Hartmut Michel : “If I had won the Nobel 20 years later I would have been a more successful scientist”

Hartmut Michel’s scientific vocation did not take long to appear. This German biochemist was born into a humble family, with no academic background -his father was a carpenter and his mother a seamstress-, but he had always been very curious. At the age of eleven he became a member of the library of his hometown, Ludwigsburg, in southwestern Germany, where he had the opportunity to learn about archaeology, ethnology, geography or zoology. He became passionate about chemistry, and although he was on the verge of enrolling in geology in college, the advice of a counselor eventually led him to study biochemistry. In 1988 he received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry -together with Johann Deisenhofer and Robert Huber- for the discovery, from the X-ray crystallography technique, of the complete structure of the protein that is at the base of the process of photosynthesis. He was 40 years old and the award marked a before and after in his life. He is currently director of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, in Germany. After passing through Madrid, as a speaker at the conference ‘Nobel Prize – in dialogue’, under the slogan ‘Imagination at work’, organized by Nobel Prize Outreach and hosted at the headquarters of the Ramón Areces Foundation, we have been able to delve into his prolific career and find out his opinion on the most pressing current issues, such as war, the fuel crisis or climate change. When everyone thought that crystallizing membrane proteins was impossible, you did it. What role has imagination played in your scientific career? To be creative you should not use already available paths, but look for new ideas. These many times come when you are doing other things beyond the work that occupies you. For example, when I was a student, I backpacked in India for nine weeks and waited for inspiration, but it didn’t come. Running and gardening work best for me. During the research for which you were awarded the Nobel Prize, did you do any of these activities to get inspired? At that time I didn’t have much time. He worked a lot. Some days I started at eight in the morning and at ten at night I was still in the laboratory. Deisenhofer, Huber and you, were you aware that his discovery would be worthy of the Nobel Prize? After the first presentation of the project at a congress, people started saying that we were going to win the Nobel, but I thought they were overestimating the importance of the research. Six weeks before the award announcement, however, the journalists called my secretary stating that they thought they were going to give it to us and asking for material, such as photos, to prepare their articles in advance. So when they gave it to us I wasn’t that surprised. You were only 40 years old. Were you surprised to receive this award so young? Receiving the Nobel so young is unusual and emphasizes the importance of the work he was doing. Less than three years had passed between the project’s publication and the award ceremony, and the work was not yet fully finished. How has your life changed since then? I became a person of public interest. I had to do many interviews, I was invited to become a member of various clubs, pharmaceutical companies wanted me as an advisor and politicians asked me for advice. In 2001, for example, I had a three-hour meeting with Jiang Zemin, the president of China at the time. How did that public life affect your scientific career? I had much less time to devote to research. If you could go back, would you rather have been able to continue your research and receive the Nobel Prize 20 years later? I think that if he had received the Nobel Prize 20 years later, he would have been a much more successful scientist. Before the Nobel, I was considered a rising scientific star, and everyone wanted to support me, but after I received the prize and became director of the Max Planck Institute, everyone began to think that I already had enough money and did not need no help, so I had a harder time getting research funding. How does a scientist deal with success, like winning the Nobel, and failure, like not getting funding? The success of the Nobel did not overwhelm me, and thanks to the funding that the Max Planck Institute gave me, I was able to continue researching. What do you think is the future of photosynthesis? There is a clear possibility of improving the natural photosynthesis of plants to achieve up to three times higher yields, and triple the production of various plants and foods on the same plot of land, but first people have to accept genetic engineering. Without genetic engineering, that is impossible. Artificial photosynthesis and other types of renewable energy are being talked about more and more. In 2012, you seriously questioned the use of biofuels and proposed solar panels as a better alternative. Given the current fuel crisis, do you hold this opinion? What do you think should be the energy future of humanity? I still think that the only valid renewable energies are wind and solar. It must be realized that biofuels have low performance, because the amount of energy that can be extracted from them is small. In Germany, for example, biofuels are obtained from rapeseed, and its yield is 0.08%. That is, you need a huge amount of product (seeds) to produce a reasonable amount of biodiesel. Germany produces four million tons of rapeseed per year and imports another four million from European countries, and thus only produces three million tons of diesel, while its annual consumption of biodiesel is 30 million tons. It is not workable. Even in slightly better off countries like Brazil, the return is 0.3%, which is still very low. For its part, the performance of photovoltaic energy is approximately 20%. It can be stored in batteries and used in electric cars, for example. You have to consider that the combustion engine uses only 20% of the gasoline to propel the car, while the electric one uses 100% of the energy contained in the battery, which is an advantage, and photosynthesis gives you 100 more times. You need 500 times less farmland to obtain photovoltaic energy than biofuels. Nuclear is another option if we could solve the problem of radioactive waste. In Finland they have built a new nuclear reactor and they already know how to dispose of the waste in tunnels deep in the earth and they have the favor of the public. But betting on wind and photovoltaic energy would be better. At the moment, in Germany, the government favors the production of energy from hydrogen, which is obtained by electrolysis of water, using solar energy. Even in Scotland there is already a company that converts plastic waste into hydrogen. With this you get two positive results. You eliminate plastic waste and generate hydrogen that can be used to produce energy, with the consequent benefit for the environment. In general, it is used to do good, but science can also become a deadly weapon. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted countries to rearm. What do you think of the use of science for war purposes? It is impossible to prevent people from using scientific findings for war. What is clear to me is that we must do whatever it takes to give our support to Ukraine, and I think that at the moment the European Union is not doing enough. We should supply more artillery and drones to Ukraine and stop the export of natural gas and oil from Russia. Do you think people are more skeptical of science now than before the pandemic? On the contrary. It is true that there are experts who want to project themselves and do not stick to the facts, and politicians who try to interpret scientific results in their favor, which is dangerous. But even despite that, or the anti-vaccine movements, I think people are not more skeptical of science now, but the other way around. What do you consider to be the key to disseminating science and getting people interested in it, especially the youngest? I think science experiments should be done in school, because it keeps young people interested and they see what they can achieve with science. MORE INFORMATION Mark Granovetter: «People dating on the internet is something interesting and confusing at the same time» At over 70 years of age, he is still active, what are his plans for the future? I have to retire as director of the Max Planck Institute at the end of this month. I still have a small research group of five people going and I am going to focus on the study of the enzyme that converts the oxygen we breathe into water and energy. Does a scientist stop being a scientist, even if he retires? I hope not (laughs).