A few years ago, the idea of a new-generation load-bearing biomaterial made from wood seemed almost unbelievable. Yet it was precisely this idea that took Laura Andži, Leading Researcher at the Latvian State Institute of Wood Chemistry (LVKĶI), to the final selection round of the European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant competition — the interview.
The ERC Starting Grant is one of the most prestigious European Research Council grants for young scientists who are establishing their own independent research direction and pursuing ambitious, high-risk scientific ideas. The interview was the second and final selection round of the competition.
Laura took part in the competition with the OsteoWood project. The ERC project idea grew out of the insights gained during the OsteoWood project developed within the BioPhoT platform, but is based on a new scientific hypothesis about the interaction between wood, biopolymers and suberinic acids. The aim of the project is to understand whether these interactions can be used to create a new generation of load-bearing biomaterials for medical needs.
We invited Laura to a conversation about the nearly year-long work on the project, the path to the ERC interview and the insights this process has given her as a researcher.
You worked on the ERC application for almost a year. How did your view of the idea itself change during this time?
When I began writing the ERC project, my attention was mainly focused on the final material — whether it is possible to create a load-bearing implant from modified wood. However, during the development of the project, especially in discussions with ERC consultants and while preparing for the interview, my perspective changed significantly. I realised that the true value of the project lies not only in the new material, but in the fundamental scientific questions it makes possible to ask.
Each technological step became a separate research question — how does pretreatment change the wood cell wall and affect the access of polymers? Which suberinic acid fractions are able to penetrate wood, and how do they interact with wood polymers and chitosan? How are bonds formed between these components, and how do they determine the material’s mechanical properties, swelling and biological behaviour?
While working on the project, I increasingly came to understand that the development process itself was becoming a platform for seeking new scientific answers.
In parallel, I also had to gain a very deep understanding of biomaterials and implant research — the methods, requirements and aspects that we do not even think about in everyday wood science, such as long-term behaviour under physiological conditions or the interaction of the material with living tissue. In my view, this is precisely what made this year so valuable.
How did you feel when you learned that you had been invited to the interview?
It was a very special moment. At that time, I was working with my bachelor’s student on her thesis proposal — formulating the hypothesis and research tasks. At that very moment, an email arrived from the ERC.
When I opened it, I automatically thought: “Well, yes, probably a rejection.” But as I read further, I realised that I had been invited to the interview.
Honestly, I reread the letter several times, because at first I simply could not believe it. Of course, great joy followed. I ran to tell my colleagues, returned to my student and, for a long time, could not stop smiling. But along with the joy came something else too — the feeling that the idea I myself had believed in for several years had received very serious international recognition.
I received many congratulations with the comment that the invitation to the interview itself was already a huge achievement. And, perhaps for the first time during this project, I myself felt a very strong conviction that this idea truly deserved to be among the best.
After that, however, the emotions were quickly replaced by work. Intensive preparation for the interview began — meetings with ERC consultants, countless practice interviews, questions from colleagues and many hours spent trying to look at the project from a wide range of perspectives.
What has this process given you as a researcher?
Probably the most important thing is that I have learned to think about scientific projects in a very different way. Until now, my experience has mostly been related to studies in which a practical application has to be demonstrated very quickly — what we will be able to use after a year, what problem we will solve and where this technology can be implemented. The ERC process made me start from a completely different question — not what we will gain, but what new knowledge we are currently lacking.
While writing the project and preparing for the interview, I realised that a truly strong scientific idea is not just a good final result or technology. It is an idea that asks fundamental questions and creates new knowledge. In this process, I learned to formulate scientific questions much more clearly, to think more broadly and to build a project on several levels — both with a clear practical goal and with a deep fundamental rationale.
Often, from the outside, it may seem that fundamental science studies very narrow or even insignificant things. But in reality, it is precisely these small answers that become the foundation for the next major discoveries. Nothing in science emerges out of nowhere — every new solution is based on previously accumulated knowledge, and our task is to add to this body of knowledge. Only after that do technologies, products and practical applications emerge.
In my view, this is the greatest benefit of this year — not only a much deeper understanding of my own research, but also a completely different perspective on how truly ambitious science is created. Regardless of the final result, this has been one of the most valuable professional processes of my career.
