“Our key role is to instill creativity and joy in learning”

How would you describe your teaching philosophy?

I don’t really have a “philosophy”, except that I want to excel, to transmit knowledge, and to create interest and thirst for understanding. But if you want one word, it’s storytelling. I get a kick out of creativity in everything – teaching, science, photography, writing, you name it. And I’ve crafted every class from scratch, together with colleagues. No class follows a textbook; I’m crafting “stories” instead. I tell students a story rooted in facts, not fantasy, that’s hopefully compelling enough to keep them engaged.”

For instance, when I teach about the maternal-to-zygotic transition in development, I start by showing a front page of the New York Times from 1937. There’s a headline about life being created without parents that pertains to this transition. But I also point to some of the other headlines, which illustrate that some things unfortunately have not changed much since (rise of fascism, budget crisis). It’s just an excuse to grab attention before diving into the science. I also break up lectures with quizzes and group exercises to revive attention and engage creativity.

What do you hope your students take away from your classes?

I want them to leave with critical and creative thinking. I want them to put pieces together and be amazed at what they’re capable of. Of course, what can be achieved depends on the class. With bachelor students, I focus on foundational skills. But in one of the master’s class, students dissect research papers down to the bare bones, making links, grasping concepts and putting things together in new ways.

What are the biggest challenges you see in teaching at EPFL?

One challenge is getting more hands-on learning opportunities for SV students. There are great projects at EPFL where students create something tangible, take ownership, like the iGEM project. But it’s only twenty students per year, and some are from outside SV. We need more courses of this kind.”

For example, I co-teach a class with Andy Oates where part of the course entails taking groups of students in our labs for half a day during four weeks. The students design and execute a mini-project – it’s a limited experience, but some students come back during the week because they’re so interested. What would be useful is if we could allocate blocks of time for project-based courses. Perhaps we’d have a block course over the summer, something intensive that’s not mandatory, but where students can do real research. Sahand Rahi has done something similar for first-year students. It’s exciting for everyone.

Do you think AI will affect teaching and learning in life sciences?

AI is already reshaping our approach. Last year, my colleagues and I saw ChatGPT answer questions in a graded exercise perfectly, which forced us to rethink our approach. I used to spend a few hours drafting these exercises, but now the time has easily doubled because I have to invent questions that ChatGPT can’t easily answer.

There’s a broader question: what’s our role as educators? What happens if a future ChatGPT can assemble a lecture better than I can? Then maybe our job is as curators, verifying accuracy and guiding students. But that’s not all. Our key role is still to instil creativity, analytical thinking, and joy in learning. Learning should be fun. That’s something a bot might help with, but I don’t think will replicate.

The ELISIR program is your brainchild. Can you tell us about it?

Indeed, the ELISIR program is something I started, together with Félix Naef and Doug Hanahan, because I saw this as something that could foster exceptional talents and bring exciting science to SV. Such programs exist in the U.S., but not in Europe. It’s exciting to invest in the future of science. Mentoring is also something I take at heart in my own team -ten people who were in my lab head their own group around the world – in Switzerland, Germany, France, Japan, India – and that’s more important than anything we published.

The School of Life Sciences had been growing quickly for 10 to 15 years, but then we pretty much reached capacity. With the ELISIR program, we can also bring in ‘new blood,’ follow new directions, and generate collaborations at EPFL we wouldn’t otherwise have had.

Were there any challenges when establishing ELISIR?

Funding, mostly. The quality of applicants is incredible, year after year. The first year, we only had 16 applications, and I thought the program was dead on arrival. But when I looked at the files, the quality was amazing. Gioele La Manno was our choice that year, but for instance another candidate we interviewed is now a Howard Hughes Investigator at Stanford and a world leader in investigating the effects of climate change on plant resilience.

Another challenge is that for years we had very few female candidates, perhaps reflecting the fact that mentors -which need to nominate applicants- tend to push male candidates more. But for the first time we had more female than male candidates this past round. Regardless, the committee always selects based purely on excellence.

What’s next for life sciences education at EPFL?

We need to encourage students to take ownership and engage deeply in their education. When students see classes and projects as opportunities to contribute to real research, the impact is profound. With AI, we might see a shift toward personalized learning where educators guide students through complex problems while AI handles the basics. I’m optimistic these changes will make education more immersive and meaningful.