Published on 04.12.2025
Three SNSF Starting Grants at Unifr: Curiosity, Challenge, and Discovery
The 2025 SNSF Starting Grants have been awarded, and three researchers will soon launch their funded projects at the University of Fribourg. Their work spans a remarkable range of themes—from quantum approaches to molecular processes, to the history of gender and democracy, to the biology of cellular signals.
In the following mini-interviews, they share insights into their research, the challenges of the application process, and what they most look forward to as their projects take shape. Meet John Abendroth, Zoé Kergomard, and Karim Zuhra.
Dr. John Abendroth
John Abendroth is a physical chemist and senior researcher whose work bridges chemistry, materials science, and physics. Trained at UCLA, Stanford, and ETH Zurich, he now leads an SNSF Ambizione project that uses diamond-based quantum sensors to study how molecular chirality influences electron spin. His research aims to clarify this unusual phenomenon and its potential impact on future technologies.
Can you tell us a bit about your research project?
This research uses advanced quantum sensors to observe extremely short-lived pairs of electrons that are created when certain molecules absorb light. These electron pairs have linked spins, which may play roles both in biological processes and in future quantum technologies. Instead of using traditional magnetic-resonance techniques, the project employs a special defect in diamond that can detect tiny magnetic fields at the nanoscale. The first experiments will examine custom-made molecules that generate these light-activated electron pairs, including chiral versions whose “handedness” may influence spin (a behaviour known as CISS, or chirality-induced spin selectivity). Insights from these model systems will then guide measurements on photoresponsive proteins in which similar electron pairs naturally form. This line of research may help clarify proposed links between spin dynamics and animals’ ability to sense Earth’s magnetic field.
What did you find most challenging during the SNSF Starting Grant application process?
I applied for both the SNSF Starting Grants and ERC Starting Grant with different host institutions. I was fortunate enough to be awarded both grants and decided to decline the SNSF Starting Grant in favor of the ERC one. The projects were the same, but the general requirements and formatting for each application were slightly different.
Because I did not already have an assistant professor position, what I found most challenging was finding institutions that agreed to serve as hosts for my applications. Even if you have a great idea, finding a host may not be trivial, as laboratory space is always a coveted commodity that is not often readily available for newcomers with a Starting Grant. Likewise, tenure-track positions usually are not guaranteed for those in such positions, and together with space limitations, can make it hard to find an institution to support you.
Do you have any advice for future applicants?
Start early. Related to the answer above, it can take a lot of time to find the right host, to interview, and figure out where the right fit is. Related to the application and research proposal itself, give yourself time to develop the project. This is something that shouldn’t be rushed. It is usually best if the ideas, the motivation, and the proposed methods are born naturally out of a culmination of one’s prior work. The proposal should address important and outstanding questions or challenges in an innovative way, and ideally, pioneer a new direction and interdisciplinary area of research.
What are you most looking forward to as your project begins?
I am very much looking forward to the independence of leading my own group, and am excited to assemble a team to probe new and interesting questions at the intersection of quantum science, chemistry, and biology.
Dr. Zoé Kergomard
A researcher at the University of Fribourg, the German Historical Institute in Paris, and then the University of Zurich, Zoé Kergomard specializes in the history of democracy and gender in Switzerland, Germany, and France in the 20th and 21st centuries. Her work focuses in particular on contemporary transformations in political communication, representation, electoral practices, and citizenship.
Can you tell us a little about your research project?
My project is entitled The impossible feminist subject? Housewives in France and Switzerland in the wake of second-wave feminism. It aims to study the life experiences of women who identify as housewives in the face of changing gender relations in the second half of the 20th century, particularly in the wake of the so-called “second wave” feminist movements. The project draws on both archives (media, women's movements, personal documents, etc.) and biographical interviews to study the life trajectories, ways of saying “I,” and worldviews of housewives in all their generational, social, and cultural diversity. In order to better understand the interactions between personal life trajectories, political mobilization, and social change, the project contrasts France and Switzerland, two Western European countries whose gender relations are undergoing both convergent and divergent developments. By highlighting the diverse subjectivities of housewives in these two countries, the project will enable us to look beyond the one-dimensional figures of the “housewife” or “tradwife,” which prevent us from understanding the historical transformations of gender relations in all their complexity.
What did you find most difficult about the application process?
It was the first time I had put together a project in my own name, not only for myself, but also for a research team (two doctoral students, a postdoc, and a student assistant). I had to find a coherent overall structure and—given the sometimes contradictory demands of the funding bodies—achieved, at least on paper, a good balance between innovation and feasibility. Following a personally difficult period and health problems, I sometimes found it hard to trust myself, to accept that each day has enough trouble of its own in such a process. Fortunately, I received excellent support, both from colleagues in the project support services in Fribourg and Zurich, and from many fellow historians—I would like to take this opportunity to thank them. Behind every individual project, there are always layers and layers of collective discussion, and that is what drives research forward.
Do you have any advice for future applicants?
Precisely, to get good support, which in itself is a lot of work: after numerous contacts in France and abroad, it took me some time to narrow down the circle of partners and colleagues to bother regularly with my questions and requests for proofreading. What also helped me was trying to work within the constraints of such a funding application: for example, the number of characters is limited, which in a way forces you to set priorities but can also help you know when to stop. I sought to respect the constraints of the SNSF while adding my personal style and enjoying the questions and discussions I raised.
One expert pointed out that my project did not seek merely to verify assumptions, but was exploratory in nature, for example, with regard to the shifting category of “housewife.” This feedback really struck a chord with me because it's what I find most stimulating in research—and what makes it so useful in these troubled times: asking open-ended questions, thinking against oneself, accepting that we will never fully understand the social realities we are studying.
What aspect of your project are you most looking forward to?
It's difficult to choose one aspect in particular, especially since the best part will undoubtedly be the unexpected discoveries, which may lead us to adapt the architecture of the project (fortunately, that's possible!). But I can still give two examples. First, I am particularly looking forward to conducting life story interviews with the team and being able to reflect together, as we go along, on our interview practice. Secondly, on a very practical level, I have begun to find some very interesting sources concerning the mobilization of housewives on environmental issues as early as the 1960s: against water pollution caused in particular by phosphate-based detergents, in support of waste sorting, but also resistance to the end of returnable bottles and the spread of single-use packaging. I believe that these movements highlight all the tensions inherent in the consumerist and extractivist growth model of the “Trente Glorieuses”, and how housewives were able to differently invest in or even subvert the role of housewife-consumer that had been assigned to them.
Dr. Karim Zuhra
Karim Zuhra is a biomedical scientist who studies how cells produce and regulate energy, and how these processes affect human health. He focuses on small gaseous molecules—such as nitric oxide, hydrogen sulfide, and even hydrogen cyanide—and how they influence cell signaling and mitochondrial function. His research has helped reveal that hydrogen cyanide, traditionally seen only as a toxin, may also play a natural signaling role in the body.
Can you tell us a bit about your research project?
My project explores how our bodies naturally produce small amounts of gaseous signaling molecules and how this process might influence the development of colon cancer.
What did you find most challenging during the application process?
Honestly, the hardest part was preparing for the interview. The evaluation panel included scientists from very different fields, and not all were familiar with my area of research. Getting ready for an interview with such a broad audience was definitely challenging. I had to find ways to make my science clear and exciting to everyone, not just the experts.
Do you have any advice for future applicants?
If your project proposal is shortlisted for an interview, practice with as many people as you can, especially those outside your field. Sometimes the best comments come from them!
What are you most looking forward to as your project begins?
I can’t wait to build my own research team. Leading a research group feels both exciting and challenging. A good leader is not just a good scientist. It’s about inspiring others, helping them grow, and creating something meaningful together.