Here, in Kyoto …

Some of my readers may know that I have been spending a lot of my time on what I call the RIP (Research Institute Project). One day I shall have to tell the story but I think it had best be kept under wraps for some time, like British Cabinet papers. Watch this column in 2020 for revelations. In the meantime, I suppose the moratorium has expired for what I know about the founding of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and some of the more interesting lessons learnt should therefore be committed to paper now, before I forget them. Setting up new institutes for research reveals many cultural dichotomies. Scientists feel that the most important thing in a research institute is research, so they want to start with real people working on real scientific problems at real benches. They want the engine first; when that is running, it can be put in the car and the road to travel will be obvious. They want to do things bottom-up. Administrators, government officials and company executives think very differently. They want a plan. Where will the institute be sited? What directions will it work on? How many research groups will there be and how shall they be organized? And, of course, what ranks will we have, what accounting procedures will we use, and so forth. The administrators believe that once there is a plan, all that is needed is a few advertisements to find the scientists. They want to do things top-down. All groups planning research institutes also have a scientific advisory committee to advise them on the science that might be done. Meetings always follow the same pattern. The chairman proposes that we discuss the general scientific directions. X strongly favours mouse genetics, Y argues for Drosophila development and Z proposes protein crystallography. This is discussed at length for several hours until Q intervenes: " This is ridiculous. How can we discuss scientific fields when we don't know who will be coming to the laboratory? ". The chairman then proposes that we talk about people and we all agree. X suggests Dr A, well known for his work in mouse genetics, Y, Dr B, who works on development of the Drosophila eye and Z tells us at length how terrible everybody is in the field of protein crystallography except for one person whom modesty forbids him from naming. Once more Q …