Transcript

Dr. Simon Bare · PodCAT

0:10
Mark Porisov: Welcome to podcast, the one stop shop for all your catalysis
0:13
needs. I'm Mark Borisov.
0:14
Tom Sentley: I'm Tom Sentfley.
0:16
Ezra Clark: And I'm Ezra Clark.
0:17
Mark Porisov: Today we have Doctor Simon Baer, a distinguished scientist
0:20
at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. He earned
0:23
his bachelor's in chemistry and PhD in surface chemistry from the
0:26
University of Liverpool in the UK. He was a
0:29
postdoctoral fellow at both Cornell University and Lawrence
0:31
Berkeley National Laboratory. He then transitioned in
0:34
industry and held various positions in catalysis research at the
0:37
Dow Chemical Company for over ten years and then
0:40
UOP, a Honeywell company for 19 years.
0:43
He then had a career change and joined Stanford.
0:45
Synchrotron radiation, light source, SSRL at
0:48
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in
0:50
2016. His group currently collaborates with over
0:53
30 catalysis focused research groups in the US and
0:56
globally. He has offered over 200
0:59
publications and holds ten us patents and is
1:02
a fellow of the AAA's. And so with that, Simon, we'd
1:05
like to welcome you on podcast.
1:07
Speaker D: Thank you. It's great to be here.
1:09
Mark Porisov: Yeah, and we like to kind of start out these
1:11
episodes just hearing your story.
1:13
So what attracted you to a career in
1:15
catalysis science? How did you get involved in
1:18
catalysis?
1:20
Speaker D: okay, so I actually had not planned to have
1:23
a career in catalysis. I wasn't one of these people who
1:26
were driven by a particular
1:29
science and a particular felt like I
1:32
fit in somewhere and was moving forward in something.
1:35
So going back to, really high
1:38
school, you've got to start off in high school in the UK
1:41
where the age of 16, you have to
1:43
decide which three subjects you're going
1:46
to study. So you've really focused down
1:49
early on. And at the time, my
1:52
favorite subject was actually geography and
1:55
I assumed I was going to study geography.
1:58
but then you can't just do geographies. Then you had to pick two other
2:01
subjects and I picked chemistry because I felt that was, I was pretty
2:04
good at that, and math because I was pretty good at that.
2:07
So then, okay, that's fine, you sort of move forward in
2:10
that and then you apply to college
2:12
and it's like, okay, what would I
2:15
study? And I was advised that the only thing you
2:18
can do with a degree in geography is teach geography.
2:21
And so there's more, more opportunity
2:24
if you study chemistry. So, okay, fine, I'm going to study
2:27
chemistry now. And so that's where I
2:30
started off, was going into chemistry. and I was lucky,
2:33
very fortunate in my honours year at
2:35
Liverpool to do a honours research
2:38
project with Professor David King. Now,
2:41
Sir David, of course,
2:44
and he was the one that introduced me to the world of surface
2:47
science. And so back in the day, if
2:50
you remember back in those days, I mean, surface science
2:53
was incredible. I mean, so many fantastic
2:56
research groups worldwide looking
2:59
at surface chemistry. And I was just
3:01
absolutely intrigued. His group was dynamic,
3:05
all sorts of opportunities.
3:08
And so their link to
3:10
catalysis was through surface science. You know, I was
3:13
doing ultra high vacuum single crystals
3:16
in, you know, big vacuum chambers, all the surface
3:18
science techniques. That's what sort of
3:21
converted me into thinking about a career in
3:24
catalysis. So it wasn't direct, it was more an
3:27
indirect into catalysis
3:29
science. And indeed, even
3:32
though after graduating with a degree in
3:34
chemistry, I had planned to go into industry at
3:37
that point. but once again,
3:40
it was Dave King that persuaded me to stay
3:43
in his research group and do a PhD.
3:46
And thinking back on it, it was a really
3:49
exciting time. Harold Eback,
3:52
had just invented this
3:55
new technique, high resolution electron energy loss
3:58
spectroscopy. Hurrills doing vibrational
4:01
spectroscopy using electrons. For my
4:04
PhD, I was given a brand new uhv
4:06
chamber with a hurrill system. And, wow,
4:09
I mean, how could anybody, you know, turn that down?
4:12
So that got me into uhv surface science. And of
4:15
course, as one writes in the first paragraph of
4:18
any paper of why you're doing that research, you
4:21
say, oh, well, yes, catalysis science is
4:24
surface chemistry, and so I can study single
4:27
crystals. So that's where it all started off.
4:31
Ezra Clark: And then what attracted you to come to the United
4:33
States, ah, after you finished your PhD?
4:36
Speaker D: Ah. Ah, that's an interesting one.
4:40
so I've got to put a bit of personal life into
4:43
this in that, back in those
4:46
days, my whole life
4:48
surrounded itself with rugby. I played
4:51
rugby from the very early age and actually
4:54
ended up playing rugby for about 30 years. I
4:57
was passionate about it. It was my life. I was actually
5:00
quite successful at it. And
5:02
so after graduating with my PhD,
5:05
I really didn't quite know what I wanted to
5:08
do, but I knew I wanted to keep doing what I was doing. I
5:11
was enjoying life. It seemed like a great opportunity,
5:14
and I've always enjoyed traveling. So it's like, okay, let's
5:17
do a postdoc. And I was
5:20
actually offered a postdoc, with Alex Bradshaw
5:23
at the Fritz Harbor Institute in Berlin. And I went
5:26
there and visited. But
5:29
the year before that, I was invited with
5:32
my rugby club, my home rugby club, Gosforth
5:35
rugby club in England, to tour the
5:37
US. So the prior year, I, did
5:40
a tour with my rugby club down the east coast of the
5:43
US. And it's like, wow. And I
5:46
think people growing up in the US, sort
5:49
of thinking back to those days, I mean,
5:52
growing up watching tv, it was all american
5:54
tv shows, right? And it was this thing,
5:57
America was this place you just wanted to go
6:00
visit. And so I'm thinking, okay,
6:04
I can go to Berlin, maybe there's a postdoc I can get in
6:07
the US. And thankfully I was offered a postdoc with
6:10
Wilson Ho at Cornell University.
6:12
And that's what brought me to the
6:15
US. And I think had I not been on that, rugby
6:18
tour, I don't think I would have ended up in the US.
6:21
I probably would have gone the european route. So once
6:24
again, like near the personal side, sort of creeps
6:26
in, together with the work side.
6:31
Tom Sentley: It seems like that's a common theme. in a lot of these
6:33
interviews, it's always a mixture of
6:36
serendipity and, just a genuine interest in
6:39
science. But it's, very interesting to hear all
6:42
the different ways that people end up kind of in catalysis.
6:45
So I have a question. So your background has a nice kind of mixture
6:48
of industry, but obviously working very closely with academics.
6:51
And so my PhD students always ask me,
6:54
what is it going to be like if I go into industry and do research versus
6:57
academia? And I try to approximate what it will be like
7:00
in industry. Of course, I've never been there, so I don't actually
7:02
know. So, could you offer students who are
7:05
on the fence between the two some advice?
7:08
Speaker D: I get asked that fairly frequently. Ah, now, of
7:11
course, being in more of an academic role, and
7:14
I think my sort of career track has been a little different,
7:17
perhaps to some people. I
7:20
mean, going back in the day, maybe I'll just sort of
7:23
continue the story a little bit to sort of address that,
7:26
that I was once again, you know,
7:29
the ability
7:31
to understand fundamental
7:34
phenomena, to really understand something at the
7:37
atomic level, I think is something that has always
7:40
driven me and, you know, the
7:43
techniques, the capabilities we had coming
7:46
from the surface science community were just really
7:48
exquisite. And so I always
7:51
had this, need to want to
7:54
understand. So let's
7:57
sort of pass that to one side. There's that side,
8:00
and then it's like, okay, well, you have this
8:03
choice. You go the academic track or you do
8:05
industry, perhaps. I mean, there's many other opportunities,
8:08
as we well know, in the sciences, but let's just assume it's
8:11
those two. Well, then
8:14
I'm going to go back and say, the
8:17
demands on an assistant professor in the
8:20
US currently, I think, are extreme
8:23
to get that tenure. It's just, you're
8:26
giving up so much to achieve that.
8:29
And by the time I had done my
8:32
second postdoc, I was just a little
8:34
disenchanted with the academic
8:37
scene. It was time for something different. And more
8:40
importantly, I was freshly married, and it was like, okay,
8:43
you need to earn some money. And so it was
8:46
really that, that sort of drove me into
8:48
industry. more than. I've, got
8:51
this real passion now, I'm going to do something in
8:54
industry. But having said that, you're in
8:57
industry. I mean, you're there to make money for the
9:00
company. I mean, that is the most important thing,
9:03
or money for the shareholders if it's a public
9:05
company. And so you've always got to keep
9:08
that, that in the back of your mind. And so
9:11
as, as an R and D organization,
9:13
you're not making money for the company. You're
9:16
spending the company's money with the
9:19
aim to make money somewhere 510
9:22
years down the road. And so there's
9:25
that aspect of it. I think
9:28
in industry, there is this sort of satisfaction
9:30
that something you do would be translated
9:33
into something that makes
9:36
money. There's that drive towards it.
9:39
There is this, oh, my God, I did this. And
9:42
now I can claim this particular process
9:45
is commercial. There aren't that many of
9:48
those successes, to be quite honest. But there are many,
9:51
many aspects where you can see some
9:54
aspect of what you have done that
9:56
translates into something really tangible
9:59
as opposed to. And I'm just going to be a bit of,
10:02
hearsay, just a publication.
10:05
Right. but then it goes back
10:08
to, well, you've got to have
10:10
that, desire to
10:13
want to go down that
10:16
path. And I'm just going to be honest here and
10:19
say that. And I think people
10:22
that work with me through my times in industry
10:24
will see this, that once
10:27
I was working on projects, and once it got to
10:30
the point of, going towards
10:33
commercialization, my interest
10:35
dropped off because then it was no
10:38
longer about the science. There were
10:41
many, many other questions that needed to be addressed in
10:44
terms of optimization, but it
10:47
was no longer the drive to understand.
10:50
You didn't need to understand in order
10:53
to make the process commercial. I mean,
10:56
in certain regards, yes, absolutely, but
10:58
not always. and so there's
11:01
this, you have to sort of balance what it
11:03
is that you're most passionate about,
11:06
you know, and even going back to my time
11:09
in industry, I mean, the first few years at Dow were
11:12
really quite incredible. In the central R and D
11:15
in those days, I mean, we had a whole group doing ultra high
11:18
vacuum surface science. You know, big uhv chambers
11:21
were studying single crystals. It was
11:24
really quite incredible. But of course,
11:27
you know, working in industry and this is something else
11:30
I think people have to think about. the way I always
11:33
say it when I'm talking to students is the company you
11:36
join today will not be the company you
11:39
leave in ten years, 15 years, five
11:42
years time. Companies change, companies
11:44
evolve. A new CEO comes in, the
11:47
company's bought and sold. So you have to be
11:50
flexible, you have to adapt. And at any
11:53
time, any of those junctions, you have to decide,
11:57
are, my career goals aligned
12:00
with this new organization? Am I willing to
12:03
adapt? And so for me, going back to
12:06
my time at Dow for the first
12:08
five years or something, I'm doing uhv surface science
12:11
is fantastic. But then it became
12:14
very, very clear. Management change,
12:17
change of focus, economy
12:19
changes. The,
12:22
support, management support for that was falling
12:24
off. So then you had to reinvent yourself. And
12:27
for me, reinventing was, oh, I've got to, I've
12:30
got to. I've always had this passion for catalyst
12:33
characterization. I mean, that's really what I do. I
12:36
characterize catalysts using whatever method
12:39
that we can to try to understand that atomic level
12:41
detail. I had to come up with a characterization
12:44
method that I could use on a real catalyst.
12:47
Doing model catalysts
12:50
wasn't going to cut it. I had to think of something. And this
12:53
is where I got into using synchrotrons.
12:56
And the other thing that, I sort of think about in
12:59
terms of working in industry, too, if you're
13:02
very much going to be on the science side,
13:05
the R and D side. Once again,
13:08
in industry, you have two tracks, right? You have
13:11
the management track and you have the
13:13
scientific track. And that's also a big decision
13:16
you're gonna have to make at one time. What is it that
13:19
drives you? What is it you most want to do?
13:22
Do you want to be the decision maker, thinking about
13:25
the forward looking of the company, how we're going to make
13:28
investments? Or do you want to be in the lab
13:31
synthesizing that catalyst, testing that
13:33
catalyst? And if
13:36
you're on that management track,
13:39
you're going to be on a very different line compared to the
13:42
people in the lab. And I always,
13:45
was given this advice early on in my industrial
13:48
career. Don't get attached to any one
13:51
manager. The managers are going to come and go.
13:54
They're on a different timeline to you. You're going to have
13:57
good managers, you're going to have managers that you
14:00
sometimes struggle with. Don't get caught
14:02
up in that. Keep going with your research. Keep focus
14:05
on what you're doing. You'll get rewarded. The
14:08
managers will come and the managers will go.
14:11
So that's just something else to sort of think
14:14
about.
14:17
Speaker D: And then in the academic side, I mean, coming back in
14:20
the academic side now,
14:23
if I have to think about it, I mean, what is it we really
14:26
do? We really educate students,
14:30
we publish papers, we drive the science
14:32
forward. But in the end, it comes down to,
14:35
we're working with students, we're working with postdocs, we're trying
14:38
to set them up for their future careers, we're trying to
14:41
educate them and put them on a
14:44
different track. And so that's the way I
14:47
think about what I'm doing now compared to what it's like in
14:50
industry. I mean, there's really no educational, I would,
14:53
well, you could argue, but I don't think there's really much
14:55
educational component in industry. You're working on a
14:58
team, you're together. That aspect is not
15:01
a key component, whereas now it's central
15:04
to, into what we all do.
15:07
Mark Porisov: So you're really known now
15:10
as probably a handful of synchrotron
15:13
experts in the world. Like what if you
15:15
want, XFS measurements, if you want data
15:18
analysis, Simon is your go to
15:20
guy. And when you first
15:23
started, I think it maybe is a little bit of a
15:26
different track than people who get into
15:29
XFS now, which is you started doing it in
15:32
industry, but today it seems like students will get
15:35
involved in their PI's lab and then they'll go into industry
15:38
having this extra credential
15:40
on their belt.
15:42
Mark Porisov: And so for you, when you first.
15:43
Mark Porisov: Started doing synchrotron experiments, were you at the beam line
15:46
all night or how did that go down for you? What
15:49
were your first experiments like?
15:53
Speaker D: Mark? Yeah, absolutely. and this was
15:57
the synchrotron. Life is definitely something a little
15:59
unique. I think it still is, and
16:02
either you get it or you don't. And I see
16:05
this now with different groups coming in, different students coming
16:08
in. Some students just
16:11
resonate. Oh, my God, what an incredible
16:13
atmosphere to be in, to do research,
16:16
surrounded by all this stuff.
16:18
And so back in the day, yeah, I mean, industry, we
16:21
didn't have, I mean, I was the one at the beam
16:24
line, designing the experiments, running
16:27
experiments, collecting the data, interpreting the
16:30
data, reporting out to the project
16:32
teams. I mean, the
16:35
organizations I was in, we weren't sort of
16:37
technician heavy, if you will, you know, the
16:40
scientists, was the one, you know, the
16:43
staff scientist at the company was the one doing the work. You were
16:46
actually in the lab. And that is something,
16:49
actually, that, has always driven me. I loved
16:52
being in the lab doing things, you know,
16:55
and it's one of the reasons why I decided not
16:57
to go down the management track. I
17:00
liked being in the lab doing things,
17:04
and so now being at asynchrotron,
17:06
surrounded by all this stuff was just absolutely
17:09
incredible. It really was.
17:13
I mean, it's a different environment when you think about it. I
17:16
mean, you're doing an experiment, you know, students doing an experiment in the
17:19
lab, only to break something. It doesn't work
17:22
today, the GC's down. Well, you fix it and you do
17:25
it again next week. You know, the beam line, you've
17:27
got four days. You've got to get
17:30
everything working. You've got to
17:33
get in, get out, and
17:36
move forward. That creates
17:39
a different way of thinking about how I do
17:42
my experiments. I've really got a plan.
17:46
and this is one of those things that, coming from an
17:48
industry standpoint, the word
17:51
efficiency isn't necessarily the first
17:53
thing that you think about at a beam line. at
17:56
least that's what I saw as an industry person coming
17:59
in to use a beam line. And it's one of the things I've
18:02
tried to focus on in my
18:05
research group here. but it's a
18:07
very different environment. you've got to take your
18:10
chemistry that, you know, or your colleague is
18:13
working. I mean, going back to my
18:16
time in industry, I mean, I was not the one running the
18:19
reactions in the lab, testing the
18:21
catalyst, but I had to duplicate
18:24
as closely as possible what they were doing in
18:27
the lab to the beam line. and so that
18:30
was, you know, all
18:33
the gases, liquids, whatever it was, I've
18:36
got to get the atmosphere what I want it to be. I've
18:39
got to try to approximate those conditions so I can get
18:42
my x ray beam in, my x ray beam out, get
18:45
some data in a timeline
18:47
that would provide feedback to the
18:50
project. And then thinking back on
18:53
it, I think that was the most difficult
18:56
part of the way beam times were
18:59
assigned. In that projects,
19:02
you typically have a project team meeting every week,
19:05
and you had to provide what you had done
19:08
to keep the project moving forward. These really strict
19:11
timelines of drive towards commercialization
19:14
or development. And, well, I
19:17
don't have beam time until six months from now. That's not
19:20
a satisfactory answer. Right. And
19:23
so then, you know, the needs for industry at a beam line are quite
19:26
different, perhaps from an academic group.
19:29
but, yeah, I mean, I was there at the beam line doing all
19:32
of that. I were a team, right? It was team based.
19:35
And actually, back in the day, I actually liked the night
19:38
shift, to be quite honest. I loved working
19:41
the night shift because it was quiet. You were on
19:44
your own. You had to make decisions on the fly, you
19:47
know, what do I do next? Oh, this is broken. How do I fix
19:50
this? Oh, my God. This didn't work out the way it was supposed
19:53
to do. What do I do now? So that just on the
19:56
fly thinking, on your own, it's a
19:59
very, very different environment. It really was, compared
20:02
to working in a lab back at
20:04
Uop or at Dow.
20:08
Ezra Clark: And then how did you make the transition from industry
20:11
back to academia? And what
20:14
prompted that transition?
20:18
Speaker D: okay, so, like I say,
20:21
industry, the focus changes.
20:25
you see things
20:27
happening, and you sort of take all this, all this
20:30
data. And so, I mean, back in the day, uop,
20:33
I, mean, uop, if you look at the history of the company, it
20:36
has gone through a lot of transitions. At
20:39
the time, Uop had been fully,
20:42
ah, acquired by, they bought out Dow chemical
20:45
share, and it was wholly owned now by Honeywell.
20:48
So I was part of this. And that's maybe something I
20:51
should have stated earlier about industry. There is no one
20:54
industry. You say, what's it like to work in industry? Working for a
20:57
small startup, of course, is very different for working with
21:00
a major, corporation like Dow or
21:03
Honeywell. But I had left near
21:06
Dow and all the bureaucracy that
21:09
went with that to go to this
21:11
uop, which was at, those days, fairly autonomous.
21:14
It was always owned by two
21:17
companies, but it was basically left on its own. And it
21:20
had this real sort of family type
21:22
atmosphere. People supported each other,
21:25
people worked for each other. You felt like you were part
21:28
of something. And then all of a sudden, this big
21:31
behemoth, sorry, Honeywell, comes
21:33
in and takes over, and now you have all
21:36
that bureaucracy back again.
21:39
And so there was that in the back of my mind,
21:42
and then I just sort of saw
21:46
the support for what I was doing
21:49
seemed to be waning a little bit.
21:51
and at the time, I was on the
21:54
science advisory committee at
21:56
SSRL here at Slacken,
21:59
and they were working on their
22:02
strategic plan, and
22:04
they decided that catalysis science was
22:07
something they wanted to emphasize.
22:11
and so they, decided they were going to make a strategic
22:14
hire, to drive that strategic plan
22:17
forward. And so, as the committee, we came
22:20
up with some names of people that we thought they should
22:23
look at. They went out and they made an offer to
22:26
someone who then turned them down and went
22:28
into, ah, academia. And so
22:31
one of the, advisor committee meetings, I just sort of
22:34
made this flippant comment, well, how about me
22:37
not thinking? I was really serious about
22:40
that? And they said, are you serious? I'm
22:43
like, I don't know, am I serious?
22:48
And so over the course of a year, going back and forth,
22:51
talking about it, thinking about it,
22:53
I mean, I made this sort of comment to a friend.
22:56
I said I could have become the grumpy old man in the corner
22:59
office, complaining and moaning about management and
23:02
all this sort of stuff, and just seeing my career
23:05
out for the last ten years or something.
23:08
Or you could take on a real new challenge and
23:11
take on something that was motivating, something that was
23:14
energizing, something that sort of drives you forward.
23:17
I think that's also something you always have to think
23:20
about in any stage of your career.
23:23
How do I motivate myself? What is
23:26
it the next thing that's going to drive me forward?
23:29
What is it that's going to make me feel like I'm,
23:32
satisfied in what I do? We spend
23:34
inordinate amount of hours at work, and so you
23:37
better enjoy it. You need to be
23:40
thinking through that. After a lot of
23:42
discussion, I'm like, okay, fine. You know, I felt like
23:45
I had ten years at Dow, 20 years,
23:48
if you will, at UOp, I'll commit to ten years,
23:51
out here at slack. I think it's going to be longer than that because
23:54
the things are going really quite well.
23:57
And it was more, it was a bit more than that. You know,
24:00
that, I had been involved in the
24:03
synchrotron game for several decades
24:05
now. as a user coming from
24:08
the outside and seeing things from the inside, you
24:11
have all these ideas, ways that perhaps you think
24:14
you could do things better than the way things were being
24:17
done. And of course, you know, once you're outside and now you're
24:20
inside, you see it's
24:23
a little, you're exposed to different
24:25
things. But it just gave me this
24:27
opportunity to sort of think about,
24:30
what is it catalysis science needs
24:33
at a synchrotron? How could I think
24:36
about ways to providing
24:39
a service to that community?
24:42
And really, that's the way I sort of thought about it,
24:45
that I felt, look, okay, I've had this career
24:48
in industry. I did okay.
24:52
I felt like I wanted to give back,
24:55
and so I view myself more as an enabler
24:58
I wanted to enable the science
25:01
of whoever wanted to come to the
25:03
synchrotron. And
25:06
for me, what I really saw was,
25:09
I mean, there are, if you think about it, there were
25:12
these research groups that have used the beam
25:15
lines for a long, long time, these very
25:18
established groups doing fantastic research.
25:21
But I felt there was so much more, out
25:24
there that were not taking advantage of the
25:26
synchrotron. And they needed a helping hand,
25:29
especially an assistant professor starting
25:32
off. They've got limited startup funds.
25:35
what is it I could provide to them? And not just
25:38
me, I meant my group. When I say me, I'm not
25:41
talking about me. I'm talking about the capability we have here at
25:44
SSRL within my group. What is it we could
25:47
do to give a helping hand to that
25:50
assistant professor starting off to give them a
25:53
bit of a head start, something perhaps they wouldn't normally
25:56
be exposed to. They would just add a little, bit
25:59
more dynamic aspect to what they were thinking
26:02
about in the lab. Yeah. So that's how
26:05
I ended up, at SSRL,
26:07
bringing maybe the conversation a.
26:09
Tom Sentley: Little bit towards the technical side.
26:11
So what are some of the maybe technological
26:15
advancements, maybe step changes that you see
26:18
in the nearish
26:20
future that you're excited about.
26:24
Speaker D: From the synchrotron side? I mean, to
26:27
me, and it goes back to something
26:30
that has always bothered me a little bit in catalysis
26:33
science, a static picture versus a
26:35
dynamic picture. You know, me
26:38
going back to my time in single crystal surface
26:41
science, right? You had this single crystal, you
26:44
had molecules, atoms bound to the surface,
26:47
and you had this structure, but that's not catalysis.
26:50
Right? And I think even in
26:53
a lot of the work in exaft, we have a structure,
26:56
and this is a structure, but we know it's
26:58
changing on many different timescales.
27:01
And so for me, I mean, this is where, I mean, I've
27:04
been very fortunate in the success that we've had
27:07
here at SSRL. You know, the management has
27:10
put this money in to build this new beam line to
27:13
do quick scanning xfs. And
27:16
so now we can move into the sub second,
27:19
the millisecond time scale, to look at
27:21
dynamics. And I think both from the
27:24
theory side, from the experimental side,
27:27
this idea that are we going to follow
27:30
dynamics? And so that is absolutely one
27:33
aspect that I think really excites me.
27:36
And it's what we're gearing
27:38
up over this next, hopefully a year from now, if I
27:41
was doing this, would have some beautiful data
27:44
to share. We're very close to, being
27:47
operable. but to me, it's
27:49
dynamics.
27:50
having said that, then, the other
27:53
aspect that I sort of always think about then
27:56
is the data
27:58
interpretation. It's easy to
28:01
collect reams and reams of data. And
28:04
from the synchrotron standpoint, that is
28:06
absolutely true. But then the choke point is
28:09
always in how do I turn that data into
28:12
knowledge? This is where
28:15
now, I think AI
28:17
ML using those tools
28:21
combined with advanced
28:23
theory, because we need the theoretical
28:26
interpretation of the spectra that we're measuring
28:29
together. Now, you put in dynamics,
28:32
I think it really will create a step
28:35
change in our ability to translate that
28:38
spectrum that I'm measuring into some knowledge.
28:41
And of course, I mean, I, as you know, I mean, I'm.
28:44
My whole world revolves around synchrotrons, but
28:47
there's only one piece of the puzzle, right? There
28:50
are so many other advancements
28:53
being made in all sorts of catalysis science.
28:57
I mean, these efforts in,
29:00
alternate ways to get energy into
29:03
my catalytic system, I think, is something that's
29:06
attracting quite a bit of attention. It's. We're
29:09
interested in this. Is that something that's
29:12
really going to transform the field? Yeah, maybe.
29:15
I think it's early days yet,
29:17
but I think the
29:20
ability to really
29:22
interpret the spectra that we're measuring, and
29:25
especially in catalysis,
29:28
in the x ray absorption spectroscopy, which
29:30
is what we do here, that you're
29:33
measuring a signal that is the average of all of
29:36
that element that's in my sample. And
29:39
so I think methods to,
29:42
better process that data to
29:45
get out the, let's
29:48
say the signal from the, actual
29:50
active site, I think, is something that
29:53
is. We'll see big changes in that
29:56
moving forward in the next decade as well.
29:59
Tom Sentley: M. Yeah, I've started to see some research along
30:02
those lines, which is taking advantage of all the
30:05
facial recognition software that's available, right,
30:08
where you have a stadium full of people and you're looking for
30:11
one person and it's kind of the same, right? We're looking for
30:13
one atom that's doing the catalysis in a sea of
30:16
spectators. And, I never really thought that
30:19
something like facial recognition was going to end up
30:21
revolutionizing catalysis, but now I think it might. We'll
30:24
see.
30:25
Speaker D: No, I'm long with you on those lines,
30:28
and I think that's something that the
30:31
community is realizing. I mean, look at the Nobel
30:34
prizes this year, right? the community
30:37
is recognizing that, and
30:40
I think as a physical chemist,
30:43
from a surface scientist, the skill
30:46
set required is a little different now. I
30:49
think this next generation of what they need to bring
30:52
in as a catalyst, a science researcher, I
30:54
think some of that is going to be
30:57
different. even something,
31:00
you've probably all seen this in your own research groups too,
31:03
right? The ability to program on the fly,
31:06
is just so necessary now
31:10
in scientific research.
31:13
I mean, that was not the case
31:16
when I was starting off my career, but
31:19
now I see that as being essential. You've got to have that
31:22
ability to,
31:25
just basically on the fly, develop the software,
31:28
develop the analysis tools to do what it is that
31:31
you're doing. And so I think that combined with
31:34
what you're saying, in terms of using the
31:37
power of AI,
31:41
to look forward, how is that really going to impact?
31:44
I don't have the ability to do that, but I know it's going to
31:47
have huge impact.
31:50
Mark Porisov: Do you think these new, potentially
31:52
new AI tools are going to help with the
31:55
barrier for entry into synchrotron
31:58
science? Because I think the barrier is really
32:01
high. You have to be able to communicate with the
32:04
beamline scientists and understand how to run your experiment and
32:07
really have a good sense of the technique and knowing
32:10
what you're going to do. But then, as you said, the data
32:13
analysis is this huge other beast
32:15
wherever. A lot of these tools are really
32:18
cumbersome and difficult to use and
32:21
unless you have really explicit
32:24
training, you get to that point and then it's like, what do
32:27
I do with these spectra?
32:29
Speaker D: Yeah, I mean, this is, this
32:32
is the, yeah, this is the elephant in the room,
32:35
you know, in synchrotron science, and it's something
32:38
as a group, we have tried to break
32:41
the, the door down in terms of the entry.
32:44
Yeah, for sure. And it's good and bad,
32:47
right. Because we are so
32:49
oversubscribed now. We've been
32:52
successful, we're working with many, many groups. And the thing
32:55
that is the most frustrating thing for me now is where
32:57
you've had all of these meetings with the students, with the
33:00
PI, you've got the proposal in,
33:03
they've got a decent score, but it's not
33:06
good enough to get the beam time. And so you've gone through all
33:09
this exercise and you're all excited, you're fired
33:11
up, but then there's no time.
33:14
And so, do we want more users?
33:17
Always, right? I mean, that's the lifeblood of
33:20
our facilities, of the use of facilities. Without the
33:23
users, we have nothing, right? We exist for the
33:26
users. And so then where are
33:29
the choke points now in terms
33:32
of, getting
33:34
knowledge, if you will. there's
33:37
always the time to collect the data. There's always the time
33:40
to set the experiment up.
33:44
I can't see how that's going to change. I mean, in
33:47
terms of the user base. I mean, the one thing
33:50
that perhaps we haven't touched on is
33:52
automation, remote access, things like that,
33:55
that many, many synchrotrons are working towards. And
33:58
rightly so. I mean, there is the cost
34:00
associated with coming to the beam line. and
34:03
so it puts some groups off
34:06
for sure. And so if they could run those experiments
34:09
remotely, then it creates, I mean, in
34:12
terms of our diversity of users that we could have access
34:15
to, perhaps not just from
34:17
the research groups that are very well
34:20
funded. If the student could run the beam
34:23
line from the home institution, well,
34:26
that's fantastic, right? I mean, we learned during
34:29
COVID sort of, how to do that. You know, the group would
34:32
be on Zoom, we'd be at the beam line collecting the
34:34
data for them. They'd be, you know, hand holding
34:37
us as to what should happen
34:40
next. so that is something I think we will
34:43
see moving forward. yeah, but I mean,
34:46
Mark, I think I would agree with you that the data
34:48
analysis, how are we going to
34:51
move that forward? And,
34:54
yeah, maybe some of
34:57
these advanced tools will help us do that. but
35:00
we're still limited by the number of beam lines, the number
35:03
of facilities that are in
35:06
existence. But there's also,
35:09
as you all know, these lab based sources
35:12
now for doing extra absorption
35:15
spectroscopy. That community is growing quite
35:17
rapidly. You're trying to fill this gap because
35:20
there's a need, and that's
35:23
a subject perhaps for another day in terms
35:26
of what's the future of these large
35:28
facilities like synchrotrons?
35:31
Where is that user base going?
35:34
I feel that the information we provide,
35:38
that we can look at the catalyst
35:41
wireless under operating conditions.
35:44
There aren't that many techniques
35:47
that give you that ability to do that.
35:50
And so I don't see the need going
35:53
away. But I think it's a serious question
35:56
to ask is where
35:59
is the field going? How do we satisfy
36:01
the need for that? Is the track that
36:04
we're on now the right one?
36:08
but, yeah, I certainly understand
36:10
this, barrier to
36:13
entry. but I think it is something, as a group, we
36:16
have really tried to lower
36:19
that barrier to entry,
36:21
and we'll keep on hammering at that. There's so
36:24
much wonderful science going on out there. There's so many
36:27
opportunities for us to make a difference.
36:30
And I'm saying us. And it's not just sSrl, right?
36:33
I mean, all these facilities. Right.
36:36
yeah.
36:38
Ezra Clark: I'm curious, what recommendations do you have for young
36:41
scientists, either postdocs, assistant professors that are working
36:44
on preparing their first beamline proposal?
36:47
Are there any common pitfalls? You see
36:50
any just general advice that you could give to those
36:53
folks?
36:56
Speaker D: make sure what we have seen from the
36:59
reviewers, you know, that I mean, these proposals,
37:02
they're reviewed, right? And you get a score.
37:05
it has to be hypothesis based. You've got to have a
37:08
hypothesis where you show that if I
37:11
make this measurement, I can make some inroads
37:14
on, I can prove or disprove my
37:16
hypothesis. It's going to drive the field
37:19
forward. that is the major thing
37:22
to me. you can't just say, I've got these samples, I'm doing
37:25
this interesting science, give me some bean time.
37:27
May be nice if that was the case.
37:31
but in some regards, this is where it's a little
37:33
strange. You have, or the assistant professor
37:36
has done a fantastic job. They've
37:39
written this proposal, they've got some money from the
37:41
NSF, the science has been
37:44
reviewed, and it's been given the go
37:46
ahead. Now you're saying, I just want some
37:49
beam time. M. And so the frustrating part to
37:52
me is when you get comments back on a
37:55
proposal that questions the science,
37:57
versus is this, what are they
38:00
proposing at the beam line? Is this
38:02
feasible or not? Will it really answer the question they're
38:05
asking? That's what should be reviewed, not the
38:08
science. In my mind, the science has already been
38:10
reviewed. so that's a little frustrating.
38:14
And the one thing that we have done is often,
38:16
and you probably know this as well, that, you know,
38:19
you're writing a proposal. If you have
38:22
no data in that proposal, you will get comments
38:25
back. You've got to show me that it works first. And so
38:28
when I can't show you works first, I don't have the money. You've got
38:31
to give me the money to help me show that it works. Right. So
38:34
it's the same thing with the beam time. If you have
38:37
some feasibility data in there to
38:40
show that at least the spectrum looks halfway
38:43
reasonable, that goes a long way to the
38:46
review committee to show that, yes, it
38:49
can actually work. And so this is where something
38:52
is a group. You know, I get some staff priority
38:54
time a few days a cycle,
38:57
and what I tend to use that staff priority time
39:00
for is to do these feasibility studies,
39:03
particularly for new groups
39:05
who don't have no
39:08
track record of using beam lines.
39:11
We collect a few spectra to
39:14
show that, yes, the hypothesis
39:17
has some, meat to it, that we can get
39:20
some data we think is useful. And so that
39:23
then strengthens the proposal for sure.
39:27
Mark Porisov: One of the pieces of advice I got
39:30
that was really helpful is you think of
39:33
xfs as the last piece.
39:35
Mark Porisov: Of data to the puzzle.
39:36
Mark Porisov: So coming to these proposals with, I have all of this
39:39
other characterization data, we need to run
39:42
xfs because of x, y and z. We've
39:45
done these other techniques and we figured out x, y and z, but we
39:48
don't know this piece of information yet. And
39:51
it's absolutely critical that we come to the beam line to run this
39:54
experiment.
39:55
Speaker D: Yeah, I would go with that. I mean, you definitely need
39:57
complementary data. I mean, I have said
40:00
this for many, many times, collecting the
40:03
xaps data or this spectroscopy data, the
40:06
beam line is just another piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
40:09
Right. You need to know other aspects of your
40:12
sample. the beam line is not the first time
40:15
your sample should see a physical
40:17
characterization method. Absolutely not.
40:21
it does happen every now and again, we see that.
40:24
but no, generally, no, you should know some other
40:27
aspects about your sample, because then it goes down
40:29
to how to use the
40:32
beam line effectively, you know.
40:35
I mean, it's frustrating to us as beamline
40:38
scientists, you know, when we see samples where they
40:41
say, oh, I've got 0.1% metal in there.
40:44
You put in the beam and there's no metal. Well,
40:47
have you characterized it to know that that metal is in there?
40:50
Oh, yeah. Well, no.
40:53
so there's certain aspects like that. I mean, that doesn't happen often,
40:56
but it happens enough. going
40:59
back to Demarc's point, yes, you should know some
41:02
things about your sample where now, whatever
41:05
you do at the synchrotron, and we're talking about exafs, but of course, there
41:08
are many, many of the techniques at the facilities, right, that
41:11
are very useful in really applicable in
41:14
catalysis science.
41:17
that to make those the most effective,
41:20
then you've got. Yeah, you've got to put it all together.
41:27
Ezra Clark: so you spent some time in academia, some time in
41:29
industry, time at the national lab. can you comment a
41:32
little bit about, especially for the folks who are thinking about
41:35
postdocs, what's the difference between postdoc and
41:38
industry, national lab versus,
41:40
academia, and particularly national lab versus.
41:43
Speaker D: Academia,
41:45
postdoc at a national lab, I
41:48
think, exposes you to a wide
41:51
range of capability
41:54
at that lab. you're definitely going to be
41:56
independent. There's some independence there.
41:58
Ah, you're typically not going to be part of a
42:01
big group, although there are some big groups at some of the
42:04
national labs, and, I mean, I'm being
42:07
very generic here, right. I mean, each particular
42:09
case you've got to look at, and
42:12
each national lab, of course, is affiliated with
42:15
a university, at some
42:18
level. And so as a
42:20
postdoc international lab, you typically don't have
42:23
that academic support that you would
42:26
have at a university.
42:29
so that's sort of one of the things you have to think
42:32
about. I think you
42:35
actually, that's a tough one. Now I think about
42:38
it,
42:43
at a university, I'm guessing the
42:46
postdocs probably have some teaching duties, although I'm
42:49
not so sure about that. I mean, certain the labs,
42:51
there's no teaching. I mean, that's the one thing about being a scientist
42:54
at a national lab, is you have no teaching
42:57
duties. You are in the lab doing
43:00
whatever you're doing 100% of the time.
43:03
so that's a big distinction. I think you
43:06
have to perhaps be a bit more self motivated at
43:09
a national lab, because you don't have that
43:12
support structure around you being part of a research
43:15
group.
43:18
but, I mean, there aren't that many differences. I think
43:20
it's
43:23
a, I mean, obviously, the things that are national lab that
43:26
an academic institution can't have. I mean, the use of
43:29
facilities are just one aspect of that,
43:32
for sure. so I think I
43:35
would say it's a case by case basis. You can't. I'm
43:38
trying to generalize here, and I'm struggling, as you can
43:40
see. I think it's a case by case basis.
43:43
Who's the PI? what am I going to be doing?
43:46
What are my responsibilities?
43:49
is this going to help me, you know, on my career
43:52
track?
43:53
Speaker D: but I think it comes down to the individual. It,
43:56
really does.
43:57
Mark Porisov: M. Yeah.
43:58
Tom Sentley: I tell my graduate students, thinking about postdocs, you got to think about what
44:01
is the ultimate exit strategy, right. Because by its very nature,
44:04
it's a temporary thing. And,
44:07
you know, if you go in planning for this is going to set me
44:10
up to do the next thing, right. And
44:12
it can be in industry, in academia,
44:15
or at a national lab, and there's going to be slight differences there, but it
44:18
really depends on where you're going to end up. But don't think
44:21
of it as just the next thing to do. Right. It's got to be the next thing
44:24
in a bigger plan.
44:26
Speaker D: Yeah, absolutely. I absolutely agree with
44:29
that. so it's case by
44:32
case.
44:33
Mark Porisov: So we're running out of time
44:36
here, and we like to end things on a
44:39
little bit of a lighter note.
44:40
And I think the news of you being a
44:43
former rugby star is probably going to, be a new thing
44:46
for a lot of people to learn about you. So, have you had a chance
44:49
to kind of combine your interest in
44:51
rugby and catalysis? Has there been a, let's say, semi annual
44:54
rugby match at the GRC or at NAMm
44:58
that has happened or should happen in the future?
45:00
Speaker D: Oh, that would be awesome.
45:03
that would be truly awesome. I mean,
45:06
rugby, to me, I mean, I think,
45:08
thinking back on it, to me, it was so central
45:11
to my philosophy of research in that it's
45:15
team based. I mean, rugby,
45:18
to me, rugby. And so, I mean, I have a
45:21
football. I mean, soccer, football, you know, I follow that as well.
45:24
Right, coming from England. but to me, rugby
45:27
was so team based. You, as soon as you were part
45:30
of that rugby club, you had a 14 best
45:32
friends as part of the 15, and you were
45:35
together, you did things together. It was
45:38
the camaraderie after a rugby game, which was
45:41
absolutely incredible. you hung out together.
45:44
I mean, you were worst enemies out on the field. As soon as
45:47
that final whistle went, you were best buddies no
45:49
matter what team you played. And that sort of
45:52
translated through to me as this, if
45:55
we can work together, we can do so much
45:58
more than working independently.
46:00
And that's what sort of led me to this co
46:03
access, this collaborative,
46:06
team based approach that we have at SSRL.
46:09
But, you know, trying to combine. So that's the aspect, I think, of
46:12
rugby that I would try to translate through into
46:15
something. But the idea of a touch rugby game
46:18
or something at a GRC, that would be kind of fun.
46:21
it's funny because I, living here in San
46:23
Francisco now, there's a big open
46:26
area down by the bay called Chrissy Field.
46:29
And, several times, I go running along
46:31
there, and, there's this group of.
46:34
I think it's. Yeah, it's both men and women out
46:37
there. I don't know, 20 somethings playing
46:40
rugby, touch rugby, you know, it's like, oh, my
46:43
God, I can't believe that. It's not a sight you normally
46:45
see. And it's like, I really want to go and
46:49
hang out with them. I think I'm getting a
46:52
bit old for that, but it would be a blast.
46:55
but it's a great sport. It taught me so
46:57
much.
46:58
Ezra Clark: It really did keep
47:01
on for 26.
47:05
Mark Porisov: We can talk to Orenda.
47:06
Speaker D: There we go.
47:09
Yeah.
47:09
Mark Porisov: Well, this has been great. Thank you so much for coming
47:12
on and sharing your story and your insight and
47:15
some information on how to get involved with
47:18
XFS measurements. I think our viewers will really enjoy
47:20
it. Thanks so much, Simon, for coming on the show.
47:23
Speaker D: Yeah, thanks so much. I really appreciate the invitation.
47:26
You guys are doing a great job. I really enjoyed
47:29
it. Yeah. Thanks so very much.
47:31
Mark Porisov: Well see you next time. This is
47:34
podcast signing off.