Horyzontalny Punkt
Kontaktowy
Polska Południowo-Wschodnia

Dorota Markiewicz-Roszak, HPK PPW (DMR): What is the topic of your ERC grant?

Sebastian Glatt (SG): The topic of my ERC grant is related to cellular mechanisms. I’m a molecular biologist and I have submitted an ERC proposal to the Life Sciences Panel. The topic is related to small chemical modifications of RNA molecules. This year a Nobel Prize was awarded for the chemical modifications of the RNA vaccines and my  ERC grant is very much related.

 

DMR: In what way could your research result be beneficial to society?

SG: Yes, the main idea of the ERC project was that the research results should be useful for the society. It was already shown that specific RNA modifications are needed to stabilize mRNAs that are used as mRNA vaccines. We seek to understand if those and other modifications can be used to stabilise also non-coding RNAs that are not used to make proteins and are functionally by themselves.

We are studying how we can use naturally occurring modifications to make RNAs more stable. Our newly created knowledge might be applied to develop novel diagnostic markers, new RNA-based vaccines or targeted RNA drugs directly.
 

DMR: Could you describe your research team, its members, and what kind of tasks are planned?

SG: My Max Planck research group is larger than the ERC team itself. The ERC  team consists of three postdocs, 3 research technicians and two PhD students. I am very happy with all of them. Most of them are from Poland, but some actually have returned to Poland from International stays. There are also some international members of the team. The tasks that we planned are very much related to the work program. First, we want to study and learn about molecular complexes that make specific RNA modifications. Second, we wanted to understand how the introduced modifications affect RNA molecules and the functional consequences of the modifications. Third, we want to specifically look at how modified RNA molecules are translated into proteins by the ribosome.

 

DMR: I know that you started the ERC project in 2021, so you have done a lot of work so far. Could you tell me something about your research results so far? Did you confirm the hypothesis?

SG: Yes, we did make a lot of progress, everybody was hired on time and we started the work right away.

Five years sounds long, but it's not so long in the end. Almost 2 million euros sounds a lot, but it's also not a lot in the end. So we didn't want to waste time and money and started research as fast as possible.

Most of our main results are already in the process of being published or have been published. But we also have gained a lot of new ideas throughout the project and we know how to follow-up on this further in the near future. The really good news is that we did confirm the main hypothesis, namely the idea that modification stabilize certain RNA molecules so that we can directly look at them by cryo-electron microscopy. This part was a very high-risk, high-gain aspect of the project and we're  happy, proud and a little bit relieved about the wonderful results obtained so far.

 

DMR:  What have been the main challenges with your ERC  project realization?

SG: For everyone the pandemic and the coronavirus times were a big challenges – scientists are no exception to this. Furthermore, the international energy crisis, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the high inflation rates are something that we all have to deal with, not only in science but as a society.

However, I think the main challenge was to stay productive through the corona times. In particular, as wet lab scientists, we cannot just sit in our home offices and we have to work in a laboratory – in addition modern science is a team effort and we have to bring people together – this was very hard in the last couple of years. So that's for sure something that was one of the main challenges.

One other scientific challenge is related to competition. If you go for very ambitious projects the competition treads on your heels. You're competing with the best labs in Europe, the US, Japan and China. Others are not waiting for us. So we're trying to be ahead and we're trying to “win” sometimes. I think that's one of the biggest challenges, when you work on something that really matters.

I am not worried about it, but I am aware of the other groups and they are also great scientists – in any case, we try to compete with them and expand mankind’s knowledge about our own cellular machines.

 

DMR: When did you move to Krakow?

SG: I came to Krakow in 2015, because of the initiative of the Max Plank Society. I’m a Max Plank Research Group Leader. My group was created even before the Dioscuri Program and started together with the MCB itself. The ERC Grant came five years later. Therefore, the decision to come to Poland was not related of the ERC grant itself, but it for sure helped us a lot to elevate our innovative research to the next level.

 

DMR: How do you like living and working in Krakow?

SG:  Living here is great. Working here is even better. Air quality could be better, but that’s maybe the one big minus. Kraków is a great international city with a vivid scientific community.

 

DMR: What do you think about the ERC grant realization? It is easy and flexible or difficult to realise this kind of grant?

SG: I think, that if you have a really good plan from the beginning, I don't think it's really difficult.  Flexibility is the second last name of science. Things constantly change and we have to stay flexible. The ERC grant officer, and also reports, are clear and transparent. There are many issues that we are helped with from the National Contact Point and from different administrative people who support us in the MCB and UJ administration. I think the ERC grant is not easier and not more difficult than other grants that we have.

 

DMR: How did you conceive of the idea of the project? 

SG: So I think the idea for such a big project normally doesn't just come under the shower. You have to sit down and think – ideally you come up with fifteen ideas, and then during the preparation time you identify the two, three or four most important questions that you want to answer during the project.

I think this is a very important process that you have to go through during the preparation phase. To be honest with you, I think that the ERC grant is not only the money and the prestige, or the people that we can hire - it changes the way we do research. The preparation and maturation of the idea(s) is for sure most crucial.

You should think about what are the most important questions in your research. The ERC grant has also really redirected my whole scientific work in a more focused direction than it was before.

The ERC just makes it more attractive to reserve enough time to rethink all your questions and hypotheses.

 

DMR: What was the hardest thing in the ERC grant preparation?

SG: To reserve enough time - you will simply need a lot of time to prepare an ERC project. I started half a year before and especially in the last four to five weeks, it was basically full time. You can’t do this in two afternoons.

I think the main thing is that we all have our duties connected with bureaucracy, other projects, publications, administration, teaching and other important tasks. The hardest thing is to clear your calendar and make time for the preparation of an ERC grant. Take it seriously and reserve enough time for the preparation.

 

DMR: What were the main elements of your project and experience which convinced experts to give you financial support?

SG: Honestly - I don't know – the other applications were for sure fantastic as well. I foremost try to do meaningful and important in research. It for sure depends on which call you are going to apply for: starting, consolidator, or advanced grant.

I received a consolidator grant - there it was important that I was recognized as a world leader in that specific area of research. I have published in ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’, but I don't think it was important to apply for an ERC grant, because these papers were focused on my postdoc work in transcription and not so much related to the topic. But I had very good papers in other top journals, which were related to the topic of the project.

I strongly believe that publications in ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’ are ultimately necessary to apply for an ERC grant. You need to be recognized through your work as one of the leading experts in the field/discipline - not only in Poland, but as the leading expert in the world.

 

DMR: The next question is connected to your  CV. What do you think was crucial for ERC  evaluation?

SG: I did my PhD in industry and I moved back to academia, did my postdoc at the EMBL and now I am a Max Plank Research Group leader. A decent CV obviously helps. It's not necessary to go from country to country, but to move from one good place to another good research institute – this gives you the experience to implement large projects efficiently and makes you a more complete scientist as a whole.

 

DMR: Do you remember your interview with ERC panel at the second step of application?  What was it like?

SG: I remember the ERC panel actually being very constructive and friendly. It was online. It's obviously a very stressful situation. But I remember that it was a very constructive and good discussion among experts. I don't think that they try to ruin, humiliate or kill you. They simply try to find your weak spots in the project. If you have a good project, there is nothing to hide.

One of the things that is particularly difficult in the ERC panel system. You are not aware of the reviews, so you don't know what the overall impression is at the time of the interview. If you go to the interview, you should simply assume that you are probably quite well-ranked by the experts

In the end, I had 8 reviewers and all of them were extremely positive. There was not a single bad one, but I didn't know that at the time of the interview. You can’t anticipate opinions from the grant committee, but I remember it very positively.

 

DMR: Did you practice your presentation for the ERC panel interview?

SG: Yes, I was practicing my presentation a lot - probably 80-times or more. But I think there is also another important thing – answering the questions. You need to answer as briefly as possible. There is no time to start a long philosophical discussion about something that was asked by the panel. The most important thing is to answer quickly, briefly and precisely.

Despite practicing answering the questions before the panel, you will always get some questions that you will not be able to answer very well. So if you spend too much time on your answers, the panel will only be able to ask you 5 questions, but if you answer quickly you will get 25 questions to answer and if one of your answers is not ideal, then it does not matter so much.  So it's in your interest to answer as quickly and concisely as possible.

 

DMR:  Summarising. How do you think this project could impact your and your team's career development?

SG:  It’s an ERC grant, so it has a big impact on my CV. I don't think that the team’s careers are ultimately different than after a very good NCN or FNP project - the team members benefit from a good salary and from the great research infrastructure at MCB.

Therefore I think, it provides a good basis for the time after the research project.

One big advantage is, that an ERC project gives you five years of financing for the team so you can develop ambitious projects. Not like in some of the NCN grants, where you have three years, and after two years you have to have all the results already. You can tackle some big questions and that's for sure good for everyone.

 

DMR: What are the main benefits of the ERC projects?

SG: First is the long perspective to realize research. Five years is a reasonable time for a project. The competitive salaries are for sure something as well. Hence, the project helps to attract highly-qualified people. Moreover, one of the main benefits is a quality stamp of our work - people immediately realize that you're working on something important. As you have succeeded in such a competitive scheme, you are recognized as somebody that works on something meaningful. I think that we don't do research only for ourselves but for society, and it’s funded by the public. So I think it is important to work on something relevant.

 

DMR: What advice would you give young scientists who are going to apply for  ERC grants?

SG: Don't give up. I also applied failed once, and then applied again and I got it.

I think one of the things is to not get depressed about rejections. Something to learn in science in general - you should simply continue if you're interested in what you're doing.

The other thing to consider if you start preparing your application is to think seriously and reserve enough time for the application. There's no way that you realistically do this in two weeks. Yes, you can fill in all the forms (hopefully without typos) in two weeks. But get ahead of yourself. You need to understand what the things are that you probably could do if you get a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of hands. Understand that this is not trivial. Prepare yourself with a period where you question all your previous research directions and adapt your strategy in your ERC project.

 

DMR: What are you going to do after the ERC grant?

SG: After finishing, I am sure an Advanced Grant is in front of me. The next application is definitely the ERC Synergy Grant, but we will have to wait for the ERC Consolidator Grant to finish, before being able to apply for another grant.