Dutch researchers in the United States

The United States and the Netherlands are strong partners in groundbreaking research that improves lives and helps us better understand our world. Read below about some of the Dutch researchers in the United States. 

Previous interviews and profiles

Dr. Mark Brongersma and his team at Stanford University’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering get excited about using tiny structures to manipulate light.

This dynamic is all around us. It’s light interacting with molecules in the air to make the sky look blue and water droplets to make clouds look white.

But when you think tiny, Dr. Brongersma is working with particles 10,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. His research is helping make chips run faster, clothes cool bodies efficiently, and hydrogen fuel emerge from water.

In this interview, we explore how infinitely small-scale research has massive real-world impact. Dr. Brongersma reflects on his work to date, the benefit of working with industry, and how to attract brilliant minds to compelling research.

Silicon crystals

Mark Brongersma comes from a family of scientists and professors. Eager to follow in their footsteps, at the age of 6 he projected how long it would take him to become a professor and was upset when he realized it would take him 30 years.

Nineteen years later, he was earning a PhD at the AMOLF research Laboratory in Amsterdam and working with Albert Polman, a pioneer in the field of nanophotonics.

At the time there was substantial interest to see if electronic chips could be made faster by using light particles to transfer data, in addition to electrical currents.

Dr. Brongersma explained the research: “To see whether it would be possible to use light, we needed to develop some of the smallest light sources and ways to transport light on the chip.”

Researchers discovered that silicon, the main material computer chips are made of, can emit light when chopped into little silicon bits, or nanocrystals. Brongersma worked on demonstrating how the size and shape of the silicon crystals could be used to control the effectiveness and color of the light emission.

Later, he also found that light can be guided along metallic particle arrays and wires on the chip. Following these early findings, during his postdoc at the California Institute of Technology, which to this day has an ongoing collaboration with AMOLF, he studied how to make the tiniest wires that could transport light on a chip.

His amazing research solved an important piece of the puzzle of how to make super-fast energy-saving computer chips.

Soon after conducting that research, Dr. Brongersma became a professor at Stanford University, and achieved his childhood goal in less than 30 years.

Keeping science real

Dr. Brongersma loves technology and advocates strongly for the importance of applied research: “Often the best fundamental questions come from technological questions where you suddenly have to think in a completely different way.”

Through his work at Stanford, he has successfully translated his science into applied technologies by co-founding a startup, Rolith. The company, which was later acquired  by Metamaterials Technologies Inc., applies nanostructures to large areas, for example, in the windows of the flight deck to protect pilots from laser attacks.

This solved an important problem, as there are roughly 20 laser beam attacks in the US every night. The attackers, mainly children near airports, point lasers at pilots when planes are taking off or landing, and the nano-coated glass blocks the light of the laser pointer, but still allows the pilot to clearly see the outside world.

Reflecting his commitment to applied research, about 30 percent to 40 percent of his work at Stanford is funded by industry, and this has enabled ongoing innovation in his work.

“Government research funding has stayed more or less steady, and at the same time, companies have realized how we can use this knowledge of how to make and use nanostructures and optics to make better components,” he said. “That together has moved our research, a little bit more from fundamental research to more applied research.”

In an industry collaboration with Samsung, which has entered the race for self-driving cars, Dr. Brongersma works on LIDAR scanning laser beams.

With company ENEL Green Power, he’s implementing state-of-the-art solar cells that have nanostructures on top to increase their efficiency. The solar cells that he is working on in his lab are so thin, “about a hundredth the thickness of a human hair,” that they become flexible. This result in easy applications, for example, to the wings of an airplane or other automotive vehicles.

Finally, with augmented reality (AR) startup Magic Leap, he’s innovating  to improve AR glasses, which today are still bulky. By applying an invisible coating of nanostructures on the glasses that capture and redirect light, they can look like regular eyeglasses and become more user friendly, allowing the wearer to move and see virtual images blended in their true surroundings, without feeling nauseous.

These extensive experiences with applied technologies have shown Dr. Brongersma that collaboration with industry should be done thoughtfully.

For example, Stanford facilitates collaboration with industry through an affiliate program. For an annual fee of $150,000, a company can have active engagement with research programs and meet faculty and the brightest students.

This creates a win-win dynamic as money flows into research and infrastructure at the university, while students hear directly from industry leaders about the problems they are trying to solve and where they need support and new collaborations.

The Netherlands is one of the key players in the field of photonics and it has played a leading role in optics since the discoveries of Willebrord Snellius and Christiaan Huygens 400 years ago.

“The Netherlands is especially good at fundamental research,” Dr. Brongersma said, and he believes some university groups may consider working more closely with industry. “Get more companies involved to push to keep science real, because some people do brilliant things that are completely useless. So why not try to solve really hard problems that industry has?”

He stressed that universities should do work that companies think is too far out: “You need to have that 10- to 20-year horizon for research.”

Attracting the best of the best

Dr. Brongsmera is also committed to supporting and cultivating talented young researchers. Seven out of his eight last graduate students all went to Apple.

With tech giants just around Stanford’s corner, it can be difficult for universities to compete for talent. “Graduate students starting at Apple earn basically my salary,” he said, acknowledging that “with a faculty salary, it is extremely challenging to live in Silicon Valley.”

Nobody knows what Apple is working on, but rumor has it that Apple is also working on AR glasses. “There’s a competition, and Apple should be investing in the research and my group, but their way is to just buy up the talent.”

Yet, he is also excited for his students because they land jobs in a matter of weeks. “Part of that excitement is that the things that we are working on are really making an impact now,” he said.

Government could definitely play a role in attracting the best scientists, Dr. Brongersma thinks. When he was in high school, the US was investing heavily in science, making competitive offers to attract the best scientists from all over the world.

“That is, I think, the reason behind the strength of the US economy and it’s going to be the detriment of the US economy to stop bringing the best people here.”

He points out that China today is offering faculty incredible startup packages and resources, making it attractive for the best Chinese students to return to China.

“The costs of brilliant people leaving are hard to put or calculate on paper.” He stressed that governments should make it attractive to bring in more talent: “This is going to cost money, but the long-term benefit of bringing the best people in your country is worth any input,” and points to the incredible economic impact of Stanford in the Bay Area.

Companies that were formed by Stanford entrepreneurs generate trillions of dollars in revenue annually and have created millions of jobs since the 1930s. A study showed that if the companies that were founded by Stanford alumni formed an independent nation, it would be the 10th largest economy in the world.

How to make it attractive to bring in brilliant scientists? In addition to money it includes resources and a good quality of life: “That goes from good infrastructure, to transportation to great restaurants to alI the things that if you ask a young person, what do you value, about living in a certain city or place? If you can make deals, great things happen.”

Could the Netherlands make it attractive for him to return? One of the things that makes Stanford unique is the large size and international nature of its programs. He loves working with so many different people that bring diverse ideas.

“That would be harder to give up,” he said. With a competitive salary it could be interesting to return. Maybe in the role of a dean he could help universities or other organizations move into new directions. “I have many romantic thoughts of going back to Amsterdam and obviously great, amazing science is done in the Netherlands. So, I would not exclude the idea.”


Dutch molecular biologist Dr. Laura van ’t Veer of the University of California San Francisco is a pioneer in the field of personalized medicine and one of the world’s leading innovators in cancer diagnostics.

She is the leader of the Breast Oncology Program and Director of Applied Genomics at the University of California San Francisco, and her work is having a major impact on the field, for which she has received many awards, including the European Inventor Award in 2015.

She was listed by 24/7 Wall Street as one of the 32 Amazing Women Inventors who have succeeded in fields dominated by men.

Dr. van ’t Veer is the inventor of MammaPrint, a gene-based test that predicts the chances of recurrence in early-stage breast cancer patients, sparing women who will derive little or no benefit from chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy is often recommended after surgery to decrease the risk of cancer recurrence. Yet, the side effects of chemotherapy are harsh, and, as Dr. van ’t Veer’s work shows, it might not be needed for every patient. In fact, her studies show that 46 percent of patients with early stage breast cancer who are recommended chemotherapy can safely forego chemotherapy.

Instead of one treatment for all, Dr. van ’t Veer’s revolutionary work is paving the way to change treatment approaches to target a person’s specific tumor. Her goal is to increase each person’s chance of surviving breast cancer using this individualized approach.

Breast cancer: not one disease

DNA and genes have fascinated Dr. van ’t Veer since she was a high school student. She began studying biology at the University of Amsterdam in the late 1970s and worked as an undergraduate at the Netherlands Cancer Institute). There she became acquainted with research on DNA and cancer, which was an innovative new field in the early 1980s.

“From early on I was interested in understanding the gene mutations in breast cancer and how it could help to identify what kind of disease somebody has. Breast cancer is not one disease, but there are many different types,” Dr. van ’t Veer said.

She completed her Ph.D. at Leiden University in the Netherlands and then pursued postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School in Boston. Dr. van ’t Veer found Harvard intense and inspiring. At her first cancer meeting in Boston, she said she was surrounded by 500 experts from different disciplines.

“They were all interested in understanding the biology of cancer and using this knowledge to develop new drugs and to understand the diagnosis,” she said. “I had never experienced this. My experience at Harvard further defined what I was going to do.”

Ground-breaking discovery

Following her postdoctoral fellowship, Dr. van ’t Veer returned to Amsterdam, where she started working for the Netherlands Cancer Institute. She was the first molecular biologist to work in both the institute’s Antoni van Leeuwenhoek hospital and research department. She became head of molecular pathology and set up the molecular pathology diagnostics lab in the institute’s hospital. Leading a multidisciplinary team, she studied the risk of recurrence of breast cancer in women.

“If you understand the risk for recurrence in a patient, you can adjust the patient’s treatment,” she said.

To prevent recurrence after surgery, doctors have recommended chemotherapy for many breast cancer patients based on factors such as the age of the patient, the size of the tumor, and the number of lymph nodes and dividing cells.

“These factors give some indication, but are far from perfect,” Dr. van ’t Veer said. Some tumors look high-risk but in fact are not and the result is overtreatment.

Dr. van ’t Veer and her team took a different approach and looked at the breast tumor’s genes to see if the biology of the tumor could reveal if the cancer is aggressive.

By looking at the activity in the genes of the tumor, they discovered 70 cancer-specific genes which, if switched on, indicate a high risk for recurrence. If these genes are not switched on, the risk for recurrence is low.

Understanding the breast cancer tumor in this way allows for a more tailored approach to treatment.

“If the disease is aggressive with chance of early recurrence, you want to give all of the necessary therapy to prevent this. However, if the disease is very slow growing and the chance of recurrence is low, there is no need to give all of the drugs. Possibly you can even omit chemotherapy,” Dr. van ’t Veer said.

From research to market

Dr. van ’t Veer and her team developed their research finding into a robust diagnostic test to analyze the activity of the 70 genes in the breast cancer tissue and called it MammaPrint, the culmination of years of research and clinical studies.

The test’s validation came from a large clinical trial run by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. This trial involved nearly 7,000 women with early-stage breast cancer from nine countries and 100 hospitals.

Recognizing the potential for widespread impact for patients, she wanted to bring MammaPrint to market, so patients outside the Netherlands Cancer Institute’s hospital could benefit from it. For this she needed funding.

To pursue this funding, Dr. van ’t Veer and co-inventor Dr. René Bernards set up a company in 2003 called Agendia. Today, Agendia is a medium-sized company with more than 150 employees, based in Amsterdam and Irvine, California.

At Agendia’s laboratories, a sample of the patient’s tumor is analyzed using MammaPrint. The result shows if a patient is high risk or low risk and recommends who should receive chemotherapy and who can safely forego it.

Today MammaPrint is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, recommended in national and international clinical practice guidelines, and covered by Medicare and most private insurance companies.

Unique collaboration

For women who are identified by MammaPrint as high risk, standard chemotherapy is still an option. Yet, standard chemotherapy will only prevent recurrence in one out of five patients, and is thus not always effective.

“If somebody has a high risk for recurrence, you want to do better than 20 percent results. You want to bring it up to 100 percent,” Dr. van ’t Veer said. She is tackling this challenge in an innovative clinical breast cancer trial, I-SPY, at the University of California San Francisco.

Through I-SPY, Dr. van ’t Veer is testing new drugs for patients who have a high risk for early recurrence to study which drug or combination of drugs is most effective given the patient’s breast cancer type.

To access the thousands of new targeted drugs that are emerging, Dr. van ’t Veer joined forces with Dr. Laura Esserman, the principal investigator of the trial and breast surgeon at the University of California San Francisco, to set up a unique consortium of 10 pharmaceutical companies, 20 academic institutions, and six biotech companies.

“To fully understand when to use a specific drug for whom, requires a collaboration with all stakeholders,” Dr. van ’t Veer said. “Everybody has a piece of the knowledge. If we work together, it will go faster. It is this particular collaboration that made me decide to come to UCSF.”

Whereas standard chemotherapy in high-risk patients will only prevent recurrence 20 percent of the time, the I-SPY study has already demonstrated that matching new, emerging drugs to the biology of a patient’s cancer, in addition to standard chemotherapy, has a success rate of 40 percent, and for some tumors it is up to 60 percent.

These findings show that understanding the biology of a patient’s breast cancer can help healthcare providers and patients choose the most optimal treatment for the best results.

“You do not want to give a certain drug to a patient who does not respond to that specific drug,” Dr. van ’t Veer said. “Besides this, these treatments are often $50,000 or more, so also to reduces costs, you just want to give it to those patients who will have a response. We have come a long way.”

Dutch epidemiologist Albert Hofman, chair of the Department of Epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, is an expert who studies the causes of Alzheimer’s disease.


Image: ©Harvard Chan School of Public Health
 

Dutch epidemiologist Albert Hofman spends a lot of time studying the causes of diseases. One of the diseases he is particularly interested in is what he refers to as “the other pandemic” or Alzheimer’s disease.
 

An estimated 50 million people around the world have dementia, a number expected to triple by 2050. That’s a staggering increase, but Dr. Hofman, an expert in vascular and neurologic diseases and chair of the Department of Epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, remains optimistic.

That’s because new studies from the Netherlands and the United States show a declining risk of developing Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia.
 

Live a week, gain a weekend

In the 1800s, the global life expectancy at birth was about 35. In just two centuries, this number has more than doubled. In record countries such as Japan, the average life expectancy of women is today as high as 90. This rapid increase in how long we are expected to live is astonishing, Dr. Hofman said. “Every four years, we add one year to our life expectancy.  I summarized this for myself by saying, ‘You live a week and you gain a weekend.’”
 

Yet, an older population also means that the number of Alzheimer’s cases will increase. “After the age of 60, the risk of developing Alzheimer’s goes up,” Dr. Hofman said, and by the time we reach the age of 90, the chances are one in two of developing the disease.
 

The impact of Alzheimer’s disease is especially acute in countries like China and India, countries with a booming population that see a rapid increase in the proportion of elderly. Many of these countries are not prepared for the rise in the number of Alzheimer’s patients. “That’s why we call it the other pandemic,” he said.
 

15 million fewer cases

The reasons behind the increased likelihood for Alzheimer’s as we age remains a mystery. This is not solely a consequence of aging, Dr. Hofman believes, but an accumulation of risk factors.
 

In studying the causes for Alzheimer’s and dementia, Dr. Hofman gained crucial insights from large population-based cohort studies for age-related diseases, or studies that follow the same people over a period of time. He is the initiator of several large-population cohort studies like the Rotterdam Cohort study, which today includes 20,000 people and focuses on risk factors for cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s. In the data provided by the Rotterdam study, researchers saw a curious trend over the last three decades: a decline in the number of new patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.

Hofman followed up these findings by starting the Alzheimer’s Cohorts Consortium at Harvard in 2020, which combined the data of seven long-term cohort studies and involved 49,202 people from the US, Netherlands and other European countries. When researchers compared the data from these combined cases, they saw a decline in the number of new Alzheimer’s cases of between 10 percent and 15 percent per decade over the past 30 years.
 

They also discovered that the risk for men and women to develop Alzheimer’s is the same. “There are more women who have Alzheimer’s disease than men,” Dr. Hofman said, “but that is because women live longer.” In other words, while an aging population leads to more people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s overall, the risk of new cases is declining and if this declining trend continues, researchers estimate 15 million fewer cases in the US and Europe by 2040.

Population cohort studies are a valuable knowledge resource for epidemiology and medicine in general, but there are not that many in the world, Dr. Hofman said. It is easier in the Netherlands, and other European countries to follow people in a cohort study, he said, because the national governments maintain population registrations, including where people live.
 

Adopt a healthy lifestyle, now!

Scientists do not have a firm answer for the decline in new Alzheimer’s diagnoses. Dr. Hofman believes that non-genetic factors and in particular cardiovascular factors play a big role in Alzheimer’s disease. The vascular system, our circulatory system, is made up of blood vessels that carry oxygen-rich blood from the heart to other parts of the body. If the blood vessels are damaged, the lack of oxygen will cause the nerve cells to gradually die, leading to Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Hofman thinks a possible reason for the decline could be improved treatments of risk factors for heart disease and stroke since the 1970s and 1980s in Europe and the US, such as treating high blood pressure, lowering high cholesterol, no smoking and regular exercise. These preventive measures not only reduced the number of heart attacks and strokes, but also likely had a positive impact on the vascular system and brain health. The brain scans of patients who have been treated for blood pressure and cholesterol showed improvement over the years, Dr. Hofman said.
 

If the vascular risk factors play a major role in causing Alzheimer’s, adopting a healthier lifestyle can be a preventative measure that anyone can adopt.
 

Controversial drug

In teasing out the causes of Alzheimer’s, Dr. Hofman and his group are working on treatments that can lower or stabilize blood pressure, as large swings in blood pressure can increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s.
 

And whereas Hofman and his group are focusing on preventative measures, the FDA recently approved the Alzheimer’s drug Aducanumab, the first treatment to attack the progression of the disease. The FDA’s approval created much consternation within the scientific community because of the controversies around the medication’s effectiveness and cost. Hofman belongs to this group of skeptics. “Perhaps, the positive side is that it will stimulate other companies to go on this path and strive to go on,” but he hopes that the European Medicines Agency will hold off on its approval and instead ask for more studies and clinical trials of the drug to provide complete evidence of the drug’s effectiveness.
 

Dinner with billionaires

Epidemiology is “the quantitative part of medicine,” Dr. Hofman said. It is this formalized way of studying the causes of a disease that fascinates him and which is why he chose to specialize in this field at the department of epidemiology at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and Harvard in Boston in the late 1970s.

After his fellowship at Harvard, he returned to the Netherlands and later became chair of the biggest epidemiology department in the country. He maintained a connection to Harvard, and taught a summer course at the university for 25 years. In 2016, he returned to Harvard and became chair of the Department of Epidemiology. What makes Harvard and the Boston area appealing to him is the attitude toward science, or as he describes it, “the can-do mentality” and the “sense of urgency.” What’s more, Boston’s academic ecosystem is concentrated: “The Boston area has close to 20 percent of all postdoc positions in the whole of the US.”
 

When comparing the US research system to the Dutch research system, Dr. Hofman, thinks the educational infrastructure for PhD students in the US could serve as a model for Europe. “It is more developed in coursework, in the qualifying exams and in the in-person training,” he said. It is an educational infrastructure that provides students the opportunity to excel and to grow outliers.
 

The way the US funds science differs from the Netherlands. The US government, particularly the National Institutes of Health, funds and focuses on the important issues in medicine, but the role of private funds, benefactors, and foundations in the United States is “virtually absent” in the Netherlands.

“The dean and the president of Harvard advise me occasionally to go to the West Coast and to have dinner with a couple of billionaires, which is very nice. And very smart. I’ve never done a thing like that in Europe in the 30 years that I was chair there.”
 

He sees an opportunity for universities in the Netherlands to adopt this way of fundraising: “Most wealthy people are willing to support major causes in society.  Although we spend a lot of time here on fundraising I find it a very nice part of the American system.”
 

Bio & CV

1951: Born in Hardenberg, the Netherlands

1976: Medical school, University of Groningen

1982: Second research fellowship, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston

1983: PhD, Erasmus University of Rotterdam

1990-2015: Science director, The Netherlands Institute for Health Sciences

1988-2016: Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Center

2016- present: Stephen B. Kay Family Professor of Public Health and Clinical Epidemiology, Harvard

2016-present: Chair, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health