Franziska’s Open Science Experience

The Spotlight series is a new series to highlight Open Science experience of the researchers, staff, and alumni across all of Max Planck Institutes. Our first guest is Franziska Otto, a PhD student in the group of Tobias Erb at the Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology in Marburg. Her research focuses on improving Rubisco’s catalytic efficiency, the most abundant enzyme on earth basically fixing all inorganic CO₂ on earth.

When were you first introduced about Open Science?

Franzi: I was in my second PhD year when I attended the LMU & MPG Summer School from the Open Science in Practice Initiative. It opened the door for me to go deeper into this field and see what can be done to make sure that I organize my data in a good way.

Before going to the summer school, I already used Labfolder even back in my Masters. I used to share the data with my supervisor to make sure that we can see each other’s data. I would say that I got treated with an open science policy, but I didn’t know how much I could still learn about it. Attending the summer school made me realize that you don’t organize it for yourself, but for science.

How does your everyday research workflow look like?

I like to organize my week ahead to make sure that I have a structure of what I want to do and the goals in my Labfolder. It’s also important for me to write a README file first so people know what is in the folder. Within the day, I note everything down, not just quickly on a piece of paper, but also take the time to fill out the empty spaces I left in the Labfolder. For the manuscript folder that everyone has access to, I make sure that it is connected to my Labfolder and with my personal data storage.

I heard you struggled for 9 months to reproduce an experiment?

My research revolves around in vitro protein engineering, meaning I do cloning and a lot of protein purification, followed by in vitro assays. In my first year of PhD, I took over a project from a colleague and couldn’t reproduce his data during an assay, even though he walked me through the assay with the ‘exact’ same set up. The only thing that was missing in the protocol was the protein concentration, so I assumed the standard ratio, because normally, you don’t need the concentration, you just need the ratio between two proteins. I started to question “What is wrong with me?” because it’s an easy protocol. I did several attempts to get the same result and failed, but it was the best thing that happened to me.

In the end, I got nice results from the different things I tried, which turned out to be a much better outcome than we initially aimed for, because of this error and trail testing, we observed for the first time the investigated enzyme can exist independently of its small subunit. Having protocols and writing down everything – even small details that seem unimportant in that moment – is good for documentation but you also need the curiosity to think outside the known to see what else can be done.  

Editor’s note: In case you are interested in the results, you can find the preprint here.

What would you tell other early career researchers on how to get started practicing Open Science?

I think taking your time to take notes, especially in the beginning, is so important. Our Principal Investigator (PI) does not expect us to work 24/7 at the expense of taking notes; rather he really encourages us to use Labfolder and ensure that we have reproducibility within the lab. When I struggled with the reproduction, our PI took his time to walk me through the assay again and I also had many meetings with the former PhD student to really make sure that everything was clear.

Looking back, I remember being stressed out trying to read everything about the topic. I felt stressed, which was just the pressure from my side to produce the ‘right’ data. In that rush to be ‘productive’, it is easy to forget note-taking. This is a significant mistake, as habits are much harder to correct later in a career.

During my Master’s thesis in Göttingen my lab book was on point. At that time, I was a chemist working within biochemistry group and every evening when I went home, I just wrote down every note and made sure everything is well explained. But when you are a PhD student, you really want to have as much data as possible, and you just prioritize differently. It was nice to have this wake-up call during the open science meeting that if you don’t organize your data, no one can use it.

What initiatives would you like to see from academic institutions or funding organizations to make Open Science more attractive to early career researchers?

At our institute, we are already quite well working on that by making Labfolder mandatory. While traditional paper lab books are useful for quick notes in areas where laptops are impractical, the ability to digitally share and archive our work is a major advantage. However, I think it’s important to give researchers the time and mental space to write things down.

When new PhD students join an international program like IMPRS they often overwhelmed by relocating to a new country and adjusting to a new environment. Expecting to fully absorb Open Science principles during their first week is unrealistic.

Proposal: A ‘refresher’ workshop six months into the PhD would allow students to reflect on their own data habits and implement improvements once they are familiar with their projects.

Our PI reinforces the importance of organization through regular “data maintenance” reminders. For example, before the winter break, we are encouraged to audit our inventory—ensuring every plasmid and strain is correctly labeled and documented in our central lists. This ensures that if a colleague pulls a vial from the freezer, they can immediately identify its contents and history.

How do you understand Open Science in your field?

In my scientific world, you share your data, you publish open access, you take every note down, kind of like sharing is caring.  You get the best of it if you say that you have a problem and get in contact with others.

For me, Open Science is being open-minded and think science as a community and make sure that everyone is on the same page. I always think it’s not the best just for you, for others, but also for the science.

My background in Chemistry was a “wholesome” experience where students shared exam notes and helped one another. This stands in stark contrast to fields like Law or Economics, where I’ve observed a much more guarded, competitive environment. In my current lab, we function like a family. There is no shame in asking “stupid questions,” and the lack of internal competition fosters a supportive atmosphere. While some fields are still scared of being scooped, I have seen the benefits of the alternative.

Open Science helps us realize that making mistakes is a human part of the process. Having the strength to correct a published error should be viewed as a professional asset, not a failure.

What it’s like to be an Open Science Ambassador for you?

As an Open Science Ambassador, I work closely with our IMPRS coordinator to give my input on guidelines and organize “Welcome Weeks”. I advocate for the idea that Open Science needs to be tailored to the specific field, for example lab-heavy research requires a different approach than coding-based research.

Last but not least, is there anything you would like to see changing over the years?

I hope to see start in the mindset. I believe it’s the most important thing as you learn more about open science. If people are more open minded to talk about the data and about problems, it would help towards open science.