AUTM on the Air

• Physics, Persistence, and the Nobel Prize: A Conversation with Dr. Anne L’Huillier

  There aren’t many people in the world who can say they’ve changed the way we understand time itself, but today’s guest is one of them.In this episode, I'm honored to welcome Dr. Anne L’Huillier, professor of atomic physics at Lund University and recipient of the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physics. She’s one of only five women in history to receive the Nobel in this category, and her groundbreaking work in attosecond physics is reshaping what’s possible in the study of electron dynamics.But what makes Dr. L'Huillier truly remarkable isn’t just her scientific brilliance. It’s the way she leads with humility, dedication to teaching, and a deep passion for inspiring the next generation of scientists. When the Nobel committee called to deliver the news, she was in the middle of teaching a class, and she finished the lesson before calling them back.In this conversation, we talk about the persistence it took to get where she is, what it means to be a woman in science today, and how her research is unlocking new frontiers in physics. Dr. L'Huillier is a trailblazer, a teacher, and a force of curiosity, and we’re so lucky to have her on the show.In This Episode:[01:02] An attosecond is a billionth of a billionth of a second. There are more attoseconds in a second than there are seconds in the age of the entire universe which is 13.8 billion years old.[01:51] Dr. L'Huillier always wanted to be a scientist and follow in the footsteps of her father and grandfather. She had great teachers in atomic physics and quantum mechanics who kind of pushed her towards atomic physics and interactions between light and matter.[03:09] She won the Nobel Prize for attosecond physics. She finished the class she was teaching before talking to the Royal Academy of Sciences when she was notified that she won.[05:36] Teaching is a huge part of her work. She is now getting involved in more Nobel related activities.[06:47] We talk about attracting more women to physics by getting rid of the idea and stigma that girls aren't interested in physics, engineering, or math.[07:53] Students and young girls need to be encouraged to look at careers in science.[08:22] She is working on using attosecond pulses and trying to use them to look at electron motion and electronic transition.[09:20] They are researching quantum optics and using electrons as quantum objects and looking at complex systems like molecules, biomolecules, or condensed matter.[10:22] We learn how Dr. L'Huillier had two other co-laureates who measured attosecond pulses.[12:42] This work took 14 years. It's really important to be persistent, because research has ups and downs.[13:59] We learn about what the future holds for Dr. L'Huillier. There may be a book on the horizon. [15:31] We talk about decompressing, having fun, the joys of family, and playing tennis!Resources: Dr. Anne L'Huillier - Lund University Dr. Anne L'Huillier - Nobel Prize in Physics 2023Anne L'Huillier, Nobel Prize in Physics 2023: Official Interview

  --------  

  16:11
• Exposing Discrimination in Science: The Story of Nancy Hopkins and MIT with Kate Zernike

  For Women’s History Month we welcome Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Kate Zernike, national correspondent for The New York Times. Kate has been reporting since 2000 on education, national politics and more. She is also the author of Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America and The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in Science.Kate’s latest book tells the inspiring and infuriating story of how a group of women scientists at MIT used data to expose gender discrimination and demand change. What started as a quiet frustration over lab space disparities turned into a landmark study that forced MIT’s leadership to confront bias. The university’s president publicly admitted to discrimination for the first time in the school’s history, sending shockwaves through the academic and STEM worlds. This moment proved the power of data, collective action and persistence in the fight for equality.In this episode we will talk about how discrimination in STEM has evolved from outright exclusion to more subtle barriers that limit women’s opportunities. Kate’s insights will highlight the importance of representation, recognition and systemic change, and remind us that true equity goes beyond opening doors. It means actively supporting and amplifying women’s voices.In This Episode:[01:57] We're going to talk about Kate's book, The Exceptions, which focuses on Nancy Hopkins and a group of women at MIT who fought against discrimination.[02:12] We learn about Kate's inspiration from her parents and her own experience. She met Nancy 20 years prior to deciding to do the book.[04:37] Kate understood discrimination through the experience of her mother. She thought discrimination meant a door being closed in your face.[06:17] Kate wrote a newspaper story about Nancy in March of 1999.[07:26] MIT actually admitted that there was discrimination. This was after a study and gathering data that proves their point. They leaned into science. [08:48] Nancy measured the lab spaces and discovered that she had less lab space than men who didn't have tenure.[09:41] Kate discovered that discrimination could be subtle and small and push women to the side.[10:14] Leaders wanted to help the young ambitious men, but the women were mostly tolerated.[12:23] Kate was struck by the intensity of Nancy Hopkins.[15:06] Once the story became public, they were flooded with other female scientists who had similar stories.[15:44] The power of collective action to try and achieve change. [16:40] This is the story that Kate wished she had when she first published the newspaper story. [17:17] Nancy becomes an extremely confident scientist. She assumed, if you do the work you'll get the job. She was alone for 20 years as she noticed little incidents of discrimination add up.[18:30] She started to see how other women were treated and talked about. [20:26] 21st century discrimination is subtle, yet pervasive.[23:29] Women often self-select out of STEM, they can also be pushed out.[26:16] How The Exceptions is contributing to the broader conversation about women in STEM and changes to advocate for.[28:30] As Kate's career evolved, she realized that the gradual marginalization over a career does happen.[31:31] Some of the most significant strides made by women in science and challenges that need to be addressed. Women are doing incredible work. The issue is authority and giving women credit.[34:10] We really need to recognize what women can do. It's important to talk to women who are doing interesting things and show the range of what they're doing.[36:20] The book is really a story about the power of a group of women coming together and what they can do.. Resources: Kate ZernikeThe Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in ScienceBoiling Mad: Inside Tea Party AmericaKate Zernike - New York TimesKate Zernike - LinkedInKate Zernike - InstagramKate Zernike - X

  --------  

  40:05
• Protecting Tech Transfer And University Innovation Funding With Mike Waring

  The future of research and innovation is on the line. Right now, universities across the country are facing significant funding cuts that could reshape the way groundbreaking discoveries move from the lab to the real world. These cuts threaten not just the researchers and students who rely on them, but the very foundation of our innovation economy. If you have ever wondered how new medicines, cutting-edge technologies, or even life-saving treatments come to exist, the answer often lies in Tech Transfer. Without proper funding, that process is at risk.To unpack what is happening and what can be done, I am joined by someone who has spent nearly two decades fighting for research funding and intellectual property policy in Washington, D.C. Mike Waring. Mike is the Advocacy and Alliances Coordinator for AUTM. Before that, he spent 20 years leading the University of Michigan’s Washington office, working on Tech Transfer and policy issues at the highest levels. If anyone knows the ins and outs of how research funding decisions are made and what tech transfer professionals can do to advocate for their work, it is him.In this episode, we get into the real stakes of these proposed budget cuts, what they mean for university innovation, and how Tech Transfer offices can better position themselves as indispensable assets on their campuses. We will also talk about the importance of storytelling in advocacy, why policymakers need to see the human side of research, and how even those who do not see themselves as lobbyists can play a role in protecting the future of tech transfer.In This Episode:[00:57] Mike Waring knows the ins and outs of advocacy in Washington better than most. He's been deeply involved in advocacy efforts for nearly 20 years.[01:47] The strategy and focus for the conversations at Hill Day at the AUTM annual meeting. It was a great strategy to have members speak directly to people in DC.[02:26] It was an opportunity to explain what we do and why tech transfer is so important.[03:17] They want to put a cap on indirect costs such as lab infrastructure.  A 15% cap is far below what universities have negotiated. [04:25] A number of universities have raised red flags. Where will the money come to make up the difference in cost? We're going to make the case that an arbitrary number isn't the way.[05:14] Simple and effective ways for Tech Transfer professionals to make their case to policy makers and University leadership. Make a case for the benefits to the local community.[07:15] How Tech Transfer professionals can position themselves as an essential resource during discussions about funding and economic impact.[08:46] Strengthening patent rights and what is eligible and what's not eligible. There's also another bill to try and fix problems with the patent appeals board.[11:47] Hopefully, we can get most of these bills passed through the senate floor.[12:12] Demonstrating impact when arguing the case against budget cuts. Look at your own track record including startups and discoveries. Show revenue, job creation, and innovation.[14:15] It's easier for the head of the office to engage. If this isn't you, talk to your boss first. The director should have contact with the vice president of research. The federal relations people are your conduit for reaching the audiences for these issues.[15:03] Include policy makers in events and showcase your progress. Put examples in their brain. When the battle is won, one policy maker at a time.[16:11] Corporate partners can also help make the case on these issues.[17:46] The budget deficit is quite large. The key is reducing the debt in a thoughtful way. We need more innovation not cutting back on growth potential.[19:50] University presidents and CEOs can speak for the entire entity on these issues.[20:19] America is the leader in innovation for a reason. We've empowered researchers to research on all kinds of topics. They've used federal funding and look at all of the benefits because of that. This is an investment that pays us back!Resources: Mike Waring - AUTMA Year of AUTM Advocacy with Mike WaringPreparing for Potential Challenges

  --------  

  21:47
• Redefining DEI in Innovation: Lily Zheng on the FAIR Framework for Tech Transfer

  What happens when workplace equity efforts get lost in performative gestures? Today we’re talking about the conventional approach to workplace equity and the DEI landscape. As organizations face growing political pressure and increasing scrutiny of DEI programs, a more effective and outcome-driven approach has never been more urgent.Lily Zheng is a strategist, consultant and author who helps build fair, accessible, inclusive and representative organizations. They are the creator of the FAIR framework which has been featured in the Harvard Business Review and their book Fixing Fairness will be out soon.In this conversation, Lily will break down the limitations of traditional DEI models and why the FAIR framework (Fairness, Access, Inclusion, Representation) is a more defensible and better way to go. We’ll get into the four core principles of FAIR: outcomes, systems, coalitions and win-win solutions and how they provide a strategic foundation for lasting change in the workplace.This is especially timely for university tech transfer offices. With new federal directives calling into question DEI initiatives in research funding, many institutions are scrambling to adapt without sacrificing their core values of inclusivity and innovation. Lily will give practical advice on how to navigate this, reframe programs to stay compliant without losing impact.In This Episode:[01:47] Lily suggests the FAIR Framework to replace DEI. They wanted to set apart effective DEI work from the fluff. The plan was to distill what did work and what didn't and packed what did work into a new framework.[04:50] FAIR speaks to the goal of the work. The letters stand for fairness, access, inclusion, and representation.[05:24] There are four principles behind the framework including outcomes, systems, coalitions, and win-win.[07:38] DEI turned into splintered single issue causes. [08:39] We are stronger together, and coalitions are a hallmark of DEI work.[01:47] Lily suggests the FAIR Framework to replace DEI. They wanted to set apart effective DEI work from the fluff. The plan was to distill what did work and what didn't and packed what did work into a new framework.[04:50] FAIR speaks to the goal of the work. The letters stand for fairness, access, inclusion, and representation.[05:24] There are four principles behind the framework including outcomes, systems, coalitions, and win-win.[07:38] DEI turned into splintered single issue causes. [08:39] We are stronger together, and coalitions are a hallmark of DEI work.[20:33] Tech Transfer offices can focus on FAIR and understand the law. Follow the law and make any necessary adjustments to your program. Defend the highly legal and effective work you are doing.[24:41] If you have to change your language, make sure you don't change your impact.[26:32] There are still great ways to be compliant.[27:57] We have more than enough capacity, skill, caring, and generosity to do this work. It's up to us to continue to sustain impact.Resources: Lily ZhengWhat Comes After DEI?The FAIR FrameworkReconstructing DEI: A Practitioner's WorkbookLily Zheng - LinkedInLily Zheng - InstagramLily Zheng - Facebook

  --------  

  30:09
• Defending American Science: Holden Thorp on the NIH Funding Crisis and the Future of Research

  Research doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It needs a foundation of stable funding, institutional support and policies that empower researchers to innovate. But today that foundation is under threat.In this episode we dive into one of the biggest problems facing American research: the NIH funding crisis. On February 7th the National Institutes of Health (NIH) slashed indirect cost reimbursements from 50-60% to 15%. This has sent shockwaves through the academic and research communities. With this policy change universities across the country are facing an unprecedented financial squeeze and are having to re-budget, slow hiring and even rethink long-term projects.Joining us today to break it all down is Dr. Holden Thorp, Editor-in-Chief of the Science family of journals and one of the most influential people in the world of science. With a career spanning chemistry, academic leadership and biotech innovation Dr. Thorp has been Chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill, Provost at Washington University in St. Louis and co-founder of Viamet Pharmaceuticals. He’s also a strong advocate for scientific integrity and the role of universities in innovation.We discuss how this funding issue may transform the US research scene, ranging from how it may affect universities to the potential of brain drain as top researchers consider migrating to Europe or China where funding is more stable. We address the lawsuit challenging the NIH policy and how uncertainty is already delaying significant projects such as Johns Hopkins' $330 million neuroscience facility and critical maternal health initiatives.Dr. Thorp discusses whether universities should rely more on industrial relationships, or if this risks diluting curiosity-driven research. We also discuss how universities, organizations, and state governments might work together to put pressure on Congress and find strategic solutions. In This Episode:[01:17] Explanation of the NIH’s February 7th directive, which capped indirect cost reimbursements at 15% instead of the usual 50–60%.[02:05] Dr. Thorp breaks down the difference between direct and indirect research costs, using a cooking analogy to explain how universities rely on indirect cost recovery for infrastructure, lab maintenance, and tech transfer operations.[04:12] How the federal government and universities developed a shared-cost model for research after World War II to encourage curiosity-driven discoveries.[05:40] How funding uncertainty affects long-term projects. Risks to major initiatives like Johns Hopkins’ $330 million neuroscience facility and Michigan State’s maternal health programs.[06:15] Many universities borrow against future indirect costs to finance construction. The new NIH policy threatens these financial models, potentially affecting bond ratings and making future research investments more expensive.[07:32] Dr. Thorp explains how these funding cuts could drive top international researchers to Europe and China, where funding structures are more stable.[10:22] Some universities are now adding caveats to admissions letters, warning that funding isn’t guaranteed. Risks of eroding trust in academia as a stable career path.[12:29] Beyond litigation, universities must build coalitions with industry, nonprofits, and state governments to pressure Congress and prevent further damage.[16:10] They have a Trump tracker with very up-to-date funding information. It's also in the Science Advisor newsletter. [17:15] The potential role of biotech firms and philanthropic ventures in filling funding gaps. Risks of diluting curiosity-driven research.[20:23] Many HBCUs and regional universities rely heavily on NIH funding, and these cuts could exacerbate existing inequities in research capacity.[24:28] Comparisons to the 2008 financial crisis, the 2013 sequestration, and other funding challenges. This situation is unique. [28:45] Can protests and public pressure force change? The impact of researcher protests, bipartisan pushback in Congress, and media scrutiny. [31:34] Dr. Thorp questions whether historically competitive universities will set aside differences and embrace shared research infrastructure and open-source models.[33:04] Young researchers should stay the course, emphasizing that science is cyclical and funding priorities will shift again.[34:53] It's important to talk about the economic impacts and issues with healthcare related to budget reductions.[37:20] The scientific community’s ability to adjust and innovate will be key to weathering this storm.Resources: Holden Thorp, Ph.D.Dr. Holden Thorp - AAASScienceAdvisor NewsletterDr. Holden Thorp - Columbian College of Arts & SciencesDr. Holden Thorp - LinkedInEngines of Innovation: The Entrepreneurial University in the Twenty-First CenturyOur Higher Calling: Rebuilding the Partnership between America and Its Colleges and Universities

  --------  

  39:04

More Technology podcasts

Trending Technology podcasts

About AUTM on the Air