“In the past, doctoral training was focused primarily on laboratory research, but today much more is expected from PhD students,” says Suzanne D. Turner, Professor at the University of Cambridge and also affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at Masaryk University. A molecular and cellular biologist specializing in paediatric oncology, Turner leads the FANTOM project, which is funded through the European Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions programme. The project aims not only to advance research into anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), but also to train a new generation of scientists capable of meeting the challenges that technological advances and changes in research funding have brought to scientific research in the twenty-first century.
How does the situation of today’s PhD students differ most from when you were a PhD student yourself? And I’m not asking about technological progress…
…although it is closely related, because technology has given us far more opportunities, which also means far greater expectations. As a result, students are under considerable pressure. When I was a PhD student, we carried out a series of relatively straightforward experiments that were nevertheless sufficient to produce a solid scientific paper. Today, students need to work much more interdisciplinarily and build far more comprehensive scientific stories if they want to capture the attention of journal editors. Putting together a complex yet compelling publication-ready story within just three or four years of doctoral training can be extremely stressful.
So is the purpose of the FANTOM project to prepare PhD students for this kind of pressure?
Yes, but also to equip them with the broader set of skills they now need in their careers. In the past, doctoral training focused mainly on laboratory research. Today, much more is expected of students. They need to be able to communicate their research effectively. They must understand the legal aspects of their work, intellectual property protection, and how to translate their research into entrepreneurial opportunities. Modern doctoral education therefore places much greater emphasis on a broad skill set that goes well beyond mastering laboratory techniques.
The FANTOM project confidently states that it aims to educate a new generation of PhD students. Does that mean there is something wrong with the previous generation – that they are missing something? Is it only about the skills you mentioned, or does it also require a change in mindset?
For the most part, it is about skills. In the past, the academic career path was relatively straightforward: you completed your PhD, secured a university position, continued your research, and combined it with teaching. Today, however, students pursue a much wider range of career paths, so we need to prepare them not only for research but also for the many opportunities beyond academia. Increasingly, graduates move into the commercial sector; some specialise in the legal aspects of science, while others pursue careers in scientific writing or communication. Career options have become much broader, and doctoral education must reflect that diversity rather than preparing students for only one clearly defined academic pathway.
“In the past, publishing a scientific paper was often considered the end goal. Today, there is much greater emphasis on translating research into real-world applications.”
Suzanne D. Turner
When did this transformation of the scientific profession happen – the point at which it was no longer enough for researchers simply to work in the laboratory?
I would say it has been a gradual process, partly driven by changes in research funding. Research has become much more expensive because many of the new technologies we rely on are costly to operate. As research requires more funding, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain a competitive level of excellence. At the same time, the purpose of research has also changed. In the past, publishing a scientific paper was often considered the end goal. Today, there is much greater emphasis on translating research into real-world applications. Alongside publication outputs, we are now expected to demonstrate the societal and economic impact of our work. If we want our research to lead to genuine, evidence-based improvements in healthcare, we need to become much better at navigating the entire translational pathway. That requires at least some understanding of business, law, and many other areas that academics previously did not need to engage with because their work rarely extended beyond publication. The more research is funded by external organisations, the more those funders want to know what their investment is achieving. That is why it is so important for researchers to have the skills needed to turn scientific discoveries into tangible real-world impact.
One of those skills is the ability to communicate research to the public, which is something you teach students participating in the FANTOM project…
Exactly. If you cannot explain your research to the public, people will not understand what is being achieved with the funding invested in science. I also believe it is important for scientists to learn how to manage public expectations. In oncology, for example, we all hope to develop effective cancer treatments, but scientific progress is slow and setbacks are inevitable. Many things that appear promising in the laboratory ultimately do not work in patients, even if they were successful under different experimental conditions. Part of communicating science is helping people understand why some approaches succeed while others fail, so that expectations remain realistic. It is important for the public to recognise that not everything reported in the media represents a cure and that the research process is far more complex than it often appears.
To what extent are early-career researchers aware that their profession extends far beyond laboratory work? I imagine that research itself is what motivates them and what led them to pursue this career in the first place…
Today, most institutions offer fairly comprehensive training programmes for PhD students that include topics such as public engagement, research dissemination, industry collaboration, and scientific writing. These programmes are much more extensive than they were, say, twenty years ago, when you would simply spend your time in the laboratory doing research. Programmes funded through the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, for example, provide highly structured training that equips students with the skills they need to pursue a wide range of career paths.
Researchers today are increasingly expected not only to conduct excellent research but also to “sell” it – to the media, the public, and investors. Is there a risk that those who are better at attracting attention and marketing themselves will be more successful than those doing the best science?
Marketing certainly has a role to play, and I believe it is an unavoidable part of translating scientific discoveries into real-world applications. You have to convince investors that your work is worth supporting. That means scientific research now also requires something of a marketing strategy: a clear value proposition and the ability to explain why your discovery matters. If you cannot do that, you are unlikely to secure the investment needed to bring your findings to a wider audience. Some researchers are naturally better at this than others, which means that valuable research can sometimes fail to gain the attention it deserves simply because its authors lack these communication skills. At the same time, there are cases where work receives more attention than it should because the people behind it are exceptionally good communicators.
How, then, can researchers strike the right balance between communicating science and marketing their research?
I think it comes back to managing public expectations. Most people understand that things are rarely as simple as they are presented. They realise that you are telling a story in terms they can understand, while the underlying science is far more complex. As long as you help people appreciate that complexity – so they do not come away from an article believing that you have discovered a miracle cure and that cancer will be eradicated tomorrow – I think you have found the right balance.
You have extensive international experience, and through the FANTOM project you work with PhD students from different countries. What are the biggest differences in how doctoral students are trained across different education systems?
The expectations placed on PhD students vary considerably. In the UK, for example, publishing research papers is not necessarily a requirement. Instead, students submit a thesis – which I say "just a thesis," although it is usually a very substantial one – describing their research, and then defend it in a viva examination. In many continental European countries, however, students are required to publish one or even two peer-reviewed papers as part of their doctoral studies. The exact requirements vary from one institution to another: some place greater emphasis on journal impact factors, while others are less concerned with them. In the United States, doctoral programmes are typically not limited to three or four years, so many students spend eight or even nine years completing their PhD. The systems are therefore quite different, and I think programmes funded through the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions are helping to unify doctoral training, at least across Europe.
“People sometimes forget that doctoral students are still in training and are too often regarded as a source of cheap labour.”
Suzanne D. Turner
Is there a country where doctoral education is, in your view, organised in the ideal way – one that others should look to as an example?
I’m not sure anyone has perfected it. From my perspective, what PhD students need most is time – time to develop their research while also learning. People sometimes forget that doctoral students are still in training and are too often regarded as a source of cheap labour. You can employ a PhD student for three years and pay them considerably less than a postdoctoral researcher, while expecting a similar volume of work. But they are still learning. We need to support them, mentor them, and make sure they acquire the skills they need. That is why I believe a PhD should last longer than three years – ideally four. There will always be work for PhD students to do, so some limit is necessary, but in my opinion three years is simply too short. I also think students should receive enough financial support that they do not have to worry about paying their rent or affording food. Many doctoral scholarships do not include funding for laboratory expenses, which can create additional difficulties. In the end, supervisors often have to find money for consumables themselves. There are many challenges like these, and they make this period a particularly stressful one for many doctoral students.
What practices do you think should no longer be part of doctoral education, yet still persist?
These days there is a great deal of discussion about work–life balance. A PhD is demanding, but students also need to make time for themselves, and at some institutions that can be difficult. Some supervisors have particularly high expectations, requiring students to stay in the laboratory late into the evening or work weekends, making it very hard to maintain a healthy balance between work and personal life. Of course, there are also students who need a bit of encouragement to put more effort into their research. But nobody wants students to work under constant stress because they simply will not perform at their best. Finding the right balance is essential, although it is not always easy. At the University of Cambridge, for example, students are encouraged to take part in a wide range of extracurricular activities. Rowing is especially popular. Although occasionally, those extracurricular activities can become almost more important than the PhD itself!
The training provided through the FANTOM project is very comprehensive. Now that the project is approaching its conclusion, where have you seen the greatest progress among the students?
I always enjoy seeing how their understanding of science develops. At the beginning, they have only a limited view of the broader field in which we work. Over the course of two or three years, you can see their knowledge deepen and their understanding become much more sophisticated. For me, though, the most rewarding aspect is watching the relationships they build with one another – the collaborations they establish, the way they share resources and support each other. In many ways, this even encourages collaboration between their supervisors. You can also see their confidence growing. As they become more self-assured, they communicate more openly with their peers, help one another more readily, and ultimately make greater progress. I saw exactly the same thing in ALKATRAS, an earlier programme that I led. The students who took part became genuine friends. They are still in touch today and continue to collaborate internationally. I think that is wonderful.
When the project comes to an end, what would you rather see as its greatest outcome: highly trained researchers with strong scientific results, or mature individuals with inspiring personal stories?
Without question, the latter. As I mentioned earlier, PhD students are under tremendous pressure to produce scientific results, and we sometimes forget that they are still trainees who are learning. They have an enormous amount to absorb in a very short period of time. The most satisfying outcome is seeing not only how their skills develop, but also how their confidence grows and how diverse their career paths become. Some students from the ALKATRAS programme have gone on to become healthcare consultants, while others have remained in academia and continued to build their own research careers. It genuinely makes me happy to see these programmes prepare students for life and for the wider world – and, hopefully, enable them to make it just a little bit better.
If you could give PhD students one simple but important piece of advice, what would it be?
A PhD helps build your character. However demanding and stressful it may be, try to enjoy it. It is a unique period of three years in which you have the opportunity to learn, explore, and grow in ways that will never come again. Make the most of it.
The FANTOM project is part of the MSCA Doctoral Networks call for proposals funded by the Horizon Europe program. In addition to Masaryk University, six other universities and twelve associated partners — including commercial entities — from five European Union countries are involved in the project. The University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom holds a special position in this project, specifically Professor Suzanne D. Turner, a specialist in pediatric oncology, who, together with Masaryk University’s Vice-Rector for Research and Doctoral Studies, Professor Šárka Pospíšilová, serves as the project’s principal investigator. The goal of the project is to prepare doctoral students to become self-confident, competent, and independent young European scientists with excellent career prospects and an established network of contacts. As part of their studies, ten selected students are required to complete internships at partner universities and participating commercial entities. At the same time, they are integrated into the European Research Initiative on Malignant Tumors (ERIA) related to anaplastic lymphoma, as well as into the EICNHL clinical network, which focuses on the study and treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents.
New research from Masaryk University shows that light promotes photoreceptor maturation in retinal organoids. The findings could improve models of inherited retinal diseases, drug testing and future cell therapies.
Government programmes supporting the education of doctors and non-medical healthcare professionals are delivering results. The Faculty of Medicine MU is helping expand healthcare education capacity.
