Professor Licia Verde MAE is a leading cosmologist renowned for her work uncovering the universe’s hidden components – dark matter, dark energy, and its large-scale structure. Her research has propelled major advances in cosmology, from pioneering statistical methods that relate galaxy surveys to dark matter, to contributing key insights to NASA’s WMAP mission. Currently, she is ICREA Professor at the Institute of Cosmos Sciences, University of Barcelona.
Professor Verde has received numerous accolades, including the 2012 Gruber Cosmology Prize, the 2018 Breakthrough Prize (with the WMAP team), and the 2024 Medal of the Spanish Royal Physics Society
She was elected as a Member of Academia Europaea in 2025. At the 2025 Building Bridges Annual Conference, she will deliver a plenary speech titled Cosmology.
What first sparked your curiosity about the universe and made you want to understand how it works?
“I have been told that, as a child, I was always curious. When I started learning to read, someone gave me a book about the sky as a present. It covered birds, weather, planes, rockets, space, and the universe. I found birds, weather, and planes somewhat mundane – but space and the universe, now that was something worth the effort of learning to read!
It took me a while, however, to understand that math had to become my friend if I wanted to go beyond the surface in exploring space, the universe, and how it all works. In fact, it wasn’t until I read Galileo – mostly as a literature assignment – that it truly clicked.
It also helped that, during the 1970s, there was a great fascination with physics, and documentaries about physics were shown in prime-time television slots. I could follow those too, and my parents were patient enough to indulge my extravagant curiosity about physics and astronomy.
I was also fortunate to have very good and inspiring teachers, even though I first pursued classical studies before “seeing the light” and deciding to study physics.”
Your research focuses on what makes up most of the universe, including dark matter and dark energy- can you explain what these mysterious components are and how they influence the cosmos we see around us?
Dark matter behaves like matter; it falls under gravity just as any matter we know does. If we squeeze it or dilute it, the relation between density and the volume it occupies is the usual one. If you put a chocolate bar in a box, you have one chocolate bar. If you now double the volume of the box, you still have one chocolate bar – just in a bigger box. So far, so good.
However, dark matter, to a good approximation, interacts only gravitationally. It does not shine and does not feel electromagnetic interactions. When I clap my hands, my hands clap (d’oh). Even though they are made of atoms – and atoms are mostly empty, with tiny nuclei and electrons far away from them – my hands still collide because electromagnetic forces make them do so. If my hands were made of dark matter, I could not clap; they would simply pass through each other.
The effects of dark matter are gravitational. We see dark matter’s gravitational pull on luminous matter, and we see its effect on space-time. As Einstein’s general relativity predicts, mass deforms space-time. From all this, we know there’s a lot of mass out there that cannot be accounted for by the atoms we know exist.
Dark energy, on the other hand, is something completely different. If dark energy were chocolate, then you could put it in a box, and if you were to double the volume of the box, you would get double the chocolate. But, alas, it is not chocolate. It is energy associated with the vacuum. Now it makes (some) sense – if you put nothing in a box and then double the volume of the box, you get twice nothing.
As counterintuitive as it seems, in the form of a cosmological constant, this strange thing was actually introduced by Einstein as a constant term in his equations of general relativity – by hand. His newly developed theory of gravity predicted an unstable universe. But since the universe appeared old and unchanging, it seemed it had to be stable and static – hence the additional term. It turns out that although the universe is not static, Einstein was still correct in adding that term. The universe is undergoing accelerated expansion.
Normal matter, radiation, or even dark matter cannot drive such acceleration. You wouldn’t expect to throw a ball into the air and have it suddenly accelerate upward as if propelled by a rocket. Well, dark energy sort of behaves like that. Its effect is seen as the accelerated expansion of the universe. Galaxies, on average, are running away from each other at an ever-increasing pace (that’s the 2011 Nobel Prize). It also has other, subtler effects, as it influences the history and evolution of structures in the universe.
In terms of structure growth, dark matter accelerates clustering, while dark energy slows it down – a bit like a tug-of-war. Dark matter seemed to be winning in the earlier phases, when the universe was significantly younger; later, dark energy started to win.
When we chart the positions and motions of galaxies, what hidden stories do those patterns tell us about dark matter, the universe’s shape, or its evolution?
“The signal is small and statistical in nature, but very powerful. Through these patterns, we can map the expansion history of the universe and the way its structures formed – galaxies, groups of galaxies, and so on. These act like little light bulbs on a dark scaffold made of dark matter, which is being shaped by gravity. By tracing the pattern of these bulbs, we can probe the nature of gravity, the nature of dark energy and dark matter, and the properties of the matter we know exists, such as neutrinos. We can also ask questions like: how did the universe begin, and what physics is at play? And we can even ask ourselves – did we get it right, or are we fooling ourselves and the universe actually doesn’t work the way we think it does? I find all that quite cool.”
What keeps you motivated to study questions that may never have definitive answers, and how do you stay excited about that kind of challenge?
“If you put it in those words, it does sound foolish – or at least eccentric! I suppose one could reframe it in terms of curiosity. If the answer to any of these questions were easy, somebody would have found it already. It’s true that the eureka moments are quite exceptional in the life (and work) of any scientist. But science and progress are not achieved only through big discoveries. Although those are always one’s stretch goal, it’s about the journey as much as it is about the destination. There is a lot of value, and much to be learned, along the journey – even in the absence of major discoveries.”
Caroline Bassett is a Professor of Digital Humanities at the University of Cambridge, where she also serves as Director of Cambridge Digital Humanities (CDH). Her research critically examines how digital technologies shape cultural forms and social practices, focusing on the intersections of technology, culture, and society- particularly within computational media, artificial intelligence, feminist theory, and critical digital studies.
Professor Bassett is the author of several influential works, including The Arc and the Machine (2007), Anti-Computing: Dissent and the Machine (2022), and co-author of Furious: Technological Feminism and Digital Futures (2019), which critiques the masculinist politics of digital media and advocates for feminist approaches to digital futures.
She and has held fellowships at prestigious institutions, including the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies and McGill University and was a co-founder of the Sussex Humanities Lab (SHL) at the University of Sussex. She was elected to Academia Europaea in 2020.
What motivated you and your co-authors to write Furious: Technological Feminism and Digital Futures and what core issues does the book address regarding gender and digital culture?
“The cheap response to why we wrote Furious is that we were – separately and together – furious! What we were furious about was the way computational technology was being hailed as the future, and as a better future for all, when in fact many developments created problems for many, did little to improve lives, and often exacerbated inequalities. The claims made for technology endlessly revert to the universal; tech, we are told, is ‘for good’ – but the urgent question is always: good for whom, in what way, and where? These questions need to be continually revived in response to new waves of technological innovation, both in relation to industry hype and boosterish academic discourse.
We all recognise that computational technology is powerful, and that it brings genuinely new developments. But we don’t believe it resets the world or pushes old issues – such as centuries of gendered discrimination, intersecting with other inequalities – to the sidelines. The core issue of the book, then, concerns what we might term, following Berlant, the cruel optimism of promises made about digital developments, particularly as these promises pertain to gender and sexuality.
We are also furious about waste – the waste of work and opportunity. We’re not anti-computing in a global sense; we are against the waste, the misdirection, and the failure to weigh the costs and possibilities of computational technology against real measures: costs to specific groups, to particular regions, to the environment. We explored this especially in relation to future forms of life, visions of the future, and developments in biotech and health.
All of this could have produced a very dark book. But we also wanted, through writing, to suggest forms of disruption, possibility, engagement, and solidarity.”
In Furious, you highlight concerns about the problematic nature of much of the existing discourse on digital culture. Could you elaborate on what makes this writing problematic, and how it influences our understanding of the digital world?
“One real issue – already clear from the above perhaps – is the fake universalism that pervades much existing discourse on digital culture. Even when the dial shifts from ‘this stuff is good’ to ‘this stuff is evil,’ the assumption is still that it applies equally to everyone. Of course, that’s not the case: what is good for one group often exacerbates suffering and discrimination for another.
A second issue is the failure on digital culture to historicise. Somebody once said that every generation believes its own technology is exceptional – that it breaks through old barriers and rules, even disrupting earlier possibilities for resistance. In short, that it changes the order of things and determines the future. If you believe this, then history, context, previous injustices and inequalities all become irrelevant in the face of the so-called new. The only thing that matters is the present moment and the possibilities it generates for the future. This kind of short-termism produces a demand to develop technologies to safeguard “future people,” while overlooking the threats, possibilities, and discriminations of contemporary computational culture as a mode of informational capitalism. And because it refuses to recognise the past, it ends up entirely trapped in the present.”
How do digital technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, both reinforce and challenge existing gender biases? Are there examples where AI has either perpetuated stereotypes or been utilised to promote gender equity?
“Of course, there are many – and often notorious – examples of how big data has perpetuated existing gender and racial biases; AI bots that became Nazis, or image systems that consistently made doctors male and nurses female. The rise of large language models (today’s AI, if we accept the term) has amplified some of these issues, producing new problems and at larger scales.
It’s obvious why and how language models are gender biased: they learn from us. Moreover, they have no bodies to ground their assumptions – they are pure discourse. This is partly why they are also highly normative. Homogenisation, the tendency of LLMs to narrow discourse and reproduce the canonical, means dominant ideas are likely to become more powerful and ubiquitous, and oppositional ones less so. I don’t think this is inevitable, but the direction of funding is certainly pushing us that way.
On the other hand, there are many ways to use AI tools, and artists, teachers, activists, and students are already doing so. Still, the environmental cost of these technologies is urgent and must be addressed.”
Your career transitioned from technology journalism to academia. How has this journey shaped your approach to studying digital cultures and gender?
“My time as a tech journalist had a big influence on how I understand and study digital cultures, and questions of gender and intersectional discrimination. When I first started, I worked on a tech business magazine and saw how far vapourware and industry hype – what we might call “industrial imaginaries” – often diverged from the reality of what was actually made or what tech could do. I was also acutely aware of how male this world was, and watched digital technologies being “gendered masculine,” (to quote Judy Wajcman) – from how they were designed to how they were marketed.
So, from the beginning of my academic life, I was sceptical about promises that technology would deliver universal benefits. Later, working for magazines focusing on Apple technologies, I became very aware of Silicon Valley myth-making. Beautiful design that looked – and in some ways was – radical could also be socially as conservative as ever: designed for the West, with Western culture in mind, and with the ideal user imagined as a white, Western male.
At the same time, I also had a blast – and met many brilliant women who were hackers, designers, digital media artists, writers, journalists, and campaigners. Some identified as cyber-feminists, and I learned a lot alongside them. Being immersed in industrial tech culture also showed me what could be done with computational technology. Another – better, more equal, freer – world is possible. The fact that technologies that could support building that world are instead so often made for profit takes me back to Furious…”
How has the intersection of gender studies and digital humanities evolved since you began your career, and what changes do you anticipate in the coming years?
“I didn’t begin my career in Digital Humanities, at least not in the emerging discipline that later took that name. I was in digital media studies. But I would argue that digital media studies, software studies, and feminist technoscience are all key tributaries of what now constitutes DH. One positive development in DH is that this is increasingly recognised by more people who align themselves, in whole or in part, with the field.
DH has also begun to move beyond the highly gendered and crudely binary distinction between “hacking” and “yacking” – where one term signalled valued work and the other dismissed as “just talking,” often a cover for the accusation of “uselessly theorizing.” These days, the argument that practice without critical thinking makes no sense has more traction. Feminists – and particularly intersectional feminists – within DH have been central to this shift, and that work needs recognition.
For me, DH is a cultural study, or it is nothing. It is easier to argue that now than it used to be, and that places DH, amidst all the chaos and violence around us, in a good position to advocate for critical, intersectional feminist perspectives on emerging computational cultures and technologies – and the worlds they don’t determine, but can be used both to secure and to disrupt. I guess in the end, I am hopeful.”
Lise Øvreås MAE is a microbial ecologist and professor at the University of Bergen. Her research focuses on microbial diversity and ecology along environmental gradients, with a particular interest in how climate change affects microbial communities – including the warming of permafrost soils, glacier ecosystems and the Arctic Ocean. She has served as Academic Director of Ocean Sustainability Bergen and as President of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters from 2021 to 2024.
Most recently, she was appointed President of the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) and will start this position in January 2025. Professor Øvreås was elected to the Ecology and Evolution Section of Academia Europaea in 2022.
Climate change is often talked about in terms of weather, ice, or wildlife – how are microbes part of this story, especially in the Arctic?
“Microbes play a critical role in climate change because they drive the main biogeochemical cycles, like carbon and nitrogen cycles. Photosynthetic microbes such as cyanobacteria and phytoplankton absorb large amounts of CO₂ from the atmosphere. Soil microbes decompose organic matter, releasing, storing, or converting carbon depending on the conditions. Some microbes even help lock carbon into soils and sediments, acting as long-term carbon sinks.
Certain specialised microbes produce methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O), both potent greenhouse gases. Other microbes, like methanotrophs, consume methane, helping reduce emissions. In the Arctic, gigatonnes of carbon are stored in the permafrost. As it thaws, dormant microbes become active, decomposing ancient organic matter and thus releasing CO₂ and CH₄. This creates a positive feedback loop that accelerates warming.”
Can you describe a moment in your career when you realised the true impact of microbial ecology on global systems?
“I started my PhD studies in the early days of applying molecular techniques to microbial ecology studies. This ‘molecular revolution’ in microbial ecology refers to the transformative shift in how scientists study microbes, made possible by the introduction of molecular techniques that let us analyse microbial communities without culturing them in the lab. This revolution has dramatically expanded our understanding of microbial diversity, function, and ecological roles. After applying these techniques, we realised that microorganisms are not only the oldest and most diverse organisms on the planet, but they also represent the vast majority of the Earth’s biodiversity.
The first forms of life were microorganisms, found in fossils from 3.5 – 3.8 billion years ago. For more than 2 billion years, life and evolution on the planet was entirely prokaryotic. Even now, we have only described a small fraction of this diversity. Realising that microbes can live under extreme conditions – and drive those ecosystems – has been key to my understanding of how biodiversity is regulated and sustained.
The number of microorganisms on Earth exceeds the number of higher animals and plants. I’ve been especially fascinated by the microbes that thrive in cold and dark environments, performing crucial processes there. Advances in genomics and metagenomics have revealed the vast diversity and functional importance of microbes in soil, oceans, and the human body. In 2001 the term ‘microbiome’ was introduced, highlighting the importance of microbial communities in human health and the environment.”
You’ve held leadership roles in major scientific organisations and your work spans ecology, climate science, and sustainability. How important is interdisciplinary collaboration in tackling today’s environmental challenges?
“Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for addressing today’s environmental challenges. Issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and resource depletion are complex, interconnected, and global in scale. No single discipline can fully understand or solve these challenges alone. We need to integrate knowledge between ecologists, engineers and social scientists to better understand human behaviour, policy, and governance. We also need economists to assess real costs, incentives, and sustainable development strategies.”
Looking ahead, what are you most hopeful about in the field of microbial ecology?
“Microbial ecology is now central to understanding climate change, carbon cycling, and ecosystem resilience. Microbes are invisible to the naked eye, and their importance in ecosystems can be difficult to grasp. Yet, I hope knowledge from microbial ecology will combine with other disciplines to deliver novel solutions, such as biobased materials from extremophiles (enzymes, chemical and pharmaceutical compounds). I hope that we can use this knowledge in climate models to integrate ecological and economic data, and in urban planning that incorporates environmental psychology and green infrastructure.
I also hope that this knowledge will be included in science-for-policy documents and reports, helping to support more evidence-based decisions and foster public trust – in both scientists and decision makers.”
Donald Dingwell MAE is a Canadian earth scientist, specialising in geomaterials, magmas, and volcanism. Since moving to Germany in 1987, he has built a career at Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, where he served as Chair of Mineralogy and Petrology and led the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences from 2000 to 2024.
Professor Dingwell has authored around 600 scientific publications, advancing experimental approaches to understanding magmatic processes. His contributions have been recognised with numerous awards, honorary doctorates, academy memberships, and national honours from both Germany and Canada.
In addition to his research, Dingwell has held major leadership roles, including President of the European Geosciences Union, President of the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior (IAVCEI), and Secretary-General of the European Research Council.
A Member of Academia Europaea since 2007, Dingwell was recently elected as the Academy’s next President. His term will officially start at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Members in Barcelona on 14th October. Until the AGM, Professor Dingwell will hold the title of President-elect. During this interim period, he will continue to serve as Vice President and Chair of the Board of Trustees.
Tell us a little about your background and the key highlights from your career so far that have led you to your new role as Academia Europaea’s President.
“My origins lie in Newfoundland, Canada – one of the earliest outposts of European expansion, over 500 years ago. Moving to Europe in the 1980s accelerated my research. A deep commitment to European approaches and global exchange led to extensive evaluation experience in Brussels, and to organisational roles at the European Geosciences Union, the European Research Council and IAVCEI. Throughout, I was able to keep my hand in research and continue to practise elements of it.
I would say that being fundamentally European, rather than national, in outlook is the essence of what I bring to the table at Academia Europaea.”
As the new President of Academia Europaea, what are your priorities and ambitions for the Academy over the next few years?
“As outlined in my position paper for the presidential election, there is a long list of attributes of Academia Europaea that can – and must – be strengthened as opportunities arise. That is the planned part of Academy development. All of these efforts serve to enhance the value proposition for the Members of Academia Europaea and for Europe’s role in global research and knowledge discovery.
In addition, there are challenges that may arise unexpectedly. These must be addressed with experience and initiative, drawing on the Academy’s valuable consultative bodies – the Membership, the Sections, the Classes, the Board and the wisdom of past office-holders.”
From 15th-17th October 2025, Barcelona will host the 36ᵗʰ Annual Conference of Academia Europaea, Building Bridges 2025. Taking place at the Parc de Recerca Biomèdica Barcelona, the event gathers leading scholars from across disciplines to explore pressing global challenges, share cutting-edge research, and strengthen academic networks.
In this interview Professor Jaume Bertranpetit, Academic Director of the Barcelona Knowledge Hub, explains how Building Bridges is designed to bring AE members together, open up honest dialogue, and position Barcelona’s scientific community at the forefront of European research.
Could you tell us about this year’s programme?
“This year’s Building Bridges programme continues the tradition of bringing together scholars from all disciplines. Over the three main days, we’ll hear from researchers in the humanities, social sciences, life sciences, and exact sciences- looking at key issues from different perspectives.
The conference begins with Class meetings and thematic discussions that allow Members to connect around shared interests and emerging challenges in their fields. This year, there is a real emphasis on encouraging exchange across disciplines -from social and cultural transformations to developments in Artificial Intelligence and life sciences.
Our plenary sessions offer space for broader reflection, with lectures and panels designed to bridge scientific inquiry, societal concerns, and artistic expression. They include a talk by artist Marta de Menezes who explores the relationship between art and immunology, and a closing masterclass by Jordi Savall on music as a form of shared human heritage. Throughout the programme, the aim is to create space for open dialogue and new connections between fields.”
Are there any sessions you are particularly looking forward to? Is there anything new about this year’s programme?
“There are several sessions I’m particularly looking forward to, especially those that highlight the intersection between disciplines and invite open reflection. The session by Marta de Menezes on the connections between art and immunology is a wonderful example of how Building Bridges expands beyond traditional academic boundaries. Similarly, Jordi Savall’s masterclass promises to be a profound cultural moment, reminding us of the role of music as a universal language and a bridge across times and cultures.
What’s new this year is the increased focus on informal exchanges, especially across the different Classes. There are more open sessions that encourage real conversation, not just presentations. We’re also seeing more involvement from younger researchers, including through the Young Academy of Europe.”
Could you explain the benefits for an MAE attending the Annual Conference? What will those attending gain from it?
“For MAEs, the Annual Conference is a chance to connect with peers from all kinds of disciplines in one place, which doesn’t happen often. Bringing together different perspectives matters, because many of today’s challenges don’t fit neatly into just one area of study.
The conference also provides the opportunity to catch up with colleagues, meet new Members, and strengthening ties with colleagues from different countries and fields. These personal and professional interactions often lead to collaborative projects, joint publications, or future initiatives within the Academy.
In addition, the programme explores broader societal and cultural issues, offering inspiration beyond one’s own area of expertise. It also offers an opportunity to engage with influential figures in European science policy.”
What would you say is the best part of attending the Annual Conference?
“It’s rare to find a space where scholars from such diverse disciplines can come together – not just to present their work, but to listen, learn, and engage with different ways of thinking. You get to move from a discussion on cutting-edge science to a session on literature or ethics, all in the same day. It’s a chance to step back from your day-to-day work and think a bit more broadly – about where your field fits into bigger questions.
Being in Barcelona definitely adds something to the experience. It’s an environment that supports curiosity, collaboration and new ideas.”
For more information on Building Bridges 2025, visit the Barcelona Knowledge Hub’s website.
A collaboration between Academia Europaea and Cardiff University