Professor Zhores Alferov, who won the Nobel prize for Physics in 2000 recently initiated a meeting of 24 Nobel laureates in St Petersburg to discuss how science could help mankind.
Opinions expressed by some the greatest minds alive
today provide inspiration and instruction for all of us, even
when they cannot quite agree.
Professor Zhores Alferov, who won the Nobel prize for Physics in
2000 recently initiated a meeting of 24 Nobel laureates in St
Petersburg to discuss how science could help mankind.
The Russian magazine Innovations put questions to the
delegates and has granted us permission to quote the answers,
some of which were predictable but others less so.
The questions were:
1. How would you characterise the scientific meaning of your
Nobel research and the extent of its practical applications? Has
there been any compatible break-through achievement in the area,
and if yes, who is behind it?
2. Judging by today's political, economic and social settings,
what does the future of this world depend on, and why?
3. What makes the Earth a dangerous place to live? Are Pugwash
based efforts effective enough in the present situation? Can you
think of any alternatives?
Eight of the laureates have chosen to go on public record with
their replies:
Richard R. Ernst
Richard.Ernst@nmr.phys.chem.ethz.ch
ETH Zurich
Laboratorium für Physikalische Chemie
1. The consequences of my Nobel research were primarily
practical. Through the introduction of the Fourier
transformation, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) gained
significantly in sensitivity so that it became applicable also to
larger biomolecules. Two-dimensional NMR laid the basis for the
development of the structure determination procedures of
biopolymers in solution, for which Kurt Wuethrich got his Nobel
prize in chemistry 2002. Fourier magnetic resonance imaging
became a very important tool for clinical investigations of
humans, leading after all also to functional magnetic resonance
imaging for the study of brain function.
2. The future of this world depends, I am convinced, primarily on
thoughtful international interaction. We need a multipolar world
co-ordinated by strong international bodies with real power. It
is unacceptable that a single nation (or its government) decides
on the fate of the world. This can not lead to a stable system
and to equal opportunities for everybody.
3. I am mostly afraid of the predominantly monetary
considerations which determine economics and politics.
Selfishness following one's own advantages, can not lead to a
future beneficial for all. I have great difficulties to believe
that the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith protects us
sufficiently. We need in addition strong ethical and moral
guidelines which help us to stay on track.
The control of weapons of mass destruction is not my primary
concern, although it is not unimportant, more crucial for me is
providing a cultural environment in which human aberrations are
less likely to occur.
Charles Townes (USA)
cht@ssl.berkeley.edu
1. My research leading to the laser was an effort to develop a
new scientific tool, which the maser and the laser are indeed.
However, the laser also has many practical applications and has
strongly affected our industry and society in many fields.
Although many other scientists and engineers have contributed to
the development and use of lasers, I believe there has been no
other comparable breakthroughs in the field of optics.
2. The future of the world depends on the attitudes and sense of
values of us humans. More technology can be important, but we now
have enough technology to feed and care for the world's
population if we devote ourselves to this purpose. Most of all,
we need to be considerate of others, promoting peace and help for
others and avoiding war.
3. Human attitudes towards other humans and carelessness about
world resources are what produces dangers for life on earth. We
must be sensitive to such problems, discuss and work on them with
others, and be ready to sacrifice selfish goals for the good of
other humans.
Rolf Zinkernagel
(Simone Schmaderer Secretary, Institute of Experimental
Immunology, University Hospital, Zurich
simone.schmaderer@usz.ch
)
1. The discovery of the role of major transplantation antigens in
T cell recognition was a chance observation made by Peter Doherty
and myself in Australia; it was completely unexpected. What
should transplantation antigens, i.e. cell surface structures
that were somehow involved in organ graft rejection, have to do
with immunity against virus infections? This finding has
explained the real biological function of major transplantation
antigens (MHC-antigens) as presenter molecules for virus,
bacteria or other antigen fragments presented on the cell surface
to be recognised by T cells.
It has explained why cellular immunity cannot be readily
adoptively transferred to naive recipients, quite in contrast to
antibodies where serum therapy has been successful for many
years. It also has opened up great number of investigations on
the role of major transplantation antigen in T cell recognition.
The next fundamental discovery on this issue was by Townsend and
by Unanue, who described first that 9 to 11 amino acid long
peptides were presented by major transplantation antigens.
Subsequently Wiley, Bjorkman and Strominger showed by
crystallography that major transplantation antigens form a grove
where peptides fit in in a semi-specific way. This finding was an
eye-opener that immediately made clear how MHC-restricted
recognition by T cells functions.
2. From my point of view, the most important impact on the future
of this world depends on us humans. The greatest problem of this
earth is that there are too many humans, and that we as humans
are too egoistic. The only way to change this unfortunate
situation is to provide as many individuals as possible with good
education and a reasonably safe social environment, so as to
reduce fears about poverty, disease and death. Education of women
is probably the most important task, because they are the best
regulators of family, children and of homes.
3. The earth is not basically a dangerous place. I think we
humans render it dangerous. Only long-term effective education
and willingness of humans to be responsible will change this.
Lawrence Klein (USA)
(Beverly A. Meyers - bmeyers@ssc.upenn.edu
)
At present, I am working on my presentation for the meetings in
St Petersburg, but I have briefly taken time out to write some
brief answers to the questions that you have sent to me. I hope
that my completed paper will explain much more fully what I am
aiming for in my present work on the Russian economy.
1. The research on which I am reporting at these meetings deals
with two issues of fundamental importance for developments in
economic theory or economic science.
(i) In the first place, how difficult is it for a
"transition country", as Russia is so classified in
multinational analyses, to make a successful shift from strict
state planning to a market-based system of economy? allocation
among households, producing units, and state bureaux? Of course,
the transition can be made, but at what cost and what timing?
It took about five or more years for Russia to emerge from a deep
depression that characterised the early period of the new Russian
economy. In my paper I show some representative statistics of the
irregular state of the economy at the beginning of
"transition". The research in this presentation
examines contemporary data for the Russian economy since 1995 and
finds a significant degree of regularity. The market system,
dating back to the path breaking research of Eugen Slutsky, is
well known to be prone to cyclical movement under the realistic
occurrence of repeated stochastic shocks. In this work, I and my
colleagues, find the first phase of cyclical regularity to be in
place. In fact the first highly visible stochastic shock, in
connection with the default of 1998 is very much in evidence.
(ii) Modern multivariate statistical methods that were originally
developed for psychometrics, find good use in our quantitative
analysis. They are not new or breakthrough methods for
econometrics, but their first important use was made in 1947.
Their application to forecasting and business cycle analysis has
been only sporadic and has, only recently, led to potential steps
forward. The possibility of a significant breakthrough stems from
the development of information technology (IT) and data
abundance. At the present time, data have been provided much more
frequently and over a wider span of data types. Application of
such methods in USA, Japan, Mexico, Hong Kong, and other economic
areas has been fruitful, particularly in high-frequency
forecasting, by months or weeks over short time horizons. This
can be viewed as a first step in the building of structural
models of Russia, for analysing extrapolations over horizons of
3-5 years. Somewhat longer data files will be important for that
phase of model building. Of course, the availability of
information hardware, as well as software, has been an important
enabling factor for us.
2. The future of the world depends on many things, but uppermost
in my own way of thinking, is the sustainability of peaceful
relations among the different peoples and regions of the world.
Not only sustainable peace but sustainable environmental
conditions, sustainable resource supplies, sustainable climate,
and sustainable physical development are needed.
3. Lack of adequate understanding among peoples of the earth
makes the world a dangerous place. Science and technology have
enabled nations to make and store weapons that are increasingly
dangerous, while our ability to maintain peaceful relations by
sensible conflict resolution has not improved correspondingly.The
Pugwash approach is valuable, and has certainly contributed to
the occurrence of no extreme conflict, such as a world war, in
the second half of the 20th Century, but the danger of global
conflict is still alive, and a much better job of conflict
resolution requires great improvement on the Pugwash methods.
Robert Wilson (USA)
rwilson@cfa.harvard.edu
1. The discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background started a
revolution in cosmology. At the time, the only number in
cosmology was the Hubble "constant". The discovery of
the background immediately added a second number and ruled out
theories other than the big bang. It is still the best probe of
the early universe. The precise measurement of the spectrum of
the background by the COBE satellite secured this interpretation.
Now measurements of the spectrum of the spatial fluctuations in
its brightness and its polarisation (John Carlstrom) are strongly
constraining theories of what started the big bang. To my
knowledge, there is no significant practical application.
2. Early cultures flourished best by exploiting what they found
on earth to the maximum they could. Now that people are a
significant influence on the earth, we must change and co-operate
globally to use resources in a sustainable way and manage the way
we change the earth. Among other things we need to stop or
reverse the growth of our population to provide a good life for
the people on earth rather than maximising their number.
3. There are dangers at all scales. The focus now seems to be on
"weapons of mass destruction", even though they are
presently an insignificant cause of death. I don't believe that
the dominant governments of the world are sufficiently focused on
preventing the spread of nuclear and biological weapons to people
who might use them.
Ivar Giaever (USA)
giaevi@mail.rpi.edu
1. The scientific impact of my Nobel Prize work was that it
confirmed the BCS -(Bardeen -Cooper and Schriefer) new theory of
superconductors. At the time (~1962) the work held great promise
for the computer industry because it was possible to construct
active devices much smaller than the semiconducting devices that
existed at that time. As it turned out it led to a new method to
measure very small magnetic field through the Josephson effect,
but it has had little large commercial interests. The very big
event in the field of superconductivity after that was the
discovery of high temperature superconductivity that also led to
a Nobel Prize for Bednorz and Miller. This work has also had
little commercial impact, the best known are superconducting
magnet for Medical Imaging.
2. The future of the world depends on proper and careful use of
new technology, for example the energy, pollution and global
warming crisis can be solved with proper use of nuclear energy.
3. I think of the earth as a pretty safe place to live, anyway it
is the only place we have got. Past and recent existing conflicts
stem from religion, which is ironic. If we could become tolerant
(as most religions purport to teach) of each others' beliefs most
conflicts would go away. (Irish Catholics and Protestants,
Palestinians and Israelis, Muslims and Christians and the list
goes on and on).
Heinrich Rohrer (Switzerland)
h.rohrer@gmx.net
below are my answers to the query questions. It should be
remembered, that Nobel laureates in science simply made important
contributions to the scientific and technical developments. They
do not hold the world answers in their hands.
1. Our prize was given for "Their design of the Scanning
Tunnelling Microscope." The Scanning Tunnelling Microscope
and the family of "near field microscopes" developed
from it serve as microscopes and tools, they provide atomic and
molecular scale imaging, manipulation and modification of various
properties and functions of condensed matter. They have become
the pervasive and indispensable tool for science and technology
on the nanometer scale.
2. Sustainability in all its variations.
3. The constant strive to rule over others, from individual to
nations.
Zhores I. Alferov (Russia)
1. The scientific meaning of my research leading to the Nobel
Prize is based on forecasting and realising through experiment a
number of new principles regulating the electron and the light
currents in crystals. Leo Esaki, who got his 1973 Nobel Prize for
tunnelling phenomena in semiconductors and superconductors, once
referred to heterostructures as man-made crystals, as opposed to
God-made crystals, i.e. homogeneous semiconductors. The whole
breakthrough became possible owing to the 1967 discovery of the
first 'ideal' heterostructures AlGaAs and the new physical
processes taking place in them.
Later, heterostructures gave birth to a new branch in physical
research. The 1985 and 1998 Nobel Prizes of Klaus von Klitzing
(discovery of the quantized Hall effect) and Robert Laughlin,
Daniel Tsui, and Horst Stoermer (discovery of a new form of
quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations) crowned
research in no other area but heterostructures.
Fibre-optic communications and mobile phones would never be there
if it were not for heterostructures. We might as well be facing a
prospect of large-scale solar energetics. Semiconductive
heterolasers already came to be the basic type of lasers used in
communications, medicine and industry.
It is a great pleasure to know that the fundamental research
results in the field of heterostructures and new electronic
components were reached in my laboratory in the Ioffe
Institution. An indispensable contribution to the theory of
electron transportation in heterostructures came from G. Kremer,
who shared the Nobel Prize with me. Within our institution, the
following pieces of scientific inquiry are particularly worth
mentioning: laser research by R.F. Kazarinov and R.A. Suris,
fluid epitaxy in heterostructures by D.N. Tretiakov and V.M.
Andreyev, and recently research into complex quantum 'knots' by
P.S. Kopiev, N.N. Ledentsov, V.M. Ustinov and V.A. Sh'ukin.
Pioneer research into molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) was conducted
in the USA by A. Cho, while MOCVD based epitaxy research was done
by R. Dupuis. The American physicist and engineer N. Holonyak
made a great contribution into development of lasers and light
diodes.
2. The future of humankind depends on finding environmentally
friendly ways to produce energy. No heat energetics will ever
satisfy the ecological condition. When people talk about the high
prices of solar energy as opposed to atomic, they usually forget
just how much the nuclear weapons production programs are costing
us, and nuclear energy is nothing but a waste product of nuclear
weapons. Co-operative actions taken by developed countries might
speed up the solar energy conquest. It is also very significant
that the Sun will never be anyone's private property.
3. As the great U.S. scientist John Bardeen, the only physicist
to share two Nobel Prizes, used to point out: 'That science knows
no national boundaries is an old story to scientists but is
perhaps not as well appreciated by the general public'. The
Pugwash initiatives have been a serious contribution to the peace
process, but the world would never be saved from atomic war if
the USA had not been not outmaneuvered in their AB monopoly.
Today, scientists from all over the world would do right to unite
their efforts against terrorism, fighting terrorism per se, as
well as economic terrorism that too often leads to bloodshed.
Modern civilisation should prioritise high quality education and
medical care and finally do away with super-profit hunting.
Nobel
Meeting in St Petersburg
Innovations Magazine
Yuri Neshitov, Contacts and
Technologies Director of Innovations