Current Biology publishes an interview with Claus about his scientific career and his opinions about research careers and the current situation in science.
Claus Schwechheimer studied biology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, and graduated in biotechnology from the École Supérieure de Biotechnologie de Strasbourg (ESBS), France. After a PhD with Mike W. Bevan at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK (1994–1998), and a three-year postdoc with Xing Wang Deng at Yale University, USA (1998–2001), he returned to Germany in 2001 to start his own group at the Center for Plant Molecular Biology at Tübingen University. In 2008, he obtained his current position as a Full Professor and Chair for Plant Systems Biology at the Technical University of Munich. Since 2011, he has been the coordinator of a DFG-funded plant research network in the Munich area focusing on molecular mechanisms controlling yield and yield stability in plants (CRC924). In 2015, he was a fellow of the Nirit and Michael Shaoul Fund at Tel Aviv University, Israel. Throughout his career, his research has concentrated on plants, but often addresses questions that are of relevance to other biological systems. Research in his laboratory was originally directed towards understanding the role of the ubiquitin–proteasome system, which brought him to his current research themes on the roles of the hormones auxin and gibberellin in the regulation of plant growth.
What turned you on to biology in the first place?
When I was at high school, I had never considered studying natural sciences. I majored in French, History, Music and, because it was compulsory, Maths and German. In the mid-1980s there were many political and ecological topics that absorbed my attention. I was also active in various music groups and had developed a certain interest in the Middle East. During a consultation at the student counselling office at Heidelberg University, I was told that there weren’t any jobs for people graduating in Middle Eastern studies. The counsellor told me that the only job for graduates of Middle Eastern studies was that of a librarian, but that many more librarians were needed in the life sciences libraries. This matched somehow with my interest in books and, funnily enough, this innocent comment from the counsellor turned me towards studying biology.
What happened next?
I started studying biology in Heidelberg. Not having majored in natural sciences at high school, I was overburdened and felt that I was the worst biology student ever — and maybe I was. I somehow survived all of the exams after the first two years but did not feel comfortable in what seemed to me to be a huge, anonymous university. It was time for a change and I became aware of a new European master’s degree programme in biotechnology in Strasbourg. Enrolling there was one of the game-changing decisions in my life. In this small biotechnology programme, everything was different from the big Heidelberg University: we were a small class of little more than 20 students from France, Germany and Switzerland. We were very close to the professors, teachers and other students, we were well mentored and we had a lot of freedom in planning our extracurricular activities. What’s more, Strasbourg was (and still is) an important centre for molecular biology and, as an ESBS student, one felt intimately close to all this. I loved being taught in three different languages, which made learning about science a very intense experience for me. There, I graduated as one of the best students of my ‘Promotion Werner Arber’.
What drew you to plant research? In the 1990s, plant transformation had become possible and plant biotechnology was essentially ‘invented’. In Strasbourg, we invited Ingo Potrykus, one of the scientists behind the Golden Rice Project, and Thomas Boller, a prominent plant biochemist from Basel, to give lectures. It became clear then that I would specialize in plant biotechnology and I decided to go for my master’s thesis to ICI Seeds at Jealott’s Hill (now Syngenta), close to London, UK. (When I later had the choice between leadership positions in the plant biotech industry and academia, I opted for academia because it offered more scientific freedom.)
May there have been other factors influencing your choice to work in plant biology?
My decision to become a plant scientist was probably not random. As a teenager, I grew vegetables in my parents’ garden, something none of my friends would do. Only now do I realize that this was special because one of our teenage sons suddenly developed a strong interest in plants: he cycles to the woods, collects young trees and pots them, he grows plants from the seeds he finds in the kitchen cabinets or in the vegetables and fruits we eat, and he always finds a good reason for me to take him to the garden centre. My interest in plants has seemingly segregated away from my interest in politics and foreign countries, which is the passion of our other son.
Were there any important mentors in your scientific life?
Yes, there were many! First of all, I loved working with Ian Jepson, now Head of Development at Syngenta, who was an amazing mentor during my master’s thesis. Another formative experience was meeting the scientific troika of Caroline Dean, George Coupland (now at the Max Planck Institute, Cologne), and Nick Harberd (now at the University of Oxford) when I did my PhD at the John Innes Centre. I liked their discussions and noted the productive complementarity of their approaches and styles, and I continue to admire their outstanding research contributions in the molecular control of flowering time in plants. Another great inspiration was Gerd Jürgens at Tübingen University, where I established my independent group. Although Gerd himself is very hands-off, he is a great example of a scientist who constantly questions and re-examines his findings to get closer to the truth. Working close to him triggered my interest in cell biology, which can be so cool and satisfying!
What advice would you give to a young scientist?
In the first place, identify your (!) research topic and then become really good at it. Read the literature, and also the old papers. Many experiments have already been done in one way or another, sometimes with much more dedication and maybe in other organisms (which may help you to judge the significance of your research topic). Then, concentrate, focus and seek to bring depth to your analysis! Don’t be afraid of asking for advice, comments and criticisms from your colleagues and supervisors. Be perseverant, but also don’t be stubborn. Don’t be afraid of changing your plans or strategy when things do not work out. Keep in mind that you are not the only one doing research and that your research needs to be competitive, interesting and modern.
What do you consider a crucial moment in a scientific career?
Certainly postdoctoral training! When choosing a postdoc laboratory, one is making a highly informed decision. During my career, my experience of working at important (plant) science hubs — the John Innes Centre, Yale and Tübingen University — has been incredibly valuable, not only because I saw fantastic science there, but also because I met dedicated people from all over the world. Having worked in such places increases the chances of being successful in science. Virtually all of my postdoc friends from Yale and my group-leader peers from Tübingen have become professors at universities and research centres around the world. Knowing them makes me well connected, which is a big advantage when seeking advice, looking for collaborations or going for a drink when away from home.
What do you enjoy most about your own science?
In my lab, we use a number of complementary approaches ranging from biochemistry and cell biology to genetics. I still find it amazing that altering a single base in a gene and thereby the biochemical properties of a single amino acid in a single protein can have the most dramatic effects on protein behaviour and development. I am very content when I am able to explain the molecular mechanistic basis of a change of plant growth and development.
Identifying molecular mechanisms is also the theme of the CRC924 research network, right?
Yes! CRCs are one of several interesting funding schemes of the DFG, the German Research Foundation, to support networking activities. CRCs are funded to promote the local research infrastructure. Our CRC924 has turned into a highly collaborative research network that is trying to identify the molecular basis of plant growth traits related to yield. The topics range from reproduction and growth control to abiotic and biotic stress responses. It is our vision that the identification of causal genes and mutations will help us to understand the genetic variation underlying (crop) plant growth that is being characterized in the hundreds of sequenced plant genomes.
If you had no financial or intellectual restrictions, what would you like to work on?
I am fascinated by the analytical depth that is now possible in the field of proteomics that allows for the discovery and quantification of proteins and their post-translational modifications. In one of our projects, we used selected reaction monitoring mass spectrometry to quantify protein phosphorylation. I have repeatedly stated in my talks that, if I had the means and capacity, I would do quantitative proteomics day and night. Analyzing and understanding plant signalling networks systematically and in a time- and cell-type-resolved manner in plants is a dream.
What big problems do you see in the current scientific world?
There are many! I dislike the distortion that I observe among funding opportunities for young scientists. Some funding bodies award huge grants but state that they receive more outstanding applications than they can possibly fund. So, there is an element of luck in being selected. On the other side, the selected awardees then have too much of an advantage in the job market. I strongly support competitive science funding but would like to see that all candidates of the same career stage have equal opportunities.
Second, I would like to see a better harmonization of career tracks between countries. In Europe, education is more or less harmonized between different countries until the PhD stage, but then different countries have very different career tracks that one must enter at a specific level. This unfortunately restricts mobility between countries, a factor that is so desirable scientifically and politically, and puts unnecessary constraints on young scientists’ careers. Third, I perceive too many administrative restrictions that obstruct high-quality science. It has become almost impossible to employ an experienced scientist. Time windows foreseen for a PhD or postdoc project do not match the realities of the lab. Ever more experiments are needed to complete a publication, learning phases in biology are long, and plants grow slowly. Administration often constrains the most motivated and dedicated scientists, in many cases disregarding their scientific qualities.
If you had to choose a different field of biology, what would it be?
I have started becoming very interested in cognitive biology and psychology. I have a slight face blindness (prosopagnosia) and I am constantly wondering what other aspects of my visual perception are affected by this weakness. We all do have perception strengths and weaknesses, and I am struck by how little we know about them. Learning and teaching could be personalized if we understood our cognitive abilities better. I have many ideas for experiments in this area, but assume they all have already been done in one way or another. I am trying to view the relevant literature, but as a non-expert I have difficulties separating the wheat from the chaff.
Would you consider any other career options, outside of science?
With the current political situation in the Middle East, I can only note that there would have been quite a few jobs for a specialist in Middle Eastern studies in the media or in politics. So, I may just as well have followed my original interests. I also love music, especially when performed live. I find the possibilities of electronic music very appealing but guess that there is already too much good stuff out there. And I am also very happy with the career decisions I have made.
