Spotlight On: Nathalie Rochefort

We are back with our 'Spotlight On' interview series, shedding light on inspiring women working in the field of neuroscience and reflecting on their distinct backgrounds and career journeys. The questions posed to these individuals explore the themes of job perks and challenges, developing new skills, their inspirations in the neuroscience field, and goals for the future. Stay tuned to see new interviews every few weeks from women in a range of neuroscience-related professions!

Nathalie Rochefort, Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh.

We interviewed Nathalie Rochefort, Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh. Her lab investigates how the brain processes visual information, specifically how neuronal networks integrate this information to guide perception and behaviour. Nathalie reflects on the importance of including both sexes in research, mentorship in neuroscience, and the challenges of funding in academia.

Can you tell us about your background in science and what initially interested you about neuroscience?

During secondary school, I was motivated to become an astrophysicist; I was even selected to attend a space camp in France, which was a significant experience for me. My interest was entirely self-driven; neither my family, teachers, nor society actively encouraged such a career. When I sought advice, I was advised to study medicine because I was a good science student. However, I knew I did not want to pursue a career in medical care. I didn’t want to work directly with patients and in hindsight, I suspect there was some gender bias behind that advice.

In high school, I specialised in mathematics and later went to university, where I studied life and earth sciences, eventually focusing on biochemistry. This programme allowed me to explore neuroscience early on, and I quickly became fascinated by the brain and by neuroscience in general. Still, it took me a long time to realise that this could actually become a career.

My first master’s degree was a side step into the history and philosophy of science, with the idea of becoming a science journalist. During that year, I was required to gain professional experience, and I worked as a science communication journalist for the French edition of Scientific American. One of my assignments was to assist a journalist covering a famous group of mathematicians from the early 20th century, named Bourbaki. My job was to visit the remaining members of this group - those who were still alive - to collect photographs and information from their most active years. Speaking with them and witnessing their passion and lifelong commitment to such a fundamental, abstract field made me realise that I would rather be in their shoes, creating knowledge, than reporting on others' discoveries. That’s when I decided I wanted to contribute to science, rather than just communicate about it.

There was also a social element. I found that writing about the history and philosophy of science, or even working as a journalist, could be quite solitary. In contrast, I had fond memories of the collaborative spirit in laboratory research, working together as a team to advance scientific understanding. 

After this experience, I resolved to pursue a PhD in neuroscience. In France, this meant securing a scholarship, which in turn required completing a second master’s degree. I enrolled in a neuroscience master’s program, won a (European) funded scholarship, and began my PhD in neuroscience. I haven’t looked back since!

Today, I work closely with bioinformaticians and AI specialists, although I approached these fields from a less traditional path. In some ways, I’ve come full circle: while not working in astrophysics, my research now relies heavily on mathematical models, much like the interests I had as a teenager. Ultimately, I believe that seeing a wide range of role models and representations is essential for discovering your own path.

That’s an interesting story. I like hearing about different routes into neuroscience, particularly you trying something else first, then meeting some inspiring people, and then getting back into lab science. That's really amazing. Did you postdoc for a while before you got to a lecturer position and had your own lab?

During my PhD, I was fascinated by the neuroscience questions and I was never afraid to take chances on difficult experiments, but I also doubted whether I could really become a scientist because the path seemed so daunting. Nonetheless, I was determined to give it a try. My PhD lasted five years under the supervision of Prof. Ulf Eysel and Dr Chantal Milleret, studying the interhemispheric transfer of visual information in the cat visual cortex. In my final year, I trained to become a dance teacher, which speaks to the level of uncertainty I felt at the time! I completed the training and earned a teaching diploma. I graduated from my PhD without publications, which made securing a fellowship difficult.

At that point, I was in a relationship and my partner was offered a position in Munich, Germany. I interviewed for a postdoc there, in the lab of Dr Arthur Konnerth and joined this lab that had the resources to support me. The lab was pioneering two-photon calcium imaging, and I was deeply involved in developing this cutting-edge technique, which later became widely adopted in neuroscience. It was an exceptionally well-funded environment, bringing together physicists and biologists, so we were often observing things no one had seen before. It was an exhilarating but very demanding experience, and I remained there for six years.

Like many early-career researchers, I struggled with impostor syndrome, though it wasn’t something widely discussed at the time. I doubted whether I could ever run my own lab or come up with original scientific ideas.

Eventually, my interests began to diverge from those of my PI, which is a natural progression. My supervisor was regularly sending me to conferences; this gave me invaluable opportunities to build a professional network. It was at these meetings that I connected with several remarkable scientists, including Marla Feller, then a professor at Berkeley. She encouraged me: “Nathalie, you should apply for your own lab. If you stay in the same place too long, you’ll become frustrated. Your CV is competitive, you can do this.” Her words made a real impact, so I decided to take her advice and apply.

Around that time, I also met my future husband. We wanted to settle somewhere that suited both of us, which is how we ended up in Edinburgh; a move that’s been great for our careers and our life together.

It's nice to have that external validation from people at conferences who could see that you were ready to start a lab just from how you presented - that's really impressive.

Exactly. I'm now saying the same thing to young postdocs, and I think it is important to emphasise the impact that these brief conversations during coffee breaks can have. People (including myself!) tend to forget the level of vulnerability and the lack of confidence or impostor syndrome that you experience as an early career researcher. Simply having a more senior person talk to you and encourage you can make an enormous difference.

I was recruited, not as a lecturer, but as a research fellow. It was through a programme from the University of Edinburgh where many young PIs were hired simultaneously across all university departments. It was particularly beneficial to start my lab alongside others who were also setting up labs because we formed a community. We faced the same challenges: how to recruit the first team members, how much space we had, hierarchy, etc. We also benefited from support by local senior colleagues.

During this move, I was pregnant and had my first child in the first year of establishing my lab. So I always know exactly how old my lab is: 11 years old because my son is 11! This was a challenge, but also very exciting. I often hear about the fear and difficulty of starting a lab, that you have to deal with lots of administration and other obstacles.

For me, maybe I was ready to change jobs, and it was very different from being a postdoc. But I enjoyed building something, collaborating with junior scientists, and having a shared goal. When people tell me how stressful it is and how much I work, I want to remind them how stressful and time-consuming being a postdoc is. For example, as a PI, I don’t have to stay late for experiments. There are two sides. I don’t mean to underestimate the workload, but I also want to say that I truly enjoy being a PI.

Yes, it's a different kind of stress and a different kind of workload.

Absolutely. It brings its own challenges, but you also gain more freedom in how you manage your time and what you delegate.

Can you tell us about your current research? 

My lab investigates how the brain processes visual information, with a particular focus on how neuronal networks integrate this information to guide perception and behaviour. From the photons that hit our retina, the brain extracts visual features relevant to our actions. I am exploring how the brain contextualises this information. By "context," I mean, for example, that perception changes depending on your state: whether you are highly stressed or half-asleep. If a stimulus has been learned to be dangerous or beneficial, it is detected more quickly or accurately than something meaningless to you. Specifically, my interest lies in the neuronal circuits through which contextual information modulates visual processing.

Recently, we’ve been exploring how internal metabolic state (or energy availability) affects cortical processing. We use the visual cortex in mice as a model system and apply large-scale neural recording techniques to observe how neurons adapt under energy restriction. These insights also inform our studies of sensory processing in mouse models of autism and intellectual disability, where sensory perception is often altered.

I saw your paper on food restriction on your website and the title included sex specific differences that you had observed - could you explain a bit more about this please?

Yes, we started this study because the field has progressed from using anaesthetised to awake mice, and also from awake mice passively watching stimuli to awake mice learning tasks. To motivate mice or rats to learn or perform tasks, food or water restriction is typically applied since you cannot use incentives like money or praise used in human studies! One motivator was that many labs restrict food or water, causing animals to lose about 10-15% of their body weight, which is quite substantial. We wanted to first understand the direct effects of such restrictions. When a new postdoc joined my lab, Dr Zahid Padamsey, he had a conceptual background about the brain's energy efficiency (whether, and how, the brain operates efficiently in terms of energy). He was the driving force of this project and found that food restriction alters neuronal activity to adjust to save energy. The brain uses less energy, which impacts function: for example, visual discrimination is impaired, so animals perceive their environment less accurately. One analogy is a phone running on low battery; it still works but at lower pixel resolution. The brain enters a low-power mode after prolonged food restriction.

I want to emphasise that this is very different from intermittent fasting! We received many emails from people worried about their vision during fasting, but this is unrelated. Our mice experienced quite severe restriction for weeks; for humans, this would correspond to losing 15% of body weight, for example, in cases of long-term hunger, chronic dieting, or anorexia.

To finish the story, we discovered all these changes in males, but not in females. At molecular, cellular, and circuit levels, the effect was strong in males but mild or absent in females. This study tries to reconnect brain research with whole-body physiology. Neuroscientists sometimes think brain research is separate from the rest of the body, but with metabolism, it’s clear you must consider the whole organism. During food deprivation, the body sacrifices different organs to preserve energy. We linked this to a hormone secreted by fat tissue; during food restriction, males tend to lose fat while females retain it. Retaining fat is beneficial because fat secretes leptin, a critical hormone that signals to the brain about energy reserves. Leptin informs the brain whether reserves suffice or if conditions are unfavorable. The female brain maintains high power mode by retaining fat. This is a long-term adaptation, unlike short-term glucose dynamics, as gaining or losing fat takes time.

That’s really fascinating. It shows how crucial it is to investigate sex differences in animal studies.

Exactly, and not researching sex differences has been a major problem historically. I have a colleague, Dr William Cawthorn, who documented this in an article, pointing out that many more studies are conducted in men than in women, making it unclear what the benefits of fasting are for women. This issue is not limited to the inclusion of women in general, but also extends to comparing women who have menstrual cycles versus those who do not or are in menopause. It is well known, yet still greatly understudied, that metabolism changes significantly and that the potential benefits of fasting, diets, and restrictions may strongly differ between younger women and post-menopausal women.

Absolutely, it’s incredibly important. I saw on your website that you share MATLAB codes and data, which I think is fantastic. How important do you think that this sort of transparency is to help move the field forward?

It’s absolutely essential. I also think it should receive more funding support as dedicating personnel in a lab to refine and clean code for external accessibility is costly. While companies have whole departments for this purpose, labs often struggle to afford postdocs who are skilled both in conducting in vivo experiments and in developing well-structured, reliable code. For each publication, it is critical that labs share the exact code they used to generate and analyse data, as this transparency is essential for evaluating and reproducing results.

Of course, sharing code exposes you to potential mistakes or documentation shortcomings, but I think overcoming these fears is vital. If someone identifies weaknesses or suggests improvements, I welcome it, because that's how we improve collectively.

That’s a fantastic outlook!

I saw your team page as well and I loved the number of pictures you have on there with your lab. It looks like you go out on lots of trips and meals out. How important do you think socialising is outside of work to promote teamwork and a healthy work environment?

I think it's very important, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to fund these activities in academia. The funding landscape has changed dramatically. When I started my lab 10 years ago, it was possible to fund lab retreats through traditional funding bodies, grants, and other sources; however, this is no longer the case, at least here in Edinburgh, and to my knowledge across the UK, funding for lab retreats and social events has drastically declined because it’s hard to secure financing. Of course, we still organise events, but cost is always a concern because the activities must be affordable for all lab members, including graduate students. PhD student salaries are very low considering the cost of living, and I mention this because I believe it is a significant limitation in attracting bright students to academia. This overall decrease in funding makes it harder to support these social events, which I consider vital for building a strong team.

In your field of study, in general, what gaps do you think there are, both preclinically and clinically, and how do you foresee them being closed?

Overall, neuroscience is at an exciting time thanks to a remarkable development of techniques, both genetically and with tools for recording and interpreting neuronal activity, along with computational tools to analyse large datasets. This explosion of data is enabling many new discoveries. Many fundamental questions remain, for example, about how different brain regions work together. Historically, research communities focused on isolated regions, such as the visual cortex, hippocampus, or decision-making areas, but now we possess the tools to examine how these regions coordinate. A critical question is how these distinct brain areas collaborate and the time scales over which their interconnected processes unfold.

Returning to the topic of energy: how is this coordinated neural activity optimised in terms of energy consumption and resource allocation? Drawing a parallel with artificial intelligence, a central challenge in the competition between American and Chinese AI efforts is resource efficiency. Both achieve similar performance levels, yet one requires significantly fewer resources. Thus, investigating how the brain is solving this trade-off between performance and energy use is a timely and exciting topic for neuroscience.

That's great. What is your day-to-day schedule like? How do you split your time?

That’s one of the aspects I truly enjoy about this work, the diversity. There is the diversity of people and expertise you collaborate with in academia; I regularly work with specialists outside my field, such as physicists, bioinformaticians, and endocrinologists. Equally, there is a great variety in the tasks I undertake daily. On the same day, I might be assisting with mouse surgery, then reviewing figures for a manuscript, or writing text for a grant proposal or article, and teaching an undergraduate course. I also need to manage personnel, handle contracts, and take care of administrative tasks. Additionally, I participate in grant panels, mentor young scientists, and review manuscripts.

So, to be honest, I don’t think there is a “typical” day. Over the course of a week, it is a blend of all these tasks. I generally prioritise the cognitively demanding work in the mornings and schedule meetings and less intensive activities, such as replying to emails, for the evenings.

What are the most challenging aspects of your job?

I think a major challenge in academia is the recent sharp increase in workload. Prioritising effectively is essential, though not always possible, depending on your academic role. Every week, I am asked to review articles, evaluate colleagues for promotions, and assess grant proposals, and I often have to say no because all these tasks demand my time. It is very difficult to prioritise what should be the core of your work, research and teaching, and to carve out time to reflect and develop new projects. Even after many years as a PI, this remains a challenge for me.

Another important aspect is people management. It is incredibly rewarding to see team members grow, develop, and progress in their careers, whether in academia or beyond. I especially enjoy mentoring, both within my team and externally. However, this can also be challenging because professional satisfaction and career progression are rarely linear journeys. The path is often bumpy, with ups and downs that differ for each individual. Being part of that journey can be deeply fulfilling, yet demanding.

It must be nice to see everyone's journey be so different and to see how they cope with challenges.

Yes, you're never bored.

What goals do you have for your career and where do you see yourself in the next few years professionally?

That’s a very good question. I want to continue developing my research in the two main areas I mentioned: understanding how different parts of the brain work together to process visual information in a behaviorally relevant way, and addressing the question of energy efficiency, how neurons and neural networks prioritise tasks depending on energy availability. 

I now prioritise community and administrative work where I believe I can have the most impact. Much of this is related to mentoring and funding allocation, which is at the heart of the system. As a result, I am deeply engaged in and want to continue participating in major grant panels and other strategic initiatives for research development.

Which women in your life have inspired you? They can be in neuroscience, or they can be in your personal life.

I say it often when speaking to people that having a mother who was hardworking and deeply committed to her work (which was not at all scientific) created a significant role model for me. My grandmother was also a hardworking woman in her generation; she was a teacher and raised six children. I didn’t know her during her working years, but I believe these values and struggles are passed down through women in a family.

They both belong to generations of women who faced many struggles. I believe they paid a very high price for their professional ambitions. Women of that time who wanted both a family and a career had to sacrifice a great deal. So it’s both a motivation and a warning: what is the cost of this independence?

I think we are luckier now, but significant barriers remain. From my generation, I see that still only about 15% of professors are women. Things have improved but not dramatically. When I talk about the psychological impact, unfortunately, this is still true for my generation of women. I think it is partly conscious and partly unconscious that these challenges push women away from ambitious careers. I don’t think this is specific to academia, it applies broadly. Women pursuing careers in industry, art, or academia face similar questions and barriers.

During primary and secondary school, I was fortunate to be in an environment where education was highly valued, and many passionate state school teachers worked hard to give children confidence and ambition. It was still a time when it was widely believed that you could change the world by changing education. These teachers brought together girls and boys from diverse social backgrounds with the mindset that anything was possible. They asked what you wanted and encouraged you to pursue it. I think hearing that your dreams are possible is very important for a child.

Professors, both men and women, encouraged me. I would mention again Professor Marla Feller, who explicitly told me to start my own lab. It’s hard naming people because you worry about forgetting others! Women figures, even outside science and in the media, inspire me a lot. It’s not limited to academia, and I think it’s important to tell women, “Look, the number of role models in your field is limited, so the chances of finding a role model you identify with are low.” It’s important to look more broadly. For instance, many of my closest friends have careers in different fields, from the cinema to engineering industries. They inspire me as much as people in academia. I gain strength from our conversations because the questions, doubts, and barriers are very similar.

Absolutely. It’s great to hear that you are surrounded by so many inspiring women.

Congratulations on your win at the Women in Neuroscience UK 2024 awards event. How did it feel to be nominated and to win the Leading Researcher award in the Cognition and Neurodevelopment category?

I have to say, I was very happy! I was unaware that I had been nominated, and I didn’t know the panel members or the scheme, which made it a very pleasant surprise. I especially appreciated the focus on mentoring within neuroscience, which is very important to me, so having it officially recognised was very gratifying.

Awards like this are so important because they increase visibility and recognise a type of contribution that is often overlooked beyond individual satisfaction. Knowing that you have helped others reach their goals and to receive thanks in this way is truly special. The benefits of mentoring relationships often take years to become evident, so this recognition was very meaningful to me. I would strongly encourage the continuation of this scheme. It is both rewarding and motivating for the awardees and also important for fostering networking. I was also inspired by my co-nominee, Professor Beatriz Rico, another very inspiring woman!

How do you think the award will shape your work moving forward?

I think it strengthens my general motivation and desire to continue both research and mentoring. On days when I feel a bit low or receive discouraging news, it’s something positive to look back on and remember. I keep a folder in my email dedicated to good news, and when I’m in a bad mood, I open that folder to read the uplifting messages. This award now holds a special place in that “happy folder.”

Oh, that's great. I love that. That's such a good idea.

The award also motivates me to keep promoting networking opportunities and role models for women. I organise ‘Women in Science’ sessions at the Institute, where each session features a woman invited as an external speaker, followed by an informal hour-long discussion with tea and coffee. We discuss their career, research, and career progression. This provides a networking opportunity open to all. We aim to diversify role models, as statistically, there are very few. Being exposed to diverse profiles of women in academia is wonderful. I am always amazed to hear about such varied experiences; some people are very aware of discrimination, some not at all, claiming there are no issues in the system, which is also interesting. Some have families, some do not; some are early in their careers, and others hold senior academic positions; some have delayed careers, or unconventional paths; some focus more on teaching, and others on research. I continue this because I want to expose people to these diverse role models. I believe it is very important.

Additionally, at the University of Edinburgh, we are developing sex and gender meetings. Held annually, these meetings aim to strengthen the network of researchers interested in sex specificity and gender research (previous meeting here), spanning clinical work with transgender individuals to fundamental research in Drosophila on sex specificity and immunity.

Finally, I look forward to contributing further to Women In Neuroscience UK. It’s a wonderful initiative, and I hope you continue to grow and expand these activities in the coming years.

---

This interview was conducted by Rebecca Pope and edited by Neave Smith, with graphics produced by Georgie Savastano and Rebecca Pope. If you enjoyed this article, be the first to be notified about new posts by signing up to become a WiNUK member (top right of this page)! Interested in writing for WiNUK yourself? Contact us through the blog page and the editors will be in touch.