For The Power List 2025, we invited entrants to tackle three big questions facing the field, including: How do we help today’s analytical scientists become tomorrow’s science leaders? Here, three honorees whose essays ranked in the top ten by our judging panel come together to explore what leadership in analytical science really means.
In the first of two parts, Isabelle Kohler, Charlotta Turner, and Lourdes Ramos discuss the skills, mindsets, and cultural shifts needed to nurture future leaders – and to ensure analytical chemistry earns the visibility and respect it deserves.
How should we define a “science leader” – especially within analytical science?
Isabelle Kohler: For me, it’s important to think about training the younger generation in both hard and soft skills. We shouldn’t forget the soft skills if we want to develop leaders who aren’t just excellent scientists or communicators, but also good supervisors and mentors.
Lourdes Ramos: At first, I was unsure how to define what a leader is. But I was certain about what I didn’t like in some leadership models. Being a leader isn’t just about being smart; you also need the right background and competence. But you must also recognize that you can’t achieve things alone – you need your team. And because you need them, you have to take care of them. It’s even better if you genuinely enjoy working with them. Soft skills make a huge difference.
Charlotta Turner: I believe analytical chemists, compared to those in organic, inorganic, or biochemistry, tend to see things from a broader, more holistic perspective. We often play a central role in collaborations – we’re the connecting piece in the puzzle. We can’t get lost in tiny details; we have to understand where samples come from, how they’re handled, and why that matters. From sampling all the way to data interpretation. In that sense, analytical chemists are naturally inclined toward holistic thinking, which is also essential for leadership.
Kohler: I often hear from colleagues, especially senior ones, that analytical chemistry doesn’t receive the recognition or funding it deserves. You have to work hard to “sell” it – to convince others of its value when applying for funding or trying to attract students. So the question is: do we have enough leaders to defend analytical chemistry, and can we do better to raise its profile?
Turner: Our analytical chemistry graduates, at all levels, find jobs easily. At least here in Sweden, when companies make cuts, analytical chemists tend to stay. That’s a good argument for the discipline’s strength.
Still, the field is changing shape, which can be worrying. We risk being seen primarily as a “tool” for other disciplines. Yet analytical chemistry also has fundamental research at its core, alongside applied and support roles. We need to maintain all three dimensions – and yes, sometimes it feels as though we have to defend our field.
Ramos: I share that feeling. We’re an analytical department within an institute of organic chemistry, and most of our colleagues are organic chemists. It can be difficult, because they often view us as providers of tools to solve their problems, rather than scientists in our own right. But we are much more than technicians supporting other chemists.
That’s why Isabelle’s point about developing broader abilities is so important. We need leaders who can represent analytical chemistry not only within academia but also in policymaking and administrative roles – people who can influence how research funding is distributed. Having analytical chemists in those positions is crucial to defending the field.
Leaders in those areas, even if they’re not directly working in the lab, can still be strong advocates for analytical chemistry as a core discipline within the chemical sciences.
Do leadership cultures differ between analytical and organic chemistry?
Turner: I’m in a department where analytical and organic chemistry are combined, and I’ve noticed a sharp contrast. In organic chemistry, all the professors and research leaders are male – 100 percent – and the atmosphere is quite macho. I even asked the head of department about it once, because he was talking about recruiting another research leader to work on synthesizing complex molecules. I said, “So I guess only men can synthesize complex molecules?” I meant it as a provocation, but he replied, “Yes, probably.”
It’s a tough environment. Group meetings are often held in the late afternoon to evening, and PhD students are expected to take mandatory courses during weekends or in their free time. It’s rough. So perhaps the two of you are right – it’s not the leadership in analytical chemistry that needs to change, but the leadership in areas like organic chemistry. It needs to become more open, more balanced, and more inclusive – bringing in more women and embracing softer leadership styles. That shift could also help open people’s eyes to the value of other disciplines, such as analytical chemistry.
Kohler: I find it horrible to imagine meetings being held in the evenings – that’s not the kind of society we should want. In my department, things are a bit more balanced. We have female full professors in organic chemistry, and they’ve also hired a number of younger women – my generation – through targeted recruitment. Some positions were even reserved for women under quota systems. I didn’t entirely agree with that approach, because I don’t like the idea of being hired because I’m a woman. But at the same time, I understand that something had to be done to change the balance.
For me, this ties back to leadership. A real leader isn’t someone who says you have to work 80 hours a week – that’s an outdated mindset. When I talk to students, especially Gen Z students, they make it clear that’s not the life they want. Many of them love research, of course, but when I ask PhD students whether they want to stay in academia, around 95 percent say no. It’s not that academia is a “horrible” place, but the work-life balance and culture – like evening meetings and weekend work – just aren’t appealing anymore.
I also think we should broaden our view of leadership beyond academia. We tend to highlight academic leaders – the full professors, the traditional figures – but the next generation is likely to find their paths in industry, policy, communication, or education. We should be showcasing leaders in those areas too – not just in universities. We need to move away from the image of the male professor holding evening meetings as the archetype of scientific leadership. You can be a leader by living a balanced, fulfilling life, and that’s something worth celebrating.
Turner: I agree. Many of the PhD students who studied with me and are now working in industry say that the most important thing they brought with them wasn’t the specific research, but all the meetings where we discussed leadership – how a group functions, how we work together, how we talk about expectations. Those conversations about soft skills, leadership, and co-workership were what they found most useful when they moved into industry.
Ramos: I think that, in many cases, when students finish their PhD, their vision is very narrow. They feel blocked – like they don’t know what to do next. But life exists outside those four walls. A leader should say: “you can go out, and if you want to go to industry, I’ll help you.” It’s about creating opportunities for the people you’ve trained, opening their eyes, and offering possibilities. Some people think it’s either “you’re with me or you’re out,” but that’s not how the world works.
But I would say: you don’t necessarily need to be best friends at work. You just have to be polite and create a nice atmosphere. If everyone feels that their work is valuable, that they’re involved, and that their opinions are equally valid, then people are happy and more creative. They’re not afraid to share ideas, even if they seem crazy at first. That’s what I try to encourage.
Turner: You also have to make sure that in that kind of environment, people can still express disagreement. You have to create an atmosphere where it’s safe to say what you think. PhD students especially need the tools to have difficult conversations and deal with conflict. Otherwise, you end up with meetings where only the leader talks and everyone else stays quiet because they’re not sure if it’s OK to express their opinions. That’s not good leadership. A good leader makes it possible to say, “I don’t agree,” and that’s fine.
Kohler: Exactly. If someone is leading a group and people don’t feel safe to share their opinions, I wouldn’t call that good leadership. They might be a good scientist, but that’s not the same thing. For me, a leader is someone who values the team – and if the team doesn’t feel comfortable speaking, then something isn’t working.
Should more analytical scientists take on leadership roles – in departments, institutions, and beyond?
Kohler: I think it would be great to have more of that. In our department, the head position rotates between disciplines, so we’re fairly well represented. But at the political level – say, at the national level – it would definitely be good to have more analytical chemists in those roles. People who could bring more attention to our field and, ideally, more funding too.
Turner: I actually had a friend visiting recently, Nelson Torto – we were PhD students together – and he’s from Botswana. He took his PhD in analytical chemistry and was the permanent secretary for the Minister of Higher Education in Botswana. Since we were preparing for this meeting, I asked him what he thought had helped him rise in that way – as an analytical chemist now working in politics. He said analytical chemistry taught him to see real-world challenges clearly. He’s always worked across disciplines with many different people, and he believes that perspective helped him succeed. That kind of holistic outlook is a real advantage. And of course, he’s also very outgoing and confident, which helps!
Are there any barriers that hinder analytical scientists from taking these sorts of leadership positions?
Turner: Personally, I’ve found it more difficult to lead within my immediate environment. I’m a leader in analytical chemistry, but when it comes to leadership at the department level, it’s harder. There’s often a sense of “why should she?” I’m now a vice dean, which was in some ways an easier step, because at the faculty level people don’t think in the same way.
In my department, though, it’s often still men in leadership roles. I can’t even remember the last time there was a female head of the department, and as far as I know, never an analytical chemist.
Ramos: My experience has been a bit different. My PhD supervisor was a woman, and at that time our department was roughly half women. But when I moved to the Netherlands for my postdoc, the number of men was much higher. Still, I felt fine – that’s the important thing.
Some years ago, I worked as part of a commission making decisions on research grants in analytical chemistry. It wasn’t easy – you have to defend your views and your field, sometimes quite strongly, especially when resources are limited. But in the end, I could sleep at night, and that’s important.
Turner: We often talk about gender, but leadership also involves much broader questions about diversity. For me, leading a team that includes people from all over the world, with very different cultural backgrounds and values, is a much bigger challenge than the issue of men versus women.
Turner: When I talk to my children, I realize that young people today don’t think so much in terms of gender binaries anymore. They don’t like being put into boxes – male or female – they just are who they are. So in the future, I think leadership will have to focus even more on diversity in a broader sense.
Kohler: The diversity among students – in gender, nationality, and culture – is huge, especially at the master’s and PhD levels. But as you go further up in academia, the diversity decreases. The higher you go, the more homogenous it becomes – often white, male, and older. I’d love to see more leaders who represent the full range of backgrounds so the next generation can look up and think, I can do that too.
When I was younger, I assumed that if I wanted to advance, I’d have to fit into whatever the established model of leadership was – working 60-hour weeks, joining the right groups, doing things “the way it’s done.” But at some point, I realized I didn’t want to fit into that. So I decided to do things differently, and it turns out that’s OK. Some even told me I’d become a role model because I was showing another way of leading – a different kind of success.
I think it’s important that young people see there isn’t just one model to follow. You don’t need to copy someone else’s framework to be a leader. You can define your own path and your own way of leading. For some, that might mean chasing big grants and awards; for others, it might mean building something meaningful in a quieter way. We should value all of those versions of leadership. And by doing that, we show how much diversity there really is – and can be – in leadership within our field.
Isabelle Kohler is Assistant Professor, Division of BioAnalytical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and CEO and Founder, NextMinds; Charlotta Turner is Professor and Vice Dean of Education, Lund University, Faculty of Science, Sweden; and Lourdes Ramos is Senior Research Scientist, Department of Instrumental Analysis and Environmental Chemistry, Institute of Organic Chemistry (CSIC), Madrid, Spain
Newsletters
Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
