Molecular biologist Prof. Dr. Claudine Kraft is part of the CIBSS leadership team and designated spokesperson. At CIBSS, she is currently leading the project “Phosphorylation dependent signaling in autophagy“ and she co-coordinates the research area CIBSS-C “Towards Discovery-Driven Innovation“.

Claudine, you are a molecular biologist at the University of Freiburg, a member of the CIBSS cluster of excellence and designated spokesperson for a possible second funding phase. Your research focuses on autophagy, the "cellular waste disposal system".

Can you briefly explain what exactly you are investigating and what you find most exciting about it?

Autophagy is the cellular waste disposal system. For a long time, this process received little attention until researchers in the early 2000s showed that modulation of the autophagy process affected the degradation of aggregated proteins and was associated with neurodegenerative diseases. Shortly afterwards, it was shown that mice lacking autophagy genes develop neurodegenerative symptoms, demonstrating the essential role of this process in neuronal health. We now know that autophagy plays a central role not only in neuronal health, but also in cancer, infection and ageing. However, just 20 years ago, little was known about the molecular mechanisms that control this process. As a postdoctoral researcher at ETH Zurich, I began to investigate these basic principles. I was particularly fascinated by the fact that the field was still very young and that fundamental questions had yet to be answered. Many of them still haven't been answered: How is waste recognised as such? How are autophagosomes – the double-membrane vesicles that serve as transport containers in the cellular recycling system – formed? And how do they get to the lysosomes, where their contents are degraded and utilised? Understanding such mechanisms is the basis of my research – and the basis for the development of new drugs.

We are conducting this interview on the occasion of International Women's Day on 8 March 2025. In view of this day and the questions it raises, let's imagine the scientific system as an organism and stick to your topic: Do you think this organism is taking good care of its health, or would it need more 'autophagy' for progress and change?

Like a healthy organism, the science system should be in constant motion, questioning stagnant, outdated structures and promoting innovative approaches. Much has happened in recent years – more interdisciplinary collaboration, open science, better networking and more flexible career paths show that change is possible.

Nevertheless, there is still a lot of potential for further 'autophagy': if we move away from outdated mechanisms such as the immense pressure to publish, rigid hierarchies and long and sometimes insecure career paths, we can create a science system that is more dynamic, creative, innovative and equitable – to the benefit not only of women, but of all researchers. To achieve this, the question also arises: Which aspects of equal opportunities and scientific culture receive sufficient attention – and which are often overlooked in the discussion

Every year we interview women on International Women's Day – what topics do you think are still neglected, what questions are too rarely asked?

We often overlook how different women's needs are. Measures that are already in place, such as quotas for women, can help break down certain barriers, but they often only help a certain group of women – those who fit the dominant career model. Other women, who may have different life contexts, benefit less or even face new challenges.

Sometimes we achieve important equality goals through targeted measures, but overlook the need to reflect on and develop the new structures. For example, it is common practice in public institutions and universities that women must always be represented in decision-making bodies and that an equal opportunities officer is involved in appointment committees, for example. It is good and right that this ensures that women and men have an equal influence on important decisions. However, in areas where there are still fewer women than men in key decision-making positions, this means that they sometimes have to shoulder a considerable additional burden. Paradoxically, this creates a new disadvantage, which raises two sets of issues: on the one hand, we need to find solutions to adequately compensate women for the additional workload that these measures entail. On the other hand, does an equal opportunities officer necessarily have to be a woman? If we argue that equality benefits everyone and that we expect an objective, independent representation of interests and perspectives, for example in committee decisions, then I believe that men can and should also actively contribute to the promotion of equality and be equal opportunities officers.

Another under-discussed issue is the standardisation of reconciling family and career – not just for women, but for men too. Flexible working hours and the acceptance of childcare should be a matter of course for all genders. Fathers who are actively involved in childcare also need more support and social recognition. In addition, it is often assumed that long maternity leave is always an advantage. However, this is not necessarily true for everyone. On the one hand, it allows mothers to stay at home longer if they want to or if family circumstances or institutional childcare do not allow otherwise. On the other hand, this assumption can lead to an implicit expectation: If longer leave is seen as 'normal' or 'ideal', the social pressure on women to actually stay at home longer increases. Even if they do not want to, or if returning to work earlier makes more sense for them personally or is financially necessary. Such a one-sided view can lead to fathers taking parental leave less often and for shorter periods, as the image of mothers as the main carers of young children continues to prevail. This creates an imbalance between parents – both in terms of childcare and career development. Genuine equality in this area therefore requires not only more flexibility, but also a change in social expectations and corporate cultures.

My personal experience shows how different the social norms are in different countries. In Switzerland, where I had my children during my postdoc, it was perfectly normal to return to work after 14 weeks of maternity leave. Our family situation and childcare options made this possible: my husband also reduced his working hours and we shared childcare with the day-care and the grandmother. However, when I started my junior group in Vienna, it was considered unusual for me to give my child to day-care early. It was hardly noticed that my husband picked up the children every day after lunch and that we equally shared care obligations, but I was under social pressure.

Such structural and social expectations need to be looked at more closely to make sure everyone can have real freedom of choice, regardless of their gender and how each family wants and can arrange this individually.

Such differences in societal expectations show that change is possible, but it will not come about by itself. Networks that support women scientists and make them visible are also important drivers of change. You yourself are a founding member of “Women in Autophagy” – how does this network contribute to achieving the above discussed?

I know from my own experience how valuable networking and support are in science, so I was delighted to be involved in the founding of Women in Autophagy (WIA). Throughout my career, women mentors have played a crucial role in inspiring, supporting and showing me that a successful career in science is possible. Especially during the challenging times as a junior group leader, they motivated me to keep going. Today, I am a mentor myself in various programmes that support women in their career paths.

With WIA, we want to provide this kind of support in the field of autophagy, but also facilitate networking in the field. The network was created to continue the research and mentoring commitment of the late US microbiologist Beth Levine, and to empower women and other underrepresented groups in autophagy research through an initiative that is open to all. WIA is a platform for exchange, mutual support, international networking and visibility, including the organisation of scientific events and mentoring.

Such networks are essential because they not only advance individual careers, but also initiate structural and cultural changes such as those mentioned above. Science thrives on exchange, and the more diverse this is, the more innovative and sustainable research can be. This is exactly what WIA is working towards: a stronger and more inclusive scientific community where everyone can realise their potential.

The network is organised by women, but is open to all researchers in autophagy. It is currently comprised of more than 70% women, a unique feature in the international research landscape that gives women a leading role and strengthens their visibility.

If we are working on such structures today, it is with the aim that they will eventually become a matter of course. What would science be like if we no longer needed to talk about diversity because it had become a commonplace?

In an ideal future, diversity in science would be so self-evident that it would no longer need to be emphasised, but would simply be a lived reality. Science would be characterised by an inclusive, flexible and equitable system, where talent and innovation come first, regardless of gender, background or personal lifestyle. A truly diverse scientific world offers an open and dynamic research environment where different perspectives are seen as enriching and where people from different backgrounds and realities can reach their full potential. This would not only improve equal opportunities, but also make science itself more innovative and sustainable.

Creative research, enthusiasm and innovation need freedom and flexible working models. Especially when my children were young, but also before, I was lucky to always enjoy a great deal of freedom in my career. This flexibility has allowed me to balance my academic career with my personal and family needs. This was crucial in helping me to establish myself in academic science, which has always been and still is my passion. We all have a role to play in ensuring that such frameworks become the normal state of affairs, as they not only benefit the individual, but also strengthen the scientific community as a whole.

CIBSS profile of Prof. Dr. Claudine Kraft