Cristina Pujades (Mataró, 1962) leads the Developmental Neurobiology Group in the Department of Experimental and Health Sciences and is Delegate of the Rector for Research Issues.

Recently, UPF submitted the research carried out by all of its areas to a process of external assessment that involved numerous internationally renowned experts and had the support of the Catalan University Quality Assurance Agency (AQU Catalunya). Why is such a process important?

A university’s mission is to generate, transmit and transfer knowledge. Research is thus a key aspect of any university community, and assessment is an essential tool to learn about, promote and evaluate this research. This process is common practice at public universities in neighbouring countries. It allows us to measure the university’s progress on one of its missions, namely, that of generating knowledge.

What goals is the university pursuing with this pioneering initiative?

The university is seeking to identify its strengths and weaknesses in order to craft and conduct a proactive and ambitious scientific policy. In order to advance, we need to know where we currently stand and where we would like to be in a few years. Moreover, external assessments are also a way to hold ourselves accountable to society. As a public university, our patrons are the population at large, and that means we have to be ambitious and very clear when it comes to explaining what we do. The strategic goal of these assessments is to strengthen the university’s positioning as a high-level international research organization and to ensure that it is perceived as a generator of knowledge and not just a means for transmitting it.

What were the main findings regarding research at UPF?

As noted in the assessments, we are well positioned in terms of the research conducted in Spain. UPF is one of the universities with the highest number of publications and papers per researcher; however, there is also room for improvement. Some of the main areas we need to improve are: putting into place a good talent recruitment and retention policy, fostering a research culture that is sensitive to the transfer of its results, and facilitating innovation-oriented leadership. Some departments have made more progress on these points than others, but, generally speaking, we still have a way to go.

What are the keys to successfully disseminating scientific knowledge to society?

It is a joint effort. As researchers, we have to learn how to explain what we do in plainer language. Also, research must be understood as a matter of state: it cannot depend on which way the political winds are blowing. If a country wants to strengthen its research (in order to transform its economy), it needs to communicate its scientific findings. And the strategy needs to be global, because individual strategies have a much smaller impact that only reaches people who are already interested. To move beyond that, all players need to be involved: the government, scientists, universities, journalists, etc.

Why is scientific dissemination so important?

Many recent social challenges stem from science: in vitro fertilization, therapeutic cloning, genome editing, data privacy, etc. Currently, the law follows on the heels of these challenges, and the people who make those decisions should not be just the lawyers and scientists, but also society as a whole. However, in order to freely make decisions, there need to be certain criteria. It is critical for society to realize that it needs to become increasingly involved, because science is already part of our lives: personalized medicine, Facebook, mobile technology, etc. Everything is built on science.

Sometimes, society fails to see the usefulness of basic research.

Basic research generates knowledge that will ultimately have implications for our lives. The clearest example for me, as a biologist, is the discovery of the structure of DNA. Thanks to a basic research paper published in 1953, today we have personalized medicine. Another more recent example of the impact of this type of research in biomedicine is the CRISPR-Cas9 system for gene editing. It is a fascinating discovery, since what began a few years ago with the study of how immunity works in bacteria has today become a tool that allows us to edit any gene very efficiently and, thus, to open up hitherto unimaginable possibilities for gene therapy. I understand that, intuitively, it can be easier to understand the need to invest in applied research, but basic research findings help transform society. Obviously, it is a long-term commitment, but it is a necessary one.

Your team is very active when it comes to scientific dissemination. What does public engagement mean to you? How does the general public perceive your scientific discoveries?

I love disseminating knowledge, making an effort to communicate and showcase the value of what we do. To be able to convey your passion for what you do and see how people receive it is truly rewarding. I also think that it is good, because it helps us put ourselves in perspective. Scientists tend to be very specific, and we end up focusing on very concrete details. Dissemination allows us to ask why we are interested in something so specific and how it might be relevant to a different audience. I also think that it is nice for us to be perceived as engaged and accessible citizens.

Your research focuses on the embryonic development of the nervous system in zebrafish. Why did you choose to use that animal model?

We are working on the development of a part of the brain that is highly conserved in all vertebrates from zebrafish to human beings. The zebrafish is a good model system because it allows us to track living cells and combine that with genetic studies. We can manipulate genes, mark them, study what is happening, how this part of the brain is formed, how neurons are generated, etc. It may not seem very anthropocentric, but it turns out we have a lot in common with the brain of a zebrafish.