Harry Kroto: suggested the right experiment at the right time |
Professor Sir Harry Kroto
Harry Kroto was born in 1939 in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire. He grew
up in Lancashire and was educated at Bolton School where his interest
in science developed.
He received a BSc in chemistry in 1961 from
the University of Sheffield, where he also completed a PhD in molecular
spectroscopy.
His academic work began in 1967 at the University of
Sussex after post doctoral work in the US and Canada. He became
a professor in 1985 and a Royal Society research professor in 1991.
In 1996, the year he was knighted for his contributions
to chemistry, he received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for the discovery
of
C60 buckminsterfullerene. |
Sparks, explosions and assaults on his senses were the things
that attracted Sir Harry Kroto to chemistry. “I, like almost all
chemists I know, was attracted by the smells and bangs that endowed chemistry
with that
slight but charismatic element of danger which is now banned from the
classroom,” he says.
But it was not quite as simple as that. According to Sir Harry, who won
the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1996, it was his father who made him
concentrate on science. A refugee from Berlin who came to England in
1937, he saw science as the best route for his son’s career. “He
pushed me to ensure that my maths, physics and chemistry were up to scratch
because he saw science as being the best chance of getting a job, of
survival.”
Sir Harry’s father certainly did not encourage his son to develop
his interest in art, something that Sir Harry regrets. “I was good
at art but no one said you could go to the Royal College of Arts.” If
he had his time again, Sir Harry thinks he may well have studied architecture,
a subject that combines his love for technology and design. As it was,
the young student was unaware of this possibility. “I got to university
and discovered there was a department of architecture. But it never even
crossed my mind to study that,” he says.
Nobel prize
It says a lot about Sir Harry, then, that his chosen career path led
to him receiving a Nobel prize, which was awarded for the discovery
of C60 buckminsterfullerene — a new form of carbon. Sir Harry
even describes the discovery as the result of a rather mundane idea. “The
most boring little experiment (to most other people!) turned up a major
advance. It was staggeringly unexpected and has opened up a whole new
area of chemistry.”
The discovery stemmed from work looking into the origin of long-chain
molecules in space. Laboratory experiments to simulate chemical reactions
occurring in the atmospheres of red giant carbon stars revealed that
C60 could self-assemble. The molecule was subsequently isolated and structurally
characterised. Sir Harry went on to explore and exploit the properties
of C60 and fullerene chemistry, work that led him to areas such as nanotechnology.
Currently, his interest lies in protein oligomers. “What fascinates
me is to develop the ability to build a big molecule with exactly determined
structure,” he enthuses.
Despite his achievements, Sir Harry does not consider himself to be any
smarter than many other scientists in his field. “I know lots of
fantastically bright scientists who understand things a lot better than
I do.” But he does admit to having certain qualities. “I
suggested the right experiment at the right time,” he says. How research should be funded
Although he plays down the work that led to him receiving a Nobel prize,
Sir Harry acknowledges that successful research can be difficult. In
particular, he is critical of the way in which research is now funded. “I
can only be a supporter of the sort of research which has turned out
to be successful for me,” he says, adding: “If I had written
a research proposal for that particular experiment [that led to the
Nobel prize] I doubt it would have been funded.” Sir Harry has
strong views on how research should be funded, but is aware that his
views are unpopular. He suggests that the pot of money from which research
grants come should be split into three.
“The first component should be given directly to the heads of university
departments.” It should be up to them to disperse those funds having
taken on staff and students who they believe will come up with the goods.
Part of this component should be earmarked for young scientists just
launching their careers to give them the best possible start. “After
all they have put the time in to choose a young scientist who is the
best person for their department. Some scientist sitting on some committee
assessing a research proposal has little or no feel for the situation.
What’s more, the best research advances are often impossible to
foresee, as was the case for C60.”
A second component should be given to scientists who have a proven track
record. So if someone has done good research previously, then they should
receive more money to do more research. “My experience with good
scientists is that if they come up with it once, somehow they can do
it again,” he says.
The third component is left for people who have not done quite so well. “They
should get some support but should be encouraged to supplement it with
money from industry or elsewhere.”
The common theme to all these strands is that researchers should be allowed
to do the science they want to do.
“Don’t ask any questions,” says Sir Harry. “The
best science is science that is unpredictable and is a big surprise. Those
are the big breakthroughs.”
“Peer review is the most stupid idea I’ve ever heard,” he
adds, for good measure.
Sir Harry backs up his arguments with his own experience as a successful
research scientist. “All the big breakthroughs I made were not
peer reviewed. Most of my best work was done on the backs of [other]
research proposals.”
He also doubts whether the way in which industry approaches research
will lead to major breakthroughs. Indeed, the research and development
strategies used within the pharmaceutical industry are probably not the
best ones for finding the best therapies, he says. “So much of
industry’s approach is ‘let’s make a better this or
that, let’s make a better drug’, it is not fundamentally
innovative in general.”
He has a point. For example, the development of platinum-based cancer
drugs sprang from research into electrolysis. A group of scientists decided
to use an electrolysis medium with bacteria in it — and the bacteria
died. The first conclusion was that it was the electrolysis that killed
the bacteria. However, further probing revealed that during electrolysis
platinum from the electrodes went into solution and it was the platinum
that killed the bacteria. In an adjacent laboratory scientists working
with cancer cells adapted the technique and discovered that platinum
was even more cytotoxic towards cancer cells.
Other examples of fundamental research leading to significant therapeutic
breakthroughs include the development of the laser. This turned out to
be an effective tool for solving the problem of detached retinas. “There’s
no way that someone focused on eye surgery would have come up with that.
It had to be from the development of the laser by a physicist who understood
quantum mechanics optics and spectroscopy and then someone — possibly
an eye surgeon — putting two and two together,” says Sir
Harry.
Another example is brain surgery and scanning techniques. Scanners were
born from work originally done by physicists trying to determine the
magnetic moment of a nucleus. What transpired was the development of
nuclear magnetic resonance. And from this came magnetic resonance imaging. “At
that time, if you knew you were going to develop a brain tumour you’d
never have put your money on a physicist looking at the magnetic moment
of the phosphorous nucleus. But that is what fundamental science is about.
There is no way that anyone could have predicted that that experiment
carried out in 1940s would end up being the most powerful tool for studying
the brain and neurological processes,” he says.
Sir Harry points out that the approach to research that led to these
innovations required scientists to share ideas. “This is an anathema
to modern science,” he adds. Secrecy in research
Although concerned by the secrecy surrounding research conducted by
industry, Sir Harry is cautious in his criticism, primarily because he
does not
have a better strategic plan. But he is clear that the kind of research
that leads to significant breakthroughs does not lend itself to a secretive
environment. “Secrecy can never really be positive with regard
to the advancement of knowledge.”
The way knowledge from research is shared at the moment is a one-way
process, he says. Fundamental science research conducted within universities
is freely available to those working in industry but the reverse is not
true. Sir Harry is well aware of the reasons behind this secrecy and
understands them. Nevertheless, the findings of his research are available
for others to use — he estimates that the discovery of C60 has
given rise to 5,000-10,000 papers over 10 years.
Although the technology is not there yet, Sir Harry can see a time when
it will be possible to place radioactive atoms inside C60 and therefore
isolate that atom chemically from the body and use the system to target
cancer cells directly. “I’d be very surprised if, in future,
C60 does not have some benefits in the pharmaceutical arena,” he
says.
You can hear Sir Harry speak at BPC on 28 September.
Science education and the consequences of poor teaching
The decline in hands-on science education is
something that worries Sir Harry, as does the lack of science teachers
with adequate qualifications. “Children
are being made more enthusiastic about subjects where they’ve
got teachers who are well qualified. Science is in deep, deep water,” he
says.
He is a believer in what he calls the dead poet society syndrome — in
other words, an inspirational teacher. “That’s what happened
to me and that’s what happened to 50 per cent of the people
I know in the sciences.”
Sir Harry is not inclined to air his concerns without offering solutions,
however. It is clear that the Government needs to invest in education
in areas that contribute significantly to the nation’s economy,
he says. What is happening now is that too many children are being
directed into areas that have little impact on the economy and have
poor career prospects.
The high cost of educating students in a laboratory intensive area
does not help matters either. Sir Harry suggests that university
vice chancellors, in their struggle to survive, will offer courses
with a minimal financial burden. “Vice chancellors have no
remit to consider what’s in the interest of the country nor
a remit to consider what’s good or in the interest of the student.”
The solution is to ring fence funding for the sciences. “If
the Government is going to make a certain amount of money available
for science education and education in areas which are strategically
important for the country then they can’t allow the vice chancellors
the freedom to divert it into areas which are of no value to the
country and little value to the student.”
Sir Harry believes that education is fundamental to the intellectual,
cultural, social and industrial welfare of a nation. “Unless
we get to a stage where there are teachers who can teach sciences
we are going to have no scientists in the next generation,” he
warns.
All this has a knock on effect on the quality of science graduates
and, in turn, the quality of scientists conducting research, either
in industry or in academia. Industry is recruiting heavily from abroad,
which may increase the chances that those industries move abroad.
Sir Harry describes the US as the “biggest black hole into
which the world’s best scientists are going”. However,
he says that today’s global climate offers opportunities for
Europe. In particular, barriers raised as a result of current US
foreign policy will allow European countries to attract scientists
from India and china and divert them away from the US. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal