EMBL Representative: Lithuania Is Emerging as an Important Partner in Europe’s Life Sciences Network

When we talk about scientific breakthroughs, our attention is usually drawn to Nobel Prizes, renowned scientists, or revolutionary discoveries. Yet behind many of these achievements lie decades of international networks, partnerships, and relationships built on trust rather than the work of a single research group. This is the side of science that Plamena Markova, Chief of International Relations at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), helps shape and nurture.

Plamena Markova is Head of International Relations at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL). She coordinates EMBL’s collaborations with member states, partner institutions, EU institutions and international organisations. Before joining EMBL, she worked in the fields of international relations, European policy, and international law. She has been with EMBL for more than 15 years.

We spoke with her about why collaboration has become an inseparable part of modern science, what EMBL partnerships offer countries such as Lithuania, and why the scientific challenges of the future can no longer be tackled in isolation.

First of all, how did you start working at EMBL? What has this organisation given you professionally?

I have been working at EMBL for 15 years, so it has been quite a journey. Professionally, the organisation has given me a completely different understanding of the field I originally came from – international and European affairs and governance. Here, I was able to see how these areas operate within the context of science and research infrastructures.

It has been a fascinating and, at the same time, challenging experience to observe the intersection of two worlds. However, I believe that in an intergovernmental organisation such as EMBL, these worlds come together very naturally.

As I understand it, you are not a scientist by training. How did you decide that you wanted to work with scientists, scientific projects, and laboratories? What attracted you?

One of the most important features of EMBL for me has always been its culture of collaboration. I come from the world of international cooperation and fully understand the importance of international relations across many aspects of society – the economy, politics, and society more broadly. EMBL is, in essence, exactly that: a large intergovernmental organisation whose purpose is to bring countries together to work towards common goals.

All of this is built on a shared understanding that science creates mutual benefit. Throughout my career, I have been interested in international law, climate change, and scientific discovery. The scientific dimension was particularly appealing because science is one of the very few areas that unquestionably connects countries, even when the geopolitical environment becomes extremely fragile.

You mentioned mutual benefit for partners. But why did partnerships become such an important part of EMBL’s mission in the first place?

EMBL’s mission has always been to connect countries and create added value through networks, collaboration, and the dissemination of a successful scientific model. Importantly, this is not done in isolation but for the benefit of the communities we serve.

The partnership programme is one of the key mechanisms through which this mission is delivered. It helps ensure that the EMBL model, the standards we nurture and promote, our understanding of scientific excellence, and our collaborative culture are transferred to member states at the national level. This is precisely why partnerships were created – to integrate countries into the broader EMBL spirit and operational framework.

Science is a long-term game – a marathon, even if that sounds like a cliché. In your view, what are the ingredients that turn collaboration into a long-term success story?

Science is fundamentally a collaborative endeavour. In biology, the life sciences, and many other disciplines, science does not happen in a single laboratory, even if it starts as an idea in the mind of a single individual. It is built on sharing knowledge, data, and ideas.

When a scientific idea emerges in one laboratory, it develops through discussions, collaborative projects, exchanges of people, and training opportunities. Only then can it grow into a long-term success story.

In the life sciences, we know particularly well that even the most successful projects rarely produce visible results within a year. Sometimes it takes many years before their real impact on society, innovation, the economy, or our daily lives becomes apparent.

We have seen this with cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM), vaccines, and various therapies.

But to me, something is even more important than the final outcome: the networks, trust, and exchange of perspectives that emerge through the collaborative process itself.

Science is also highly competitive. Countries, universities, and laboratories compete to publish discoveries first. Sometimes even Nobel Prizes depend on who gets there first. In your professional opinion, how much scientific progress is driven by competition and how much by collaboration?

I believe we should avoid looking at this as a binary choice. In modern life sciences, competition and collaboration are part of the same system.

At the laboratory level, competition certainly exists, and it often drives excellence. The desire to be first and to discover something new is an important force behind scientific progress.

However, infrastructure, data, and standards are shared. A large proportion of the data generated by laboratories becomes openly available and is used by other scientists. Scientific community standards are developed collectively across Europe and around the world.

For that reason, a culture of openness and collaboration is just as important as competition in the life sciences. Those who view these two concepts as complete opposites are perhaps not seeing the true picture of modern science.

Could you share an example where a partnership enabled outcomes that would likely not have happened otherwise?

I cannot help but think of the Lithuanian partnership. It is still very young, and we are already seeing very impressive results.

Within a very short period of time, Lithuania has succeeded in attracting outstanding scientific talent. Further to this, many of these researchers have already secured prestigious European Research Council (ERC) grants and are developing highly ambitious and innovative projects.

I think the partnership with EMBL has contributed decisively to this success. It is a very good example of how the EMBL model, standards, and expectations of excellence can be successfully transferred to the national level.

Many international partnerships place significant emphasis on early-career researchers. What opportunities do such partnerships create for people who are just beginning their scientific careers?

First of all, EMBL creates many opportunities for partner institutions in terms of mobility and visibility.

We offer doctoral and postdoctoral programmes, joint training initiatives, courses, and conferences. EMBL is the largest life sciences training centre in Europe.

These opportunities allow early career scientists to work with leading experts, access cutting-edge infrastructure, build valuable networks and learn in an environment that would otherwise be difficult to access.

At the same time, our focus goes beyond the EMBL ecosystem itself. We aim to connect partnerships with one another. As a result, the Lithuanian partnership can benefit from opportunities available through Nordic or Polish partnerships, and vice versa. This creates an even broader international network and opens up cross-border opportunities for professional development for early-career researchers.

Am I correct in understanding that such partnerships can also help bring talent back to Lithuania?

Absolutely. The Lithuanian partnership is an excellent example.

We want to see talent moving across Europe, but we also want to see talented people returning to their home countries. EMBL operates under a nine-year model – we do not offer permanent academic positions and don’t retain the talent we train. This naturally encourages researchers to look for opportunities in their countries of origin.

Partnerships become a kind of magnet that attracts talent back home. Following their time at the partner institutes, which also operate on the basis of EMBL’s time-limited model, these researchers often transition deeper into the national science ecosystem. One can think about it as a very successful talent pipeline.

If you had to choose one major scientific challenge of our time that cannot be solved by a single institution or a single country, what would it be?

I would probably answer your question with another question: what challenge today could realistically be solved by a single institution?

I find it difficult to think of one. This is precisely why science has long been viewed as a tool of diplomacy – because it has been understood for decades that the most important questions cannot be answered without collaboration.

But if I have to reflect on one example where collaboration is critical, perhaps we could think of AI. Today, we are dealing with enormous amounts of data, and these volumes will only continue to grow alongside advances in artificial intelligence. How we use AI for science will be one of the most important questions of the future.

EMBL believes that, thanks to the life sciences’ long-standing experience with producing, curating, storing and making available in an open way high-quality data, the field is exceptionally well positioned to become a leader in this transformation.

What advantages do countries such as Lithuania bring to large international organisations?

One of the greatest advantages of smaller countries is agility. They can often implement national strategies and priorities more quickly than large federal states.

In addition, smaller countries frequently develop strong specialisations and have exceptionally talented and motivated people.

In Lithuania, we can clearly see this in biotechnology and laser technologies. Such specialisations help create a critical mass of expertise that becomes extremely valuable for international collaborations.

A good example is Lithuania’s expertise in CRISPR technologies. This has helped the country establish a highly visible position within the international life sciences community.

How does EMBL define success in the context of international partnerships?

We want to see a network of partnerships that is closely connected to EMBL while also actively collaborating with each other. We want to see people moving between countries, exchanging ideas, developing ambitious projects, and creating joint solutions to the challenges our societies are facing.

We want these partnerships to become national centres of excellence while also contributing to meaningful regional and European advances in the life sciences.

Of course, it is wonderful to see Nobel Prizes and other exceptional achievements. What matters equally is that people build robust networks of trust and collaboration that withstand time and transcend borders. 

That is what EMBL was created for, and this is how we help build excellent ecosystems. And that is how we create a scientific environment that allows science to remain open and ambitious.