Hedda Wardemann

Hedda Wardemann, Head of Division of B Cell Immunology, talks about her research at DKFZ, her career and women in science in general.

I #EmbraceEquity because innovative research needs diversity.

WHAT IS YOUR FIELD OF RESEARCH AND WHAT FASCINATES YOU MOST ABOUT IT?
During my pre-diploma (bachelor) studies in biology, the curriculum included a few lectures in basic immunology. I was fascinated by the complexity and diversity of the immune system and immediately knew that I wanted to major in immunology during my diploma (master) studies. For me, the most exciting immune cells were B cells. Their ability to generate diverse antibodies through gene recombination and somatic mutations was mind-blowing. Ever since, I have been trying to understand what defines protective antibody responses. It is exciting to see how fashionable B cell research became over the years. Although B cells mediate vaccine-induced immunity, only the use of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of cancer, autoimmunity and more recently infectious diseases (including COVID-19) changed the view on B cells compared to T cells. My interests are still focused around the same fundamental question how B cell responses evolve in time and space. We work on single-cell level to capture B cell diversity and collaborate closely with experts in different fields of biology. Together we look at these questions from different perspectives including how to translate our understanding into therapies. These interactions allow us to learn a lot and to develop new creative ideas how to fill our basic knowledge gaps in human immunology.

WHAT WAS YOUR BIGGEST SUCCESS AND WHAT WAS YOUR BIGGEST CHALLENGE SO FAR?
It is difficult to define success for me. I could point at a highly cited paper from my postdoc time or that I was successful in the competitive selection process for a Max Planck Junior Research Group Leader position and the Helmholtz Excellence Initiative. More meaningful to me is the education, success and happiness of the scientists who trained in my lab and went on to very different endeavors in academia or elsewhere. I perceive it as success that I am still passionate about my research and continue to enjoy being a scientist. All of this is closely linked to my biggest challenge: raising two kids. As single parent, it was not always easy but having a family helped me to balance my work life and vice versa. In the end, the biggest success may have been to manage and enjoy both, research and family. The flexibility in my working hours and possibility to work from anywhere at any time helped me a lot. Without that freedom, it would have been so much harder.

WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED IN THE SCIENCE SYSTEM TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO WOMEN IN SCIENCE AND WHAT HAS HELPED YOU MOST TO BE SUCCESSFUL?
From my experience, women tend to doubt themselves more than men and therefore require more encouragement. Often, they do not have defined career goals and rather know what they do not want than what they aim for. It does not mean that they are less ambitious or motivated or unwilling to take responsibility. They simply consider many more factors than just academic success parameters when taking career decisions. Research is very attractive to women, otherwise we would not have so many female PhD students and Postdocs in our labs. What we need is a change in culture to make a career in science equally attractive to women and men. Changing the measures of success based on more diverse parameters with more flexibility in the timeline will likely help. What seems equally important, is that family care time and household duties are divided equally between parents. Surprisingly, this still does not seem to be the norm. If more scientists had personally experienced the juggle between care work and submission deadlines for manuscripts or grants, they may be more understanding when evaluating the performance of others, especially of junior PIs. What helped me the most was the advice of colleagues and friends who encouraged me to take risks and to say "no". "No" to administrative and political duties that took time away from my main research activities, "no" to projects with low potential for meaningful discoveries, and "no" to abusive behavior. Learning to say "no" helped me focus on what I really wanted and allowed me to say "yes" to change and take risks that strongly contributed to the long-term success of the lab.