1. What made you want to be a chemist?

When I was a teenager I used to read, rather regularly, the Italian translation of Scientific American and was fascinated by genetics. When the time came to decide where to go, I was recommended, quite wrongly but I realized it only later, to study chemistry, biochemistry and then specialize in genetics. As a matter of fact, I enrolled in chemistry and while studying, I became more and more attracted by organic chemistry until I completely fell in love with this discipline. At that time, I was also strongly influenced by my mentor in organic chemistry, in Padova.

2. If you weren’t a chemist and could do any other job, what would it be – and why?

A medical doctor. Understanding how the human machine works always fascinated me. Also, saving lives makes you feel good. But, I am actually very happy to be a chemist and a scientist in general.

3. How can chemists best contribute to the world at large?

Today, the general image of chemistry in the public is totally biased and is mainly associated with pollution. Young people are therefore less and less encouraged to study and develop chemistry and instead are attracted by chemistry-based disciplines, like environmental sciences. However, the contributions of chemistry, from drugs to an infinite number of commodities, have so much improved the quality of our lives that the question of how chemistry contributes to the world at large is actually pleonastic. Maybe, we should be more aware of society-related problems and be ambassadors of the “good” chemistry among the public.

4. Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with – and why?

The great Greek philosopher Plato. The Greek civilization was one of the most active and influential periods in Western Europe. Much of their behaviour was more pleasant and open-minded than today’s lifestyle. Their culture was extremely well-developed, their mathematics very sophisticated – the Platonic Solids, for instance, are amongst the most fascinating geometrical forms for a chemist. In addition, there are many mysterious stories that are described in their books, which we still do not know about. For instance, Plato, in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, mentions Atlantis, the legendary island, for the first time. Did actually Atlantis exist? Was it really in the Atlantic Ocean? Why did it sink into the ocean?

5. When was the last time you did an experiment in the lab – and what was it?

It was more than 15 years ago, and I cannot remember exactly what it was. At that time I used to carry out cycloaddition reactions, so I tend to believe it was one of these.

6. If exiled on a desert island, what one book and one CD would you take with you?

As a book, I would take The Magic Mountain (or The Enchanted Mountain) by Thomas Mann (original title: Der Zauberberg). The reasons one likes and remembers a book strongly depend on the historical moment of one’s life when he/she read it. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy is another one I was fascinated by when I read it. What I like in these books is the vision of life, not only love and sentiments, but also philosophy, natural sciences, history, etc. They have such an amount of interesting issues that it takes ages to digest everything. In addition to this, I would take a copy of the third act of Die Walküre, by Richard Wagner, which contains an intense and musically unparalleled dialog between Wotan and Brunnhild. I never get tired of listening to it.

Maurizio Prato is in the Dipartimento di Scienze Farmaceutiche at the University of Trieste, Italy, and works on several aspects of synthetic organic chemistry applied to materials science and medicinal chemistry.

A new initiative matches up scientists with problems in developing countries to help the world’s poor.

Angela Saini

Researchers can often be accused of working on niche problems with little application in the wider world. A new charity promises to kick that reputation. Science for Humanity, launching on Tuesday 4 March, will create a database of British scientists along with a list of problems in the developing world that might benefit from innovative solutions.

Baroness Susan Greenfield, who is a trustee of the initiative, proposed the idea in her visionary book Tomorrow’s People, published in 2003. She suggested that Western scientists might use cutting-edge technologies to help the poor.

“One can get blinkered by one’s own specific area of research,” she explains, “but if they have the opportunity scientists love to think around problems and see their technologies having as much impact as possible.”

Five years on, the idea finally coalesced when she discussed it with other scientists and NGOs. With help from the management consulting firm McKinsey and 18 months of funding from NESTA, Science for Humanity became a reality.

Her hope is that the charity will create a dialogue between researchers and NGOs. The kind of inventive research the charity wants to encourage includes a strain of genetically engineered cress that changes colour when planted close to landmines. Or a type of algae that generates hydrogen in anaerobic conditions—perfect for clean, low-cost fuel cells.

Will it work?

“The difference between a delusion and a vision is whether people are behind you or not,” says Greenfield. And she has plenty of people on board, including trustee Julia Goodfellow, former head of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

But will Science for Humanity work? Philip Rowley, chief executive of the charity, anticipates enough support from the scientific community to turn ideals into results. “The truth is that a lot of people go into science to do good. Our ideal model is to always work from the problem backwards so that those in the developing world are involved in the process from the start,” he says.

The concept builds upon work done by an existing UK charity, called Practical Action, which has been applying small-scale technologies in the developing world for decades—things like solar-powered cooking stoves and earthquake-resistant housing.

Susan Greenfield and solar-powered cooking stove in kenya (credit: Practical Action).

David Grimshaw, now a consultant to Science for Humanity, has no doubt that there is much more scope for researchers to get involved: “The way science has worked in the past hasn’t delivered all the promised benefits to society,” he says.

Grimshaw cites water sanitation and access to cleaner energy as issues with potentially rapid solutions by scientists. “One particular problem we’ve looked at is mercury poisoning in the water in Peru, caused by gold mining. One possible solution to this is nano-filters, and that’s something we’re looking at right now.”

Hearts and brains

Developing a product from a concept can take many years. The charity’s solution is to exploit existing patent ideas while developing new ones—a plan that relies on scientists willingly giving up their ideas and sharing research. “The scientists I’ve spoken to about this project have got room in their hearts and their brains for this,” David Grimshaw says optimistically.

Although the charity will begin by working with British researchers, university departments from all over the world, especially in developing countries, will be included later. It also promises to help scientists get funding once they’ve identified areas for them to work on.

Cuddly and idealistic though it may all seem, Philip Rowley insists that there is more to gain from the charity than a warm, fuzzy feeling inside: “This is not just about altruism. These are challenging and interesting problems for scientists.”