:00:06. > :00:10.were paid $46,000 per person killed. I'll be back with more news at 11
:00:10. > :00:13.o'clock. Now on BBC News it's time for the latest in our On The Road
:00:13. > :00:23.With series of programmes. Matthew Stadlen spends the day with Nobel
:00:23. > :00:27.
:00:27. > :00:32.Prize winning scientist Sir Paul so Paul Nurse shared the Nobel
:00:32. > :00:37.Prize for his research. He is a geneticist and runs a large in
:00:37. > :00:41.London. Anything from New York? is also president of the Royal
:00:41. > :00:46.Society, the UK's National Academy of Science, whose roles include
:00:46. > :00:50.recognising scientists from home and abroad and champion in science.
:00:50. > :00:56.How a simple life came about is really quite difficult for me to
:00:56. > :00:59.imagine. Also, it is seen to happen rapidly, within a few hundred
:00:59. > :01:04.million years of the birth of the Earth, we seem to have a primitive
:01:04. > :01:09.life and that Sinn Scottish short time. Outside of work, he can fly
:01:09. > :01:19.planes and is an amateur meteorologist. I wanted to get a
:01:19. > :01:22.
:01:22. > :01:29.sense of what life is like in his Good to see you. How lawyer? Very
:01:29. > :01:34.good. Please call me Paul. Let's go back to how you started in science.
:01:34. > :01:38.How did you get to grips with it in the first place? I think I first
:01:38. > :01:42.became interested in science, at least the first time I can remember,
:01:42. > :01:46.when I was eight or nine years of age. I got interested in the stars
:01:46. > :01:52.because they are up there every time you walk around at night. I
:01:52. > :01:57.read about spat at two, which was the second man-made satellite
:01:57. > :02:01.centre of bevy of Russians. It had a dog in it. A red in the newspaper
:02:01. > :02:07.that you could see this satellite if you went out at a certain type.
:02:08. > :02:13.I did. I went into my front garden and saw this start track across the
:02:13. > :02:17.heavens. It blew my head off. I ran down the street, trying to chase it.
:02:17. > :02:21.I told everybody what it was and they hadn't read about it and
:02:21. > :02:25.didn't have any idea what I was talking about. About 1958 is when
:02:25. > :02:30.this was happening. It made me think about all the other stars and
:02:30. > :02:36.what they were. Is it fair to say that you were a slow start at
:02:36. > :02:41.school? I wasn't... I was rather erratic. I wasn't great As at
:02:41. > :02:45.school or exams. I would find myself going up and down in the
:02:45. > :02:49.class, some has been near the top, sometimes being near the bottom. I
:02:49. > :02:53.came from Norfolk, had an accent, my spelling was bad and all of this
:02:53. > :02:57.was not great. I gradually got better but even so, I had a great
:02:57. > :03:01.trouble getting into university because at the time you needed a
:03:01. > :03:05.foreign language at a level which was a free sick -- precursor of
:03:05. > :03:10.GCSEs and I could never get it. I failed it six times. In the end, I
:03:10. > :03:15.had to leave school and work as a technician for a year, trying to
:03:15. > :03:18.get this exam which I never got. Eventually was let into Birmingham
:03:18. > :03:24.University without their qualification. They did make me sit
:03:24. > :03:28.French for my first year at university. Before breakfast, were
:03:28. > :03:33.you just tell me about the quadruple bypass heart surgery you
:03:33. > :03:36.recently had? This was recent and issued a surprise. In December, a
:03:36. > :03:41.couple of months ago, I had a medical because I was going to
:03:41. > :03:46.Antarctica, to Scott Base. I was very excited about that and it
:03:46. > :03:52.revealed that I had a problem with my heart. A bit surprised because
:03:52. > :03:57.some reasonably fit. I go jogging 10 or 15 miles a week. I'm not that
:03:57. > :04:00.fast but at least I can do it. What it revealed was partial blockages
:04:00. > :04:07.in three or four lotteries around my heart, no symptoms, none
:04:07. > :04:11.whatsoever. My doctors in Oxford recommended a bypass. It was very
:04:11. > :04:15.unusual for them to do that with somebody with no symptoms but they
:04:15. > :04:19.were worried that the blockages could cause a severe heart attack.
:04:19. > :04:23.I am sure this has saved my life because I suspect in the next year
:04:23. > :04:33.or two, that is exactly what would have happened. Time for breakfast?
:04:33. > :04:36.
:04:36. > :04:40.We are surrounded by scientists. are. This is William Harvey who
:04:40. > :04:47.discovered the circulation of the blood. Descartes, a philosopher
:04:47. > :04:51.from France. Descartes, as a philosopher, does he count as a
:04:51. > :04:59.scientist? He was a good thinker. We count him as a scientist. Do you
:04:59. > :05:05.have routine? No, I think I'm rather antagonistic to routine.
:05:05. > :05:10.Why? Maybe because when I was young, we had a very strong routine
:05:10. > :05:16.and I think I've been sort of fighting against it ever since.
:05:17. > :05:22.That's a bit ridiculous, given my age now, but probably true. You've
:05:22. > :05:26.got a letter in the Times today. Yeah, I'm pleased they published it.
:05:26. > :05:35.We put this in yesterday. It is a letter trying to encourage the
:05:35. > :05:40.government to spend more money on science. Back to my office. How do
:05:40. > :05:44.you see your role as President of the Royal Society? The Royal
:05:44. > :05:51.Society is the science academy for the United Kingdom and the
:05:51. > :05:57.Commonwealth. My role really is to be, I would say, the main advocate
:05:57. > :06:01.for science in the country. That is how I sum it up. And should your
:06:01. > :06:06.role in any way be political? Is there a danger that your role could
:06:06. > :06:12.become political? I think we should keep away from pure politics. What
:06:12. > :06:16.I think I have to do, and the Royal Society has to do, is to inform the
:06:16. > :06:21.public about scientific issues that are relevant to politics and
:06:21. > :06:28.policies. That is of too tight. Policies that are important for
:06:28. > :06:33.promoting science. Policies which involve science in a big way, for
:06:33. > :06:36.other activities that we have to do in the country. We have to have a
:06:36. > :06:41.role on that but I like to keep it separate from the politics as much
:06:41. > :06:47.as possible. As a scientist, do you enjoy the administrative role?
:06:47. > :06:50.you know, I don't really, and that sounds a bit odd because I do quite
:06:50. > :06:56.a lot of administration and I run things. I don't think I'm too bad
:06:56. > :07:02.at it but what I really enjoy is doing my own research. Surprisingly,
:07:02. > :07:05.for somebody who does have quite a heavy administrative responsibility,
:07:05. > :07:10.I have a very active research activity and research lab. That is
:07:10. > :07:15.what I really enjoy most. If why do you take on the administrative
:07:15. > :07:18.roles? I think it is mainly because I feel guilty. I feel privileged
:07:18. > :07:21.that my own research has been supported all my life. I've been
:07:22. > :07:27.following my own curiosity to try and understand the natural world
:07:27. > :07:32.all aspects of the natural world better and I think I have to pay
:07:32. > :07:36.society backing some way. Because I'm not too bad at administration,
:07:36. > :07:40.that is how I pay it back. Really, I feel it is what I have to do to
:07:40. > :07:45.pay for what I really enjoy doing. What sort of state you think
:07:45. > :07:49.Sciences in in this country? It's a loose question but can use a
:07:49. > :07:54.matter? I think science is fantastically powerful in the
:07:54. > :07:58.United Kingdom. I don't think this is fully recognised. We are one of
:07:58. > :08:01.the leading nations in science in the world. Almost certainly second
:08:01. > :08:06.only to the US and that is only because we are small and don't have
:08:06. > :08:09.the budget. I think we need a bit more support for science. We are
:08:09. > :08:15.incredibly cost-effective. We are truly world leaders in science and
:08:15. > :08:21.have been for a very long time. simple terms, can it be possible
:08:22. > :08:24.for scientists to be influenced in their scientific findings by money?
:08:24. > :08:29.Scientists are human beings and they are influenced by other
:08:29. > :08:36.factors, including money. Some scientists work for commercial
:08:36. > :08:39.ventures for example. Some academic scientists might want to take a
:08:39. > :08:42.scientific discovery and commercially exploited. The danger
:08:43. > :08:47.there is that there may be wanting to get a certain scientific outcome
:08:47. > :08:50.because it is important for their commercial venture and you have to
:08:50. > :08:54.be extremely wary of that. You have to be very self-critical to make
:08:54. > :08:58.sure you are not distorting the science by what you want the
:08:58. > :09:01.science to actually show. Paul is dropping in on a meeting before
:09:02. > :09:07.showing me around his apartment at the Royal Society, which comes with
:09:07. > :09:13.his role as President. There is an irony for a geneticist but actually,
:09:13. > :09:17.you don't know who your father is. I don't. This was really quite a
:09:17. > :09:21.shock, a surprise for me. Relatively recently, I'm in my
:09:21. > :09:25.early 60s, and about five years ago when I applied for a green card in
:09:25. > :09:28.New York, high for the first time got hold of my life for birth
:09:28. > :09:34.certificate and it indicated that the person I thought was my sister
:09:34. > :09:39.was actually my mother and I was brought up by my grandmother and
:09:39. > :09:43.grandfather, who I thought were my father and mother. My real mother
:09:43. > :09:49.got pregnant when she was young, 17 or 18, and I have no idea who my
:09:49. > :09:52.father is. And all of this was kept secret from the and it is a real
:09:52. > :09:56.irony. Here is a, a geneticist, that is my trade, and I'm
:09:57. > :10:02.completely confused about my own genetics. What impact have that
:10:02. > :10:07.haven't you? I have to say, I was unsettled. It was a real shock. But
:10:07. > :10:13.I was brought up very happily. My grandparents were very supportive
:10:13. > :10:16.and I had a very happy childhood. Really, all I feel is I'm grateful
:10:16. > :10:20.to them. They were doing the best for their daughter and for me and
:10:20. > :10:25.it worked out fine in the end. we talk a little bit about your
:10:25. > :10:32.interests? He wore a glider. I'm a glider pilot and a fly aeroplanes
:10:33. > :10:39.as well. I've heard a story or read a story that you landed an
:10:39. > :10:44.aeroplane on its tummy, on its... That is true. I was having a
:10:44. > :10:48.problem, flying an aeroplane and the undercarriage jammed up and I
:10:48. > :10:52.couldn't get it down so it was a bit like one of these sort of
:10:52. > :10:54.disaster movies was to buy was circling the airfield and I ended
:10:54. > :10:57.up landing it with the undercarriage up, on its belly. I
:10:57. > :11:02.had to switch the engine of to do that because the propeller would
:11:02. > :11:07.have hit the ground otherwise so it was quite a stressful half-an-hour,
:11:07. > :11:12.I can tell you. Try to tell me what was going through your mind. It was
:11:12. > :11:17.an extraordinary half-hour because the weather was beautiful, it was
:11:17. > :11:21.calm up there, I was flying over the Oxfordshire countryside. Were
:11:21. > :11:26.you on your own? I was on my own. I was talking to the control tower.
:11:26. > :11:30.It was very calm, very British. I knew it was going to be quite a
:11:30. > :11:34.dramatic arrival. It was the contrast between the calmness,
:11:34. > :11:37.floating through the air up there, knowing within five minutes and was
:11:37. > :11:41.going to be landing without an undercarriage and without a mention.
:11:41. > :11:44.Did you think you're going to die? I never think that and I didn't
:11:44. > :11:50.think it on that occasion either. I thought it would get it down. My
:11:50. > :11:55.main concern was that I didn't cause damage to the aircraft.
:11:55. > :11:59.flying help you to just switch-off from science? Or, when Europe there,
:11:59. > :12:04.is that when you're most creative? Totally. I'm not thinking about
:12:04. > :12:08.science and I'm floating around. I am thinking about other things. It
:12:08. > :12:12.think it is very good to sometimes switch off completely from what
:12:12. > :12:15.obsesses me most of the time which is understanding aspects of the
:12:15. > :12:19.world and the Science and the cells are a worker. I don't think about
:12:19. > :12:25.them at all. When I come back to that, it is fresh because I have
:12:25. > :12:32.had a few hours completely away from it. I think that's important.
:12:32. > :12:37.This is your balcony. It is not bad. It really isn't bad. There is Big
:12:37. > :12:44.Ben and the Houses of Parliament. It is a fantastic sight, really
:12:44. > :12:48.good. And you telescope. Yeah, this is on my balcony. It doesn't have
:12:48. > :12:51.the actual optics on it, that is inside, but I can move it over here.
:12:51. > :12:55.This will track the movements of the stars and planets and I come
:12:55. > :13:05.out here in the evening and use it. Another way to switch off? Another
:13:05. > :13:20.
:13:20. > :13:27.Do you have to pinch yourself and think, I cannot believe this is
:13:27. > :13:34.happening? All the time. I remember, one I would -- when I decided to do
:13:34. > :13:38.a PhD, I thought if I was really successful, I might become a Fellow
:13:38. > :13:41.of the Royal Society. To end up being President of the Royal
:13:41. > :13:51.Society and to end up having a Nobel prize was way beyond my
:13:51. > :14:03.
:14:03. > :14:08.I am joined the a with ball at his London lab. Every cell has a
:14:08. > :14:13.nucleus. Every time one divides into, the nucleus divides into. But
:14:13. > :14:17.Matty has been doing is plotting when the nuclei divide into two. We
:14:17. > :14:23.can market the timing of what is happening. What research are you
:14:23. > :14:28.doing? I am interested in cell division, we are made up of
:14:28. > :14:33.billions of cells. We all came from a single fertilised cell, which
:14:33. > :14:37.underwent many divisions. My research is focused on what
:14:37. > :14:43.controls the Division of a single cell into two, four and eight, and
:14:43. > :14:49.what controls the shape of cells. They are my two major research
:14:49. > :14:55.problems. The cells you are researching our yeast cells. They
:14:55. > :14:59.are, which sound strange. But yeast cells have many properties that are
:14:59. > :15:03.identical with human cells. They are simpler and cheaper to work
:15:03. > :15:08.with. The processes that we investigate can understand in yeast
:15:08. > :15:12.cells will often apply to human cells. That is incredibly powerful,
:15:12. > :15:17.because we can do the research on a simple system then applied to a
:15:17. > :15:21.more complicated one, that is our selves. Tell me actually what you
:15:21. > :15:27.won the Nobel prize for. What I actually won the prize, which I
:15:27. > :15:31.shared with a colleague here, in Cancer Research UK, Tim Hunt, and
:15:31. > :15:37.an American scientist, what it was was working out the basic mechanism
:15:37. > :15:40.by which a cell divides from one into two. What controlled that the
:15:40. > :15:44.production process. That is important for growth and
:15:44. > :15:47.development of every living thing. It is also important in cancer,
:15:47. > :15:53.because it is when the cell division goes out of control that
:15:53. > :15:59.you get cancer. And has there been progress made from that Noble Prize
:15:59. > :16:05.winning discovery, and Cancer Research? Or cures for cancer.
:16:05. > :16:09.I like to explain it, it was not aimed at curing cancer, it was
:16:09. > :16:14.aimed at providing the right background from which cures could
:16:14. > :16:17.emerge, in other words, if you did not understand the processes that
:16:17. > :16:23.we investigated, it is more difficult to think about
:16:23. > :16:28.controlling cancer. It is more a background work, out of which work
:16:28. > :16:35.into cancer can emerge. So you are not a medical scientist, but you
:16:35. > :16:39.science may help medical science. Exactly right. Having won the Nobel
:16:39. > :16:47.prize, how do people's reactions t you change, as a scientist and the
:16:48. > :16:51.human being? First the, journalist would not talk to Lee. -- first,
:16:51. > :16:53.journalists would not talk to me if I did not have and have a price.
:16:53. > :16:58.People think I have a sensible thing to say about everything,
:16:58. > :17:01.which is not true. You can get sucked into what are called
:17:01. > :17:06.Nobelitis where everything you say is like a pronouncement from God.
:17:06. > :17:10.You have to be careful of avoiding that. You can be taken too
:17:10. > :17:14.seriously about things. Do you think there will ever be a catch
:17:14. > :17:18.all cure for cancer? I do not think there will be a single cure for
:17:18. > :17:23.cancer. Partly because cancer is a catch all for many different
:17:23. > :17:27.diseases. Probably 200 are 300 different diseases which we list as
:17:27. > :17:33.cancer. We now know they all have different sorts of causes,
:17:33. > :17:37.different genetic damage that gives rise to cancer. As a consequence,
:17:37. > :17:42.there will never be a single cure. What is going to happen is that we
:17:42. > :17:45.are gradually going to cure bits of cancer and over time, the problem
:17:45. > :17:50.will get less and less. I believe that. But they don't think there
:17:50. > :17:55.will ever be a single cure for cancer. Are you able to say in very
:17:55. > :18:03.broad terms what people are trying to achieve in terms of cures for
:18:03. > :18:09.cancer? Yes. Cancer cells divide out of control. But they are very
:18:09. > :18:13.similar to normal cells. What most researchers are looking for his
:18:13. > :18:17.first small differences between cancer cells and normal cells. And
:18:17. > :18:26.seeing if they can exploit those differences to try and kill the
:18:26. > :18:30.cancer cells bus leaving normal cells OK. -- cancer cells. But you
:18:30. > :18:33.get a lot of damage of normal cells. What we hope for is better
:18:33. > :18:40.treatments that will be more specific act killing cancer cells.
:18:40. > :18:48.When you say the negative control... Was at the normal number us?
:18:48. > :18:56.Down to catch up with nor -- more members of his team. It is just
:18:56. > :19:05.knew, they have not done any. you don't know? Are you excited?
:19:05. > :19:14.Yes. Ball is chairing a love meeting. -- Paul. Anything from New
:19:15. > :19:21.York you wanted to ask? Everything is good so far. No major disaster
:19:21. > :19:28.here. Very good. I have been checking someone of the candidates.
:19:28. > :19:33.Spending time with you, there is the hint of Robin Williams about
:19:33. > :19:40.you, the actor. I have been asked for his signature on more than one
:19:40. > :19:45.occasion. I must tell you, once, I am an adviser for a research
:19:45. > :19:49.institute in New York and some years ago, Robin Williams came to
:19:49. > :19:53.do something in the institute and somebody came up to him and said,
:19:53. > :20:01.Paul, what are you doing here? He, a film star, had been mistaken for
:20:01. > :20:08.me. Will you tell me what is going on here? This machine is used for
:20:08. > :20:16.growing microbes, drawing yeast and bacteria. I, the pizza oven. There
:20:16. > :20:21.are lots of tubes. -- I call it the pizza oven. Here, I am growing
:20:21. > :20:26.yeast and the need to shake it so there is enough air to get into it.
:20:26. > :20:31.I cannot stand there all day, shaking it. So we stick it on this
:20:31. > :20:41.sticky green stuff and shut the door. It will gradually start
:20:41. > :20:42.
:20:42. > :20:47.shaking. How important is this in science? -- how important is
:20:47. > :20:51.scepticism. If you are sceptical, you will test you ideas properly.
:20:51. > :20:55.The problems occur when you think you know what the answer is before
:20:55. > :20:59.you start work. Because all you do will find stuff that support your
:20:59. > :21:05.own ideas. If you are sceptical about what you are doing, about
:21:05. > :21:10.your own ideas, then what happens is that nature can deliver answers
:21:10. > :21:14.to you. Because you are open to alternatives. What sort of power
:21:14. > :21:17.must is there between a discovery in a lab like this, doing
:21:17. > :21:22.biological science, and his application further down the line
:21:22. > :21:25.in medicine? It can take a long time, because what we are trying to
:21:25. > :21:30.do is understand how living organisms including ourselves work.
:21:30. > :21:34.That is complicated and takes a long time to take a Discovery tour.
:21:34. > :21:40.Where you understand enough to be able to use it for application.
:21:40. > :21:43.That can take many years before that can happen. Tricky question.
:21:43. > :21:48.What in your opinion is the biggest single scientific discovery ever,
:21:48. > :21:52.in any field of science? That really is tricky. I will have to
:21:52. > :21:56.give the two answers, one for the biological sciences and one for the
:21:56. > :22:00.physical sciences. In the biological sciences, I would say it
:22:01. > :22:05.has to be evolution by natural selection. That is the unifying
:22:05. > :22:08.idea of biology, which we associate with Charles Darwin. In the
:22:08. > :22:15.physical sciences, I would say it is to do with understanding the
:22:15. > :22:17.nature of gravity. From Newton are through to Einstein. And what that
:22:17. > :22:21.means for all the motion and everything that happens in the
:22:21. > :22:28.universe. A what do you think is the biggest scientific discovery
:22:28. > :22:33.yet to come? It is a silly question because we're dealing with unknowns.
:22:33. > :22:40.That is a really difficult question. Again, I will give you two answers.
:22:40. > :22:45.I think in biology, it would be neuroscience, what is the nature of
:22:45. > :22:49.how the brain works and the nature of consciousness? That is what I
:22:49. > :22:54.would say is the most interesting question. In the physical sciences,
:22:54. > :23:00.probably the origin of the universe. He do we fully understand the
:23:00. > :23:06.origins of life? We don't fully understand the origins of life. I
:23:06. > :23:10.think we are pretty OK once we have simple life and how we go from
:23:10. > :23:15.simple life to our cells. But how a simple life came about is really
:23:15. > :23:19.quite difficult for me to imagine. Also, it seemed to happen rather
:23:19. > :23:24.rapidly. Within a few hundred million years of the birth of the
:23:24. > :23:30.Earth, we seemed to have primitive life. That is a short time. Do you
:23:30. > :23:35.see science and religion as necessarily incompatible scheme --?
:23:35. > :23:40.I do not have religious beliefs. I have some difficulty in pursuing a
:23:40. > :23:50.scientific approach and also thinking of religion, which seems
:23:50. > :23:50.
:23:51. > :24:00.to have so many contestable Balts and ideas with the net. --
:24:01. > :24:01.
:24:01. > :24:06.contestable phos. -- fops. Back to Paul's apartment or an event
:24:06. > :24:10.organised jointly by the Royal Society and British Academy. It has
:24:10. > :24:16.struck me that on tiny things, your career and your reputation has been
:24:16. > :24:20.made. Was there a eureka moment that led to the Nobel Prize gene
:24:20. > :24:25.there were actually two of them. remember one when it was just in my
:24:26. > :24:29.mid- twenties, looking at these dividing yeast cells under the
:24:29. > :24:35.microscope about saw something unusual, cells dividing, and a
:24:35. > :24:40.header flash of light, a real light bulb going up in my head, that told
:24:40. > :24:46.me that the cells were defective, in had gene that controlled cell
:24:46. > :24:49.division. Ted header second one where I didn't experiment with
:24:49. > :24:54.collaborators in the laboratory which showed at the same genes that
:24:54. > :24:59.control cell division in this yeast also controlled it in us. So there
:24:59. > :25:03.was a mechanism that was universal, essentially all living things. That
:25:03. > :25:08.was a fantastic insight into the unity of life and also, the
:25:08. > :25:16.importance of using simple systems to study medical problems relevant
:25:16. > :25:21.to us. Did those moments make you very happy? I go wild. I runabout,
:25:21. > :25:26.shouted, told everybody. They think I am crazy. I say, this is what it
:25:26. > :25:31.means, look at this! Ago a bit crazy. Can science be boring gene
:25:31. > :25:37.it can, most of the time it is boring. Doing routine things are
:25:37. > :25:43.very carefully and not making much progress. Good evening, everybody.