Dr. Emiko Hiyama, Chief Scientist (D.Sci.)
Few-body Systems in Physics Laboratory,
RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science

Career summary

1993	B.S. in Physics, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kyushu University
1995	M.S. in Physics, Graduate School of Science, Kyushu University
1998	Ph.D. in Physics, Graduate School of Science, Kyushu University
1995-1998	JSPS Doctoral Course (DC1) Research Fellowships
1998	Special Postdoctoral Researcher, Muon Science Laboratory, RIKEN
2000	Associate Researcher, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization
2004	Associate Professor, Department of Physical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Nara Women’s University
2007	Associate Professor, Faculty of Science, Nara Women’s University
2008	Associate Chief Scientist, Strangeness Nuclear Physics Laboratory, RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science
2017	Professor, School of Science, Kyushu University
2017	Group Director, Strangeness Nuclear Physics Laboratory, RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science
2021	Professor, Graduate School of Science and Faculty of Science, Tohoku University
2023	Chief Scientist, Few-body Systems in Physics Laboratory, RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science

Career vision after obtaining a doctorate

Adachi: This project was launched with the support of the Elsevier Foundation, thanks to arrangements facilitated by Dr. Yuko Harayama, former Executive Director of RIKEN. Today, rather than discussing science per se, I would like to focus on lab management and other topics that may be helpful to persons who have recently assumed leadership positions. To start, I would like to ask you some questions as I look over your CV. I see that you received your doctorate from Kyushu University in 1998. At that time, how did you envision your future?

Hiyama: You mean at the moment I received my doctorate in 1998? What can I say? I didn’t really give it much thought at the time. My coming here to RIKEN to do postdoctoral work as a Special Postdoctoral Researcher had already been decided at that time. I felt that once I had my doctorate, I would work as a rookie researcher. The only thing on my mind at the time was the idea that I could pursue research that I liked. I was determined to try my best for three years, and if I hadn't found my next position, there would be other career prospects for me. Initially, I thought that rather than thinking far into the future, it would be best to focus on the research in front of me for the next three years and that if my prospects did not look hopeful after that, I would consider what to do next. In reality, I had all I could do to cope with what was in front of me each day.

Adachi: Did you think at that time that you might spend the rest of your life as an academic researcher?

Hiyama: It was certainly a vague idea at the back of my mind. I felt it would be wonderful to be able to become an academic researcher. But even in 1998, the idea of becoming an academic researcher wasn't something that would be easy to achieve. More than that, I had broader aspirations for my life at that time. Of course, remaining in academia was one option, but I felt there were many paths I could take, and I decided to start by enjoying my research first. As one option, however, I did feel that I would like to become a researcher.

Days as a postdoc and an associate researcher

Adachi: So you then spent three years at RIKEN as a Special Postdoctoral Researcher?

Hiyama: Actually, it was one year and 10 months altogether.

Adachi: Pardon me. Then in 2000, you took up a position as an associate researcher at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK). I believe the term of the position you took up at RIKEN was three years. But was there a particular reason for leaving in the middle of your term?

Hiyama: I felt that if I had the opportunity, it would be important for me to try for a permanent position rather than remain in my current position for the entire three years. I had hoped to find a permanent position somewhere during my three-year term, if possible. I was quite fortunate, as there was an open call for applications for an associate researcher position at KEK, so of course I felt I should apply. The experiments at KEK were very closely related to my own research area, and this was a position I really wanted. When I applied, I was very fortunate to be selected, and I accepted the position.

Adachi: Was it an associate researcher’s position with tenure?

Hiyama: At that time, it was not only officially a position with tenure but was also a very sought-after position that came with a kind of gentleman's agreement which encouraged anyone who took up the position to promote themselves and to move on to a better position when it suited them, after a period of seven years or so. As it was considered quite a desirable position, I was told that cultivating meaningful personal exchanges through brain circulation and active collaboration with other scientists was very important in our community, so I accepted the position with these considerations in mind.

Adachi: There was a professor who was your boss, and you worked under that professor as an associate researcher?

Hiyama: There was one professor, and about three associate professors. In addition, at that time, as it was a fairly large lab, there were two or three associate researchers.

Adachi: How was the research organized at that time? Was it in the form of projects that you worked on with a supervising professor and associate professors? Or did you work on projects of your own?

Hiyama:: I was free to work on my own projects. The atmosphere and the policy of the lab where I was were very encouraging in that everyone was free to pursue the work they wanted. The professor himself was a very nice person who allowed us to work as we wished. If we shared a common interest during a discussion, we could do joint research together. Although we all had our respective positions, we were able to conduct our research freely as we wished as independent researchers.

Move to an Associate Professor at Nara Women’s University

Adachi: Earlier you mentioned the gentleman's agreement regarding a period of around seven years, but again you left your position after four years to become an associate professor at Nara Women's University in 2004. How did that eventuate?

Hiyama: As part of the gentleman’s agreement, I was expected to move on if a desirable position became available during the seven-year period, and the position of associate professor was the next step up the ladder for me. I wanted to go to a national university where there were graduate students, and at the time there were several possibilities. It was just around 2004. The timing was also somewhat of a stroke of luck. I applied whenever there was an open call for applications. It just so happened that Nara Women's University was inviting applications, and although I thought the timing might be a little early, I also felt that we can never be sure when or where an opportunity like this will come up, so I just went ahead and applied. Well, I hesitate to say this but in the end I was offered the position.

Adachi: I understand that you applied for a number of positions but was this your first acceptance?

Hiyama: Yes. I accepted my first offer. This was not a course of action unique to me. In our community, we all, as a matter of course, want to go to national universities where there are graduate students, so everyone applies when there is an open call for applications. People lodge their applications, and wait their turn from the position they happen to be in. I had been submitting applications for some time and the position at Nara Women’s University was the first offer, so I decided to go there first.

Adachi: Was this position as associate professor an independent position where you had your own lab?

Hiyama: No, it wasn’t actually. At the time I was an associate professor, there was a supervising professor, in a two-person structure. It was a lab that was completely different from labs at KEK in the sense that it was managed under the supervision of a professor.

Adachi: This time it was clear that the supervising person was a professor?

Hiyama:: That’s right.

Developing own management rules

Adachi: Did your research style at Nara Women’s University somehow change from the time you were at KEK?

Hiyama: My basic research style did not really change that much. The difference was that research was my main work at the research institute, from start to finish, while at the university I was also involved in education. There were lectures to deliver, and having graduate students meant engaging in new research together with them. In that sense, my relationship with others at the institute was as an equal, as joint researchers, but at the university my relationship with researchers was of a hierarchical nature to some extent. So, instead of just going ahead with my own work as a professional scientist on my own, I had to teach and move in tandem with my students. Up until then, I had been in the habit of dashing about with the intention of doing my best at everything, always mindful of who would come in first at the international forefront of my field. If I took that approach, however, my students would have been left behind. I had to modify my pace somewhat and work together with my students. In that sense, I guess you could say my style changed. I divided my approach into two issues. The first was to consider something where I could lead the way in cutting-edge research in the same manner as when I was at KEK. To ask my students to take on such a challenge would be unreasonable, however, so I took it on myself. The second, which may sound somewhat condescending, was to lower the level a little, so to speak, and slow the pace to some extent. I looked for topics that could be developed into papers, and in a form that would allow me to work together with the students, while supervising and guiding them. I guess you could say this is how I divided my approach. It was quite a challenge.

Adachi: In that process, did it take you quite some time to draw up your own set of rules, and did you have to go through a process of trial and error?

Hiyama: I thought about what it was like for me when I was a student, and felt it was only natural that I had to make modifications. I don’t feel that it really took me that much time as I was basing the situation on my own experience. In 2004, at the time I went to Nara Women’s University, I was still only 32 or 33, and my experiences as a student were still fresh in my mind. Because of that, it didn’t take me long to work things out. I thought about how I felt when I was a graduate student myself, and basing my ideas on my experience, I came to the conclusion that unless I found topics that students could work on at a relatively slow pace, they would not be able to progress to the next step.

Adachi: So when you moved to Nara Women's University and had students of your own, you thought about your own experience and responded to students based on that.

Hiyama: Yes, that’s right.

Setting up a lab as a PI

Adachi: After being in your position at Nara Women’s University for four years, what made you apply for the position of Associate Chief Scientist at RIKEN in 2008?

Hiyama: I really felt sorry about the inconvenience my departure from Nara Women’s University caused to my colleagues at the time. I did my best there for four years, but being still young yet approaching my late 30s, I thought to myself: I cannot abandon my research. As I said earlier, it was only natural to slow the pace of work and be patient when mentoring students. On the other hand, while I focused on my students, there was also a part of me that wanted to run ahead at full speed to the forefront of my research field. I was perhaps suppressing that feeling, and although I initially exercised restraint, I gradually felt my life lacked balance. I was overcome with a desire to just once more run ahead on my own. I felt that I would ultimately return to a university as an educator but I strongly felt that I wanted to be allowed to pursue my dreams one more time. As I wondered whether I could find such a position, RIKEN introduced the Associate Chief Scientist program around 2006 or 2007. Prior to that, RIKEN had the Initiative Research Scientist program, and after that created the position of Associate Chief Scientist, which I took a quick look at. At first, I was not very clear on what the position entailed but at that time Dr. Morita, a senior colleague of mine who joined RIKEN as an Associate Chief Scientist, seemed to enjoy his work and made me eager to try for this position too, so I decided to submit an application. There was an enormous number of applicants for this position of Associate Chief Scientist, and it encompassed a very broad field. While my chance of being selected from among such a large number of applicants was extremely small, I felt it was worth a try. I knew that once I submitted my application I would be subjected to exacting scrutiny, but I felt I would give it a go regardless of the outcome. Yet my application was successful. It was the happiest day of my career until then! The process itself was like an audition, where you had to fight to win. I was given one more chance, and I felt so fortunate. As a start, I was determined to pursue the work I wanted to do, and to give it my best effort. After that, luck was on my side and I was able to become an Associate Chief Scientist.

Adachi: Was that the first time you had your own lab?

Hiyama: Yes, it was.

Adachi: What kind of lab did you want to create?

Hiyama: What I do is theoretical research, and the atmosphere at KEK during my time there left a lasting impression. Although the positions of staff varied, I felt we were all equal in the eyes of physics and science. My idea was to create a lab where anyone could come and feel free to engage in discussions, and if we found something interesting, we could conduct joint research and make physics more exciting. So, when I heard that my lab would have three rooms, I was determined to make one of them a discussion room. I wanted anybody who came to my lab to be able to engage in research freely. I envisioned a place where people could drop by, have a cup of tea, join a discussion, be inspired, and engage in joint research. I felt this would be very interesting. That is the style I aimed for. Although I hire postdocs, and although there might be a hierarchical difference in my rank as a manager, my responsibility is simply to give the stamp of approval. In physics, I genuinely feel on a par with postdocs. Everybody feels the same way, and when they address me, they call me

Hiyama:-san rather than Dr.

Hiyama:. We are at all times equal, and when there are people who want to discuss various matters in physics, we hold discussions. I don’t make rules mandating that postdocs have to discuss matters with me and engage in joint research. In addition, if they want to collaborate in research with someone outside the lab, they can do so but it is not something they are required to do. I felt that an approach like this would be sure to result in interesting physics. That has been my dream from the beginning, and I really believe that it's coming true right now.

Adachi: Are there times that your name does not appear on papers published in your field by your lab members?

Hiyama: Yes, it happens quite frequently. On the other hand, I also conduct joint research with people who have no connections with our lab. And when I feel inspired by lab members, I engage in research with members of our lab. In that sense, we are truly free. It is my belief that we will not achieve noteworthy physics unless we are free. Our work is all about ideas, so we always try to keep our minds on an even keel. We don’t let stress get to us. When we are presented with interesting physics, I feel confident we can achieve good physics results, so I work on the principle of steering away from any rules that dictate this or that has to be done.

Adachi: So you don’t give guidance or anything like that when you hire new postdocs?

Hiyama: We are collaborators. Of course I am responsible for hiring and stamping attendance records and other documents. I also have to approve their travel and various other matters. But while I faithfully follow RIKEN rules as a PI, I expect my postdocs to pursue their work freely as they see fit. When we have meals together, I remind them that they are free to work as they wish, in the same way as I do. When I go out to various other labs to do joint research at my own discretion, I want them to take note of this and realize, “This is the way

Hiyama:-san does things, so we can do the same.” I am basically telling them to follow my example. That’s how I feel.

Adachi: When you hire postdocs, what are the minimum criteria that they have to meet for you to hire them?

Hiyama: Well, one criterion that I can say without hesitation is that they must be independent scientists. I myself am free and independent. What would upset me most would be to have someone who has joined our lab ask to be assigned tasks on the assumption that a hierarchical relationship exists. I would much rather have the kind of new postdoc who comes and says to me, “I have this idea. What do you think?” It is always my intention to hire researchers that are independent and autonomous. It is because I hire such people that they are capable of going out on their own during their term with us. People who aren't like that will stay on for a long time, so I am constantly thinking about that and observing our postdocs. The people I look out for and hire are those who are capable of moving on to the next step in their careers. I will never compromise on that point.

Adachi: Even based on this criterion, have you had difficulties with hirees in the past?

Hiyama: Yes, I have. After all, people are not always good judges of people. On one occasion, I hired someone who later told me the work was “kind of difficult” and rarely produced any papers. In such cases, each person is different, and as the person in charge of hiring, I was also responsible for this person. I had to make sure that this person graduated and secured their next position properly. Because of that, I had to take particular care in their mentoring. Bearing in mind their next position, I also had this person do joint research. It was rather difficult because not everyone can work independently and conduct research smoothly.

Adachi: In taking particular care to mentor such a person, did you assign them specific tasks?

Hiyama: Well, this is how I approached the situation. In cases like this, it is not good practice to explicitly tell people what they should do. Instead I said something to the effect, “I have an interesting problem here. Would you like to work with me on it?” I then had that person do the main calculations, and we then wrote a paper together. In that way, this person was able to achieve tangible results.

To Kyushu University

Adachi: In 2017, after working at RIKEN for nine years, you then became a professor at Kyushu University. Could you please tell me what prompted you to take up that position?

Hiyama: That’s a little complicated. I was approached by the professor who was my predecessor at Kyushu University. As he was about to retire, he came to me and said, “How about taking over here as your next position?” How can I explain? Since I had already been at RIKEN for a long time, I could have just remained there, but, to be honest, I was of two minds. I was certainly at that time in my career when I needed to begin to think about moving on to a professorship somewhere and begin teaching. Just as I was thinking along these lines, I received the offer from Kyushu University, so perhaps the timing was right. I had a hard time making up my mind but it was an excellent offer, and Kyushu University was my alma mater, so I felt I could not turn it down. I decided to accept the offer and move to Kyushu University.

Adachi: You continued to work part-time at the RIKEN lab, which was a considerable distance geographically, so I imagine it must have been a very difficult decision for you.

Hiyama: Yes, that is true. I was still an Associate Chief Scientist, and under RIKEN’s rules at the time, if you moved to another university, your lab would be disbanded and closed, but you could continue to do work at RIKEN for two years. Under the original rules, once I became a full-time professor at Kyushu University, I would have to close my RIKEN lab. The new president had taken office just a little while prior to that, and various procedures changed, so I wondered whether I would be able to continue wearing both hats, so to speak, as an invited PI at RIKEN and continue to have my own laboratory. I made an inquiry to RIKEN’s Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science, which I was affiliated with, about being permitted to work at both places, and I was told that it was possible. Kyushu University, which is both a national university and former imperial university, is capable of educating excellent graduate students. At the same time, RIKEN is a cutting-edge research institution, and managing the two separately seemed possible to me. While it would certainly be difficult geographically, I loved RIKEN both as a place and organization and felt I did not want to leave, if possible. Therefore, I thought I would do my best to make the arrangement work. In fact, I believe it worked out well. It was quite taxing physically, but since my husband was in the Kanto area, I thought that if I could skillfully coordinate my work at RIKEN with my work at the university in Kyushu, it would also be beneficial for our personal life, so I was extremely happy with the arrangement.

Adachi: Was your approach to education at Kyushu University the same as at Nara Women's University when you taught there?

Hiyama: It was essentially the same but during my time at Nara Women's University, there were many students who chose to become school teachers or get jobs rather than go on to graduate school. At Kyushu University, I believe almost 90% of the students go on to graduate school, with a number of students interested in specializing in research. So, I think my approach did change somewhat in the sense that I was able to pitch my teaching at a slightly higher level as there were students who could run with me.

Adachi: Since you were to spend much of your time at Kyushu University, what kind of arrangement did you come up with for managing your lab at RIKEN?

Hiyama: It was actually quite challenging. My lab at that time did not have any tenured staff, so I had to call upon fixed-term staff to cover all the work, and I couldn't ask anyone to stand in for me. I came up with the idea of inviting a professor who had just retired as a Senior Visiting Scientist, and assigning that person to manage the lab in my absence. There was a professor who had just retired from Tokyo Institute of Technology, and when I asked him take this on, he was very understanding of my circumstances and agreed. The arrangement is the same at present, and when I am away, that professor manages the lab together with the lab staff.

Adachi: How do you communicate and discuss matters with lab members? Do you use remote means, for example?

Hiyama: Of course I use email and online communications for the most part. For discussions, wherever I am - at Kyushu University previously and now at Tohoku University, and I am also at RIKEN at least four days a month - I have been able to hold face-to-face discussions on a regular basis at least once a week and I have never found organizing discussions particularly difficult. I feel I have been able to hold regular discussions with relative ease.

Adachi: Even after your move to Kyushu University, would you say you have been able to maintain the quality of research, that is, the quality of your communication in conducting research?

Hiyama: In that regard, there have been no problems whatsoever. Actually, there is a reason for that. Even if I had not moved to Kyushu University, I was away from the lab frequently during my time at RIKEN due to overseas travel for work. For my lab staff, it probably did not matter whether I went to Kyushu University or wherever I might be. When necessary, we can now use Zoom, and in the past we had Skype. Using such means allows us to engage in discussions normally. We also communicate by email without any problems at all.

To Tohoku University

Adachi: After four years at Kyushu University, what made you close your university lab completely and move to Tohoku University?

Hiyama: It was really quite accidental. When I originally made the decision to go to Kyushu University, I intended to stay there until the very end of my career. Therefore, even though various positions were advertised after my move to Kyushu University, I did not apply. However, an opening for a professorship at Tohoku University came up purely by chance. It was completely unexpected, and I never really imagined the position would be offered. Tohoku University is a university I have always admired, and it has a lab that is a world center for experiments in atomic nuclei called hypernuclei, which is my own field of research. Almost every year since I was a graduate student, I’ve been going to the lab at Tohoku University for discussions. Just about every year really. Although I did not collaborate with scientists at the university in writing papers, I engaged in discussions about various experiment projects. Ever since I was a student, at the back of my mind I always thought that if a position there ever opened up, I would love to go there. What I thought would never happen actually happened! When I heard about it, I could not contain my excitement. Being the way I am, the rational part of me told myself that I should not apply, but on the other hand, I felt that if I did not give it a try, I would regret it for the rest of my life, and carry my regret to the grave. I just couldn’t accept that. I had to at least apply. My reasoning was that if I submitted an application and it was unsuccessful, there would be no regrets, and I would accept the outcome for what it was. So, to avoid having any regrets, I felt I wanted to submit an application, and that’s what I did. And my application was successful! I did not know what to do. Everybody around me had stern words for me. But I was thrilled! I had been selected! I’m sure I caused a significant amount of inconvenience to those around me, but this one time I wanted their forgiveness more than anything. This is why I went to Tohoku University.

Adachi: Did people show mixed reactions about your decision to leave Kyushu University?

Hiyama: A lot of people expressed their displeasure with my decision, which was understandable, of course. And my time at the university had certainly been very short. Nevertheless, my rationale was that we never know what opportunities will come our way, and if I gave up now, I probably wouldn't have another chance like this. I was well aware of why people around me were angry, but I felt I could not live with regret for the rest of my life, so I decided to make the move despite their displeasure. I had already foreseen this situation.

Adachi: Have you been very happy in your research work since your move to Tohoku University?

Hiyama: Yes, I have. I enjoy every moment. I am living the life I envisioned. My lab is on the 10th floor, and the people doing the experiments are on the 6th floor. When I get an idea, I can barely contain my enthusiasm. I often go down from the 10th floor to the 6th floor for a visit. I know the staff are busy but I want to hold a brief discussion with them. In such cases, I send an email or call them on the phone beforehand asking whether they are free. We then discuss various matters. We also hold joint study sessions once a month where we decide on a lecturer for each session and we all talk about what we're thinking one by one. Each session generally lasts about two hours. We discuss various matters, talk about experiments, and consider various other matters. In the course of our discussions, various interesting ideas come up, and our time together is really quite enjoyable. For me, these monthly sessions are so much fun that the two hours seem to end in the space of 10 minutes. The next session is in October, and I'm already looking at my calendar in anticipation. I can hardly wait. The discussions we have are also a lot of fun.

Adachi: Are you also teaching students at Tohoku University while pursuing your own research?

Hiyama: Yes, I am. However, I do not have any students yet. In October, a doctoral student will be joining my lab. I think it will be really enjoyable to be able to work with students like this on joint research.

Setting up an own research lab

Adachi: Looking back on your career, at what point did you feel ready to or want to set up your own lab?

Hiyama: It was when I was at Nara Women’s University. At Nara Women’s University, it was the first time as an associate professor that I was assigned to manage a lab together with a professor and to provide support to that professor. I think this is probably a normal arrangement. Prior to this, however, I had too much freedom, and even though I was an associate researcher, I was free to pursue my own research on my own. I had a lot of freedom. Even though my professor was a professor, I didn’t particularly see him as someone above me. After being allowed such a degree of freedom, I guess I probably went to a more normal place. Although it may seem a bit strange to say, I felt cramped. Of course, that professor was an excellent teacher. He knew how free-spirited I was, so he wanted me to do what I wanted, but I also had to mentor students and supervise them in the lab, so I was not always free to do what I wanted. Each of these tasks felt somehow restrictive, so at that time I wondered whether I was capable of heading a lab and taking full responsibility for it, or creating a lab exactly in the way I wanted it. At that very time there was a call for applications for an Associate Chief Scientist who would be responsible for setting up a lab from scratch. The conditions, however, were quite stringent, and the successful candidate was expected to secure the necessary grants, hire postdoc researchers, and be responsible for doing everything required to set up a lab on their own. On the other hand, the position offered a tremendous level of freedom that would allow you to do anything you wanted to do, and I thought that perhaps I could create the lab I liked and realize the dream I envisioned. In that case, I would be able to design a lab exactly as I wanted it, so I thought what a wonderful place RIKEN was. Of course, it would be a tough challenge. It would be challenging, but with a bit of ingenuity I could make it work, so in that sense I felt that it was a very good opportunity for me.

Happiest moments as a PI

Adachi: What makes you happiest as a PI? What did you feel were the benefits of starting your own lab?

Hiyama: Enjoying the freedom perhaps (laughs). Responsibility and freedom are in a sense two sides of the same coin, I feel. You probably don't have the freedom to impose responsibility on others but because you properly assume responsibility, you're free to do what you want, and no one tells you what to do. You can enjoy such freedom to the fullest. Even now, I feel the same. Perhaps that’s what makes me happiest.

Challenges faced as a PI

Adachi: On the other hand, what trials or difficulties have you faced upon becoming a PI?

Hiyama: When people fail to develop and grow in the way I had hoped they would. It is always my hope that people will become independent. When it is difficult for them to become independent, I think about ways to encourage their development. Since every person is different, I try to take an approach that will suit that individual. And since my approach will depend on the person, every day will be different because my approach is different for each person. It’s a matter of trial and error, and the outcome is quite difficult to predict. For example, the situation might be one where the person can’t develop or won't develop unless I adopt a certain approach. But with this other person, this approach works. It is quite challenging. I think it's probably the same with raising children. Whatever the case, people are flesh and blood, so I think the most difficult challenge is deciding how to mentor them, how to guide them, exactly how to manage them, and how to interact with them. I think that such situations will continue to occur. This is something we will have to deal with more in the future than in the past.

Adachi: In your efforts to promote the development and growth of people, were communication and assigning tasks what you thought about and paid the most attention to?

Hiyama: As much as possible, I try not to hurt people’s self-esteem or character. After all, they are adults, so I have to be mindful of that. At the same time, I need to refrain from catering to them to some extent. Maintaining a proper sense of distance between people is one of the hardest things to do. This applies to not only Japanese, but also non-Japanese. People, including postdocs, come from all over the world, so I need to think about what approach will best suit each person. It is extremely difficult.

Adachi: Do you observe their reactions on a daily basis to determine what approach might be appropriate?

Hiyama: Yes, I do. And I communicate with them. In that regard, I think lunch break is a very valuable time. In the course of casual conversation, it is easy for me to ask in the most stress-free environment what they are interested in and what they’re having problems with at the moment. When we're having discussions about work, I can think only of physics and I get so absorbed that I don't take into account people’s characters or personalities, and I sometimes end up sounding very stern. I never really mean to. But during lunchtime or over a cup of tea, I observe people through casual conversation, thinking about what they are like as people, and whether they will perhaps listen to what I have to say if I speak in a certain manner. In that sense, I really value opportunities for recalibrating the way I think and moments like lunchtime.

Adachi: Has your way of dealing with the people you want to help develop and grow changed as you've gained experience?

Hiyama: Yes, it has. In the beginning, I had no idea how to deal with people and I made one mistake after another. In the early days, I was also young and had a set ideal of how things should be in my mind, so I wondered why a certain person or persons failed to follow what I had in mind, and I was quite forceful in the way I spoke initially. Thankfully, no one quit on me, but everyone had strong ideas, so we sometimes argued. In the course of arguing, on occasion they would clearly tell me, "This won’t work.” When this happened, I often agreed with them, and recognized that I had made a mistake. Since then, I have made it a practice to make efforts to improve my manner by reflecting on how I should be as a person and modifying my demeanor. This is not to say that this method is in any way perfect, and the world for young people is in a constant state of flux. Consequently, I believe values will also change. Therefore, I too have to change with the times. One area where I must not change under any circumstances, however, is in not catering to people. As a PI, I must maintain a certain distance. While bearing in mind that we are not friends, I think about and explore ways in which I can help people grow. It is in that frame of mind that I think about them.

Adachi: As you explore various ways, do you ever draw inspiration from or refer to practices of your own former bosses?

Hiyama: No, I don’t, because we have completely different personalities. I also feel that men and women are different. For example, I find it quite easy to talk to other women, but when it comes to men, I have the impression that their personalities and ways of thinking are a little different. Conversely, men may feel the same way about me too. Perhaps male PIs find it easier to work with male staff but find it harder to work with female staff. I don't feel this is discrimination. I don't know whether this can be called a distinction, but I think such gender differences exist. All the PIs and bosses I know are men, so I think taking the same approach as they do wouldn't work for me. I think I have to do things in my own way, and that is what I have been trying to do. Consequently, it is a process of trial and error. So perhaps at times I have succeeded and at times I have failed. That is how I feel. I am not sure whether I am succeeding at the moment.

Adachi: I imagine when you do follow up after what you see as a failure, you try to move your staff in a positive direction. Could you describe how you go about doing that?

Hiyama: If I consider having postdocs who ultimately move to another position a success, I don’t feel any serious error has been made. It’s just a matter of how we define success and failure. For example, on many occasions I have had quarrels with others, but if that's considered a failure, the next day I will just go and offer them a cup of tea. We will then have a cup of tea together as if nothing had ever happened. I make efforts in that way. As PIs, we think of everyone properly reaching the next stage in their career path as our final destination. Successfully securing a permanent position is truly wonderful but that is not possible for everyone. It’s now well over a decade since I set up my lab at RIKEN in 2008, and half of the staff have moved on to permanent positions while the other half have taken up different postdoc positions. Everyone is somehow surviving and they remain in contact with me. I'm not sure if I would call this a success, but I wonder what I would term a failure.

Major leap as a researcher

Adachi: Looking back on your career as a researcher, what do you see as the most defining turning point, the moment when you made a major leap in your career?

Hiyama: I would say it was when I became an Associate Chief Scientist at RIKEN. From that point on, I felt everything changed. After becoming a PI, I truly had the freedom to do what I wanted. I believe I changed. From then on, my attitude toward conducting joint research and other matters changed dramatically.

Adachi: Did you explore various aspects of it at that time?

Hiyama: Yes, I did. On my own, I had to study how to secure my own budget, and I had to think on my own about what kind of postdocs to hire. I didn't consult with anyone but just searched for ways to do these tasks. For the first two to three years from 2008, the number of postdocs did not increase. We operated within a framework of about two to three people. When I wondered why this number wasn’t increasing, I realized the reason: I was unknown. And the reason I was unknown was I had not been active in overseas academic circles abroad, as was customary. Realizing that I was perhaps not recognized outside of Japan, I decided to go abroad as much as possible. I would even force myself to speak at workshops overseas. I tried to expand my participation not only in international conferences but also in international collaborations. I then started to receive inquiries from people overseas about coming to RIKEN for postdoc positions, and from then on the number of postdocs increased rapidly. At one point, I think our lab grew to a maximum of 12 people altogether. We ran out of space in the lab, so we dismantled the seminar room and put desks there as well. Since all of the staff were fixed-term employees, the numbers fluctuated quite a bit. So, I think my time at RIKEN was a period of trial and error in efforts to come up with solutions during this transitional period.

Adachi: Had you ever thought of setting up a lab abroad?

Hiyama: Even now I think about it (laughs). And even now if I had an offer, I think I would still like to go and do it. But since I have this wonderful position here, I would like to keep it and go overseas as a concurrent professor. But I’m pretty certain that would not be allowed (laughs).

Adachi: When I did a search on your background, your name appeared on the Tokyo Institute of Technology website. Did you also hold a position there?

Hiyama: Yes, I did. It was a post that was concurrent when I was an Associate Chief Scientist. At that time, I also wanted to accept graduate students at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, so I was given the position of Visiting Associate Professor. I did give some lectures to graduate students and this allowed me to say that I “also have my own students.”

Adachi: Was that within the scope of the Joint Graduate School Program?

Hiyama: Yes, it was.

Adachi: This ends my questions for now. Thank you very much.

Significance of having a lab as a PI

Matsuo: I’d like to ask you about the significance of having your own lab as a PI. For example, you mentioned that staff in your lab are collaborators, but I wonder if it's possible to proceed with your research through joint research without necessarily having your own lab. What does it mean for you, Dr. Hiyama, to have your own lab?

Hiyama: Although I did not mention it earlier, I had a dream. I have my own particular method, a technique that I developed myself. I wanted to use this method as a means for expanding my joint research. I had already been able to engage in joint research as an individual at KEK and Nara Women's University. However, although I wanted people all over the world to use my method, under the current circumstances it might spread to some regional areas like a grassroots movement but would not spread any further. When you have your own lab, however, people all over the world pay attention to you for the very reason that you have a lab. If your name becomes known and you become famous, you will attract even more attention. In that case, I feel that people might also take an interest in the methodology used, and want to visit the lab concerned. With this in mind, I thought having a lab was absolutely essential for me. When I was at Nara Women's University, I felt that Associate Chief Scientists at RIKEN were allowed to do anything, and I thought that perhaps I could make my dream come true. So I applied to RIKEN and my application was successful. Now I'm working toward bringing my dream to fruition, and it's really starting to happen. I am able to engage in joint research with various institutions, and many people reach out to me. I find this extremely satisfying. Many people have become interested in my method, and do joint research with me. While I also do the calculations, various people are working on further developing my code. The work a single individual can do is limited while the amount of work many people can do together is substantial. That kind of research is so enjoyable, and I can do that research even now, so I derive great pleasure in being able to do such research in real time. I am truly having a wonderful time at present.

Matsuo: I can well understand what you’re saying. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You said that being an independent scientist was one necessary criterion for hiring a postdoc. Where do you feel the dividing line lies between people becoming independent researchers and those who are unable to get there?

Hiyama: I think it probably depends on whether they like research or not, and whether they see themselves as professionals in their field. Based on my own observations, I think that people who leave physics to others and don't think for themselves will never be capable of being independent scientists. I somehow feel that they do not really enjoy physics. I can't sense any passion in them. On the other hand, many very independent researchers have a tendency to find physics far more compelling than anything else. This passion is evident in every aspect of their being and in their aura. They are extremely enthusiastic when you talk to them, and their enthusiasm is quite apparent. They have a lot of pride, and they have convictions about how they themselves should be. Above all, they find the research content of physics very exciting. This attitude is quite evident to others. And when you talk to people like this, their love for physics seems to ooze from their very pores. I get the impression, “This person is thoroughly obsessed with physics!” “This person is such-and-such.” On the odd occasion, I am taken aback and realize I have erred in my judgment but this is how I go about making my initial evaluation.

Adachi: Is it possible to make this distinction at the time of the interview?

Hiyama: That is difficult. If you have the opportunity to talk with them a bit longer, say over a cup of tea or a drink, for example, you somehow get a sense of what kind of people they are. However, this generally does not come out in the course of an interview. There are also times when you can tell, and times when you get a sense of the type of person they are upon asking questions, but sometimes this still isn’t clear. And that's when you fail. Probably the best way to learn about a person is to go out for a drink (laughs).

Gender perspective in career choices

Matsuo: Earlier you mentioned that students at Nara Women's University don't often think about going on to graduate school. Do you feel that this might in some way be a gender-related issue?

Hiyama: That’s actually difficult to say. I don't know if it's related to gender or not. Nara Women's University, like Kyushu University, has a long history. Nara Women's University in particular was originally a normal school, a normal university and a training university for school teachers. Because of this historical background, I don't think it's possible to make a general statement in regard to gender. One thing I can say, however, is that women at Kyushu University, Nara Women's University, and Tohoku University are all quite clear about how they intend to live their lives. They think carefully about what they want to do as their careers. Therefore, when they look for a job, I think they understand their own abilities to some extent and make clear decisions about what they want to do. On the other hand, many men are dreamers. They seem to make choices based on what they happen to like. So it's more a case of men being the ones who have vague notions about becoming researchers. Some women want to become researchers, but before making any decision, they tend to think, "Wait a minute, if I get married and have children, I won't be able to make a living unless I get a job," and I think that's probably where they stop to become researchers. That is what I also hear from them when I ask about their careers. I don't hear men talk that way. They are more like, "This is what I want to do. I want to do (research on) elementary particles.” When I ask them, "What about your career?" they are like, "Huh?", so I feel there is a gender difference in that respect.

Matsuo: I think people often refer to you as a role model for female researchers. Do you think women bring particular qualities to their roles as female PIs? If so, what do you think they are?

Hiyama: I would say probably their attention to detail. Though it is not true of all male PIs, I think many of them tend to be dreamers. What they want to achieve is the same whether they are a PI or a student. I don't know if this is true, but when men start a project and think about how they will achieve it, I feel that their No. 1 goal is to complete the project. Of course, I also feel that I have to bring my project to completion, but I believe the people who will execute the project are of foremost importance when starting a project. I think: What can I do to make these people comfortable with the project? As people are all different, I consider their personalities, and assign people to roles that suit them. Of course, my objective is to complete the project, but when I think about how I can make it a people-centered project, my first step is to observe the personalities of the people involved and think about how I can manage to make the project go smoothly. That is how I think from the start. And I think about how I want to make the project work successfully. I believe this is how women manage a project. Please forgive me if I’m wrong.

Matsuo: Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Adachi: Have you ever been confronted with gender discrimination in your career as a researcher? For example, have you ever been told that you don’t need to apply for a certain position because you’re a woman?

Hiyama: No, I haven’t. There is a reason for that. My research is mainly theoretical. It requires almost no physical exertion. In a sense, my work comes down to brain power. I don't think there's any gender difference there. So, I've never been candidly told that there's a gender difference. Of course, I wouldn’t know if something was being said behind my back, but I've never been openly confronted with any gender discrimination.

Work-life balance

Adachi: How is the balance between your personal life and work life, and have you been able to manage it successfully thus far?

Hiyama: Oh, that is a rather sensitive issue.

Adachi: Earlier you said that you spend the entire day thinking about physics.

Hiyama: Yes, that is correct. I think about almost nothing but physics. I really feel sorry for my husband. I am so very grateful that he has stayed with me this long without divorcing me. I truly feel that way. My husband is- patient to a fault but often reminds me, “Your private life is important too.” I think about what he says but then I find myself sitting down at my computer and wondering about the code I created the previous day. When he catches sight of me, he just shakes his head in resignation and says, “You’re at your computer again!” (laughs).

Adachi: How do you support the work-life balance of your lab members?

Hiyama: They are free to do what they want, so I tell them to take advantage of their rights like vacations. They are conscious of taking them without me reminding them, so I don't think there's a problem there. If they think their research is important, they'll come to work, and if they think their private life is important, I also understand its importance, so I try not to get involved in that regard.

To young people who aspire to be PIs

Adachi: Can you offer some advice to young people aspiring to become researchers, and to those who are wondering whether they should strive to become PIs?

Hiyama: I would say you need to think about why you want to become a PI first of all. I think a person who becomes a PI based on some vague notion will be sure to find performing the role difficult. Becoming a PI means ultimately having to coordinate a lot of miscellaneous tasks outside of research. I think some people will be overwhelmed by that. So, first of all, you need to think why you want to become a PI. In my case, it was clear. It was the freedom that I sought. I wanted to become a PI because I knew what I wanted to do. In my case also, I wanted to apply for the position of Associate Chief Scientist at RIKEN and, with that in mind, I applied. You need to have a clear reason beyond just wanting to be a PI. You need to know at which university you want to become a PI. There are many different types of universities. Unless you think about what you want to strive for at which university and why, you will probably feel defeated. So, you must give careful thought to this point. Another point I must mention is that the duties of PIs are increasing every year. Because of this, I really feel sorry for young people aspiring to be PIs. The position becomes more demanding every year. Even Associate Professors have an enormous amount of chores that they have to complete, and the time available to them for research is really reduced. Although it may sound strange, sometimes you are better off in a non-PI position. In that way, you can ensure that you have time for your research. Therefore, you need to think carefully about why you want this position; otherwise, if you are a person who really wants to do research, you will be overwhelmed. So, my message to anyone aspiring to the position of PI is to think carefully about it.

Managing a theoretical physics lab

Adachi: I think theoretical physics labs must be quite different from labs that do biological experiments. In biology labs, for example, there are many PI-centered projects, so a certain number of people are required to execute these. Large labs may conduct a variety of projects while small labs may focus on a specific topic. What is the optimal number of people for a theoretical physics lab?

Hiyama: In my case, I believe that six is the maximum, based on my experience to date. First of all, this will depend on the field. In my lab, we are fortunate to have one permanent staff member at the moment, and the number of staff in permanent positions is limited to one at the most. The rest of the lab members are fixed-term employees, and for the work to proceed smoothly, it takes five or six people, so around five or six fixed-term staff at maximum for every permanent staff member. The current arrangement at my lab is just right, I feel. Although we may refer to our work as a project, we are all free to pursue the work we like. As I mentioned earlier, however, we actually launched a project this year to further develop my calculation method. This project is taking place not only in our lab; we have also widely recruited people outside our lab to participate and from among these we have been recruiting volunteers. Once the project has taken shape to a certain extent, I would like those of our lab members who are interested to join us. There is actually a reason for this. The development of my calculation method may not necessarily result in a paper. Since the people in our lab are on a fixed term, achieving global outcomes are important for them in pursuing a successful career path outside our lab. If our lab took on a project where the results did not count, it would be demoralizing for them. The project development I am currently considering will take some time, on the order of one to two years, and it is not clear whether a paper can be produced, so it is high risk. Therefore, we cannot include fixed-term staff in such a project. Taking this into consideration, I would like to recruit people from outside our lab and people in permanent positions as well as volunteers, and to first establish a sound foundation. Using this foundation as a base, I would like to then bring in people on fixed-term contracts when I think results in the form of a paper can be produced. Failure to take this into consideration would mean failure for the project and postdocs. People are very important, and we have to keep this in mind when creating projects. I don't know how people in biology and other fields go about creating a project, but to promote members outside the lab, PIs as a matter of course must think about producing outcomes and getting young researchers to not only achieve those outcomes but also find their next positions. I am always thinking about how to conduct projects of that nature.

Adachi: Earlier you said that at one time you had as many as 12 staff in your lab, which is twice the number you said was optimal. Can you describe your lab at that time?

Hiyama: I don't know how to put it, but it was really difficult. In the lab, I knew who was who but I found holding daily discussions for each project and joint research topic really taxing. It was at that time that I realized reducing the number of staff would be better. Until then, I didn't know my own limits. I kept increasing the number of researchers, and the number continued to grow until it reached a maximum of 12. At that time, I realized, "Ah, I can’t handle any more.” For me, the ideal number is about six people. In that way, I can keep an eye on each person's mental state and how the research is progressing. Through this experience, I found that this was just the right number.

Adachi: I think you also have a rather large number of collaborators. About how many are there?

Hiyama: More than I can count, honestly (laughs). At present, I am doing joint research with people from 12 countries. I don't always work with the same people continuously. For example, when one joint research project based on a certain person's idea is completed, I take a break. I will then work with another person, and the research continues in this fashion. Just yesterday, we submitted a paper. It was a collaborative effort with colleagues from Korea, and I will now take a break from that work. I'm also conducting research with colleagues from China, and the paper we wrote just came back yesterday. In another project, I'm also doing research with scientists from France and I am currently working on the calculations for this. So, it's a case-by-case situation.

Adachi: It must be difficult for you to decide where to direct your efforts.

Hiyama: No, not at all. I really enjoy my work (laughs). Because I get to think about physics every day. This is such a joy for me. Just today we had a discussion, and I felt, "This topic seems rather interesting!" And now I can’t sit still just thinking about it (laughs). I am simply just crazy about physics.

Adachi: Thank you for your time today.

This interview took place on September 8, 2023, in Wako, Japan, at the Main Research Bldg. Room 211.

RIKEN Elsevier Foundation Partnership Project
Camera and editor: Tomoko Nishiyama (Center for Brain Science)
Aiko Onoda (Center for Brain Science)
Interviewer and assistant: Hiroko Matsuo (Diversity Promotion Section)
Interviewer and producer: Emiko Adachi (Diversity Promotion Section)

View full transcript of the video