Anarchy, freedom the key to excellence

Q: How do you get the best out of scientists?

Paul Nurse (PN): To get knowledge, you need the best people, but such people tend to be difficult to manage - it's like herding cats. If you settle for the type who just do what you tell them, then you'll end up with mediocrity. The way I try to solve this tension is to encourage the best people, give them freedom, and make it easy to capture knowledge. In the Francis Crick Institute I'm setting up in London, I want it to be anarchic and scientists will be free to form their own interest groups. We'll have a party once a month for scientists, lawyers and others in the 25 to 30 age group. You really need to encourage young people, and make it cheap and easy to exploit the science.

Edmond Fischer (EF): You never know where from or when the biggest discovery will come. That, to me, is the beauty of science. For that, you have to have the freedom to follow whatever you want. In my life, there has never been anyone telling me what I should do. People must have this freedom. They must be allowed to let their imagination run wherever it wants. A research scientist is like a painter in front of a blank canvas. Give Michelangelo a block of marble, and see what he does with it.

Daniela Rhodes (DR): It's important to provide an environment where the scientists are free to follow their interest and have the facilities to attack the problem. And once people make discoveries, there must be a mechanism in place to help develop them further, whether it's in terms of patenting or producing a drug.

Q: What are the pitfalls to steer clear of?

PN: You need to have a culture of research freedom and capturing it for the public good. You also need to have people in the government who understand science and aren't seduced by those with silver tongues. Some scientists also don't help themselves by promising too much, too soon. Also, politicians and managers tend to feel like they have to direct from the top down. But it's very important for our political masters to realise that if they want discoveries, they need to give the scientists the freedom to discover what they can.

EF: The only danger for me is that many governments do not understand the way that science proceeds. They believe that if they put $10 million into a project, they will make a big discovery. That's total nonsense.

Q: How is Singapore faring on the research front?

PN: Clearly, Singapore recognises that science is important and there are many schemes to support science. But I think it does need a longer vision. Ten years in this field is not so long, be careful of slaying the golden goose. In education, people here must be put in a position from a young age to question. Education in Singapore is well respected throughout the world, but there's sometimes a worry that the pressure for high standards stifles creative thinking. It would be worth thinking about having a body of experts, which is independent and understands the system, to advise the Government. Foreign experts are not always so useful because they get parachuted in.

DR: Science is a network. Maybe 10 to 15 years ago, Singapore was not part of this network. Now it's a major player. The strategy used to grow science has grown very well, but to go further, Singapore needs to recognise that science cannot be organised as a business - it cannot just throw a lot of money at biomedical science research and think it will make money in a few years. World-class organisations tend to have flat structures. I liken Singapore to an onion because there are so many layers of management, and such bureaucracy constrains creativity in scientific research.

EF: People think there are two forms of science, basic science and applied research. But even in 1848, French scientist Louis Pasteur said that there are no two types of science. He said there is science, and application of science, and one is linked to the other like the fruit is linked to the tree that bears it. Many fundamental discoveries have come from applied research.

Q: What progress has been made in biomedical sciences research in the last few decades?

PN: It's extraordinary. Just 10 years ago, it cost millions of dollars, and took about five years, to sequence the human genome. We can now do it in 15 minutes, and it costs US$1,000 (S$1,250). Childhood leukaemia was a death sentence 40 years ago, now it's curable for most children. But there's so much we don't know. Unlike those in physics or engineering, the biomedical scientist works in a mess, I think. It's like walking in the mountains when it starts to rain and is always misty. Sometimes the mist clears and everything makes sense, but most of the time we're walking around in a fog. I expect there to be a lot of progress in understanding your genes and the effects of the environment in predisposing disease. It just takes time.

DR: Looking back at a lifetime of science, I don't think we could have imagined where we are today. The progress has been incredible.

ailien@sph.com.sg

Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.