The European Physical Society (EPS) is delighted to announce that the 2023 EPS Emmy Noether Distinction has been awarded to Lavinia Heisenberg and Gloria Platero. Congratulations!

 2023 EPS Emmy Noether Distinction - Mid-career

The EPS has decided to award the 2023 EPS Emmy Noether Distinction (mid-career) to Lavinia Heisenberg, professor at the Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, University of Heidelberg, Germany "for her fundamental contributions to gravitational physics and theoretical cosmology, for her engagement for women in science and her outstanding leadership".

Prof. Lavinia Heisenberg has achieved groundbreaking advancements in alternative gravitational theories, particularly in their cosmological applications. Her innovative geometrical studies have redefined the conventional understanding of General Relativity, offering new perspectives. More recently, she has made significant contributions to the study of black holes and gravitational waves.

She has been honoured with the prestigious Latsis Prize of ETH, the Buchalter Cosmology Prize, the Simons Emmy Noether Award of the Perimeter Institute, the Gustav-Hertz Prize of the German Physical Society, and the General Physics Prize of the Swiss Physical Society. She was also a finalist of the Art of Leadership Award (ALEA) 2023 of ETH and she is a recipient of ETH’s Diversity Award and the Empowering Women Award in Switzerland and more.

2023 EPS Emmy Noether Distinction - Full career

The EPS has decided to award the 2023 EPS Emmy Noether Distinction (full career) to Gloria Platero, research professor at the Materials Science Institute of Madrid of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), "in recognition of her remarkable contributions to the theoretical understanding of out-of-equilibrium (Floquet) systems and their impactful application to quantum materials, for her excellent mentorship of young researchers and for tirelessly fostering female talent in physics."

Prof. Gloria Platero studied Physics at the Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM)  and received her PhD in Condensed Matter Physics there in 1984. After working as assistant professor in Madrid, she did her postdoc at the Max Planck Institute for high magnetic fields in Grenoble and then joined the Materials Science Institute of Madrid first as a postdoc, then as staff researcher. She progressed to Director of the Condensed Matter Theory Department and  she was also Honorary Professor at the UAM.  She was involved in several EU networks and was invited for research stays in different  international research centers. From 2017 till 2021 she was  Mercator Fellow at the University of Regensburg. She is Fellow of the APS (Quantum Information Division) and Secretary of the C8 Commission (Semiconductors) of the IUPAP. She will become Chair on January 2025.

Along the years, she has investigated  time periodic driven systems (a topic known as Floquet Engineering).  Her research, in the field of Quantum Nanotechnologies, focuses on the theory of spin qubits in quantum dot arrays, their manipulation and the transfer of quantum information.

Recently, she also investigates the role of  the topological edge states in low dimensional topological insulators for the transfer of quantum information with high fidelity.

More info:

Authors: Riccardo Muolo & Gina Gunaratnam

In 2024, the EPS released a calendar of "Inspiring Physicists". Read the interview of Riccardo Muolo, postdoctoral researcher at the Tokyo Institute of Technology in Japan. He wrote the editorial of the calendar, together with Lorena Ballesteros Ferraz and Sébastien Mouchet. They also published an opinion letter about the Matilda Effect in the Society's magazine EPN.

How did you get to know the European Physical Society?

Some colleagues in Namur, Belgium, told me about the society and its monthly magazine, so I checked it out and I was impressed by all the initiatives regarding outreach and education.

Could you describe your current field of research in a few words?

My field is complex systems, at the edge between physics and applied mathematics. More specifically, I study the emergence of collective behaviors, such as synchronization, in an ensemble of elementary units. They way in which such units interact with each other shapes the collective dynamics, which is way richer than the individual ones. The whole is much more than the sum of its parts.

What are the challenges of your field?

Until now, we have developed solid theoretical tools, but what is missing is a bridge towards observations and experiments. There are some models with many variables claiming that they explain certain phenomena, but to me they don’t make much sense because they work only for a specific phenomenon with variables and parameters chosen ad hoc. I think the main challenge now is to build models closer to reality that are still meaningful and can help us not only explain, but also understand, what we observe.

How would you encourage students to work in this field?

Be curious. The field of complex systems is intrinsically interdisciplinary and gives the chance to work with researchers from many different fields. Besides the technical skills that are required to carry out any research in physics and mathematics, in complex systems the key is to be curious and open minded: one has to be able to communicate with scientists from sociology to biology, meaning that we need to understand different approaches and ways to treat problems. It can be hard at first, but in the end it is so rewarding. Interdisciplinary research is very exciting!

Why is it important for you to encourage girls to study physics?

I think that we need science to reflect the composition of society. So this is related to have more girls in physics, but in general to have a more diverse and heterogeneous environment. This mainly for two reasons. First, because only a truly diverse environment can foster new ideas and tackle the many challenges ahead of us. If we put in a room only people with the same mentality and background, we are missing a whole lot of perspective. Second, because, whether we like it or not, science, and physics in particular, is a tool of power. Our research shapes the future in good and in bad, and our discoveries have a tremendous impact on society. Given its importance, we need everybody at the table and we must keep it democratic and transparent as much as possible.

Short Bio

I studied physics (Bachelor) and applied mathematics (Master) in Florence, Italy. For a year, I was PhD student of biology at the VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands, but then moved back to mathematics starting a PhD in Namur, Belgium. After my graduation, I moved to Tokyo for a postdoc, position that I currently hold.

Besides my academic activity, I’m involved in an outreach project in Italy called “Penne Amiche della Scienza” (the Italian version of the US Letters to a Pre-scientist) in which we connect a scientist with a primary or middle school class and have them write letters to each other.

FLTR: Monika Ritsche-Martke, Petra Rudolf and Ilaria Zardo - image credit: Gina Gunaratnam

Petra Rudolf, chair of the EPS Equal Opportunities Committee, and Gina Gunaratnam, EPS communication coordinator, interviewed Ilaria Zardo [IZ], from the Department of Physics, University of Basel (CH), and Monika Ritsch-Marte [MRM], from the of the Institute of Biomedical Physics, Dept. of Physiology & Medical Physics, Medical University of Innsbruck (AT). They are laureates of the EPS Emmy Noether Distinction 2022.

Why did you choose physics?

IZ: I was interested in Greek, Latin and Philosophy. When I told my parents I wanted to study physics, it was a big surprise. Especially to my father who wondered why I had studied all these subjects to "end up" with sports (in Italian "physics" and "sports" is the same word).

MRM: I wanted to find a position in relation to Nature. I come from an academic family, so they encouraged me. But outside, I didn't get positive reactions. After having attended the Open Days in Innsbruck, I knew that I wanted to get a master's degree in sciences.

What is the most rewarding aspect of your career and what difficulties did you encounter?

MRM: It is nice to have recognition from the community but the most rewarding is when I do active research, when I get results and I understand things from Nature.

In the 80s', women had to face difficult times. There were aggressive attitudes.  My younger brother and my husband are also scientists and they were offered positions while I didn't get one.

IZ: The most rewarding is when I first finish a project. When I realise that I found something. When I have gone through all the paths to get where I want to go and I reach it, this is a rewarding moment. It is also beautiful to see the same way of thinking/development in people you work with.

Difficulties: We are trained to be scientists but not to deal with people. You have a strong contact with your colleagues. You need trust and faith. This is very challenging.

Recommendations to encourage diversity

IZ: I am extremely happy to have a very diverse group: different countries, different backgrounds. I was motivated by a colleague who told me that you gain much more from someone who is different from you, who will have another approach to a problem.

MRM: Quotas are important to get women involved [in research groups] and I don't care about being called "Quotenfrau" ("quota woman" in German). It shouldn't be the aim but is a necessary measure to have more women. If they can do the job, they should be given the chance. 

Career and family

MRM: I married a colleague! So there was competition between us. It is difficult to get everything you want once you have a family. I consider it a "fermionic principle ": either you choose the field of research you are interested or the place where you want to live. You cannot have the two at the same time. My advice: be determined but flexible. And ask yourself the following: What is something I cannot live without?

In my case, I changed fields: from theoretical physics, I switched to medical physics.

IZ: "I am not a hero!" I have three children and my husband is also a physicist working in industry. I would advise to not pay attention to judgement. When asked about children, you can answer that your husband is never asked about them.

More info

• EPS Emmy Noether Distinction
  
• EPS Emmy Noether Distinction 2022 for Ilaria Zardo and Monika Ritsch-Marte
• Monika Ritsch-Marte Research Group
  
• Ilaria Zardo Research Group and  announce on the website nanoscience.unibas.ch

The European Physical Society launched the Emmy Noether Distinction to recognize noteworthy women physicists who have a strong connection to Europe through their nationality or work.

Emmy Noether, with her fundamental and revolutionary work in the abstract algebra and on 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 to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women in physics
• coordination of projects and management activity
• service to the scientific community and research administration

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

Commencing 2022, the EPS Emmy Noether Distinction for Women in Physics is to be awarded once a year, to two distinguished women physicists. Namely, the Emmy Noether Distinction will be awarded to an early- and mid–career laureate, as well as to a more advanced candidate, as a Distinction for her full career.

To make a nomination,  apply via this site or submit the following documents 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

Author: Kees van der Beek

Kees van der Beek, chair of the EPS Equal Opportunities Committee, spoke to María Pilar López Sancho (Madrid Institute for Materials Science – ICMM and Spanish Higher Council for Scientific Research - CSIC), winner of the Winter 2021 EPS Emmy Noether Distinction on her career, the effectiveness of advocacy of gender equality, cultural bias, and the future of action for equality.

Kees van der Beek (KvdB): My very warmest congratulations with the Winter 2021 Emmy Noether Distinction, awarded for your many contributions to solid state physics and to strengthening the position of women in physics! Could you tell us how you came to choose physics as a career path? Spanish society at the time was very different from now. What was it like for women to engage in a scientific career in the late nineteen-sixties, early nineteen-seventies?  Were there many women in physics or other sciences back then? 

María Pilar López Sancho(PLS):  At the time, most schools in Spain were of religious character, and both primary and secondary schools were separated by gender. Therefore, all my classmates were girls. At age 14, we had to make the decision of continuing our studies or not, and, if we did, whether we preferred humanities or the sciences. In my class, of those who choose the sciences, we were five girls to choose physics. As for me, this was because I wished to look beyond pure mathematics and study other areas of the natural sciences. It is a bit paradoxical that, as a result of the system of the day, and while we as women were certainly a minority in the scientific field, we were not few, or a small minority by any means. In chemistry in particular, there were many women. As for me, the first time I noticed that as women, we were a minority, was during my university studies and laboratory work at the university. Those years also corresponded to the final convulsions of Franco’s regime. University life was punctuated by intense political activity, and by external policing of university affairs. Nevertheless, I look back on those years dearly, because they were filled with comradeship, intensive learning, and the acquiring of very many formative experiences. 

After university, many of us, including myself, wanted to pursue theoretical physics, a field in which there were very few professional opportunities and very few professorial chairs in the late nineteen-seventies and the early nineteen-eighties. I therefore came to experimental physics, where I was immediately drawn to surface physics and the interaction of gases and molecules with metallic surfaces. You have to understand that the development of new experimental techniques such as Angle-Resolved Photo-Emission Spectroscopy (ARPES) at the time was absolutely spectacular. However, Spanish science was still badly funded in the day, so that many experimentalists such as myself moved to modelling of the latest spectacular results, and, from there, to theoretical condensed matter physics. I am nevertheless surrounded by laboratories and have thus maintained proximity with experimentalists at ICMM, but I think those links between theoreticians and experimentalists might have been, and should be stronger.

KvdB: How did you move into the field of low-dimensional materials? Was that a natural evolution given your environment?

PLS:  I had been working on the physical and the electronic properties of metals and had developed quite a few techniques that I could quite quickly apply to the cuprate high temperature superconductors discovered in 1986, and from there, to other highly correlated electronic systems as well as to carbon nanotubes. In parallel, several colleagues of mine had already worked on the hypothesis of Dirac-like electron physics such as surmised for two-dimensional carbon, or graphene, even before this was isolated. When it was, it was simply naturally to shift our attention to that system.

KvdB:Among the many areas of condensed matter topics that you have studied, which appealed the most to you as a particular challenge that you wanted to take up?  Are there areas that you would have liked to study but didn’t?

PLS: I think that twistronics and the currently much studied twisted bilayers and multilayers built of two-dimensional materials are extremely interesting and very challenging, not in the least through the necessity of taking very large numbers of atoms into account into any computational effort made on these systems. Besides that, I am most interested in the topological properties of electronic systems, and the relation between topology and disorder, which to me was really quite unexpected.

KvdB: Apart from a very successful career in physics, you have built a very rich “second career” in furthering gender equality and the cause of women physicists. How did you start? Was there a particular “flashpoint” that made you realise that you should do this?

PLS: For most of my career, I took no notice of gender issues and the position of women in physics. However, in 1999, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a report assessing gender segregation within their scientific faculty. When I read the results, I was astonished! How could gender bias and gender inequality thrive, or even exist, in such a prestigious institution? The MIT study was quickly followed by assessments of gender bias in scientific institutions in Europe and published by the European Commission. It was then that I, and other colleagues, realised that, at ICMM and in Spain, we were in a similar position, that there was indeed inequality in career progress, with not a single woman in the higher ranks of our institutions. I started to undertake action when I learned, in 1999, that the American Physical Society had acted upon the matter by founding their Committee on the Status of Women in Physics (CSWP), and demanded that the Royal Spanish Physical Society RSEF create a similar section – this happened in 2001. To build the case, we had gathered figures on the role and representation of women physicists in Spain that I presented to the RSEF. It was because of this that I got noticed, and that I was invited, along with three other RSEF colleagues, to attend the 2002 IUPAP First International Conference on Women in Physics in Paris. What an eye-opener that was! It was there that I met our colleagues who lead the first actions at MIT as well as many others, from countries all over the world, and that we decided, together, that physics should be done differently, and that we should do all we could to attract young women to a physics career. Once involved, I could not go back. I realized the importance of the issue, and before long had many responsibilities. These involved a lot of work, for I was not an expert in gender issues, nor were my collaborators, and we had little help. So indeed, our work amounted to almost a second research career!

KvdB: How did you balance your activity with your research? Could you achieve balance, or did you have to sacrifice some activities? Did you have reservations or second thoughts at some time?

PLS: I am a theoretical physicist, and do not head a permanent group. Therefore, my scientific production depends directly on the number of hours I personally put in. The thing is that, once I got involved in the Women and Science Commission (Comisión Mujeres y Ciencia) of CSIC and in the Association of Women Scientist and Technologists (AMIT), I was solicited for a much wider range of issues that I initially foresaw, urgent issues that demanded action. For example, there were many young women that encountered great difficulties reconciling maternity – there was, initially, no satisfactory regulation as to maternity leave – and their scientific career. If nothing were done, their career would collapse. Even if it was not my original role, these women had nowhere else to turn. It is my belief that we did a great deal for science by helping create conditions that allowed those women to continue. In doing so, I have met an incredible amount of very diverse and very interesting people from all scientific and social backgrounds, convinced of the importance of equality for science and society. This experience was extremely satisfactory to me and has more than made up for any scientific papers not published in the process.

KvdB:   As delegate president for the Women and Science Commission, how do you assess the impact that such a commission has, or can have? Indeed, once the commission makes proposals, the real work is only beginning.

PLS: The creation of the Women and Science Commission was very important because it was the first Spanish public office officially publishing figures on women in physics and women in science, and thus, to make the “diagnosis”. I would like to highlight the fundamental role of the then president of CSIC, Rolf Tarrach, a physicist who approved the formation of the Commission. His support demonstrated the importance of the attitude of men and authorities to equality.  Once the numbers were established, it became impossible to deny the reality of gender bias. From there on, we started to recommend gender-neutral language use in science. To my surprise, this encountered quite a lot of resistance, only recently have objections faded and have we come to a more equilibrated use of our language in a scientific environment. Since 2007, we have, in Spain, a law on gender equality, as well as established protocols on how to handle sexual or gender-based harassment. Thanks to initiatives such as of the Women and Science Commission that brought problems to the forefront, things are better now. Still, it has been and it remains very difficult to progress on gender issues, since bias is so strongly engrained. It is important to recognize the work done in this regard by the Women and Science Unit of the European Commission.

KvdB:  Isn’t furthering gender equality an issue of constant vigilance?

PLS: I would agree. With astonishment, I sometimes see that even when young colleagues organise a conference, they invite only male speakers, claiming that they cannot find any women! Fortunately, young women today are different. They are more vocal, they are more aware that we have laws now, laws that regulate and protect gender equality. They do not hesitate to appeal to these.

KvdB:  Having worked in the United Kingdom as well as in Spain, and having sat on the Helsinki Group on Women in Science, you have quite an important European experience. How would you situate Spain with respect to other European countries, with respect to the gender equality issue in science? From afar, Spain looks a leader, with nearly 50 % of women scientists and engineers. Does this mask remaining inequalities? In other European countries even the numbers are very low…

PLS: Indeed there is a difference between Mediterranean Europe and Northern Europe. For example, I remember that during my time at Imperial College in the late nineteen-seventies there were significantly less women physicists than in Spain.  A striking example is Turkey, where a large percentage of scientists – and physicists – are women. Many reasons have been advanced for this. One opposes the protestant- to catholic and other cultures, and the different social status of scientists in each. In protestant cultures, teachers’ and professors’ status would have been relatively higher with respect to the cleric, whereas in the latter women were perhaps more easily admitted to academic roles. Another factor, specific to Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Turkey, would the liberating effect after the fall of national dictatorships in the nineteen-seventies. The liberation of society empowered women and stimulated many to pursue the career they wanted, including academia. Still, even before that time, i.e. in the nineteen-sixties, many teachers in Spain were women.

A big problem is the propagation of role models. Even if a large proportion of primary school teachers in Spain are women, they tend to be more demanding towards boys than towards girls, according to education experts.

KvdB:  You have had a wonderful career in science as well as in furthering the cause of women scientists. If you would be solicited for a further role in either, would you accept? What would you still like to do?

PLS: At this time, I have resigned from both the Women and Science Commission of the CSIC and from the Group of Women Physicists (the Grupo Especializado de Mujeres en Física) of RSEF. I believe times have changed, and that there is a need for new people to step forward, people with new perspectives and new perceptions of society. We have been very successful in raising awareness and in changing the climate in our research organisations. What has to change now is the realisation that science, and engineering, is done not only for the benefit of men, but for that of the whole of society including women. Beyond adapting our institutions, the very object of a lot of research should take into account the reality of diversity. A good first step is the implementation of the diversity issue in projects, such as nowadays requested by the European Union. To progress though, experts are needed. Even if I truly want to help on all issues, I do not hold this expertise, and I think younger people should take the lead.

KvdB:  What recommendations or advice would you give young women in science?

PLS: Young women should be aware that differences do exist. They should also be aware that micro-bias exists, and that it can have a large effect on scientific practice and on society if it is not tackled in time. For example, it appears that the outcome of scientific evaluation depends on whether a male or a female CV is under consideration. Such bias is surely unconscious and unintentional, but, nevertheless, very real. To improve we need objectivity and transparency and everyone’s effort.

FLTR: Jesús Ricote, Pilar Aranda, Luis Viña, Pascuala García-Martínez, María Pilar López Sancho,
Kees van der Beek and José Ángel Martín Gago - image credit : Ángela R. Bonachera, ICMM.