For this Boost Story, Birte visited Sanne Maas, a postdoctoral researcher at RWTH Aachen University and Uniklinik RWTH Aachen. Their conversation covered Sanne’s cardiovascular research, how early funding helped her develop a larger project, why she sees grant writing as a way to connect the dots, and how mentoring and peer exchange have shaped her career development.

Understanding the mechanisms behind heart attacks and strokes

Sanne’s research focuses on the molecular mechanisms of arteriosclerosis. With her Boost-funded project, she is looking at a major medical challenge: heart attacks and strokes, often driven by clogged arteries caused by atherosclerotic plaque rupture. Existing treatments can reduce the risk, but a significant residual risk remains.

Sanne wants to use a kinomics platform to identify specific kinases involved in plaque rupture and assess whether they could serve as biomarkers to predict cardiovascular events. The long-term hope is that this could contribute to new therapeutic strategies and a non-invasive test for earlier risk detection.

From first data to a bigger project

Before receiving the Boost Fund, Sanne had already obtained some funding from RWTH Aachen. That first funding helped her move from an idea to the first experiments. At the time, she says, she “didn’t have any data,” only the starting point of a project. The start-up funding allowed her to bring in technical support, set up experiments, and generate the data she needed to take the next step.

The Boost Fund then made it possible to expand the project substantially. Where the first phase focused on in vitro data, the project is now moving towards in vivo experiments. Sanne was also able to hire a PhD student, giving the project more continuity and capacity.

For many early career researchers, this sequence will sound familiar: you need data to apply for funding, but you need funding to generate data. Sanne’s experience shows how smaller, early institutional support and a flexible fellowship such as the Boost Fund can work together. One can help get an idea started; the other can help turn it into a more independent research direction.

Connecting the dots through grant writing

Not everyone enjoys writing grant applications. Sanne does, at least once there are first results to work with.

What she likes is the process of turning scattered findings into a coherent plan. At the beginning, she says, research results can look like “random bits and pieces.” Writing a proposal forces her to ask: What is the potential here? What evidence do we already have? What would we need next to make this a successful discovery?

For Sanne, this means thinking scientifically and strategically at the same time. It means shaping a story, formulating hypotheses, visualising the methods, and identifying the collaborations needed to move forward. “It’s a bit like a puzzle,” she says.

Sanne writes proposals most effectively when she can give them her full attention. When a deadline approaches, she blocks larger time slots in her calendar instead of working in short fragments between meetings.

“You really need to clear your brain and focus on the grants.”

Sanne structures her day so that grant writing has a dedicated place alongside her other responsibilities. She might meet with students and review data in the morning, then use the afternoon for writing. Blocking this time helps her focus on the proposal without trying to fit it into the gaps between other tasks.

Mentoring beyond the immediate network

Another topic Birte and Sanne discussed was mentoring. Sanne is part of a mentoring program in Aachen for female scientists on the path towards professorship. As part of the program, participants were encouraged to look for an external mentor they did not already know.

Sanne chose a mentor with a very specific profile. He is Dutch, like her, and has built a career in both Germany and the Netherlands. He had experience with professorships and labs in Frankfurt and Amsterdam and knew both funding systems. For Sanne, this was relevant not only scientifically but also personally: she wanted to understand how someone with a similar cross-border background had navigated an academic career.

The first contact was close to a cold approach, although the mentoring program supported the process. Sanne had to write a motivation letter explaining why she would like to work with him. He accepted and later told her that he found it interesting to mentor someone a bit further along in her career than the PhD students and junior postdocs he usually supported. For Sanne, this external perspective was valuable because it was not embedded in her daily work environment.

She also emphasises that mentoring does not have to mean one perfect person who covers everything. Her PI in Aachen is also an important mentor, especially for brainstorming new projects and identifying suitable grants. The external mentor brought complementary insights and perspectives.

Finding the red thread

One of the most useful conversations Sanne had with her external mentor was about the “red thread” in her research and CV.

As researcher, one may accumulate projects, collaborations, methods, and publications without necessarily seeing how they fit together. From the inside, your work can feel like a collection of individual steps. From the outside, reviewers, search committees, or potential collaborators need to understand what connects them.

Sanne and her mentor looked at her different projects and tried to identify those connecting dots. What is the niche? What is the expertise? What makes the work recognisable as hers?

That kind of reflection is not only useful for applications. It also helps researchers decide what to say yes to, what to develop further, and how to present themselves without oversimplifying their work. For Sanne, an external mentor was particularly helpful because someone outside the immediate lab may see the pattern more clearly.

The value of peers at a similar career stage

Sanne also values the fellowship community of the Boost Fund, especially the open exchange among researchers from different fields.

The scientific topics differ, but many career questions are shared: How do you become more independent? How do you guide students? What does leadership mean in practice? How do you make time for grant writing alongside everything else?

As careers progress, Sanne notes, it can become harder to find peers in a similar position. Direct colleagues are not always the right people for every question, while friends outside academia may not know the specific pressures involved.

The Boost Fund community gives fellows space to compare experiences and learn from one another across disciplines. Sanne particularly appreciated the career development courses, breakout sessions, and in-person meetings, where she found it easy to connect with others.

About the KT Boost Fund

The Boost Fund supports postdoctoral researchers and early group leaders in Germany with flexible funding for independent, often higher-risk and interdisciplinary projects, combined with career development opportunities and access to a strong peer network.

The program addresses a critical phase after the PhD, where researchers are expected to develop independence, but often lack the resources and flexibility to do so. It creates space to explore new directions, build collaborations, and take responsibility early on.