‘GM food is a big opportunity…none of the questions raised about it are serious from a scientific point of view’

• In fact professor emeritus such a young age. Nobel laureate in 1975. In fact the year you got your Nobel was the year I graduated in biology. I have done no biology since then, so I’ll be a student in this rather than an interviewer. So tell us, do you think you agree with this expectation that this is a century of biology? Or is this journalistic oversimplification?

Well, actually for me the last century was a century of biology, because I grew up in that. I did all my work in the 1900s. And it’s amazing to see what happened. So when I started in biology in the 1960s, there was no molecular biology. We just learned about the structure of DNA, working out the meaning of that, and everything has blossomed since then and we now understand all the genes in the human body. At least, we know what they are, we don’t necessarily understand them . . .

• You don’t always know the Whys. You know the Whats.

For instance, in cancer, in the 1960s, we had no idea what cancer was about. Today we know cancer’s due to genetic mutations, we know a lot of those mutations, we know a lot of how that happens, and we are curing some, and we are not curing a lot of others.

• Blame my parents for this: Tell me what is it that a common viewer or reader should know about RNA, which is (the field) in which you got your Nobel.

RNA is the intermediate between DNA and the rest of the cell. It carries information out of the nucleus into the cell and then that information is processed so that the cell knows how to work. That is the major function of RNA. Then there are lots of other functions. In fact, there are functions of RNA that are just coming up now. I’ll talk about one of them this afternoon in a talk I am giving here in India. Micro RNAs, these are RNAs that control which genes are expressed at what time and there’s a whole world of RNA control that’s just opening up now.

• In fact, your own work, which got your the Nobel in 1975, was about changes RNA goes through and changes the cell goes through because of RNA.

That’s right. We learned that RNA can be made into DNA and that reverses the standard flow of information in biological systems. It was said that we violated the central dogma of biology in that experiment and it’s been very rich. It turns out that a very large part of our own genomes come about by copying RNA into DNA.

• Probably, when you were talking about this, that was precisely what was happening in many cells that came up as HIV just five or six years later.

About 10 years later.

• Ten years later. If I remember correctly, five or six years since the Nobel.

Yes. We did the experiment in 1970 and it was actually in 1982 that we began to realise what HIV was.

• Then you’ve been working on genome sequencing also.

Not much.

• Not much, but that’s been an area of interest. Are we being too impatient in believing that somehow, genome sequencing, biotechnology, haven’t quite produced the miracles we expected of them in cancer, in HIV, in many other incurable diseases.

I think we’ve asked for it to happen too fast. Cancer’s very complicated, it’s not one disease, it’s hundreds of diseases. In fact, we’re learning more and more about the heterogeneity of cancer. So I think it’ll be a long time before we eradicate cancer if we ever do.

• So can we say that in our lifetime cancer is curable, that we’ll find a cure for cancer.

I am 70 years old now, so in my lifetime, I doubt it.

• You doubt it, but you see treatments getting better.

Treatments are getting better every day.

• Also, I was reading an interview you gave and you said you were a bit disappointed with some of the work on the AIDS vaccine and you said that maybe AIDS is a disease for which there can be no vaccine.

I think we have to consider that possibility but I don’t think we should stop working on it just because it is a possibility. We have to work harder and harder, but we may not come up with anything.

• Why do you say so?

Well, because it’s not simple actually. Why does AIDS kill people? It kills people because the virus that causes HIV can grow in our bodies in spite of our immune systems.

• Right.

How do vaccines work? Vaccines work through the immune system. If the immune system can’t stop the virus then how’re we ever going to make a vaccine that’s better than the natural infection that induces immunity. That’s the argument against it.

• And the argument for?

And the argument for is that we have the most creative science in the world today. Biotechnology. We should be able to find a way to do better than the body’s immune system. And to actually stop the virus, using some kind of novel technology. So, many of us are working on what would be novel technology.

• Can you tell me, a 1975 biology student, what is this novel technology?

Well, there are two kinds of immunity. There’s the antibody-based immunity you probably learnt a lot about and there’s T cell-based immunity, which you probably didn’t learn very much about because in 1975 we didn’t know much about it. Today, we know a lot about it and we know it doesn’t really play a big role in protecting against viruses. But maybe we can make it play a role. So a lot of what people are doing is trying to get T cell immunity against the virus, which would be novel. And we’ll see whether we can do it. What I’m trying to do is use gene therapy method so we actually change the genes in the body to make the body resist HIV infection. And I have a feeling that that maybe the right way to go.

• And how far have you gone down that road yet?

I have a very big research programme focussed on that. It’s about halfway to where I want to be.

• What drives your heart and your mind? Is it being in the lab?

Science. It’s science. Has always been.

• Because there is an interesting debate in the U.S. in terms of where science is headed, particularly life sciences, and there are people who really worry because some of the candidates in this election don’t even believe in evolution. Does that worry you?

Certainly. It bothers me that so many people in the United States don’t believe in evolution. So many people believe in the miracle of religious creation. Actually it’s not a whole different in the rest of the world. Except in Europe.

• But does it affect science? Does it affect the prospects for life sciences?

Well, so far it hasn’t. So far, we’ve been able to continue our work in science without being blocked by these religious impulses. But if (Mike) Huckabee (the Republican candidate) became president, for instance, I don’t know what would happen. I can’t imagine the country would vote for him but . . .

• But even (President George W.) Bush has blocked stem cell research.

Bush blocked stem cell research, he only allowed a narrow path of stem cell research. Most of the other candidates in the campaign now would reverse that, even the Republicans, I think.

• Even the Republicans.

Certainly (John) McCain would.

• So who do you think will be the best candidate in terms of science? In terms of life sciences?

Oh, I don’t know. In general, Republicans have been pretty good about life sciences except for these religious things. And Clinton was great for life science. It was under him that we started doubling the NIH budget.

• And so might Mrs Clinton be?

So might Mrs Clinton be. She has said she might double it again. So I think she would be pretty positive.

• Is she your candidate?

She is my candidate.

• You said that with a smile.

Well, you smile, I smile.

• Now Larry Summers was on the show some time back and we were talking of outsourcing and he said the need for America right now is to rebuild its centres of excellence so intellectual capital around the world has no choice but to gravitate towards the U.S. Do you think some of the restrictions that maybe the Republicans have placed on the life sciences or might place would reverse that? Or has reversed that?

I think that in the stem cell area, in particular, there has been a lot of progress abroad, more than, in some ways, in the United States, partly because of the difficulty in funding the research. It’s kept young people out because they don’t know what their future would be so it’s been inhibitory but there are lots of things in the United States that have been inhibitory. The visa policies and policies about immigration into the United States have made it difficult to get the quality of people and the numbers of people that we used to get. You know, American science is built on immigrants.

• When you look back last 30 years, and then I’ll ask you to predict for the next 30, what have been the five most interesting and important advancements in life sciences?

Without a lot of thought, I don’t know if I can say that. Certainly the sequencing of the genome has been a big thing, the understanding of cancer as a genetic process has been a big thing, the recombinant DNA revolution was an enormous thing, the discovery of the structure of the DNA, that’s not 30 years but more, but it was monumental and reverberates to this day. That’s four. . . I could go on but . . .

• Talk about your own work on RNA.

Well, the reverse transcription that we discovered had a big effect. It had actually three effects, one of which I saw early on, but the other two I could not have seen. One was that it opened up the ability to work on cancer, the second was that it provided the explanation for HIV, but HIV hadn’t been discovered then, and the third was that it started biotechnology, because it gave us a way of capturing genes that we never had before. And so all biotechnology started on the basis of reverse transcribed RNA.

• What do you expect in the next 30 years? What’s your wish for the next 30 years?

Well, huge advances in the treatment of cancer is what my major wish is.

• Are you disappointed with the pace of movement there?

Well, no, if I look back to, as I said, the 1960s, and I say what’s happened since then, it’s just extraordinary the pace at which things have moved. Now everybody, the general public, would like things to move faster because they like to believe that we are all miracle workers. We’re not. It’s very hard doing science.

• And the next four? You said one on cancer, and in the next 30 years?

Well, one, cancer. Gene therapy as a mode of treatment, I think, is a big opportunity. I think extending biotechnology into other realms, for instance, into energy — can we learn how to capture the sun’s energy in more effective ways, particularly, can we find ways of storage of energy that will allow us to build big pots of energy that we derive from the sun but we store in convenient place so we can use it when we need it? I think biology has a lot to offer in that ground. I think genetically modified food is a big opportunity for us, feeding people with nutritious foods that will avoid the problems.

• You have no ideological position against GM foods?

I have no ideological position against GM foods. I don’t see any reason to have one. It’s not a matter of ideology, it’s a matter of . . .

• So what your view on the very loud opposition to GM food, this fear, this phobia?

I think it’s people holding on to the past. I just think people have a visceral worry about the future and it comes out sometimes and GM food is one place where worries about the future have focussed.

• But as a scientist, as a scientist who knows more than most other scientists, you have no evidence to worry about GM foods?

I have no evidence at all to worry about it. None of the questions that have been raised about GM foods are really serious issues from a scientific point of view.

• You will happily eat a GM meal?

Absolutely. If it tastes good.

• And the fifth? You’ve talked about cancer, gene therapy, energy, GM.

Right. We should have another one, shouldn’t we? Well, since I’m getting old, I guess I should say understanding ageing.

• Now tell me something about yourself. I’ve been reading stuff you’ve done and you’ve said. There was a case about one of the papers that a colleague of yours wrote and you co-authored. That was questioned and you really stood up for her.

Right.

• It’s a risk professors don’t take. What happened?

I just believe that there was nothing wrong and I was offended morally by the people who were attacking it and I just felt that I had the responsibility to help her. She was an immigrant scientist, she didn’t speak English particularly well, and we managed to save her career.

• The reason I ask you this is because a lot of the young scientists in India complain that our guides and professors don’t tell us enough. That they don’t stand by us.

Yeah? Well, they should.

• And that they are too selfish.

You know, I’ve lived my whole life as a teacher. I have something approaching 200 people whom I have trained. I am very, very proud of that. I worry about those people, I try to help them, help their careers. Even the people I trained 25 years ago, I am still writing letters for them.

• People you’ve trained, some of them will start earning those Nobels.

I would love that to happen but many of them are members of the National Academy of Sciences.

• I think you told one of your interviewers that you don’t have the word ‘relax’ in your dictionary. Isn’t that being too hard on yourself?

No, it came up, I think, because he was talking about stress. And I don’t know what stress is all about. For myself, I love living the life I lead. It’s very busy. I fly, I go around. I put stress on my body, I suppose, but I love it. And I love the opportunity to be a part of the international world.

• And this army of 200 odd students, who are all, I’m sure, following up on the great work you do.

Many of them are actually coming to join me for my 70th birthday, which is in a month and a half.

• Well professor, a very happy birthday, many happy returns in advance.

Thank you very much.

• Many more discoveries and many more accolades in the years to come. And big challenges, including one right now, of helping India develop some centres of excellence in biology.

That’s what I hope we can do.

Thank you.