Mario Capecci: features of an individual approach
Igor Makarov, "Expert North-West" No. 4-2008
Of all the Nobel laureates in 2007, the most incredible fate is undoubtedly that of the laureate in physiology and medicine Mario Capecchi (Mario Renato Capecchi). He was born in Italy before the outbreak of World War II, was left without parents at the age of three and was a street bum until the age of seven. The future laureate learned to read and write only at the age of nine, already in America, where he emigrated to relatives after the war.
Mario Capecci has had a fantastic academic career in the USA. A disciple of the discoverer of the DNA structure James Watson, in the 1970s he went against the mainstream, doing research on gene knockout − the directed shutdown of genes in order to determine their functions. Then he was denied funding. Today, the knockout method, of which Capecci was one of the fathers, is already a classic of molecular biology. With its help, scientists not only determined the functions of many genes, but also obtained models of almost all human diseases by experimenting on mice. When it turned out a few years ago that the mouse genome was almost identical to the human genome, it became clear that Capecci was unlikely to be ignored by the Nobel Committee.
Vaccination against addiction– The Russian Nobel laureate in literature Joseph Brodsky said that not every experience enriches a person, it would be much better to give up other memories: it will not be possible to benefit from them anyway.
You had a harsh childhood. If you were given the opportunity, would you miss this stage of your life?– Oh, yes!
If I had the opportunity, I would really prefer to erase this experience from my life. I have a daughter, and I'm creating a much more carefree life for her! When I was three years old, my mother was taken to Dachau concentration camp, my father, a pilot, crashed during the war. I turned out to be a street urchin and begged on the street until I was seven, ate waste, joined street gangs, huddled in slums and almost died of typhus. I had to find my own food, a roof over my head – I had to look for resources in order to survive. Such an experience inevitably teaches independence, instills the habit of relying only on oneself in everything.
This habit, apparently, sits very deep in me. In any case, I have always adhered to the rule of not depending on anyone in my scientific life. For example, many laboratories, when faced with something new, immediately turn to colleagues for help. I insist that all the work be done in my laboratory. We do absolutely all the experiments ourselves. If I know it's done in my lab, I know it's done well. I insist that a researcher who is interested in new data should make an effort to get them on his own. If I send my slides for examination to someone else, he may be sleepy this morning, he did not drink his cup of coffee! He, by and large, does not care about your slides, and he will not look at them as carefully as you would. I think this voluntaristic approach is partly explained by my childhood experience.
– Who influenced your decision to pursue science?– My uncle is a physicist.
When I came from Italy to the USA, I constantly listened to his stories. So I went to college to study physics and mathematics, not biology, and, in my opinion, this is a very good background for a biologist. Actually, I haven't taken a single biology course in my entire life!
College life was built on a very reasonable principle: you studied for a semester, worked for a semester. And so it was throughout all the years of study, which lasted a year longer than in other places. As a result, by my senior year I had a lot of laboratory experience: I had already worked in laboratories all over the country, from Utah to Massachusetts, published a series of articles and was ready for a career as a scientist. Many of those who enter graduate school have never done experiments before. It takes them two or three years to get involved. It is worth testing in advance whether you will like the future craft or not, and do it as soon as possible. If you want to become an actor, go to work in the theater, if you want to become a teacher, teach children at school, if you want to do science, go to the laboratory. Thanks to working in laboratories as a student, I realized that I enjoy doing science and they are good for me.
Watson 's Young Turks– The habit of relying only on your own strength came in handy when the National Institute of Health refused to finance the work for which you eventually received a Nobel medal?
– Childhood experience has given me the stubbornness and perseverance to say: I will do what I think is necessary, in any case, regardless of your judgments.
But I also learned this behavior from my Harvard teacher James Watson. He taught me to work independently from the student's bench – I made my own decisions about what to do, and when I got down to business, I was sure that I could cope with it. This can be learned. I look at my students – they don't have confidence. Then suddenly something turns out, they manage to experiment. And out of nowhere, confidence appears. Success creates confidence. The more success, the more confidence.
– Everyone who knew Watson calls him a bright charismatic. How did he influence you?
– Firstly, he was a first-class scientist. The best thing a mentor can do for students is to serve as an example to them. If something works out for him, the students feel that they will succeed. Watson gave us confidence in our abilities.
Secondly, he was painfully honest. If Watson thought that you had failed with something, he openly talked about it. My first lecture, which I gave at Harvard, in his opinion, was no good. And he told me: the lecture is terrible. I've been preparing for it for a very long time, and, in my opinion, everything was fine. After listening to Watson's argument, I agreed with him.
Watson's honesty was complemented by spiritual generosity. If I did work in his laboratory, the final article was signed only with my last name. Although two names are usually put: Watson and Capecci could stand (and in that order). Everyone would look at the Watson surname, and no one would ever know who Capecci was. Watson did not allow this, he made a name for the employees of his laboratory. I think only people with his status can do that. Because he could get money without publishing works. I could say: this work was created in my laboratory, although my name is not on it.
Finally, his level of knowledge, his scientific erudition were amazing. At that time, molecular biology was only taking its first steps. People from various disciplines – physics, chemistry, biology - came to it to work together on the same projects. It was really exciting! We have formed a special mentality. We called ourselves the Young Turks: we felt that we could cope with any task, no matter how difficult it was. This attitude and confidence are very important to solve really difficult problems. Watson inspired, gave confidence and resources. I, just a student, already had my own laboratory, assistants and enough money to feel confident. In another situation, I might not have developed the leadership qualities that I learned from Watson.
– What is the main lesson you learned from working in Watson's laboratory?– Science takes a lot of time.
In many universities, young people are now starting to work on something that gives immediate results. The most interesting works take from three to ten years. You may know what you want to get, but you don't know how. When we were working on the project for which we were awarded the Nobel Prize, it took more than ten years just to develop the methodology. And we saw that there was still a long road ahead. But when you get to where you were going, suddenly you get the opportunity to do things that no one else can do. Horizons are opening up that I couldn't even think of a few years ago.
Working in Watson's lab taught me that if you ask small questions, you get small answers. Ask big questions and you'll get big answers. The most exciting thing in my business is the new data. The excitement you feel when you look at them for the first time and realize their significance. That's why I continue to do science – I will do it for another 20-30 years. I'm planning experiments that will probably outlive me.
Laboratory vs. Institute– The professor and his laboratory are the basis of the American academic system, built horizontally, unlike, for example, in Russia, where the main cell remains institutions embedded in the vertical of power…
– Science should be built horizontally.
This is the principle of organization, due to which science has risen so much in America. Now I am helping Italy as a consultant, they have the same problem, probably even worse. There are a lot of talents, but all the money comes into the system from above and then is distributed according to the residual principle. People at the top will always get their money – there is a policy for this, it is not about them that we need to take care of!
Money on a competitive basis should go to the lower level – directly to researchers. Let a young scientist who has not lost his energy and enthusiasm receive the money, we must give him the opportunity to decide what to spend it on. Of course, science is a risky occupation. People have to get used to it: not every project will work. Not all the projects I have been involved in have been successful: some – yes, others - no. But there are quite a lot of them, and most of them still work.
– But the grant system creates obstacles for works that are out of the mainstream and focused on long-term results. You've come across it yourself.– It's true.
In the USA, we are good at distributing money to research laboratories, but we give them for a fairly short period of time. If you can't show the result in that time, then you're in trouble. The best academic system, in my opinion, is built in England. The researchers at the bottom receive the money, at the same time the British choose several scientists who will be supported regardless of what they do. Take Ners: he worked for 20 years before publishing his first work. He wouldn't have survived in the States. After five years, he would not have received a single grant. The British gave and gave him money because they were sure: his work is radically different from what everyone else is doing, it really can take 20 years. As a result, he received the Nobel Prize. And there are many similar examples.
In my opinion, it is important to do both things – to give money to the lower level and, regardless of the circumstances, to support a narrow circle of selected scientists. Such people will become the founders of scientific schools and will raise a new generation of researchers. Developed countries can afford it.
The Godfather– For many years you were a professor at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which gave more Nobel laureates than other countries, for example Russia.
What does it mean for you to become one of the laureates yourself?– The more important the Nobel Prize is for me personally, I will have more opportunities to talk about science with society.
Scientists often do not want to talk about science with a wide audience. The reason? They don't know how to do it: we go into science partly because we don't know how to speak well. But this must be learned. Society pays for our work, so we have to explain what we are doing and why. Why it is important for people's health.
– How will you use the influence that the Nobel Prize gives?– I am interested in new students who will work in my laboratory.
We need to think about the current students. Two weeks ago I spoke with fifth graders, at the end of this week I will give a lecture to eighth graders. They should get into science early. One of the fantastic examples is mathematics. No one knows how it happens, but you have to be young to achieve results in mathematics. In the old days, mathematicians could do their science in adulthood. Today, at the age of 30-40, they will teach mathematics, and 18-20−year-olds are engaged in mathematical research. If you haven't done anything in math by the age of 20, you're in trouble.
We need to interest children in science, make them think about it. Of course, science creates a huge number of problems. Without a doubt, global warming is the consequences of scientific activity. But on the other hand, solutions to the problem can also come only from science. If we just say, "No more science – we're going back to the Stone Age!", that's the end of it, global warming is not going anywhere. We have violated the mechanisms by which nature works – we must fix them.
– In an ideal world where people would learn from someone else's experience, what could they learn from your example?– The most important thing that I have learned from my own experience is that we are simply not smart enough to predict which child will succeed and which one will not.
The only thing that can be done in these conditions is to provide equal opportunities to all children and let them decide for themselves how to use them. For me, the most important thing is opportunities. When I came to the United States as a sickly child at the age of nine from Italy, where the war had just rumbled off, the only thing I got was an opportunity, one chance in a thousand to achieve something more. But it was extremely important.
Often at school we say: "This child is smart, this one is a little slow, support this one, forget about the other!" But after a few years, the second one can overtake the first one. Our brain sometimes takes several years to light up, and if you force it to do it too quickly, it may never reach its potential. And this is perhaps the saddest thing that happens to a person.
Portal "Eternal youth" www.vechnayamolodost.ru
06.02.2008