What’s your research background and what inspired you to apply to be an early career researcher observer on the Institute’s Scientific Advisory Committee?
Karoline: I’m a postdoctoral researcher at Newcastle University, working in the Computational Neurology, Neuroscience and Psychiatry (CNNP) lab. My background is in mathematics and data science, and I now develop new ways to measure the shape of the brain, to study how epilepsy changes it and build brain imaging tools that can help guide treatment decisions.
I applied as an observer for several reasons. First, I wanted to demystify grant funding. Earlier in my postdoc, I submitted several unsuccessful applications and walked away frustrated, without a clear sense of where they had fallen short. I also wanted to understand where epilepsy research is heading, so I can shape my own work around the questions that matter most. Finally, because my research sits between neuroscience, mathematics, and computing, I was curious to see how a panel of neurologists, neuroscientists, and epilepsy researchers evaluates proposals from different disciplines.
Nye: I studied neuroscience and medicine as an undergraduate, which included working on a research project using single-pulse electrical stimulation in epilepsy surgery. I am interested in pursuing a career in academic medicine alongside clinical neurophysiology training, focusing on pre-surgical epilepsy evaluation using brain modelling techniques like intracranial EEG, TMS and PET.
Epilepsy research has huge potential to bring together different approaches to understanding the brain, from studying genes and cells to using advanced brain imaging and measuring brain activity. Observing such a diverse range of research proposals being discussed provided a valuable insight into how these different approaches can work together towards a shared aim: delivering meaningful progress for people with epilepsy.
How did attending the SAC meetings help your career going forward?
Karoline: During the SAC meetings, the panel balanced scientific scrutiny with considering the applicants’ track record and the expertise behind the proposal. What struck me most was how often the patient voice came back into the room. “How will this actually help someone living with epilepsy?” was, in one form or another, the question underpinning almost every discussion.
I’ve come away with a much sharper sense of what a competitive proposal looks like and a better understanding of how applications are weighted against each other, and I’m sharing those insights with my early-career colleagues.
Nye: The experience reinforced that I would like to pursue a career in epilepsy research and apply for a PhD and research funding of my own, including through the Epilepsy Research Institute. It highlighted the importance of demonstrating how research connects to a broad range of areas so it can be understood and evaluated by a large group of researchers and clinicians.
I also noticed that some projects were overly overambitious, requiring skills sets that needed demonstrating by the applicant or projects requiring a longer timespan than was asked for. Whilst I appreciate the temptation to do as much as you possibly can with the funding and time, this has taught me how ambition can sometimes be interpreted as a lack of appreciation for the practical limitations of research.
Are there any of the projects that were awarded funding that you will be following particularly closely to look at the results of their research to see what you can learn from it?
Karoline: As someone working in structural imaging in epilepsy and particularly for epilepsy surgery, using MRI scans to look at the shape and anatomy of the brain, I was especially interested in project proposals in this area, and will be following the funded projects and their findings closely.
Nye: I am particularly interested in studies that use, or help create, imaging databases for presurgical evaluation. Surgical approaches remain a relatively small part of epilepsy treatments, meaning research often depends on large international collaborations to achieve sufficient statistical power. This introduces its own challenges of standardisation and working with large research teams.
What are your hopes for the future of epilepsy research?
Karoline: My hope is that better imaging and computational tools translate into a future where people diagnosed with epilepsy face fewer unknowns than they do today: clearer answers about what will work, less trial and error, and better information before any treatment decision.
Nye: The causes of many forms of epilepsy remain unknown, and research must continue to uncover these underlying mechanisms so that treatments can be better tailored to individual patients.
My hope is that clinical work will increasingly focus on developing tailored therapies, using genetic and imaging data that is built on a deeper understanding of the individual causes of each patient’s epilepsy.
Find out more about the ECR observer opportunity in our 2026-27 Grant Round here.
