Interview with the 2020 Nobel Prize laureate in chemistry, Emmanuelle Charpentier, recorded in Stockholm on 12 December 2022. 

Where does your passion for science come from? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: I think it’s a combination of a lot of aspects in my childhood and education, that led me to the science world. Initially, the main interest I had at some point in my childhood was to go to university, because I could see my oldest sister going to university. We have quite some difference of age. I understood at a rather adult age, one has a possibility to in a way remain in the type of school, and also continue teaching and do research by asking a lot of questions. I was more interested in this approach, which for sure is very much associated to science. I think this is maybe the main point. The interest in biology came later. Certainly, a teacher of biology when I was 11, 12 years old, must have raised my interest in biology to a certain extent. Because when I joined the Pasteur Institute as a master student, and I told my mother I chose a lab at the Pasteur Institute, she told me “when you were 12 years old, you came back from school and said, one day I will work at the Pasteur Institute.” 

Why were you drawn to biology? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: I don’t know actually why I chose biology at some point. Again, it must have been a gut feeling. I was hesitating between mathematics and biology, and I decided to go with biology. Maybe because I was always interested in asking a lot of questions. Or let’s say I had a lot of questions with regard to us as human beings confronted to diseases, not only physical diseases, but also mental diseases. I’ve always been interested in everything related to psychology and psychiatry.  

When you start to understand the biological world, and specifically the microbial world, you find a lot of sociological aspects that are quite similar to our world. For sure they are microbes – they don’t have a brain, they react differently – but this idea that they live in a society and have to adapt. A lot of aspects are quite related. I saw that in biology one can ask more questions that is maybe fruitful with regard to the idea of understanding the world and understanding oneself. It’s also an experimental world. I was interested in the fact that there is an intellectual aspect, but there is also a methodological and experimental aspect. I think the combination of everything led me more to biology. 

Was there a particular person who influenced you? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: Obviously, the biology teacher that I remember from when I was 11, 12 years old. I also remember a teacher in physics two, three years later. This teacher was important because I remember the experimental work at the bench that was put forward in a kind of enjoyable way.  

Also working with the other students, understanding that this was not only doing experiments on its own, but also communicating with the others in the room to make the experiment work. It was an enjoyable and fun experience. It was a little different from listening to a teacher stating dogmas and facts. I think this was maybe also part of my interest in experimental science. 

How do you cope with failure? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: Doing research is a lot about dealing with frustrations and failures. It’s really part of being a researcher. It’s actually also part of the success of a researcher, at least in my case. I would not have been successful if I had not encountered a number of failures and frustrations. The CRISPR project in my lab really started by dealing with frustrations of having discovered an RNA molecule that is essential for the CRISPR-Cas system that is called tracrRNA. We thought of a certain function of this RNA molecule, not being able to make sense of this function and mechanism. It was two, three years of frustration, specifically from students who were doing the experiment. Then the idea to link this molecule to CRISPR, where again, I had difficulties to motivate a student who were working on this molecule, to pursue and shift direction. She didn’t want to do it. After a year, another student said, “okay, I’m going to do the experiment, because you insist a lot.“ 

It’s also being ready to take new ways and think differently, out of the box. In the case of CRISPR it was thinking out of the box for the tracrRNA molecule, and also thinking out of the box for CRISPR. CRISPR research, as much as Nobel has awarded the research on CRISPR-Cas9, it also involved a lot of pioneers and excellence researchers who started to work on CRISPR that was unknown. Who started to understand what the CRISPR system was in bacteria; that it was an immune system against viruses and other mobile genetic elements. 

All this knowledge allowed me as well to think, “oh, it seems like we deal with another type of CRISPR-Cas mechanism, it must be different.” It’s a lot of methodology and it’s a lot of failure. It’s part of being a researcher. Experiments very often fail technically, so we have to troubleshoot. It’s a lot of troubleshooting. Then the hypothesis, or the strategy and methodology of what to do first – what to look at – is a process. This was maybe the most strategic and effective plans that I elaborated. It was a lot of strategic plan A, plan B, plan C, and A one, A two and going forward in this direction, not being afraid of failures. Otherwise, you cannot be a researcher. 

Have you faced any barriers in your career as a scientist? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: As a researcher – but I guess it’s maybe for everyone – one deals with a lot of barriers, right? Specifically during a career path. I guess I try to not really look too much into the fact that I was a woman, but rather look into the fact that I am a scientist.  As a scientist, you have to encounter enough barriers already. I’m a woman in science, but I have also been an international scientist. This also triggers more barriers, because we deal with another type of culture and another type of environment, that can be very fruitful, but can also lead to some difficulties or more time for adaptation.  

There are lots of women in science in nowadays. The topic has evolved quite dramatically the past 30 years. We find more and more women studying science. More and more women who decided to pursue a career in science. The system has also facilitated more access and a change of culture that understands that it’s very important to maintain diversity also within the faculty, among the professors and the group leaders. Because this is an enrichment. 

Maybe it’s not enough. The word is still quite masculine. The decisions are maybe still taken a lot by researchers who are men. I hope it’s going to evolve. I’m a bit concerned with the fact that for the past few years, we tend to see more young female scientists – I don’t know if it’s the courage, but it’s a decision – to not pursue with a group leader position. I hope that this is just a bad timing and that there will be more in the future. But this is what we observed all over the world on other topics, and I hope that this will raise. But as a researcher, one has enough barriers.  

But very importantly, and I think this is good, you see a change of culture also in the junior leaders who are men, because this is a new generation who wants to integrate more time for the family. This is not any longer a question for female scientists, but also for male scientists, who also are now confronted to the issue that research requires a lot of time and a lot of commitment, and that want to have it compatible with a family life. It’s interesting to see that all the problems that women had, also becomes problems of young male group leaders. I think it’s good in a way because it shows an evolution of our society in the right way. 

Do you have a message for young female researchers? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: A message for the young female researcher will be to not think that certain topics in life are just only for men. I think they have access in our days to different types of science. The infrastructure has facilitated a lot for the integration of female scientists and international scientists. They should go for it, not be concerned by fears or a lack of self-confidence. Actually, I have worked a lot with men, and often I was surprised to know to which extent they were actually like female scientists, and they deal with the same issues. They just don’t maybe express them the same way. But they also deal with frustrations. They also deal with sometimes a bit of a lack of self-confidence. 

They may tend to maybe express it differently, or they are raised knowing that they have to show their self-confidence. The female, they are more prone to show a certain lack of self-confidence. But I think at the end of the day, I kind of understood that we’re all sitting in the same boat. It’s just the way to express that may be different. It’s important to encourage the young scientists to understand, and to say, “no, we are all the same.” Nowadays, they can be helped to be coached and to learn how to deal with certain threats, that need to be improved. You have the possibility to have mentors and coaches who can accompany you and make the journey a little bit easier. 

Also to accompany the young scientist to say, “yes, it’s nice, a path in science,” and not focus really on the career, but just to be a scientist. And then evolve to become a group leader, not because it’s a career, but because it’s also our role to convey science to the next generation and deal with a group. It’s not a question of career, it’s a question maybe of a natural path. You grow and you teach the science to other people, and you convey the science to the younger generation, and it’s very nice.  

What advice would you give to a young researcher? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: The general advice I give is always to listen to oneself. It’s important to listen to oneself and follow the gut feeling, follow the intuition. In research, it is really important to follow what one likes to do. I liked different topics, and it was difficult to choose. But I think what helps a lot is just to enjoy the science and to see what the science can bring. So focus on this and really trigger the trust in oneself, the sense of curiosity of what we like to do and the joy of the science. This is important because it allows you to deal with the rest. So, they have to learn all these aspects, to see that the rest is little steps that may not work perfectly, but that, at the end of the day, make the beauty of this work. We are very privileged to be able to ask questions and work on what we like to work with. 

What qualities do you need to be a successful scientist? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: To become a scientist, you need a number of qualities. You need to be patient but yet impatient. It’s a combination of both. You need to be curious. Persistent. You need to analyse very well, be methodologic, be logic. Have the right intuition. Know how to deal with frustrations. In biology, it’s also a lot of work and it’s a little bit of mathematics. The more experience one has, the more results you produce, the more chance you have to maybe understand something unique. It’s a lot of time with oneself. You need to give time to really think properly. Read. Acquire the knowledge. But also take enough time to distance from the knowledge, to be able to think out of the box and be creative.  

I think what helps as well is to have some activities outside the work. But still, it’s a lot of work. It’s not really something from nine to five, because the typical scientist will work a lot. The typical scientist is not going to think at a specific time, but will think at different times. It’s really important also to bring some artistic activities, or as I always mention, sportive activities, because the brain works a lot in the background. One has to have some activities that use the brain in a different way. But in biology, yeah, it’s a lot of work. One has to be very committed. 

How important is criticism in research? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: Criticising it’s very important in research. It’s very important that you ask this question, because a key for success for a researcher is to know how to accept criticism. We are constantly judged. Our work is constantly criticised by our colleagues and peers, and we have to deal with it. A good way is to first self criticise oneself – like this, we can deal more with the critics of the others, and like this we go forward with our new dogmas and new findings. 

Is it important to have hobbies outside your research? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: I was studying piano and ballet dance. Ballet dance for a very long time, until my nearly thirties; piano I stopped at 14, 15 years old. I started at six, seven. I think this was very important for me, because I think I find in those artistic activities quite much what we need as a scientist. It’s a lot of repetition, a lot of methodology. One has to be focused and concentrated and also hard on oneself. When you do a ballet dance, it’s not always the easiest. It’s very helpful to also deal with frustrations, and you have creativity and also emotions in there, which I think you have also in science.  

Early on I always had an interest in literature. Now it’s been years. I don’t really have time to read the way I would like to read. This is a little bit problematic with the life I’m having.  I read articles or news, but unfortunately, I have less time to read books. I hope in the future I can deal with this frustration. 

Otherwise, I’ve always been interested in culture and arts, thanks to my parents. I think the ballet dance is also quite physical. As a matter of fact, I realised recently that this actually was important for me. I had missed out on having regular physical activities. So I’m doing a lot of sport. I think for me, it’s essential. I belong to the people who are more effective while moving and exercising. There are some people that need to be static. Me, I need to move a lot. I think people are different, but I know a lot of scientists who are very active physically. It’s very interesting, because I believe that you have different types of scientists. Those who really need to move a lot to be creative and go in a productive way in their life as a scientist.  

Describe your relationship with your co-laureate Jennifer Doudna. 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: What is very interesting in the CRISPR topic is that a lot of scientists from different fields actually got interested in CRISPR. You had the pure bacteriologist, those working on viruses of bacteria, those working on enzymes, those working, like me, on small RNA molecules, and also in the past, structural biologists like Jennifer. A lot of people came together to try to join forces to understand what CRISPR-Cas was about. When we started to work on CRISPR-Cas9, we had the first collaboration with an RNA group, with Jörg Vogel and Cynthia Sharma, then a second collaboration with Jennifer. At that time, the RNA project needed more of a structural biology aspect. Typically for a collaboration, you have to meet the collaborator somewhere. We met at a conference, and I approached her to ask her whether she was interested to decipher the structure of the protein CRISPR-Cas9, because she was already working on other types of CRISPR-Cas systems.  

For every collaboration, as long as we are not forced to collaborate, which in general, we may be forced to collaborate thanks to a funding, we try to find collaborators we think we will be able to work with, but we don’t know until we meet the person. As a matter of it, this was a collaboration that was working well. Also because the younger scientists, effectively doing the experiments, were also enjoying to work together at distance. At the time we were using Skype. It does not work if only the principal investigators think that they can work together effectively. The scientists doing the experimental work also have to come together. And this was the case.  

Even though the collaboration was very short, it was intense. Because of the impact of the work, very soon after we published the collaborative work, we found ourselves participating in a lot of events where we received awards or other types of events. This meant that we had a lot of opportunities to meet. Over the past 10 years, we have met extremely often. This was maybe quite a peculiar and unique story, because the impact of the technology was extremely fast.  

I was trained as a biochemist, geneticist and microbiologist, but we have the same way of approaching the research very precisely. When you collaborate you have for sure different types of scientists, but for us – maybe because of the type of research that we are doing – it was very important to approach the research in a very precise way, and to make sure that the research will be done and be reproducible, et cetera. It was important to work with a scientist who has the same view. I have a lot of respect for her as a a scientist.  

What is the “greatest benefit to humankind” of your research? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: It is interesting that the CRISPR-Cas technology has had an impact on humankind actually quite fast. It’s a technology that is explained as molecular scissors, that has the ability to edit the genes and the expression of genes in multiple cells on an organism in a very precise manner. In an unprecedented way, in the sense that the tool allows to do precise genetics. But the tool can be programmed and designed in a simpler way compared to the tools that were available prior to CRISPR-Cas9. It has had very fast, large implications in life sciences globally; in biotechnology, in medicine, and in research and development. It has an impact on humankind in the sense that beyond the great applicability of the technology, is direct medicine. Because it is now really being developed for curing certain types of diseases. We see the first cures occurring to treat human blood genetic disorders. It has also a great impact in understanding the mechanisms of life, which contribute to also lead to the development of bio technologies in general; all the technologies that are used to produce new types of biofuels, and requests of a large number of technologies including genetic technologies for genetic engineering and systems biology and so on. 

There are also great implications in plant biology, in the production of plant crops, specifically in the world of global warming and global climate change. The necessity to be able to engineer crops that can sustain the changes that are meant to be encountered in the very near future, and even in the long-term future. In the life of today, we benefit so much of a great wellbeing thanks to a number of technologies, like improvement of food and medicine. CRISPR has a great impact in this. That’s why it has impacts on humankind. 

How would you describe the impact of CRISPR/Cas9? 

Emmanuelle Charpentier: Very fast, I met scientists who were extremely pleased to have this technology that would allow them to do precise genetics in their cells and organisms of interest, which was not possible prior to CRISPR/Cas9 – not in such a democratic fashion and easy way to design, and also at low costs. I saw it very fast. Now after 10 years, I meet scientists, who were not scientists 10 years ago, who thank me for having given them the possibility to start science, to start projects and asking questions they would not have been able to ask prior to 10 years ago.  

I also receive thanks from scientists who can answer questions they could not answer, and that allow them to go to new ways or new directions in their research, which they were not anticipating prior to CRISPR/Cas9.  Also some scientists who made their career following up on all the developments of the technologies, that have been tremendous the past 10 years, with lots of scientists who became also famous themselves. Because they carried on with the development of the technology, allowing the technology to be used even further and more precisely in certain subjects.  

I never actually met patients who have been cured with CRISPR/Cas9. There is a first patient who was cured, but for the sake of privacy of the person, I did not meet the patient. But I have to say, the greatest award for me, was most likely the development of the technology after seven years, into a cure to treat patients. Because I realised to which extent there were a large number of patients in need. You receive requests from patients who are quite desperate and quite ready to try any type of cure. They could try either for themselves or specifically for kids with genetic disorders. Very alarming requests. It’s here one realises the power of the technology. This was a primary main application that I was wishing for the technology, that it would be useful to treat human genetic disorder. So I’m personally very happy to see it happening.  

Again, it’s extremely important beyond the fundamental science, that there is a development of the technology into applications. This is also associated to the reason why Alfred Nobel created these prizes. We never thank enough all the people who are developing, and have to be very much entrepreneurial, to develop the basic science further into applications. I think this was a message of Alfred Nobel. We often forget about those who bring the technology forward for good purposes. I think they should also be thanked. In the case of CRIPR, it’s about clinicians and developers who do a fantastic job. 

Watch the interview