A Discussion on Scientific Research by Nobel Laureates

Today I attended a fascinating event called “Failure, Persistence and Joy: Finding the Right Balance for Research Success”, hosted by the Nobel Prize Inspiration Initiative in Kingston, Ontario. I should probably mention that I am currently an exchange student at Queen’s University in Kingston, and as a Queen’s student, had the privilege to be able to attend this event.

This was a panel discussion with 2 Nobel Laureates, the Chief Science Advisor of Canada, and a Health Columnist on the panel, with Dr. Kimberley Woodhouse (Vice Principal of Research for Queen’s University), Dr. Patrick Deane (Principal and Vice-Chancellor of Queen’s University), Dr. Adam Smith (Chief Science Officer from Nobel Media), Dr. Neil Murasky (President of Science Affairs at AstroZanec Canada), and Dr. Richard Raznic (Dean of Faculty of Health Sciences at Queen’s University) giving introductions and context to the talk.

The panellists were:

Dr. Arthur McDonald, who was the recipient of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which consequently showed that neutrinos have mass. He is a Professor at Queen’s University.

Dr. Martin Chalfie, who was the recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery and development of a green fluorescent protein called GFP, which has many applications today. He is a Professor at Columbia University.

Dr. Mona Nemer, who is the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada. She is an expert in the field of molecular cardiology, and her work has contributed to the genetics of cardiac birth defects and the development of diagnostic tests for heart failure.

The panel was moderated by André Picard, who is a health reporter and columnist for The Globe and Mail, and has received several awards for his dedication to improving health care.

This was an exciting panel discussion to be part of. The discussion centred around the two Nobel Laureates’ experiences with their research and how it affected the world, leading to them winning the Nobel Prize, however other interesting ideas were also discussed, for example, the gender gap in science and career paths in science.

I took away quite a few ideas from this panel discussion, and I shall paraphrase some of these below:

According to Dr. Chalfie, the Nobel Prize doesn’t necessarily go to the smartest scientist, or the most productive one, or the one who has published many papers. Instead it goes to a scientist who has changed the world through their research. According to him, making the ground-breaking discovery itself is the reward. This is an interesting point to think about, because as a young, aspiring astrophysicist, for the longest time I thought that perhaps the meaning of being a researcher is to win awards and bring fame to your university. However, I realize that the real reward is the joy that your research brings to you.

This led to the idea of research and its applications. Even ‘basic’ research has its merits and is often more versatile than specialized research. Take for example, lasers. They may seem like a very simple and basic thing, however applications of lasers have spurred more advanced research, leading to a better world for us. There are many examples of applications of lasers – telescopes, medical equipment, etc. are all dependent on the seemingly-simple technology of lasers.

Another interesting idea discussed was support for research. Admittedly while there are always certain ‘hot topics’ in each research field which gets a lot of funding, it is equally important to fund the non-mainstream research fields, and research which has never/seldom been done before. According to Dr. McDonald, it is important to have respect for the unknown, when talking about research funding.

This led into the discussion of young scientists. Not all researchers/scientists end up in academia, in fact I was surprised to learn that it is estimated that about 70% of scientists work in the industry. And for those working in the industry, it means that ‘basic’ science is applied, leading to innovation. In addition, young people today who will have jobs in 10-15 years will be working jobs that don’t exist today, and so it is important to teach us young people durable skills. According to the panellists, some qualities they look for in a young scientist include: honesty, curiosity, passion, how well they work in a team (since science is of a collaborative nature these days), interpersonal skills, and most importantly, for a scientist who is looking for an answer to a question.

In the last main discussion bit of the panel, they talked about the elephant in the room – the gender gap in science. According to the panellists, even though girls are interested in STEM subjects, and may even study it, it is hard to retain them, and to advance them to higher levels in the field. Dr. Chalfie shared one of his experiences as a faculty member at Columbia University. When he started working there in 1985, about 25% of the department was women. Today, he estimates, 28% of the department is women. This is problematic, and a lot more work needs to be done to make research fields more diverse and inclusive.

I left the panel discussion feeling very inspired, and look forward to mulling over the ideas discussed during this panel! As Dr. McDonald remarked in the closing section of the panel, “Science is fun!”.