Communication with society is as important as research itself | Entrevista

Why is the popularisation of scientific research important?

Science communication is crucial because it shapes how society understands progress and identifies with it. Many achievements we now take for granted—from household appliances to smartphones—rest on long-term scientific work. This is especially true in medicine and in the development of new therapies, where science directly improves quality of life. If we don’t present these links in a clear and accessible way, people often lose sight of the fact that research is the engine of societal development.

It’s also important to emphasise that science is not a linear path to a final product. Every study—even if it doesn’t immediately lead to a practical application—adds a piece to the mosaic of knowledge that enables breakthroughs over the long term. A good example is mobile technology: society uses it daily today, but its roots reach back to decades of basic research that was not aimed directly at building a phone.

Popularisation is therefore more than just knowledge transfer—it’s how we build trust between scientists and society and foster the understanding that investment in science means investing in everyone’s future.

Where is the biggest problem in communicating science?

The main issue is that researchers generally don’t treat communication as part of their formal training. It’s a skill one must learn—some develop it naturally, while others see it as an extra burden on top of research. If we don’t acquire it, translating scientific content for society becomes difficult, because it requires the ability to simplify and explain clearly without losing the essence.

The National Institute of Chemistry is seen as a good example of linking science and PR. How do you do it?

At the National Institute of Chemistry, we recognised years ago that communication with society is as important as research itself. We make a deliberate effort to present as many of our achievements to the public as possible—not only to share them, but also so that society understands why it invests in science. After all, public funding enables research, so it’s right for science to give back through clear explanations and open communication.

To this end, we set up a public-relations system that works well and keeps us present in the media. Of course, there is still plenty of room to grow. Compared to abroad we are just at the beginning, but we believe this is the path to greater recognition of scientific achievements and, in the long run, to a better understanding of science’s role in society.

In 2021 you received the Prometheus of Science Award for excellence in communication. What does this prize recognise?

The Prometheus Award for excellence in communicating science is presented by the Slovenian Science Foundation for successfully conveying research achievements to the broader, non-expert public. It’s an important incentive because it reminds researchers that clear, understandable communication with society is essential alongside scientific work. Such recognition further motivates researchers to consciously develop this aspect of their work, which too often remains in the shadow of research results.

How does this look in day-to-day practice?

Our communication with the public follows two tracks. The first is institutional: when we achieve a significant scientific result, we first inform our PR office. They prepare a press release and ensure the content is both scientifically accurate and understandable to a wider audience. What happens next depends on the response: if interest is high, we organise a roundtable to present the topic in depth; if the resonance is more modest, we place the result through print or online media and other modern channels.

The second track is direct: researchers themselves organise lectures, roundtables, and other events where we present our work first-hand. This approach is valuable because it enables direct contact, but it is less frequent because it is time-intensive.

Recently, within the Centre for Technologies of Gene and Cell Therapy (CTGCT), you organised “CTGCT Days 2025,” a three-day event in Ljubljana from 15 to 17 September. What was its purpose?

CTGCT Days 2025 was the first major event dedicated to presenting the Centre for Technologies of Gene and Cell Therapy to the professional community and to the general public. It’s one of Slovenia’s important national projects in biomedicine: through it, the country will gain its first academic infrastructure centre for transferring advanced cancer and gene-therapy technologies into the clinic.

Why are infrastructure centres important?

They are key because they enable the transfer of knowledge and technologies developed in research institutions into clinical settings. In Slovenia there are currently very few such cases—some researchers have succeeded in translating breakthrough work into practice, for example Prof. Maja Čemažar and Dr. Robert Zorc, but unfortunately these remain exceptions. The main reason is a lack of infrastructure that would systematically support the translation of scientific findings into therapies.

We therefore structured the CTGCT Days programme into several blocks: the first on cell and gene therapies in general, and the second specifically on gene therapies, as part of the GeneH where we will focus on gene therapies for rare diseases. We showcased the latest global advances and brought them closer to the Slovenian research space and the wider region. Our goal was to attract as many domestic and regional collaborators as possible to join the development, as the centre will be an open environment for collaboration going forward.

When was the centre established?

The CTGCT project began in September 2023. Preparatory work is currently under way—we will demolish unsused premises next to the National Institute of Chemistry and then construction will begin. According to the timeline, the centre will be completed by 2027, with the Institute itself expanding in parallel. About 1,400 m² of usable space is planned for the centre, and around 20 new colleagues will be hired in the first phase. The long-term goal is for the centre to grow further with successful work and evolve into a broader regional research-and-clinical hub. The biggest challenge remains financial sustainability, but we believe the investment is of exceptional importance for the future of Slovenian science and medicine.

What is the Centre’s guiding vision and main goal?

The central aim of the CTGCT is to accelerate the transfer of innovations from research into clinical practice and entrepreneurship. Internationally, it is common that, once a technology matures, a company is formed to take it into clinical use. Our centre will create the conditions to make this transition easier and faster in Slovenia. Our task is to provide clinics with products and technologies that are safe for use in patients, thereby directly contributing to more efficient translation of knowledge into practice. Close collaboration with leading clinical institutions—especially with the University Medical Centres in Ljubljana and Maribor—is crucial, because without their role the entire process would not be possible.

What therapies are you developing?

Our work focuses on developing new CAR receptors that recognise tumour cells. The research group collaborating with the Centre has already identified several candidates that show better properties than receptors currently on the market. Collaboration with clinicians is active in this area. The second development pillar is gene therapies for neurodevelopmental disorders such as CTNNB1 syndrome, as part of the GeneH project. We are at the beginning here, but in the coming years we aim to create technologies that will be a realistic option for physicians by the end of the decade—around 2029.

Personalised medicine is a key trend.

Personalised medicine and the therapies associated with it are tailored to individual needs and represent a major advance. At the same time, they impose specific regulatory requirements. To obtain a licence, each technology must meet standards of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Slovenia’s Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices (JAZMP). Current rules are not yet fully adapted to exceptional cases, which is a challenge for smaller research centres that lack large regulatory teams like those in big pharmaceutical companies.

For personalised therapies intended for only a few patients, the paperwork is often the same as for medicines taken by millions, which is a serious administrative hurdle. It is therefore important that the regulatory process be adapted to be friendlier to innovative therapies and their users. I would also highlight the outstanding achievements of individuals such as Prof. Maja Čemažar, who successfully led the translation of a personalised therapy through to the end.

Your field also includes protection of innovation—you are a patent representative. Are we sufficiently aware of these issues? What is at risk if we are not?

Any innovation we wish to take to market must first be properly protected by a patent. Publication in a scientific journal is not enough. This requires specialised knowledge that is limited in Slovenia because there are few intellectual-property experts.

The development of patent representative in Slovenia is constrained. I am one of them, and I pass this knowledge on to younger generations—at the Biotechnical Faculty, where I teach intellectual property protection. I’m surprised other faculties don’t include this in their programmes. It’s essential knowledge if you want to transfer findings into practice in mechanical engineering, pharmacy, medicine, electrical engineering, etc. Graduates often know nothing about it. Yet a two-day course suffices to learn the basic steps and where caution is needed so an innovation can reach a product.

Slovenia does have dynamic companies that know how to protect their findings, but many opportunities are lost because this knowledge is not widely shared. Expanding competencies in intellectual property is therefore key for developing the national innovation ecosystem.

How would you assess Slovenia’s innovation fitness?

Slovenia has strong individuals and companies, especially in the biopharmaceutical sector, which we can be proud of. But when smaller companies enter the market and seek venture capital, they often face the question: “What does your IP portfolio look like?” If they don’t have one, access to finance is harder.

Here we lag behind Western Europe, where universities and research centres have fast mechanisms for identifying innovations, protecting them, and transferring them into business. Examples from our partners—such as the Technical University of Berlin, University Medical Centre Utrecht, and University College London—show how effectively this works: innovations quickly move from research to commercial use.

At home, universities and institutes do take care of patent protection and basic entrepreneurship education is available, but there is a lack of risk capital. Biotech companies need millions just to start, which makes it difficult to create high-tech start-ups with added value. As a result, Slovenia’s innovation capacity remains limited, particularly compared with the USA, China, and the most developed European countries.

A more personal question to end on: who is Mojca?

I’m someone who invests a lot in balancing work and free time. Sport is a constant—for me it’s cycling in summer and cross-country skiing in winter, often on Pokljuka or in Rateče. It helps me relax body and mind and recharge for work. I also find great satisfaction in beekeeping and caring for an orchard, where I find peace and a connection to nature.

Your recommendation for a stronger immune system?

What we eat is crucial. Over the last 50 years our diet has changed significantly, contributing to the rise of chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer. It’s important to reduce sugars, processed drinks, and carbohydrates, which we often consume in excess.

Our basic diet is still heavily tied to bread, potatoes, rice, and pasta, whereas our ancestors ate far fewer grains. To stay healthy we should invert the pyramid—eat more meat and vegetables and, when appropriate, fruit, while cutting back on sweets and sugary drinks. In this way we strengthen the immune system and reduce the risk of chronic disease.