorporate male scientists than female ones. Scientific networking is male dominated, how positions are achieved, how connections are made…When you are the female scientist in the room is always more difficult to make your voice heard, no matter your experience, no matter your seniority, this can undermine your confidence as a scientist. But I think that things are changing; research groups are more and more diverse, which helps fighting gender discrimination.

LB:  Any suggestion to guarantee a balanced gender representation in physics?

MV: For me the important thing here is to fight against gender stereotypes, which are at the very centre of the problem. This is not only a question of getting a balanced gender representation in physics, it is also a problem that affects society as a whole, and which we should be fighting together. Reducing unconscious bias is the real deal.

LB:   Any particular advice for a young aspiring researcher?

MV: Enjoy what you do. A research career is tough, but it is also worthwhile.

LB:  Do you have any female ‘physicist cult figure’ or ‘role model’?

MV: Yes, I have been very lucky in that regard. I had a great professor during my Master, Prof. Maria Luisa Calvo from the School of Physics of the Complutense University of Madrid, who was truly inspiring. She went on being a great mentor along the years. Of course, my PhD supervisor, Prof. Susana Marcos from the Institute of Optics of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), who taught me almost everything I know on visual optics and about being a scientist, always supported me to develop novel breakthrough projects.