������Ƶ

Director to director: Becoming Babraham

Thirty years on from the ������Ƶ’s official renaming, former director Richard Dyer (1994-2005) and current director Simon Cook reflect on shared history, the essence of Babraham and where another thirty years might take us.

The moment it changed: why did we become the Babraham ������Ƶ?

RD: The reason it became called the Babraham ������Ƶ was because everywhere I went in the world people would say “how are things at Babraham?". They wouldn't say how is “the ������Ƶ of Animal Physiology and Genetics and ...” that would be ridiculous, they would just say “how are things at Babraham?”. And then I realised, later, that that was a master stroke. Call it Babraham because then you’re not defined, you can change where you're going. If you're the institute for something, then you can be accused; ‘Oh, you're not doing that.’ And so after that we were just the Babraham ������Ƶ.

Richard, could you describe the early tasks and challenges of stepping into the director role?

RD: There were too many isolated people, and I fundamentally believe in teamwork. I believed then that the day of the lone scientist was more or less over. And I also believed in working together, with a shared vision and shared achievement.

One of the things about being an electrophysiologist, which is my background, is that actually if someone's having a successful experiment, you can see it in real time. So I knew what it was like to stop what I was doing, run down the corridor, and be excited about somebody else’s achievement and that's what I wanted to create here.

The first thing that was required, which was a huge battle after I became director, was to actually make lab groups. There were some obvious ones, and then there were some complete surprises, ‘you three are going to work together’! At the time of the 2000 review report, all of that was behind us. We’d successfully redefined the ������Ƶ and it all looked very positive into the future. I was happy to read the report again and I was happy to be reminded about the journey, as they say, and I think the outcome was good.

The really nice thing was that after the labs were made, progressively everybody pulled together. That's why I felt so happy because it had been a privilege to do all this, it was a very creative job. Now, of course, you Simon will have different sorts of challenges, but I used to say two things, to myself mostly, but to those who would listen occasionally: the status quo is unsatisfactory by definition, it implies perfection. So there is no status quo. And I used to say, even Mozart had to satisfy the Archbishop of Salzburg.

Simon, do you remember this sort of time at the ������Ƶ? And how does it make you think about your early days in the director seat?

SC: I've often felt that I arrived at a very interesting time (in 1997). There were still farm animal projects going on but they very quickly closed and we quickly evolved a more focused, strategic vision.

We have a remarkable alumni now; people who have gone out into the world and are achieving incredible things in all spheres of life. And that, if anything, is the legacy of the ������Ƶ, sustained and influenced through successive directors. There are so many things you say that still resonate more than 30 years on. You said that you found it very insular in the beginning. I think the ������Ƶ in that sense has changed beyond all recognition and this also speaks to the move towards team science. You're absolutely right that the days of the lone researcher are long gone. Partly, this reflects the expectations placed upon us from society and governments, which really drives the need for team science to deliver ambitious projects, addressing global problems. But it also reflects the nature of the science we do; so much of it is impossible without a team.

I think that you're absolutely right that there is no such thing as a status quo in science. I have always felt that you are only as good as the last piece of work you published so we’re all looking to innovate and break new ground and we’re inspired along that path by the combined progress of the scientific community. Despite the challenges, it's still a job that gives me great joy as a researcher. And as a director, I get immense joy out of the success of my colleagues. I think one of the standout things about being a director is actually the brilliant people we work with.

What do you each consider to be the most rewarding aspect of leading the Babraham ������Ƶ, and how has it shaped your views on your professional legacy?

RD: I think it's one of the best things to happen to me in my life from a professional perspective, better than my Nature papers for example. I think of it like this: with research, you put a brick on the wall but all you’ve done is put a brick in the wall. In leading a community of people and shaping an organisation’s vision your creativity lasts longer, I mean it absolutely, than most of your published papers.

SC: Stewardship is a very relevant word. For me personally, when people ask me what I do, I first of all say scientist, and this is the first and the last thing I will be, but I think, like Richard, that the things that I have derived most value from is not the papers published, but my PhD students and postdocs who have gone on to bigger and better things, which I find very rewarding. And that, I think, speaks to something that Babraham is all about, which is supporting people and nurturing people. That was the case 27 years ago when I arrived here and I benefited from that, and it continues to this day.

Shifting from leadership to day-to day experiences, what are your hopes for the staff who support the science behind the scenes?

RD: What I think about Babraham, is that it is a metropolitan, international activity taking place in the countryside. One of the things I felt very strongly about is that I wanted everybody to be proud to work here, even if they had a very humble job. And to be proud to work here means they had to be able to answer the first questions at the pub – “where do you work?” I work at Babraham. “Oh, what do they do there?”

SC: I couldn't agree more. First and foremost the ������Ƶ exists to do great science. But that can only happen if we have a whole host of people behind the scientists keeping everything running. As soon as one part of that fails, then quite a lot of things very quickly fall down. Recognising that and understanding that I think, is critical to the success of the ������Ƶ, and is something that the ������Ƶ has done well in the 27 years I’ve been here.

I felt valued from a very early point when I arrived here. You took me out for lunch not long after I arrived and you wanted my opinion on things. I think the fact that I was asked, and my opinions were sought when I had been here just a few months, showed it was important for the ������Ƶ and I felt like my voice was heard.

Richard, how does the Campus measure up to your imagined future for it?

RD: Is it where I thought it might be? The answer to that is no, which may surprise you. The reason I say that is because I’m the one who started it; I suppose I saw the opportunity and ignored the naysayers. In planting the seed of this Campus we stepped into the gap and realised the value in supporting early-stage life science companies and that widened the base of what the ������Ƶ could offer. The Campus today has exceeded my expectations. I’m delighted to see the synergy and close interweaving of the ������Ƶ with the commercial campus community.

SC: I can't put myself in your shoes and imagine what the aspirations were, but I think the vision you had was remarkable and has been an incredible success to see it realised. You know, it is one of the most successful research campuses in Europe. And in terms of an innovation campus that has both academic and commercial bioscience it's essentially been the model for BBSRC’s innovation campuses around the country. If I'm asked what the ������Ƶ’s USP is, I say two things, our great science and the campus, and the Babraham Research Campus’ USP is the ������Ƶ. Without the ������Ƶ the campus is a science park like every other; that is the difference between ‘place’ and ‘space’.

Simon, if you looked ahead as far as Richard is looking back, what might you see in a crystal ball?

SC: I’m not sure I can think that far into the future but something that Richard has said I think is very relevant here, which is this widening of the base and I think we need to be thinking about finding diverse funding sources to build a new research programme to broaden our research portfolio. We have three fantastic programmes funded by BBSRC but we need to grow. One way is to explore more flexible funding models with other research councils—this was one of the goals of UKRI after all—but also with other funders as our fundamental bioscience has many applications.

Another way to grow is to engage with the commercial science sector in a much more cheek-by-jowl approach, closer even than we have currently on the Babraham Research Campus. I am excited about the idea of an ‘innovation hub’ where research scientists can do perhaps more translational work, side-by-side with scientists working for companies. And this will be much more of a blurring of the academic-industry boundary, but that interface is where some of the most exciting biology is being done now.

I also see us continuing to embrace new technologies, some of which are coming out of the commercial sector. There's an old-fashioned view that knowledge exchange is unidirectional; an academic has an idea and it's translated into companies. But the reality is, it's very much a circular, iterative process where ideas come across from the commercial sector. We are very familiar with this due to our history of commercial collaborations.

What about the future of the ������Ƶ in the context of the changing landscape of bioscience?

SC: My view is that the ������Ƶ will continue to be internationally known for its ability to interrogate molecular mechanisms; that is key to understanding how biology works. If we think about societal impacts and economic impacts, particularly drugs for treatment of disease, you are only going to understand and deliver those drugs if you first understand how a process works, because you can then identify where to intervene to inhibit or activate that process. But we also know that systems are dynamic and resilient, so we also need to understand how they adapt to such interventions. 

And that is something that the ������Ƶ has developed a reputation for doing in the last 50 years; it is why I moved here to start my research group. Moving forward we will need to embrace computational biology and AI in support of this. I am also excited by the opportunities afforded by engineering biology approaches, especially in the area of proteostasis which in recent years has emerged as major focus at Babraham.

So we are back to the start of our conversation and the need to keep moving forwards and embracing change!