John Nolan, a vision scientist at Waterford Institute of Technology in Ireland, was awarded a €1.5-million (US$2-million), five-year starting grant by the European Research Council (ERC) in September — a first for a researcher from an institute of technology.

Describe your PhD experience.

I graduated from Waterford Institute of Technology in 2002 and applied to do a PhD there, looking for links between nutrition and age-related macular degeneration, the leading cause of blindness. I was also interested in conducting population studies that might help us to understand what makes someone fit or healthy. At the time, Ireland's economy was quite strong, so it was a big decision to turn down better-paid positions. But it was the right decision. My graduate adviser and I had an exceptional experience — publishing our observations of the link between macular pigment and age-related macular degeneration in more than 800 people in just two years.

What has been your biggest turning point so far?

Credit: S. O'NEILL

Without a doubt, it was winning a Fulbright scholarship to spend a year at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. It forced me to survive on my own. During that year, I churned out publications on how the shape and architecture of the eye affects performance of the pigment. Once I returned to Ireland, I was appointed as a deputy director of the macular-pigment research group.

How much of a long shot was it to apply for the ERC award?

It is a very prestigious award given for excellence in science. Awardees have to have a track record that shows they are capable of achieving their proposed blue-sky research idea. Typically, no more than 10% of applicants get funding across the whole of Europe. With such a low probability of success, some faculty members at Waterford were concerned that the effort would be for naught.

How did you approach the ERC application?

I promised myself when I started the application that I was going to get it. I proposed a study to find ways to optimize and enrich eye nutrition by dietary means, producing a direct impact on vision in the young normal population — by reducing issues of either glare or bad contrast through diet — and protecting vision in older people. I had to give myself enough time to write and critique the proposal — roughly a year — and prioritize and sacrifice some things. For example, I changed some of the methodology and extended our study to young as well as older people. And I got external experts to assess and be critical of the proposal, which some scientists can find difficult.

You could take the ERC funding anywhere. Why stay at Waterford?

If you have the right ideas, people and expertise, it doesn't matter whether you are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or at Waterford. I want to add to what we have achieved here. You always have to keep your options open to change. But for now, I've agreed with the institute to represent them, and I'm very proud to do that.

What's the single best thing you've done to establish your standing in the field?

The one strength that I have is staying focused on what I'm good at. There's always a danger, maybe even a temptation, for scientists to keep moving into different fields. Ideas can get fragmented. I think it's great to collaborate, but sometimes, in big cooperative projects, nobody takes responsibility.

How will you use this money?

My colleagues and I will be able to update our infrastructure, hire five researchers and help to raise the profile of our group, which will be important so that we can continue to bring in funds. The idea is to use all the capital we have to generate a centre of excellence for vision research. Our ultimate goal is to identify ways to prevent blindness resulting from age-related macular degeneration, and to identify ways to optimize vision and visual performance for everyone — perhaps even helping footballers to see the ball better.