Without adequate methods, science is essentially blind. Why, then, is it so hard to secure funding for pure method development? Daniel Tchoń from the Institute of Physics of the CAS shares his journey towards scientific software development and why he views science as a form of art.
Your current fellowship project aims to make electron diffraction more accessible to labs all over the world. Can you tell us more about it?
Sure! My project focuses on developing a method for electron diffraction, specifically a method to serially collect precession electron diffraction images. Electron diffraction is a relatively underdeveloped field; while some specialists knew how to diffract electrons and interpret images for about a century, getting crystal structures this way became accessible only some 15 years ago. While I initially had little experience in the field, it fascinated me! My background in serial X-ray crystallography on free-electron lasers led me to propose a project applying a serial approach to electron diffraction. Some previous attempts have been successful, but I aim to make them accessible to a wider range of electron microscopes.
We have many electron microscopes worldwide, but dedicated electron diffractometers are much rarer. However, any electron microscope can function as an electron diffractometer! My method reduces the precision required, meaning simpler or older microscopes could be adapted for electron diffraction, making the technique available to more institutions.
Where do you see the applications of your method?
One of the goals of my project is to minimize beam exposure and damage to organic crystal structures, including for instance pharmaceuticals. Organic compounds are very damage-prone, but with a serial approach, we can collect better data by reducing harm to the samples.
You previously worked on high-pressure materials using X-ray crystallography. How does that connect to your current research?
My transition from high-pressure research to electron diffraction was driven by my interest in software development. In high-pressure crystallography, I was frustrated by the lack of tools for estimating data completeness and started writing my own scripts. That experience led me to shift towards software development for crystallography. I realized that some questions can be answered only by “getting your hands dirty” and writing better, custom tools.
Is it difficult to secure funding for methodology-focused research?
Yes, research agencies often prefer projects centered on specific samples rather than method development, although it’s crucial for science. Many researchers officially frame their projects around a specific system while actually making major methodological advancements. After less promising experience from other funders, I’m now fortunate to have a fellowship that supports pure method development, which will have broader applications.
Was this the main device that attracted you to the Physics for Future (P4F) fellowship?
Firstly, I saw that Lukáš Palatinus was among the supervisors. I admired his work already before applying for the fellowship, so that was one factor. Another was the field of electron diffraction itself. I’ve followed the field since it emerged – I finished high school in 2012, a year or two before the first “continuous rotation” crystal structures were produced, and now the number of structures discovered using these methods is growing exponentially. The fellowship offers me a chance to be part of this development while gaining valuable experience for my future career.
PHYSICS FOR FUTURE (P4F) a MSCA COFUND-supported fellowship programme with a goal of recruiting 60 postdoctoral fellows into the Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences and ELI Beamlines, so as to pursue topics in physics relevant to society and the economy. The first call was highly successful, and the second one opens in August 2025.
Do you feel it's preparing you for leading your own research team?
It does. The project has given me opportunities to expand my skills, both technical and collaborative, that I can use in academia and outside of it as well. I’m worried about trends in science funding, we have seen a sharp downhill turn across many countries. The fellowship’s industry connections provide a backup plan, as I’m gaining experience with detector software and hardware interfacing, which could be valuable in the industry.
Your previous job was in the United States. Do you think P4F is a good opportunity for young U.S. scientists, especially considering the recent funding cuts and uncertainties in the U.S.? Can you compare your experience in the U.S. and Europe?
I worked previously at Berkeley, which I would say is a special case. It offers high salaries from the European perspective, but that’s basically where the benefits end. It has a tougher work culture. While I had in overall a positive experience in the States, here I can find better work-life balance and more opportunities for growth, expressing myself – essentially for artistic expression in work, since in my opinion, science itself is inherently artistic.
At Berkeley, I had opportunities for growth, but the environment was more hierarchical, and I was just an employee. Here, my entire project is self-driven, which makes a big difference. In the U.S., I felt more like a worker, a cog in a machine; in Europe, I feel like a scientist contributing my own ideas to the community. The scientific culture here is more open, and the cost of living, even with rising rents and apartment prices in Prague, is well-manageable with the P4F salary.
Living costs aside, how are you finding life in Prague?
It’s hard to find Prague anything other than beautiful! And I like the public transport network. You see, I don’t drive a car. In fact, I don’t have a driver's license, which made my two years in California pretty interesting! Here, walking is also an option –it takes me just 20 minutes to walk to work, or 45 minutes to the city center. The city and its surroundings offer some great opportunities for mingling, dining, or hiking. Just last weekend I took a 1-euro city train and spent the entire day exploring Český Kras, a nearby national park.
Coming back to your view of science as an art form, can you elaborate on that?
This is of course a very subjective topic. In my opinion, science is an inherently artistic pursuit. In terms of traditional artistic expression, you can definitely get beautiful figures and beautiful images from experiments. But I personally find scientific work artistic in the process of creation, not only the creation of software but also the creation of new fields of development, of new materials and more. Sometimes these new materials lead to the creation of completely new applications. So, I approach science in an artist's mindset, venturing into the unknown, mapping the possibilities. Because you are essentially either discovering things or creating new things. And that's essentially what the artistic process is about.
Daniel Tchoń is a chemist and crystallographer at the Institute of Physics of the CAS. He did his PhD in chemistry at the University of Warsaw, and looking for a change of perspective, he moved to The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. He is now a MSCA COFUND P4F (Physics for Future) postdoctoral researcher in the group of Lukáš Palatinus.