In your own words, describe the most important scientific achievements of the nominee, upon which you base your decision to nominate them for the Swiss Science Prize Marcel Benoist. Aim at describing only up to three to seven most important achievements with relevance to this nomination (go for quality over quantity). In addition to the detailed description of the nominee’s achievements, please use the box “Summary of the Nominee’s Scientific Achievements” to very briefly summarise or list what you consider the nominee’s most distinguishing scientific achievements. Describe the nominee’s achievements in a way comprehensible to an educated, non-expert member of the public without using any jargon. Please do not refer to the nominee by their name but instead just refer to them as “the nominee”.

What is meant by “Achievements”

Here achievements are understood only as the actual work and output of the nominee. These may include important scientific publications, inventions, efforts, documented breakthroughs etc. Not regarded as achievements in this sense are prizes, awards and prestigious associations endowed upon the nominee (e.g. employment in famous universities, collaborations with famous people or publications in famous journals etc.; you may describe these in Part 1D “Prominence”). Here, strictly only describe what the nominee themselves have actually done or produced. In this part, you do not need to focus on the non-scientific impact, which the nominee’s work may have had on human life, as this should be described specifically in Part 2B “Impact beyond Academia”.

Referencing

Please provide evidence for any achievement you mention here by referencing the number of one or more of the items from the list of references & sources in Part 2C (no more than 10 references total per nomination, note that references will also be needed for Part 2B “ Impact beyond Academia”). For example, if you think one important achievement of the nominee was the publication of a specific research article, then explain this and add the respective source by including its number in square brackets (e.g. a publication mentioned in reference 3 in Part 2C might be referred to in the following way: “the nominee discovered A [3], which was necessary to now be able to do B”). Alternatively, if you think that an important achievement of the nominee was a specific project, describe the project and provide some evidence (e.g. a project mentioned in reference 5 in Part 2C might be referred to in the following way: “as secretary general the nominee was in charge of project X [5], which was the first project to do Y”). You may not refer to or allude to any achievements without referencing evidence from Part 2C. If you are not able to provide any evidence, please highlight and describe this directly within a reference in the reference list in Part 2C and refer to that “empty reference” here as if it were a normal reference.

General Remarks

Employees of the SNSF may verify your statements made here and reserve the right to anonymize the text, as needed. The evaluators will use this text to assess, whether the nominee is a researcher with a proven track record and whether their work is original, innovative and current. A good description of the achievements of the nominee does not simply list as many references as possible, instead it communicates clearly and succinctly the nominee’s skills and achievements, upon which you have based your decision to nominate them for this award (aim at 800 words, maximum: 1200 words).