Norbert Holtkamp is a physicist and science administrator who has served as director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) since January 2026. He previously held senior leadership roles at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and the ITER fusion project, where he focused on large-scale accelerator and scientific infrastructure development.
[This interview was edited for length and clarity.]
How would you describe the current state of American science?
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
From my point of view here at Fermilab, I think it’s actually phenomenal. I’m impressed. [The media talks about how] science is under duress, but from our point of view here, we have public investment in the laboratory, and fundamental science..., the basic science, that we do here is enormous. I often say that we have $5 billion coming to the laboratory, a big fraction of which goes into just one big neutrino experiment, and that will be defining the next generation of science and capabilities physics for the U.S. for quite some time. So I see this as a continuous investment. I spend a little bit of time going to [Capitol] Hill and talking to people in the Senate, the House..., and all I hear is that there is a lot of support in both chambers for science and scientists and what we do.
What do you think needs to change in American science?
One thing that I think needs to drive science is getting an idea of “What are the important science questions?” We talk a lot today about the tools we want to build before we talk about the questions. One of the things that I think really needs to be emphasized more is the necessity to focus on the science question first.
What is giving you optimism right now?
One thing I already said—the fact that there’s a broad consensus in the funding agencies and the political world that funds our science that this is something that needs to be held up and be supported. From my point of view, that makes me very optimistic when I talk to people and they say, “What do you need? How can we help?”
What’s your best advice for an early-career scientist?
I have two sons, and we had a conversation about curiosity, and it started simple, with a flashlight. You turn it on: Why does it shine? How does it work? If you’re curious, naturally curious about ... the world around you, that’s something to cherish and to follow up on. And then I tell people, you’d better pick something that you really like because when you look back, you want to have a feeling that what you did actually moved the needle: it did something good not only for you but for others, for science, for society. I would recommend for everybody to think about those two things: curiosity and how you want to spend your life. Some people want to do that by making money. Scientists want to do it mostly for other reasons, and it can be very rewarding.
How has your field changed in the past few years?
Nothing changes in three to five years. Let’s say the past few decades. You go back to the 1980s and 1990s, and open science was something that was generally understood, and the rules of how to play were basically obeyed by everybody. “We work together, we collaborate.... I find something I share with you, you find something you share with me, and we publish.” Today we’re in a world where research security is a word that people commonly use. It’s a more regulated world in which collaboration is more defined.... “If you sign up for these rules, we can collaborate, and if you don’t, maybe not.” I think that’s probably one of the most profound changes.