About the SA Blog Network

The Curious Wavefunction

The Curious Wavefunction

Musings on chemistry and the history and philosophy of science
The Curious Wavefunction Home

Lindau 2013: Unity and diversity

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

This blog post originates from the Lindau Nobel Online Community,the interactive forum of the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings. The 63rd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, dedicated to chemistry, will be held in Lindau, Germany, from 30 June to 5 July 2013. 35 Nobel Laureates will congregate to meet more than 600 young researchers from approximately 80 countries.

Ashutosh (Ash) Jogalekar is part of the official blog team. Please find all of his postings in the Community blog.

In the last post I described how chemistry more than many other sciences is a land of diversity. This diversity becomes especially apparent when we size up the list of Nobel Laureates who will gather at Lindau this year, especially in terms of their work which spans the fields of chemistry, physics, biology and medicine.

The first thing that makes this diversity clear is the fact that some of the scientists here have not even won the Nobel Prize in chemistry. A prominent example is the duo of Serge Heroche and David Wineland who got the physics prize last year for developing ingenious methods to trap and play with single atoms and ions. Yet their methods are relevant to the general study of atoms and molecules. A similar example comes from Steven Chu, former US Secretary of Energy who also developed methods for taming unruly atoms, this time by cooling them using lasers.

On the other hand, Walter Kohn and his fellow prize winner (the late John Pople) who did get the chemistry prize provide a model example of the interdisciplinary nature of chemistry. As a physicist who studied under another famous Nobel Laureate, Julian Schwinger, Kohn shared the prize for developing widely used methods to calculate the details of molecular structure. And he shared the prize with Pople, who originally trained as a mathematician.

If the overlap between physics and chemistry is suggestive, that between chemistry and medicine is dead obvious. A look at the history of the medicine and chemistry Nobel Prizes demonstrates that you could have easily switched many of the prizes without anyone noticing. For instance Brian Kobilka, Aaron Ciechanover, Ada Yonath and Peter Agre are just four examples of laureates who were recognized for medically important discoveries and who could have easily been “hijacked” by the other side. In fact Agre and Ciechanover are not even formally trained in chemistry; both of them are doctors with MD degrees.

When I had dinner with them at Lindau in 2009, both of them joked about how they were now regarded as experts in chemistry, in spite of the fact that neither of them would probably do well in a formal chemistry class. And we also have an undisputed medical discovery here, the finding by Harald zur Hausen that the human papilloma virus causes herpes. It’s worth noting that the Lindau council still found in pertinent to include zur Hausen in this august cast of characters, possibly because the discovery of a virus (a collection of “chemicals” including proteins and nucleic acids) leads the way to the discovery of anti-viral drugs (a counterclass of “chemicals”).

Even within the group of prizewinners who could be regarded as bonafide chemists, the diversity of research is clear and is a testament to the astonishing reach of the “central science”. There are scientists who worked out the structure of biologically important molecules (Brian Kobilka, Robert Huber, Ada Yonath, Hartmut Michel), who invented new methods for efficiently making molecules (Akira Suzuki, Robert Grubbs), who studied the destruction of the ozone layer and its consequences for humanity (Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina), who coined a word for an entirely new way of practicing chemistry (Jean-Marie Lehn), who discovered new forms of carbon (Sir Harold Kroto) and who founded the genetic engineering revolution (Walter Gilbert).

Even the limited sampling of Nobel Laureates at Lindau provides an idea of the sweep of chemistry in accomplishing every important scientific and technological goal, from exploring the fundamental structure of matter to paving the way toward novel medical therapies. In addition the work of this year’s Lindau Laureates addresses issues across the intellectual spectrum, from pure investigations of atoms to findings of direct relevance to drug discovery and design. It would be hard to top the catholicity of discovery provided by this eclectic collection of scientists.

The diversity of discovery found among the Lindau Nobel Laureates gels well with my thoughts on chemical diversity and unity from the previous post. There are indeed a few unifiers in the list; for instance Rudolf Marcus can be said to have unified physics and photosynthesis, and Molina and Crutzen unified basic physical chemistry with politics. But by and large the men and women at Lindau this year are diversifiers. They came into this world wanting to know how and why. And they stand before us today, having left our world a little more interesting for us to explore.

Ashutosh Jogalekar About the Author: Ashutosh (Ash) Jogalekar is a chemist interested in the history and philosophy of science. He considers science to be a seamless and all-encompassing part of the human experience. Follow on Twitter @curiouswavefn.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 2 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Gudgin 9:26 am 06/21/2013

    If you think Larry`s story is flabbergasting,, last pay cheque my son also earnt $7550 workin twenty hours a week from their apartment and their buddy’s ex-wife`s neighbour has been doing this for 9-months and errned more than $7550 part time from their laptop. the advice on this link…. Cat48. ℂom

    Link to this
  2. 2. M Tucker 6:04 pm 06/21/2013


    I have been enjoying your posts from Lindau. But I must say I got a kick out of this comment, “Molina and Crutzen unified basic physical chemistry with politics.” I would say that they both, along with F Sherwood Rowland, made an extremely important contribution to atmospheric chemistry I would not necessarily have said it unified chemistry with politics. I think science (both physics and chemistry but we should also include medicine so I will say science in general) has been intertwined with politics for a very long time, perhaps from the very beginning of science and politics. Sometimes it is the fault of the political interests who determine that some new insight needs to be suppressed. Sometimes it is the enlightened self interest of mankind as a whole that determines that we must all come together to solve a life threatening problem that science has identified. When considering politics I, of course, include religion when religion is the dominate political force and, following the maxim of Clausewitz, I also include war with politics. Occasionally it is the scientist who becomes involved in politics because he believes he can make a positive contribution.

    So when I read that comment I immediately thought of poor Lavoisier and his beheading during the French Revolution. I also thought of Fritz Haber and his diabolical work to develop chlorine gas as a weapon for the Germans during WWI. Then I thought of Alfred Nobel, “the merchant of death,” and how he was motivated to endow the prize named after him to rehabilitate his public image, essentially a political move. Then I thought of the intimate relationship between science and politics during WWII. If we can condemn Haber for his contributions during WWI and if we could have at one time condemned Nobel for his inventions, how can we avoid the temptation to condemn those who developed and those who used nuclear weapons? The answer that comes to me is politics and just who is writing the history.

    So I would say that it is very hard to separate politics from science. Politics hasn’t even really addressed the issues raised by Crutzen’s work. Didn’t he work with the effect of nitrous oxide on the ozone layer? Didn’t he implicate the increased use of fertilizers with the increase in nitrous oxide in the atmosphere? Isn’t nitrous oxide not only an ozone depleter but also a greenhouse gas? We have no political effort to eliminate nitrous oxide from the atmosphere as of yet. We have a substitute for CFC’s but it turns out they are greenhouse gasses. We do not have an international agreement to eliminate HFC’s. We have only recommendations and promises and agencies that ‘encourage’ industry to try to use something different. So science and politics marches on. We have successes for humanity and we have failures (maybe I should call them shortcomings). But they both march on together.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article