Looking Back, Moving Forward: Ron Heeren

What would you say has been analytical science’s biggest accomplishment over the past five to ten years?
 

For me, the biggest accomplishment is what I call the "resolution revolution." Over the last five to ten years, all of our instruments – whether it be chromatography systems, mass spectrometers, or spectrometers – have significantly improved in resolution, throughput, and sensitivity. This advancement has accelerated the uptake of these analytical technologies across many disciplines, which in turn directly support global initiatives, such as the analyses needed to address many of the EU’s Sustainable Development Goals. 

These new instruments introduced over the past five to ten years have had a profound impact across various disciplines. This ranges from battery research, where we can now examine chemical processes in real-time during charging and discharging, to biology, where we’re able to analyze a single cell within the context of tissues. Additionally, in agro-food science these advancements let us optimize agricultural processes, such as studying the effects of different spectra of LED lights in greenhouses.

It’s not just one accomplishment but an array of developments that collectively defines this “resolution revolution.” Analytical science is all about pushing the boundaries – whether spectral, spatial, or temporal resolution – the improvements in these areas over the last decade have been dramatic. These advancements allow us to unravel the complexity of the world around us more effectively than ever before.

However, there’s another important element to discuss: the development of talent. The field of analytical science has broadened, with more young academics and industrial researchers embracing these new technologies. If you were to map this dynamic, with infrastructure and performance improvements on one axis and the availability of talent on the other, the true breakthroughs happen in the top right corner – where cutting-edge instruments meet skilled researchers. Conversely, the biggest challenges lie in the bottom corner, where neither the right infrastructure nor talent is available. To maximize progress in the applied domains of analytical science, these two elements must come together.

When you say talent, are you referring to interdisciplinary collaboration, like researchers from other fields working alongside analytical scientists?
 

I mean talent in several ways, and you’re absolutely right – interdisciplinary talent is crucial. Analytical scientists inherently work across the boundaries of various domains, whether it’s physics for instrument development, chemistry for understanding molecules, biology for the complexity of life, or medicine and its related fields. Talented individuals need to think across disciplines, and I think this has been recognized by the field over the years. Many analytical science educational programs worldwide have adapted to incorporate cross-disciplinary approaches rather than focusing solely on physics, (analytical) chemistry, or another singular domain.

Talent also includes people who deeply understand the complexity of these instruments, which is another key aspect. There’s always a debate: is an analytical scientist someone who applies existing technologies or someone who develops them? In reality, the answer is they need to do both. For me, talent encompasses the ability to bridge disciplines while also grasping the technological and applied aspects of analytical sciences.

This dual expertise is challenging for early-career academics to develop, particularly due to  the ever-evolving landscape of science and academia. Expectations for academic careers in analytical science are now different, which has made it harder to cultivate individuals with a broad set of interdisciplinary and technological skills who can excel across all areas – the "homo universalis," so to speak. While rare, such individuals do exist, and I believe universities, institutes, and companies alike should prioritize educational programs in the future that develop this unique combination of skills.

Looking back over the last 12 months, what are the standout accomplishments in the field that you’d like to highlight?
 

Over the past year, I’ve seen amazing developments in spatial biology and its integration into analytical sciences. If I had to highlight the biggest accomplishment, I’d say it’s the fact that we can now routinely perform single-cell transcriptomics, single-cell proteomics, and single-cell lipidomics.

However, these advances also bring significant challenges – primarily, how do we handle and make sense of the vast amounts of highly detailed, high-resolution data we’re generating?  This is where the major hurdles lie. Analytical scientists are producing so much intricate data that understanding the full complexity of the systems we’re trying to study is becoming increasingly difficult.

The topic of AI often comes up when discussing solutions for this, but personally I think we need to be cautious. While AI currently seems to be the magic buzzword promising to solve everything in the future, many people view it very differently. We need to be more critical and specific about the type of AI we are talking about, and the specific problems we would like it to solve. While funding agencies and organizations are heavily investing in AI as a catch-all solution, there’s still much to be done to make it truly effective. 

Having said that, I don’t want to sound too negative – there are many positive developments in the field. For example, Matthias Mann’s work – alongside other researchers in the field – on single-cell proteomics is simply astounding. The breadth of discoveries that can be made from analyzing just a single cell cut from a piece of tissue is amazing to me, and many other researchers are leveraging or developing similar technologies for various molecular and applied analytical strategies, which is hugely promising.

In mass spectrometry (my preferred technology), I was amazed by what I saw at ASMS in 2024. There were almost 1,000 contributions related to spatial biology and imaging mass spectrometry. To put that into perspective, the conference typically has around 7,000 to 8,000 attendees, so spatial biology is clearly impacting the field. This surge is largely due to the growing integration of multi-omics approaches, which is something I think we’ll see even more of in the future – provided we can effectively deal with all of the data generated.

What would you say are the major challenges currently being faced by the field?
 

I would argue that the major challenge is probably that of managing data, but there are others as well. One key issue is the ethical considerations that arise from our increasing ability to extract detailed molecular information. For instance, antigen profiles are highly personal and reflect what an individual has been exposed to throughout their lifetime. This level of detail could raise privacy concerns, as it essentially reveals someone’s molecular phenotype. How do we handle such sensitive information? Who owns this data – patients, researchers, or institutions? Specifically in healthcare, where privacy and ethical issues have always been paramount, these questions are becoming increasingly urgent.

Another challenge that I think many organizations face at the moment is cost. High-end instruments are becoming very, very costly, not only to purchase but also to maintain. Beyond the infrastructure investment there’s a need to factor in sustainability, as well as to develop programs which ensure that these resources are (and remain) accessible to a broader community. This includes funding for training and development to make sure researchers and organizations can fully utilize these large-scale infrastructures. While some places have found effective solutions, others are still struggling.

From a societal perspective, there’s also the issue of making technology accessible equitably. Many scientifically underdeveloped countries face significant barriers to acquiring and using these advanced technologies, which are often reserved for wealthy laboratories and economies. I think organizations like ASMS, the International Mass Spectrometry Foundation, the American Chemical Society (ACS) and other national counterparts have an important role to play in addressing this disparity. Outreach programs and initiatives could help bridge the gap, but more work is needed. These challenges should keep us busy for the next decade or more.

Are there any other society-wide trends you see impacting the field?
 

I think one major area is climate research. Analytical technologies are playing a significant role; whether it be through satellite observations, drones equipped with analytical tools, or portable instruments used to study crops and the environment. For example, microplastics and nanoplastics are a growing concern as they increasingly pollute the environment. How do we remove them? How do we understand their effects on marine ecosystems? These are global, societal concerns coming from a new generation of academics that analytical science can help answer.

Another big area is healthcare, particularly personalized medicine. As our analytical techniques improve, we’re uncovering more detailed, personal, and specific information that enables better patient stratification. This opens up opportunities for personalized diagnostics and treatments, but also generates new questions. How do we translate this information into actionable solutions? How can the pharmaceutical industry develop personalized therapies without making them prohibitively expensive? Ensuring affordability is a major societal challenge, and analytical technologies can play a key role in addressing it.

Energy research is another critical area. With the rise of green energy, we’re generating power at times that don’t always align with demand, prompting the need to design better energy storage solutions. Battery research is therefore a key focus area, with analytical technologies essential for driving innovation here.

And then there’s computing, of course, as the sheer volume of data we produce requires faster, more efficient computational systems. Developing better computer technology and more powerful chips, which rely on advanced lithographic techniques, relies on using analytical tools. For instance, techniques like X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and surface analysis are critical for ensuring the quality of these chips at resolutions down to just a few nanometers. 

Of course, there are limits to what the field can achieve, but society currently faces so many challenges that analytical scientists across disciplines need to come together. By advancing our technologies further, we can make meaningful steps towards solving these problems.

Are there any of these society-wide problems where you believe analytical science is well-positioned to make significant progress in the next five to ten years?
 

For me, healthcare stands out as an area. Specifically in making healthcare more affordable, I think we’re already making strides, and in five to ten years, analytical science should have made an even greater impact. 

Another area where I hope to see progress is the global waste problem. I visited Nepal a few years ago, and the sheer amount of plastic waste there was overwhelming. Limited resources and costs make it difficult for countries like that to clean up waste or find effective ways to manage it, but I believe analytical science has great potential here. Techniques like Raman or IR spectroscopy could offer cost-effective solutions for separating waste streams and repurposing them for useful applications.

These two areas – healthcare and waste management, especially in underdeveloped countries – are where I believe analytical science can make a meaningful difference. And they’re interconnected. For example, tackling waste and creating better food systems directly supports Sustainable Development Goals. Improved food systems can reduce the burden on healthcare, ultimately leading to healthier populations – it’s all interconnected in some way.

Whether it’s healthcare, waste management, battery research, or climate change – what do we need to do to make progress in these areas?
 

It’s people. The key is developing an ecosystem that brings together the right diversity of analytical researchers and topical experts – people who understand climate systems, pollution in ocean circulation, or the intricacies of battery research – alongside analytical scientists. It requires team science, and I’m encouraged to see universities and educational institutions across the globe embracing this collaborative approach. But to truly address society’s challenges, it’s all about having the right people.

Yes, infrastructure is important, and expanding access to it will help. But even with existing infrastructure, there’s already so much that can be accomplished when you have the right team in place. When you assemble the right people, they’ll start asking the scientific questions that drive the next wave of innovation, including advancements in resolution and analytical instrumentation.

It’s important that these developments are guided by genuine scientific questions rooted in societal challenges. Otherwise, we risk simply pushing resolution for its own sake, becoming a hammer looking for a nail. The focus should always come from the challenges themselves, driven by the right people working together.

Would you say this comes back to interdisciplinary collaboration? Is it something we need more analytical scientists to pursue – a kind of call to action – or is it already happening and set to continue?
 

It’s both. While interdisciplinary collaboration is happening, it’s not happening enough, though the good news is that analytical scientists are increasingly exposed to interdisciplinary research during their academic and career development. But the real call to action is for educational institutions to invest in truly interdisciplinary programs. This is a significant challenge because some universities and academic institutions – particularly universities of applied sciences – are embracing this, while others are not. 

It’s also a call to action to our political colleagues to not cut back on research and education budgets, as this would be disastrous for interdisciplinary science (and science in general).  Take the current situation in the Netherlands, for example: the proposed 1.1 billion euro cut in research and education funding by the government would be devastating, hindering our ability to educate our future generations to a level where they can effectively tackle the kinds of problems we’ve been discussing.

We need to keep investing in science, knowledge, and education. So, this call to action is really directed at politicians – use your brains and prioritize equipping the next generation with the knowledge, insights, and skills to tackle the interdisciplinary challenges society faces.

Do you think the current model of science could evolve into something different in, say, fifteen years?
 

I think it’s already happening. If I look at developments in Dutch universities, for example, we used to have distinct faculties for physics, chemistry, and biology. Now, we have a single Faculty of Sciences, which reflects the realization that silos are disappearing because interdisciplinary research is essential for addressing modern challenges.

Many universities are also introducing programs in areas like systems biology, which integrate multiple disciplines to tackle biological problems holistically. So yes, I absolutely see a more holistic approach becoming increasingly prevalent.

The challenge is striking the right balance – if we go too far toward a holistic model, we risk losing specialization. It’s not about completely abandoning disciplines, but rather creating a dynamic where holistic, system-wide approaches coexist with the depth of specialized expertise. If everyone leans too heavily in one direction, we either lose critical specialization or miss out on the broader, interconnected understanding that a holistic perspective provides – we need room for both.

Right now, I think we’re heading towards an equilibrium between the two, but this balance is heavily influenced by societal factors. For instance, if more funding goes into academic education and research, we’ll see more people entering the field, leading to greater diversity and opportunities to balance specialization with holistic approaches. Conversely, if funding decreases, we may see a shift back toward specialization, as fewer resources lead people to focus narrowly on specific fields.

As long as we remain aware of these dynamics, I think we’ll manage this balance well. Society is resilient, but if we lose sight of the need for both specialization and holistic thinking, we risk ending up in the wrong "local minimum" – whether as a national or global society. Ultimately, we need both approaches to thrive, and awareness is key to maintaining that balance.

How would you sum up your current perspective on the potential future of analytical science as a whole?
 

I’m positive by nature, so I’m very optimistic about the future of analytical sciences. That said, there is one significant caveat: data. The sheer volume of data we’re producing is daunting, and we don’t yet have a comprehensive solution for managing it. The challenge is that we need to do something counterintuitive for analytical science – to reduce the data so we can make it comprehensible. This goes against our instinct, as we’re trained not to throw away data or oversimplify, but rather to embrace complexity.

There are already promising developments in the field, however, that aim to tackle data management and interpretation. Overall, I think analytical sciences are in a strong position, as long as we continue investing in the talent that drives our field forward. My only concern is the current global political climate, which threatens funding for science and education. It’s a serious concern, and while it’s not a positive note to end on, it’s important to acknowledge.