Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2016

“We were having fun, being successful, making new molecular machines and the career followed”

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2016 Jean-Pierre Sauvage remembers the key moments of his career and thinks that, although science in Europe is well organised, “we can learn enthusiasm from China”

YAGO BARRIUSO VELEIRO Y ANDREA IGLESIAS RÍOS | Santiago de Compostela

Jean-Pierre Sauvage (Paris, 1944) shared with Fraser Stoddart and Ben Feringa the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2016 for the design and synthesis of molecular machines. He became interested in Chemistry as a child (playing in a small lab in his cellar) and ended up studying at the Strasbourg Chemical Engineering School. He developed his PhD under the guidance of Professor Jean-Marie Lehn. After this, he obtained a postdoctoral fellowship in Oxford. He returned to Strasbourg, where he worked at the Lehn laboratory and later as a professor. Last Fall Sauvage supported the second Stephen Hawking Rosalía-Abanca Prize edition and, on the occasion of his visit to our high school, we had the chance to ask him about the relationship between molecular machines and the cure for cancer.

QUESTION. First of all, in two years we will have to decide where we want to direct our careers. What was your situation like when you decided to study Chemistry?

ANSWER. In the French system, you have the baccalauréat. It is the examination at the age of eighteen -when you finish High School- before you enter the university. In the French system you have two parallel systems (so to say), one which is the university (so you can start university at the age of nineteen or so) or you can go to some special structures for entering engineering schools. Engineering schools are perhaps more difficult to get in (to become an engineer), and so that was my choice: to become an engineer in chemistry. Then I liked it and I wanted to do my PhD thesis in a good laboratory and that was it.

Q. In 2016 you received a Nobel Prize for your development of molecular machines. Can you explain in a simple way what these structures are?

A. The structure is difficult without slides, because the structures are relatively complicated. I can explain perhaps the functions of these molecules. Very simply, chemists have made thousands and thousands of molecules. There are really simple molecules, like benzene, methanol, but there are also very complex molecules and chemists have made more and more complex molecules. But these molecules are motionless, they do not move: they distort, they vibrate, but they do not really move. Chemists thought that it was a challenge to make molecules which can be set in motion, that you can move at will and in an extrictly controlled fashion. This brings us to Biology, because in Biology you have many, many molecules which undergo motion, but they undergo motion in a very controlled fashion: they do not move at random, they move specifically in a certain way, like the rotary motor. There are many others: molecules which can walk on rails, molecules which can contract or expand. Chemists never made such molecules before, and we thought it was time for chemists to make molecules which can be set in motion in a very controlled fashion. This is how we started: making something which is similar to a rotary motor, to a linear motor, like a piston moving in a cylinder.

Q. How did this discovery change the course of your career?

A. I did not ask myself the question. We were having fun, we were very happy about what we were doing. The most exciting part of the work was the scientific success. The career was something automatic. We were having fun, being successful, making new systems, making new molecular machines. The career followed.

Q. Do you have any routine that has helped you reach your goals?

A. My main pastime was Chemistry: reading and discussing Chemistry. It is really important to read a lot. You have to absorb knowledge permanently. The more you learn, the more imaginative you can be, because your imagination will be built in what you have learnt, what you have incorporated to your brain.

Q. Science is getting more specific and its scope is narrower and most disciplines. How do you think this has affected the way people do their research?

A. This is a very good point. I think that, in the XIXth century, a scientist could know almost everything, and it gradually changed. When I was young, when I was a PhD student, I was very proud because I could read more or less all the literature, at least in my field. I could read maybe thirty journals -I used to do that on Saturday morning- and that was great. I was not the only one -many people were doing that. Nowadays it is totally impossible to read more than 1% of the chemical literature which you should read. Things have completely changed, and, in a way, it is bad, because it is much more difficult to work at the border line between fields. In former times, you could be multidisciplinary in terms of research projects (and even your own culture), and nowadays it is extremely difficult. Some people say that nowadays you know everything of nothing (in terms of field -it is so narrow). In former times it was very different.

Q. In the past years, new countries have joined the global scientific community. In which ways do you think Europe can learn from the US or more recently from the Japanese or Chinese systems?

A. It is a good point. Europe is doing well -great even- in many aspects. We can learn from the US, we can learn from China, but it goes both ways, I think -the US and China can also learn from Europe. I think the way we have organised research at the European level is very nice and it was done by pushing or forcing scientists of various countries to work together by creating networks, which is very beneficial. From the US, for the moment, I do not think we can learn much. From China, we can learn enthusiasm. I have been in China regularly (twice a year or so), and in China young people are extremely enthusiastic about science. They all want to interact with more experienced scientists, and they have a full confidence in science -they are not critical. It is, in a way, really rewarding to give lectures in China, because you feel a lot of enthusiasm. We can learn perhaps a little bit more enthusiasm from the young Chinese people, but many European countries are also very enthusiastic. Look at you [he points at audience], you are very enthusiastic.

Q. In an interview, you said that to study Philosophy in France it was required to do a Chemistry exam first. How important do you think Philosophy is and should be in Science?

A. Philosophy is a really important field of activity. My wife is a philosopher, so this is why I have been influenced. I think it helps you be serious, quiet, not too nervous. You ask yourself some very important questions, about your life, about the others’ life, about the world, about the future… In a way, it widens very significantly your way of thinking.

Q. How relevant do you think public awareness of science is nowadays, especially in younger people?

A. I will answer by simply quoting one of my best friends, Fraser Stoddart, who is a laureate and a very, very close friend. We were in Italy last week (in Bologna) for a meeting (Ben Feringa, the third laureate, was also there) and we were interviewed. There was a talk show with several interviews and Fraser Stoddart made a point which I find important. There are very important people in the world (politicians, financial deciders, journalists…) and, I am sorry to say, but these people are sometimes totally outside the scientific field or, more directly, they know nothing about science, they have no background. It is terrible. I believe that, if you want to have power, if you want to participate in the organisation of the society, you should know a bit of science. You should not be an expert, of course, but you should be able to talk to scientists to some extent. The same is true for the people who are very powerful, like journalists. Journalists can change opinions (and I respect that), but sometimes they say things which I find almost shocking, because they know very little science. My hope for the future is that those important people, those who have power, get more interested in science and communicate more with scientists.

Q. Mass media and social networks are an important tool in the 21st century. How should they be used in order to bring your discoveries closer to the general public? Or are they an obstacle for this?

A. That is a very delicate question. I am not a fan of social networks. I can understand that for young people it is very important. There is a danger. Maybe some young people pick up their information from social networks and nothing but social networks. Their source of information is mainly from social networks. It is a pity if they do not try to go a little bit further and read the press (written news are sometimes interesting), radio, television (although television is not perfect)... I think being satisfied with the information you receive from your social networks is not enough. I think you should try to improve that.

Q. Young people are subjected to much pressure when they need to choose their career. What advice would you give to help someone make the right choice?

A. This is a very difficult question. I do not think I can give you a satisfactory answer. Mostly in science it is certainly perhaps not easy, but not too difficult to find your position, to get a job if you have a degree in science, even if it is not exactly in the same field as the one you studied. Doing science is certainly a good solution, you can feel relatively safe with a good degree in a given science. That is all I can say. But things have changed a lot. When I was young, it was much easier to get a position in basically every field than it is today for the same young people.

Q. You have been investigating and developing projects for a very long time. While that happened so many things have changed. We were wondering what changed the most and how has this affected the way research is done?

A. I have led a research group between 1980 and 2015 or 2016. I stopped supervising people after the Nobel Prize (there was no way I could supervise people). Things have changed, but not dramatically. In the 80s you also had to fight for money. It was not as difficult as it is nowadays, but you also had to write proposals, to try and convince financial deciders that what you were going to do was of interest for the society. One of the big changes is that, nowadays and in Europe, you have to rely on European money, to some extent at least. There are European programs, so you have to apply to Brussels to get money. There is a weak point: it is so selective that you may really wonder whether it is useful. But it is useful and, simply, I think Europe should put more money in big research programs for Europeans and perhaps give less money for those who are successful but give more money overall and reward a larger number of scientists. But you cannot say that there has been a dramatic change from the beginning of the 80s to nowadays.

Q. Women are fighting for equal rights and recognition in their fields. This revolution has affected the different scientific fields. How have you noticed this change in your field?

A. When I was young, there were very few girls doing science. When I was a student, there were very few girls, maybe 10% or 20% at most. Nowadays in France (I do not know how it is in Spain) it is almost 50/50.

Q. It is every scientist’s dream to find the cure for cancer. How do you think your findings can help in this field in the future?

A. I will take this opportunity to tell you a story, to show that accidents can have very happy consequences. There is a very nice word in English, which is “serendipity”. “Serendipity” means “discovery by accident”. Discovery by accident happens from time to time (quite regularly), and there is one which is extremely important. There was a biologist in the 60s who has very intrigued by cell division, and he was wondering whether cell division would be modified if the cells were placed in an electric field. So he took bacteria (Escherichia coli) and cultivated them between two platinum electrodes. When he was applying potential between the electrodes, he noticed that the bacteria were not dividing (reproducing) anymore, and so the number of bacteria was stable. He was very intrigued, and concluded that bacteria in an electric field stopped dividing -there was no cell division anymore. People were somewhat  intrigued and worked to understand what was going on. What was going on was totally different: there was a little bit of platinum from the electrodes which was dissolving in the mixture and so there was a molecule with platinum. This molecule had a very strange effect: cell division was completely inhibited. This molecule was called (but they did not know at the time) “cisplatin”. They thought that if it inhibited cell division in bacteria, they should try with cancer cells. They took mice and they implanted cancer (sarcoma) in them. They repeated the same experiments, injecting now the platinum molecule in the mice. The tumor disappeared after a few days or a few weeks and it did not come back. That was a big thing: they found something completely by accident which suppresses cancer tumors. That was the beginning of a revolution which started in 1972-73. Cisplatin was allowed to be used against cancer and it changed dramatically the situation. Before 1973-74, men suffering from testicular cancer had a very bad prognosis (basically they were dead within one or two years). After this, testicular cancer was cured with a rate of 95%. Today, thanks to this accident (in a way) testicular cancer is cured very easily. This molecule has been used, is still used -there is a large family of molecules very similar to this one which are used for various types of cancer. All of this thanks to an accident by someone who had an strange idea of looking at the effect of an electric field on cell division and it led to an extremely important application.

Q. What are the future challenges of scientific research? How do you see your field in 25 or 50 years?

A. [Laughs] That is more for a prophet than for a scientist. I can talk about my field, perhaps. In my field, more and more sophisticated molecular machines will be made and, in particular, molecular machines which are biocompatible, which will be injected in organisms and maybe travel in fluids and destroy bacteria, malignant cells… That is one of the targets for many people. Generally speaking, it is really, really difficult to say where science will go and what it will be like in 50 years time.