RONALD NORRISH Cambridge University Cambridge, England
Interview with Ronald Norrish PETER FARAGO Editor
by Peter Farago
Chemirw in Britain
Why did you become a scientist? I started at rather a lowly level in board school, and, after a few years of what ihey called in those days the higher grade school at Cambridge, I got a scholarship to the Perse Grammar School. There I found a great deal of help and assistance from my teachers, and I showed a certain amount of interest and keenness in mathematics and physics. I liked the work, and I began to feel that I was almost part of it as soon as I could remember. I remember when I was about 14 years old I used to walk up and down outside the University chemical laboratory, took in the windows and see the rather rough balances, wondering if I could ever get in. I owe a great deal to my father, a pharmacist. He encouraged me to build a little laboratory in the shed at the bottom of the garden, and he helped me by getting all the necessary chemicals. I used to go in lor prizes Organized by the Pharmaceutical Journal, and I used to win a good many of them lor the analysis of various mixtures they used to send round. My enthusiasm lor chemistry and physics seemed to be almost inbred-) always felt that there was something inside me. I took a scholarship to the university in 1915, then I went to the war, and when I came back in 1919 1 took up the study of natural sciences. I took a First in Part I of the Tripos, followed by a First in Part It. I found some difficulty in deciding which of ihe three subjects to fotlow-I enjoyed them ail very much-but chemistry finally won. I became a scholar at Emmanuel and later became a Fellow. Farago: Was there anybody you remember in particular who influenced you in your decision to concentrate on chemistry? Norrish: My old chemistry teacher at the Perse School, Llewellyn Davies, who was unlortunately killed in the First World War, and then his successor. t took naturally to lectures and demonstrations. I loved the experimental work. I developed towards the practical side 01 chemistry. I was lucky 01 course; a lot 01 my potential colleagues were killed, and as I was one 01 those who emerged, I had a better chance 01 making my way
Farago: Norrish:
Farago: Norrish:
than I would have if it had been the sort of rat race we have now. I found my life at Cambridge and in research delightful. Chemistry at Cambridge in those days was Sir Witliam Pope. He became a disappointed man at the end because 01 the way the university treated him, but apart lrom that he was stimulaling. He had great ideas. His great work was basically on pre-Bragg crystaflography and on the study of molecvlar asymmetry through optical methods. He became a good friend to me, and as he was very much au fait with the scientific world a1 that time I used to meet a few of them occasionally. When did you decide on your own field? I started photochemistry in a sense at the instigation of Eric Rideal, who was the first Humphrey Owen Jones lecturer. There was practically no physical chemistry at Cambridge in those days, and no apparatus. I remember buying the Parker's Piece arc lamp lrom the Police Station for about E 1. I set it up at the end of the bench, and managed to focus the light into a olass vessel which contained some chemical reaction I thought might work. Of course it was no good. Later on I was given a room which had been a lumber room in which Professor Living's (previous to Pope) papers and spectroscope had been stored. I laid on the water and gas myself, and eventually there I found the first interesting result. This was the photolysis of potassium permanganate, which I discovered. Was that the first paper you published? After the permanganate work I did discover something really worthwhile of my own: the reaction 01 ethylene and bromine. I had the idea that it might be de-
-
Farago: Norrish:
Professor Ronald G. W. Norrish, noted for his contributions to chemical kinetics, especially to photochemistry, was Professor of Physical Chemistry and Director of the Department of Physical Chemistry at Cambridge University, from 1937 until his retirement in 1965. A pioneer (with his colleague, Sir George Porter) in the methods of flash photolysis and kinetic spectroscopy, Dr. Narrish shared the 1967 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Drs. Porter and Manfred Eigen. Volume 52,Number 6.June 1975 / 359
Farago:
Norrish:
Farago: Norrish:
Farago: Norrish:
as possible. This I think should be our aim in the training of good scientilic workers and crallsmen." I think we are overdoing the development 01 universities. The whole policy of the governmenl i n thinking that more and more education is all /hat is needed is wrong. A goodly number 01 people that come now into universities and are accepted to train are not capable 01 going very lar, and many drop out. In many universities, including Cambridge, all undergraduates are essentially trained by lecturing. The slow movers do not understand what is being talked about, bu! many of them become good sound chemists in industry. I lee1 it is necessary to keep high flyers and the slow ones separate to a large extent. Do you think a scientist should in any way relalg his work to perceived needs 01 society, or what he imagines to be the needs of society? It is only indeed by broadening the minds 01 the rcienlists and lesser scientists, by encouraging in them an alfection lor the arts and lor humanism that the danger 01 arrogant thinking can be avoided. It is cerlainly unlortunate /hat over-specialization may somelimes lead to introversion; narrow-mindedness, and disdain of lhe intellectual achievemenls of others. I1 must be avoided as far as is humanly possible. In every direction in education we should aim at mens sana in corpore sano. In this connection, the application 01 the scientific method of research undoubtedly helps lo loster high moral qualities 01 trulhfulness, collaboration, unsellishness, dedication. It is not, however, in itself sufficient to build its ideal human being, for much depends upon the inborn character 01 the individual, on his upbringing and on his natural attitude lo his lellow men. In this there is greal varialion within the human species which may at times frustrate our best ellorts. I do not think people are equal in the sense that lhey are all capable of the same thing. Are you indicating that a scientist should form part 01 the general culture of his lime? There is much science in art, and much art in science. I do not believe in two cultures. But that goes lor cullural rather than lor vocational education. We ought to try to make sure that all vocationally trained people are also culturally educated. How tar should universiliestrain rather than educate? Universities do not just want lo turn out cuMured products; they must have some way of earning their living, and the two aspects should be carelully adjusted. We should turn out technically trained people, both for advanced science and for everyday science. But at the same time we should make it possible lor them to achieve cultural education. In the case 01 scientists it would be the cultural education of literature and olher moral humanistic ideas.
Farago: Norrish:
Farago:
Norrish;
I would certainly try to interest undergraduates in certain historical aspects 01 science, in the work of other people, but basically 1 would try to make them understand something about the praclical side of their subjecl. I have never been sorry that I had that old lab when I was 14-15 years old, and I taught mysell a great deal 01 what we used to call qualitative analysis. I still think-though nobody else does-that it is one 01 the best vehicles lor interesting and teaching boys something about the qualitative reaclions of chemicals-what different sorts of chemicals there are -and we can use them as a vehicle lor teaching elementary theory. I used to love qualitalive analysis. I would make it a little bit competitive. Give them a nice little mixture and see who can get it out first. In addition we should teach them some of the interesting, romantic things allached to chemistry-possibly offshoots of the study of life, as well as giving them the vocational training. Where do you see malor new developments in physical chemistry? Short of some brand new principle being discovered, there is an awful lot 01 good work to be done, bolh in Ihe organic Neld, where I lhink the development and the continuation 01 the development of bioactive drugs is lerribly important-although very dangerous lor the people. But nevertheless pathological and other etlecls 01 bioactive drugs are 01 great importance lo the development 01 our future medical lields of work. Continued development and understanding of biochemical studies such as the DNA, the RNA story, is still an enormous lield of work, and it tends to make chemislry-organic chemistry particularly-biologically orientated. There are many other things 01 importance, 01 course. Take flash phololysis, or not so much flash photolysis as photochemistry. There is a great number of important studies there-Ihe reaction of the upper atmosphere lor example. I1 it was not lor the ozone layer 30 km up, we should not be here. There are also important studies on pollution, the reactions of the upper atmosphere, the chemistry 01 the planets and cosmic chemistry. Do you think that the scientist has a duty lo express misgivings about the possible consequences of research? I have already expressed my leelings for the danger in the development of drugs. Going outside chemislry, there again is a terrible danger in nuclear physics; we may linish ourselves off altogether. So we have go1 to keep our eyes open. We are made of fhe same stulf as the star which gave us birth. I1 is only in so far as we become evolved and conscious that we can take sleps to do something about it. This is what we have got to do.
Volume 52, Number 6,June 1975 / 381
