Lennart Hilbert, Postdoctoral Researcher
Hometown: Steinhagen (Westfalen), Germany
What are you working on?
For most people DNA is a term they would know. It's this long molecule, containing a specific code for every person, animal, and plant, defining a great part of who we are. We can now sequence it at a fairly manageable cost - but still we are far from understanding how the genetic information is used by our bodies, and how it is managed in the context of our cells.
When you step back from the linear sequence of DNA, say by looking at cell nuclei through a microscope, what is very striking is how much three-dimensional structure you find. This has been known for a few decades, but the connection between the one-dimensional sequence and this three-dimensional organization is only slowly beginning to unravel.
Over the past couple of years, during my time in Dresden, we and others made some progress understanding how reading - and not reading - different parts of the DNA sequence result in its three-dimensional organization. What is amazing, we find that a lot of it can be explained only when we start considering principles from polymer and complex fluid physics.
The future will be to come back a little bit from our physics bender, and connect our insights to biological regulation, potentially biotechnology applications. The most exciting avenue to me is to actually repurpose those beautiful physical principles to push synthetic DNA regulation, maybe even DNA computing programs into the nuclei of living cells.
In case that's vague, I want to go back a bit here. At some point in history, engineers and scientists took electric circuits and switches, and applied them to logical operations and mathematical tasks. If, today, we have laptops, smart phones, the internet ... this became possible because we mastered the physics of electricity and circuit logic sufficiently to build electronic computers. With new physics, such as the physics of DNA organization, let's build another generation of computers.
Have you always wanted to be a scientist?
I have an early memory, sitting in the sand, with a bucket of water. I wondered, if I put the sand here, will the water flow over there. How long does it take for the water level in two holes to come to the same height? What if I put a shovel of sand in between? I don't think I have fundamentally evolved past that point. I will admit, I wanted to be a marine scientist when I was 9 years old maybe. That ultimately didn't work out. I have zebrafish now, at least.
Why did you choose science/your discipline?
I started in physics, with a very theoretical theme to it. I thought experiments, let alone biology, would be ridiculous. When I came back in touch with biology in Montreal and Oxford in 2008/2009, via mathematical biology, it was as if someone pulled back the curtain. An endless field of systems, and so much creative space to explore. Then I sort of stumbled into own experiments, got to know microscopes, cells, zebrafish. And how much I like it! I feel like growing into a proper scientist, after all, maybe...
I am still clueless when it comes to Chemistry and Electronics, sadly.
What is science for you?
Science for me has been about incredibly ambitious, skilled, smart, and, importantly, generous mentors and peers. In my head, I keep a sort of portrait gallery of people who left a mark. My red/green blind high school physics teacher. Peter Richter who taught me almost all theoretical physics I know, along with the passion for it. Michael Mackey and Anne-Marie Lauzon, who put a big-headed youngster on his feet and somehow managed to turn chaotic billiards into a guided path of exploration. My Dresden mentors and colleagues, first of all Vasily and Nadine, treading boldly into those white spots on the map. There are so many more. Sometimes, when I need guidance, I call on this mental gallery. Not entirely unlike Portrait of Science when you think about it.
What drives/motivates you?
Typically, when I am not fascinated by doing, discussing, planning, thinking about science, it's a strong indicator something is wrong. Not enough sleep. Stress, other problems in life. Bad working conditions (though I have been miraculously spared by those so far). Maybe time for sports, vacation, play, "a slice of life". If that's all taken care of, and I wouldn't be motivated to do science, that would be a day where I'll fundamentally rethink my life. Maybe the day I'd get my life back from this strange obsession?! So far no signs of it, though.
How do you balance life and science?
It's quite hard, I think. In Germany it's much better than in North America, though. PhD students have kids here. It's awesome. Something really seems to be changing here.
What is most important for you in life?
Mutual respect. Independence, including the freedom to commit where I feel it appropriate. To preserve an acceptable level of dignity, and to allow others to do the same. Stability and support, be that at work, with friends, in my family, or in my own self. I have been quite lucky especially with that point of stability. Ambition, achievement, and adventures matter little when you don't have the above but come naturally when you feel rooted.
What was your most important shaping experience/biggest achievement?
Don't know if most important. But when I finished my physics B.Sc. back in 2008, I intentionally threw a year of my life to the wind, career-wise. I enrolled in a Master’s program for insurance purpose, so I could travel, do some open-ended research projects abroad ... as a result, I met my wife, moved to a different continent for my PhD, got into Biology and Biophysics. Sounds stale, but you got to let go to get ahead sometimes.
Why science is fun?
When it comes down to it, I don't know, really. It is a lot of fun for me. As long as "they" allow me, I will probably keep doing this: wondering, guessing, prodding, build my little models of how nature works. If science isn't fun for you, for extended stretches of time, get out. There's so much more in life, the possibilities are endless.
Any advice for future students?
Yeah, in case you envision your future as part of the scientific enterprise! Get involved as soon as you can. Even at primary school, you can already start! One of the best parts of the scientific community is how permeable it is. When there's a problem, an intriguing observation, something that is truly interesting, it doesn't matter if you're a first-year student, or a Noble prize winner, we should be at the same level at that point. I often see research as something akin to the Olympic Games - to cut across borders, races, cultures, based on a shared fascination; build a community that transcends known fracture lines in the global fabric. It is deeply human, in that sense that we get a playing field that, at least ideally, should be flat, on which we can exchange and compete on eye level. This is something we should provide, and the young people should demand it, but also step up and live it. I have been blessed to work with incredibly good younger researchers, and without exception they taught me how to do my work better, and we have made discoveries together. And I have had many great mentors, vice versa.
A more specific piece of advice, as we all go through numerous interview processes. Just be yourself. Sure, your best self, dress up, rehearse, be extra friendly, get sleep the night(s) before. But be true to yourself, express yourself clearly and without being afraid. If this lands you the job, this is the best guarantee you will be in fitting company. Conversely, this is the sure-fire method to make it effectively impossible to be accepted in a place where, down the road, you'll be unhappy because you don't fit with your potential future environment. And, do take chances: an unsent application really is an already rejected application, a not requested internship really is an internship you already got denied, a project you didn't give an honest shot really is a project you already failed at.
Lastly, be decent people.
