Perspective pubs.acs.org/est
René P. Schwarzenbach: Four Decades of Stimulating Cooperation and Friendship Dieter M. Imboden* ETH Zürich, CH-8700, Switzerland changed. When I began to develop models at Eawag, the only “computing machine” at the institute was a mechanical monster, suitable perhaps to calculate the salaries of the collaborators at the end of the month, but not to solve systems of differential equations. Although the computational limits changed quickly in the eighties, they nonetheless strongly shaped research, particularly the emerging collaboration between René and me. In our common search for the narrow path between the adequate and the manageable complexity of models, it became a necessity to mutually engage in the area of the partner. I quickly realized that René by no means was the mathematical novice that fitted my preconception of a chemist. I learnt about his doctoral dissertation in which he had pioneered the use of data banks for the classification of organic compounds. In turn, my travel from physics into chemistry has certainly been more difficult and slow, but finally I got used to the strange names chemists like to give their compounds, could even remember a few, and began to understand why chemists invent tongue twisters like 2,2′,4,4′,5 pentachlorobiphenyl. Our collaboration underwent different phases. For a long time we did not really have common projects, but our interaction shaped and changed our way to look at problems. For the understanding of environmental systems dualism became the normal approach: Transformation (chemistry) versus transport (physics), substance versus system properties, spatial versus temporal structure, etc. Looking back, I was amazed to realize that, in fact, our first common peer-reviewed publication only appeared in 1984 (Schwarzenbach, R. P.; Imboden, D. M. Modeling concepts for hydrophobic organic pollutants in lakes. Ecol. Model. 1984, 22, 171−212), followed by a book chapter (Schwarzenbach, R. P.; Imboden, D. M. Spatial and temporal distribution of chemical substances in lakes: Modeling concepts. In Chemical Processes in Lakes; W. Stumm, Ed.; Wiley-Interscience: New York, 1985; pp 1−30). For a mathematical modeler of today who is used to shear unlimited computational capacities, the concepts presented in these publications may look primitive. But times were different. The dynamic equations had to be kept, if ever possible, linear (or one had to linearize them) and their number small. Often the results were presented in terms of analytical solutions. But simplicity was and is not always a disadvantage. To the contrary, like a cartoonist, one has to sharpen the eye for the essential. By analyzing the analytical solutions one is able to
O
ne day in the year 1974 at Eawag, nearly four decades ago, an energetic young postdoc stormed into the room of a slightly older colleague, asking, “are you Dieter Imboden?” and, before I had a chance to breathe, sat down at my table. “I am the new organic chemist at Eawag”, he proudly said, “ we should work together, you should apply your lake models to organic chemicals, that is much more interesting than modeling lake eutrophication. And by the way, my new colleagues at Eawag told me that you are the right person to work with in order to quickly advance in my academic career!” I do not recall what I thought about my new self-confident colleague, but I certainly remembered how at the university the theoretical physicist had always tried to keep some distance from chemistry, especially organic chemistry, that for him consisted of endless lists of complicated names difficult to remember and to pronounce properly. But destiny, fate or just chance had a different plan. Sitting in my Eawag office and listening to enthusiastic René Schwarzenbach, it neither did occur to me that I just had met that person with whom, over the years to come, I would develop the longest, closest, and most fruitful scientific collaboration of my career nor did I anticipate the beginning of a dear friendship. In fact, during these many years our collaboration extended well beyond proper research into various other areas of academia. But that comes later. At the moment, we are still back in the seventies when mathematical modeling of environmental systems was more limited by the available computer capacities than by ideas. We tend to forget how radically things have © 2013 American Chemical Society
Special Issue: Rene Schwarzenbach Tribute Received: May 14, 2013 Accepted: May 16, 2013 Published: June 24, 2013 6728
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es402159f | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 6728−6729
Environmental Science & Technology
Perspective
pomposity. Leopold Ranzenhuber alias René Schwarzenbach helps us not to lose ground.
develop a feeling for the main factors that determine the system. (This intuitive knowledge is much more difficult to reach for complex models, and sometimes these models rather produce mathematical artifacts than real insight, but that is another point...). The quest for simplicity was our guide as well when another decade later, together with another cognate soul, Phil Gschwend from MIT, we decided to write “The Book” of environmental sciences (Schwarzenbach, R. P.; P. M., Gschwend; Imboden, D.M. Environmental Organic Chemistry; Wiley: New York, 1993). I believe Phil will not object if I say that René was the real driving power behind this project. Not only did René constantly force his two colleagues to shift their priorities away from all that other stuff that bothers the life of a university professor, but he was also the chief architect of the structure of the book. Of course, the book took many more years than we originally thought, of course the second edition (2003) became even larger, and so it is the natural way of evolution that René just has convinced his colleagues to engage in a third edition in which we try the way back to the original virtue of simplicity (let us wait and see!). There were other areas of kinship to be discovered with René, the importance of good (more precisely: enthusiastic) teaching, the support of young scientists and science policy in general. René belonged to the pioneers of the new Department of Environmental Sciences at ETH which was founded in 1988, he chaired the department for about six years (a record until now) and led it successfully through some important structural changes (more about that facet of René in the contribution by Wehrli and Frischknecht in this issue). A further twist of fate made us both members of the Research Council of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) at about the same time but through independent election mechanisms. When I became the President of the Research Council in 2005, I was happy to see René taking over the presidency of one of the four divisions. As usual in the academic world of self-administration, reforms whether needed or not, who knowsare permanent. The one which I inherited from my predecessor underwent a turbulent phase. As the President of the Research Council I then decided to make René the chairman of a small emergency task force to bring the process back on track. René and his colleagues in the working group acted efficiently and very professional. That saved the process and led into a new structure of SNF that meanwhile has proven to be just and solid. If you, dear reader, are now under the impression to read the story about Siamese twins, you are partially right (except for the important distinction between a chemist and a physicist) but also very wrong. René has some talents that I miss completely, playing soccer, for instance, a field in which for a long time René has been respected and feared as a veteran player with the drive of a teenager. And then there is this other side of René, unmatched by any other scientist I know. If you do not know what I am talking about, then google Professor Leopold Ranzenhuber. If you are lucky and understand some German (or rather German spoken in Vienna), you may meet René’s alter ego, René the cabaret artist, who has given a very special touch to numerous celebrations at ETH and elsewhere. Professor Ranzenhuber helps us all to keep some distance between how important we feel to be as researcher and where we really stand as (normal) human beings. Laughing and making fun of (nearly) everything and everybody, most importantly about yourself, is a powerful medicine against
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
6729
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es402159f | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 6728−6729
