.JPG)
January 9, 2008: Four Nobel Laureates graced the 10th Eurasia Conference on Chemical Sciences with their presence and I was lucky enough to catch them.
(Photo: The all-excited Philipina with Prof. Hartmut Michel of Germany, the 1988 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. photo credits: E. C. Quinto, 10th Eurasia Conference on Chemical Sciences, Philippine International Convention Center)
=============================================================Stepping aside from behind the podium to show the audience that he was wearing jeans, Prof. Aaron Ciechanover of Israel, the 2004 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his contribution in the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation cheerfully said, “Nobel Laureates are humans, too… see, they wear jeans just like everyone else.” This, as he delivered his 10-minute speech during the Nobel Forum held at the Philippine International Convention Center in Manila on January 9, 2008, in conjunction with the 10th Eurasia Conference on Chemical Sciences. Representing the University of Santo Tomas scientific community, I was one of the lucky few who experienced the rare opportunity of interacting with four Nobel Laureates in a forum where thought-provoking ideas were tossed on the table and challenging questions that are relevant to today’s scientific frontiers were raised.
When asked about the potential of biofuel as a solution to the world’s current quest for alternative fuel, Prof. Hartmut Michel of Germany, the 1988 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his contribution in the determination of the three-dimensional structure of a photosynthetic reaction center, commented that biofuel may not be the long-term solution. He explained that the amount of energy stored by plants during photosynthesis is only about 1% of the sun’s energy, and therefore, the maximum energy they can provide is very little. He added that, considering the cost of planting and soil fertilization as well as the elaborate extraction and purification processes that plant oils have to undergo before being utilized as fuel, may be too expensive for the little energy they can provide. He suggested that the use of fuel cells may prove to be a better alternative for a more long-term and sustainable solution. Prof. Yuan Tseh Lee of Taiwan, the 1981 Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry for his contribution to the dynamics of chemical elementary processes, added that biofuel as an alternative fuel may work for countries where there is vast land for plant cultivation, such as the United States of America (USA). However, in countries were agricultural land is scarce and just enough for food production, such as Taiwan, other alternatives have to be explored. He jokingly commented that America’s problems usually become the world’s problems. But American solutions are usually just for America and are rarely applicable for the whole world. To me, this comment is a challenge for all the nations in the world to develop their own scientific capabilities to come up with solutions to problems, local or global, that are most appropriate to them, at the same time, a challenge to use science in making better the plight of all the peoples of the world, rather than using it to get ahead.
Prof. Ryoji Noyori of Japan, the 2001 Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry for his work towards the understanding of chirally catalysed hydrogenation reactions, emphasized the importance of instilling fundamental knowledge and discipline among young people through education. He stressed the importance of equal emphasis on basic and applied sciences in the role of technological innovations to solve the most pressing problems of the world today. Prof. Ciechanover agreed and, in fact, stressed the importance of collaborative science for a more productive scientific community. Prof. Michel pointed out that a deeper understanding of fundamental scientific concepts take patience and time, that’s why, scientific breakthroughs take longer than what some may appreciate. He commented that this is the very reason why the most important scientific findings came out from Europe rather than the USA – because of the tenacity of European scientists to patiently nurture a seed of idea with solid evidences until it becomes a mature fruit of understanding that does not erode with latest advancements, as opposed to the rat race-driven approach of the Americans to bring a scientific concept to commercialization.
Having studied and been engaged in research in both Europe and the USA, I do have a very strong appreciation of the “contemplative approach” to scientific pursuits that defines the European scientific psyche – it makes those “eureka moments” such immeasurable delight that fuel one’s will to keep going no matter how hard the quest is. Perhaps, the American approach is a more practical one, which seeks to put a solid scientific concept to good use within the shortest possible time... although, I have to admit, that the “competition factor” is way too heavy for a scientist to bear to fully experience and appreciate those “eureka moments”. It would be great to do science just for the love of it and its benefits to humankind, rather than just to get ahead, or get the patent for the technology, or being the one to sell the technology to the highest bidder, or just to win the Nobel Prize - all superficial reasons for doing science. As Prof. Lee said, although money can be a driving force of innovation, creativity, which roots from intellectual curiosity, is stifled when intellectual superficiality persists. Prof. Ciechanover put it very candidly but meaningfully, "winning the Nobel Prize was not my objective, rather it was a consequence of ardently pursuing a passion." And, what a wonderful and fulfilling consequence it must have been!
If I were to sum this argument up having been immersed in both the European and American scientific communities, I would say that if one wants to specialize in the basic sciences, such as Chemistry and Physics, perhaps, the European approach would be the most fulfilling approach, but if one wants to specialize in applied sciences where commercialization is usually the end, perhaps, the American approach would suit him better. Just to illustrate, when I asked the Laureates of their opinion on the remark once made on nanotechnology being a “shotgun wedding” between the basic and applied sciences, Prof. Lee commented that nanotechnology is nothing new to the basic scientists because they have been studying this since many years back, but no one has called the area “nanotechnology” until recently, to which I agree completely. In fact, I would say that John Dalton is among the frontliners of “nanochemistry” - the "nano building blocks" of nanotechnology! But, I believe that the first person to actively put forward nanotechnology and its relevance to today’s technological innovation-driven world was an engineer from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – an applied scientist from an American institution – when he was pointing out the exciting applications of the then young scientific area. From then on, the “nano pursuit” had been relentless!
To me, whether basic science or applied science, pursued by the European or American approach, the bottom line is always whether our scientific pursuits are geared towards the betterment of humanity or just towards personal gain. As Prof. Ciechanover said, “I don’t know basic science and applied science. I only know good science and bad science.”
.JPG)