Roald Hoffmann: "Scientific options require basic wisdom"

Although it is not well known, it is one of the most prestigious chemicals. Of Jewish origin, he was born in Poland in 1937. During World War II he was taken from a Nazi ghetto to a concentration camp. Her mother and she survived. In 1949 they went to the United States. He completed doctoral studies at Harvard University and his research gave him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1981. But when we talk about Hoffmann we don't just talk about chemistry. It is also immersed in literature.

How do you remember the times of war?

Then it was very small. Then I lost my father and my grandparents. It was hard times. After the war we lived in Europe for three years. Finally, I have lived happily ever since we went to the United States.

Have you ever returned to your home country?

I was born in Poland, but after the war the Russians occupied that territory and today it is within Ukraine. On the two occasions when I tried to go, I could not do so. It was the sixties and seventies. Now I could have. I have often gone to work in Russia. I like people and culture.

Do you speak many languages?

Little Portuguese, but I know something. For various reasons, Domino English, German, Russian, Swedish and taught us French at school. One of my mother tongues was the Jewish dialect derived from German. And I learned Hebrew, at least legibly. Language is a European characteristic, since Americans do not learn languages. They do not need.

Language learning is not encouraged in the Anglo-Saxon territories. Do you see that effect around you?

It is true. In the United States, other languages other than English are not often learned. Sometimes I am embarrassed when foreigners have to turn English into a second language. This is because it is a kind of international language. It is the result of the process of global homogenization.

Science also learns less.

With that happens something curious. I don't know if there is real resistance against science. People do not want to learn science, but are willing to learn how to use the computer. It is not the same, but behind these two things there is a similar way of thinking. The problem is that the current scientific disclosure is not enough. Scientists should motivate and force society. We would have to go to our children's school and talk about experiments, try writing articles in newspapers, and talk to the general public. Science is so interesting... We must look for a way to show it to society. I have to admit that I find it difficult to talk about my work. I prefer to talk about the work of others.

Do you consider yourself an artist?

Well, I consider myself a writer and I don't think that's why I'm an artist. I am also very interested in visual art, but I do not work creativity in this field. I have worked on the scientific essay, but I also write poetry. I just finished a work entitled "Oxygen" together with scientist Carl Djerassi. It is a play of theatre. These are those who discovered oxygen in 1774. People cannot be interested in the discovery of oxygen. It is, therefore, about those who got it and whether the discovery or the idea of discovering it has greater importance. Does what you have researched matter? In part no. After finding the oxygen, chemist Carl Wilhem Scheele spent about four years without publishing the find. If you keep what you have achieved, lose a little value. Interaction with people is essential.

His greatest scientific contribution was the "Woodward and Hoffmann Rules". Have they become obsolete?

We have to explain what we were working on. We discover simple rules based on quantum mechanics. We study the internal electron movements and the influence of symmetry. The four-carbon molecule easily reacts with the two-carbon molecule to form a six-carbon ring, but two four-carbon molecules do not react. Neither of the two carbon molecules reacts. People collected that data, but did not understand why. Therefore, we gave simple rules to explain the observed, so that the chemicals can know beforehand the results of the reactions. These standards had great limitations and have been found with the passage of time, but are still useful. When I did this I was very young, I was 27. I had the opportunity to work with Woodward, who knew the reactions very well, and I had a good start in chemistry. I was very lucky.

What is now admitted to science can be discarded in forty years.

It is possible. The theories are ephemeral. If you went back a hundred years, you would find a culture that understands chemistry as it was understood at that time. They would study their own chemistry, but would have another way to talk about chemistry, which would be totally different from ours. For example, penicillin would be the same molecule, but it would be explained otherwise how atoms join. But there is another problem. I think some theories have been easily accepted in chemistry. And people, through good computer calculations, are simulating. The result of the experiment is being obtained on the computer. It is not a consequence of a model, but a lot of numbers given to the computer. Finally, the chemist does not chemically understand the results and trends. I don't think that's understanding, but simulation.

How can you ask a politician to introduce money into basic research?

First of all, I wouldn't be a politician and yet I admire politicians because they commit to doing what I want to do. They make decisions based on economic trends. Therefore, I would use economic arguments. I would say that there is no way to overcome the future problems of industry if money does not enter basic science. However, it is the people who choose. But people should have a basic knowledge to choose the right options. We must understand the new areas of science to have good criteria when deciding. The richness of the territories is based on the capacity of transformation of matter, that is, on the contribution of value to things. In this field, chemistry predominates.

Who should be ethical in charge of science?

Scientists sometimes say that science has no ethical value of its own. I think that's true, but that's an attitude contrary to the control of weapons. The argument of these people is that guns do not kill, but people. The gun has no ethical responsibility, but the user does. It is totally true. I think the person who creates anything, whether it's pictures, guns or molecules, is responsible for reflecting whether the consequence of that thing is good or bad. Ethical questions should be asked by scientists as they do new things.

Buletina

Bidali zure helbide elektronikoa eta jaso asteroko buletina zure sarrera-ontzian

Bidali

Bizitza