"
25 Interviews for the FNP?s 25th Anniversary. The Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) celebrates its 25th anniversary this year. To mark the occasion, we have invited 25 beneficiaries of our programmes to tell us about how they ?practise? science. What fascinates them? What is so exciting, compelling and important in their particular field that they have decided to devote a major part of their lives to it? How does one achieve success?
The interviewees are researchers representing many very different fields, at different stages of their scientific careers, with diverse experience. But they have one thing in common: they practise science of the highest world standard, they have impressive achievements to their credit and different kinds of FNP support in their extensive CVs. We are launching the publication of our cycle; successive interviews will appear regularly on the FNP website.
Pleasant reading!
Difficulties Can Be Fun
Prof. Marek Samoć, a chemist and physical chemist, talks to Anna Mateja
ANNA MATEJA:
When was the first time you thought learning about the world scientifically was interesting enough to devote your life to it?
MAREK SAMOĆ: In secondary school, when we conducted our first simple experiments in chemistry club, e.g. to identify ions or observe changes in the colour or state of aggregation of a substance. Finding out how effects match expectations stimulated my imagination and encouraged me to do further experiments or read scientific books. I was already a student of the Wrocław University of Technology?s Faculty of Chemistry when I realized I was truly interested in a quantitative approach to chemistry, and chose physical chemistry as my object of special scientific investigation.
Physics, chemistry and biology, though each in its own way, describe a world that can be experimentally learned. Classic chemistry deals with reactions and observing the changes that occur, which enables new materials to be produced. In biology, observing these processes is even more interesting because it gets complicated by the fact that they take place in living organisms. Physics, meanwhile, describes the world using mathematical tools, in which contemporary chemistry is similar. Physical chemistry, which is my field, enables each of these disciplines to be involved. After all, it uses the tools of physics to describe matter and chemical processes, and the effects of such investigations often concern living organisms.
You focus on interesting optical effects used in medical diagnostics and telecommunications, among other things. The applications for your work are so numerous that I should ask you why working at a university has turned out to be more interesting than working at an industrial laboratory.
But some companies also have very good labs and conduct research of a high standard. The fact that their aim is direct practical application, i.e. solving a specific problem, in no way diminishes the importance of the science practised there, especially since researchers working for industry obtain many results of vital importance for expanding fundamental knowledge. On the other hand, probably everyone working in science wants their results to be significant, to translate into applications.
After graduating I didn?t end up in industry because even before obtaining my degree I started doing research at the university as part of the student scientific movement. I studied the electrical properties of molecular crystals, because this was the research topic of the group from the Institute of Organic and Physical Chemistry where I was. It was headed by Prof. Krzysztof Pigoń, one of the founders of the Wrocław school of the physical chemistry of organic solids and a wonderful scientist who gathered many great researchers and teachers around him. I was very impressed by all of them, and also the field of their studies, even though exploring the secrets of physical chemistry, which makes extensive use of the tools of mathematics and physics, is not easy. I treated it as a challenge ? to try my hand at an area considered to be complicated. It eventually turned out that with such an attitude, difficulties can be fun.
But a shortage of equipment because the university can?t afford it is another kind of difficulty altogether. When was the first time you saw a laser that was intriguing enough to define the direction of your research for many years?
In 1979 I went on a postdoctoral fellowship to the National Research Council Canada in Ottawa. I wanted to expand the scope of my research at the Wrocław University of Technology to include experiments impossible to conduct over here for lack of the necessary equipment. But once there, I learned about lasers and? fell in love with the possibilities they offered a scientist. I used them for all kinds of research, but above all for studies on the interaction of laser light and matter, investigating the outcomes and application possibilities. The subject of my postdoctoral dissertation, presented in 1985 and based on research conducted in Ottawa, was photoconduction, or changes in the electrical conductivity of materials under the influence of light.
Did you have any complexes in confrontation with the knowledge and experience of your Canadian colleagues?
None, because I was well prepared for working with them. That was something I owed to my mentors at the Wrocław University of Technology, who taught me all about scientific method, or how to conduct experiments, how to check results, how to maintain criticism and humility towards your own results and those obtained by other scientists. They also instilled scientific honesty in me, the need to constantly read and gather information about topics of interest. Finally: working on the Wrocław team I learned the tough work of collaboration among extremely ambitious people who nevertheless have to remain honest and loyal towards one another. I left for Canada as a fully fledged researcher who was going there not to find out how to practise science but to conduct experimental research of a standard that was impossible in Poland at the time.
Prof. Marek Samoć by One HD
You returned from Canada in 1980; another longer stay in the West ? this time at Dartmouth College in the United States ? didn?t come your way until 1987. In science that?s a whole era?
As I said: I like challenges. It was a genuine pleasure to catch up with equipment and new measurement possibilities, for instance related to the widespread use of personal computers. The 1980s were a tough time in Poland. Problems with travelling abroad (I was on a blacklist of Wrocław University of Technology scientists whom the authorities refused to issue passports) were added to the hardships of daily life (to mention the hassle of doing basic shopping [at a time of widespread shortages]). And after all that, here I was at Dartmouth College in New England where I could dedicate myself completely to scientific work using lasers and computers, and where daily living was nice and easy.
Eighteen months later I transferred to the State University of New York in Buffalo, where I had access to more advanced laser systems than at Dartmouth College. And the research area ? nonlinear optics (phenomena in which the optical properties of a material depend on the light falling on it) ? was a continuation of the work I?d done earlier. Then in June 1989 I decided to return to Poland, believing that after the ?contract elections? things could be interesting here, too. But at the request of my American boss, Prof. Paras N. Prasad, I agreed to spend one semester of the year over there to conduct research.
You?ve really had the perfect work conditions. Australia, where you went in 1991, was the next stage in your scientific career?
I found myself in Canberra as a 40-year-old émigré, once again starting my life from scratch. Literally. When I was still in the United States, before there was any hope for changes in Poland, I had applied to the Australian embassy for an immigration visa. I didn?t just want to work as a scientist in Australia but to move my whole life there. The review process was so long that I didn?t receive the visa until 1991. I had three months to arrive in my new country, otherwise the visa decision would have been annulled. So I said to myself, ?why not? I like a challenge?, even though landing in Australia I didn?t even have any prospects for a job as a scientist.
What was your starting point?
I checked who at the Australian National University in Canberra was working in a field similar to my own interests. That?s how, a few days after arriving, I paid a visit to Prof. Barry Luther-Davies, head of the university?s Laser Physics Centre. He asked me very thoroughly about my work so far, my interests, professional experience. In the end he let me work there as a volunteer. We understood each other very well and had a lot in common in scientific terms, so quite soon I started getting paid for my work. And just a few months after our first meeting we received a research grant and the university could hire me. I have been lucky in life?
But you helped your luck along. You worked in Canberra until 2008, and it was a very fruitful 17 years, among other things because you expanded your scientific interests to include nanophotonics ? a field that studies the interaction between light and material objects from one to a hundred nanometres in size.
My fascination for nanophotonics did not emerge in Australia but as a result of frequent trips from Canberra to Buffalo, after 2000. That was where I found that the way light affected material structures measured in nanometres ? or one-millionth parts of a millimetre ? was different; among other things, it can be more intensive. The truth is, the nano-world is often completely different from the micro-world. It?s not for nothing that we speak of nanoscience.
What is so special about the nano-reality?
It all comes down to physics. Considering the structure of matter, it turns out that the interaction of light and matter changes if the scale in which it occurs is reduced, for example, to a few nanometres. That?s why we speak of the size effect. To achieve it, we are able to produce nanoparticles of various sizes from the same material, which behave differently, e.g. have different colours, thanks to which we can fit the properties of a given material to a desirable application. The results of this kind of research can be used, among other things, in telecommunications (which was my main focus during the 17 years spent in Canberra studying the possibilities of transmitting, shaping and switching optical signals), but also in medical diagnostics and therapy.
Photodynamic therapy is one example of such an application. In simple terms, laser light of an appropriate wavelength is used to activate doses of medicine, a photosensitizer previously introduced in the neighbourhood of cancerous cells. An important role in this process is played by oxygen molecules, which interact with the photosensitizer and become very active (assuming a form called singlet oxygen) and are able to kill cancer cells. Where in all this is the place of a physical chemist who specializes in research on interactions between light and matter? It lies in finding a material with the desired properties, proposing the right way to excite it and optimize the interaction of light and matter.
That is how fundamental research serves to solve a specific problem. The question of whether to study material X that is no different from others or material Y about which we know that it could potentially be used as a medicine or a photosensitizer, resolves itself. Our research still lies within the scope of fundamental research, even though the results are related, sometimes quite directly, to specific applications.
Is the strategy the same in research aiming to produce new solar cells?
Yes, these problems are similar from the point of view of the physical basis, i.e. similar materials can be used in medical diagnostics or therapy based on interactions between light and matter and in solar energy conversion processes. The only thing is that in the latter case the aim is to obtain a material that will enable solar light to be converted efficiently into electricity. Success depends on the quality of the materials and the structure of the device in which it will serve as the active agent. Again: studying the interaction of light with materials to optimize the conversion of solar energy is nothing other than fundamental research. It brings us closer to understanding the physical basis of the phenomenon.
You can study any topic, but I think it?s a good idea for the final choice to be preceded by questions: Why am I interested in this? What is the purpose of the research? Or maybe I could focus on a topic related to a specific human need that we cannot satisfy without obtaining scientific knowledge first?
Prof. Marek Samoć by One HD
Did you ask yourself ?why? when you decided to return to Poland in 2008?
Of course. I wanted to share my experience gained during more than two decades of working at laboratories in the United States and Australia. The proposal from my colleagues at the Wrocław University of Technology to become the director of the Institute of Physical and Theoretical Chemistry was a good opportunity to put my know-how to use in Poland. In a sense, I had to start all over again once more, and I liked the idea that instead of getting into a rut, as can happen at some stage in life, I was taking on another challenge.
A few months after coming back I became a beneficiary of the WELCOME programme that the Foundation for Polish Science launched for scientists returning from abroad. I received over 6 million zlotys to set up my own research team. My experience from working at the Australian National University turned out to be useful in that I knew about the many advantages of dynamic work organization. Over there, a separate team was set up for every project, its composition depending on the needs. However, different projects overlapped. Another important thing was that we conducted some of the work as part of the Photonics Cooperative Research Centre formed jointly by universities and companies like Siemens, ABB, IBM. In Poland the structure of research teams is more rigid.
Interviewing different candidates for my future associates during recruitment, I considered not only their previous work experience, number of publications, results presented at conferences or foreign traineeships. I don?t need to mention excellent English language skills, as English is the working language of this scientific field. And it?s a necessity, considering that the team also included foreigners and we often host scientists and students from other countries. I looked for enthusiasm.
How do you know you?re talking to an enthusiast with good ideas for their future in research?
I asked them if they knew what project they were committing to, what bionanophotonics required of them, what publications they knew on the topic. But I was also interested how independent the candidates were in their choice of research topics, whether these had come only from their thesis supervisor, which meant they were in fact continuing that person?s work. This can sometimes be creative but doesn?t testify to independence, which is something a scientist must have. I?ve always valued people who changed the concept suggested by their thesis supervisor during work on their project, doing something their own way. Or who went abroad and brought back fresh ideas which they incorporated creatively into their research. Or those who enjoy extra challenges and, for example, sign up as students for English-language physical chemistry classes (where the subject itself is difficult) to learn the terminology. By the way, that was something I proposed at my faculty and I can see it was worth it, because it enabled me to meet many ambitious young people. I wanted my associates to be inquisitive. It is the duty of a scientist ? or even every educated person ? to keep inquiring how things really are. At every stage of your development it?s also worth asking yourself: is whatever I?m working on really the area in which I can achieve significant results?
People are always the most important in a team. Whether we know how to support one another, whether we are loyal, but also the power of our belief that together we can achieve more than each one of us individually, is what decides about a team taking full advantage of its capacity. And being successful. Ambitions and rivalry among people will inevitably emerge, but if team members are convinced of the value of what I mentioned, this can be overcome.
What have you achieved as a team?
Starting my work in Poland, I ambitiously assumed I?d be able to buy enough good equipment to not only continue my research from Canberra (on the interaction between laser light and matter) but also to expand it. This I achieved, above all thanks to the WELCOME programme which allowed part of the grant to be invested in equipment. This has enabled us to conduct research using short impulses of laser light ? a hundred femtoseconds long (that?s a one in the thirteenth place after the decimal point!) ? which allows us to observe certain effects that are interesting from the point of view of fundamental physics and chemistry as well as their application.
After seven years of research on materials for nanophotonics we became a group recognized around the world. We receive quite a few proposals of collaboration and samples for testing from laboratories from many countries, including France, Germany, China, Taiwan, the United States, Australia as well as Poland. Meanwhile, this is both difficult and costly research, so success wasn?t a given when I packed up my things in Australia in 2008, devising ambitious plans for what I wanted to do in Wrocław.
So when you received the MISTRZ award?
I thought of it as recognition ? extremely satisfying ? for the fact that we?d done something interesting. And also that the life change from 2008 when I decided to return to Poland made sense. Honestly speaking, I?m surprised at all this, that despite the risk things have gone so well.
You have quite a few achievements: the Polish Prime Minister?s Prize in 2015, the Wrocław Science Award in 2016.
But the team is the most important! Two of my associates have obtained postdoctoral degrees, I?ve supervised seven PhDs in Poland, three of those people are still on my team. Right now we have five PhD students working with us, and a great many students were involved in the team?s work over the past seven years. Actually, the issue of the MISTRZ grant for professors came up thanks to one of our PhD students at the time, who noticed that laser light strongly affects amyloid fibrils ? a special kind of protein produced in cerebral fluid in neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer?s, Parkinson?s, spongiform encephalopathies). I wondered why certain protein aggregates interacted so strongly with laser light and decided it was worth investigating how light interacted with various kinds of aggregates. Perhaps this could be used somehow? At present we are at the start of the road and, frankly speaking, we don?t understand a great deal. But the grant from the FNP provided invaluable support in launching work on a topic that is as fascinating as it is uncertain. We don?t know what awaits us at the end of the work. Further investigation? A method for early diagnosis of Alzheimer?s? Or perhaps nothing? I cannot rule out failure.
Doesn?t such risk put you off?
No; science is impossible without risk.
Prof. MAREK SAMOĆ (b. 1951 in Kalisz) heads the Advanced Materials Engineering and Modelling Group at the Wrocław University of Technology?s Faculty of Chemistry. A beneficiary of FNP programmes: WELCOME (2008) and MISTRZ (2013).
Read more:
We Want to Be the Biggest Player - Marek Dziubiński, PhD, inventor of the technology for a heart rate remote monitoring device, talks to Olaf Szewczyk
A well-executed idea ? an interview with Dr Wojciech Fendler, medical doctor and researcher, by Anna Mateja