“My love of science came from chasing a flying dead Soviet dog”: Sir Paul Nurse talks science, sexism and Shakespeare

Slipping into the Union chamber a few minutes late to listen to Sir Paul Nurse speak, I might as well have entered an ab initio Russian class. This was an arts student branching out. In a big way.

Sir Paul Nurse is a geneticist and former President of the Royal Society. He won a Nobel Prize back in 2001 for his discoveries of protein molecules that control the division of cells in the cell cycle.

Working in fission yeast, he showed that the cdc2 gene encodes a protein kinase, which then ensures the cell can copy its DNA and duplicate (literally the only word I understood was yeast). When the audience were asked to indicate if they didn’t study science, I raised my hand with maybe two or three other students.

Smiling through the confusion.

All this talk of stem cells and cell growth cycles sent me into a bit of a daze. Science isn’t the easiest thing to engage with: all the fancy terms and formulae mean science feels inaccessible for a lot of people. Paul suggests sometimes the problem arises due to the scientists themselves: “Scientists can make science very difficult. Some I wouldn’t release on the world, some you have to hide away.” So how can we make science more inclusive? “It comes down to education,”  Paul says. Children should know what science is, not just be taught to learn the facts arbitrarily.

Questions inevitably moved to Paul’s fellow Nobel laureate, Tim Hunt. Was he one of those scientists you have to hide away from the world? Tim, who is one of Paul’s closest friends, made a controversial faux pas at the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea, when he opened his speech “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls…”

The event “was almost Shakespearean in its tragedy” according to Paul. “Tim says outrageous things.”

The problem is, when you’re a Nobel laureate there’s more pressure to be PC because “people think you speak with the glory of God,” Paul explains. He condemned Tim’s comments, calling them “chauvinistic” and “not acceptable”. But Paul is paying the price for these remarks. “I actually get more hate-mail than Tim himself.”

The UCL professor was ousted from the University for his sexist comments.

Is the world of science a sexist place? Eight fellow Nobel laureates came out in defence of Hunt, along with many other scientists suggesting the criticism was “out of proportion” and claiming that it was an attack on freedom of expression. But, as Paul pointed out, there’s no getting around the fact that Tim’s words were clearly chauvinistic and misguided.

Does this response show something about the ingrained attitudes in the science? Do comments like this lead to the continuation of gender inequality in science? Paul is very concerned about the lack of women in high positions in science.

“High energy physics is almost bereft of women – less than 10%,” he says. “Senior women scientists occupying senior positions are only about 15-20%.”

How do we change this situation?

“We’ve got to be very practical about it and the real issue is during child bearing. We can get a bit theoretical about this stuff – about changing society and stuff – but what is really needed is practical help during child bearing.” Paul seems to think childbearing is the biggest obstacle for women.

“If you have women and men running labs or research activity, and you have women bearing a child or children over a period of years, it’s incredibly difficult to achieve the same output as someone who’s doing it full-time. If you can get them through that five, seven or eight years, then of course they can achieve that output.”

Some Cambridge scientists ready to discover something new and exciting.

Paul thinks institutions should judge pregnant women on 50% of output for a period of time. “You need an institution to be sympathetic to that – it will allow a woman researcher during that period of childbearing to have a genuine half time position and you judge them on that position.”

Paul explained how important it is for scientists to actively engage with politics – in fact, he even had a chat with George Osborne at a dinner just last week. “I’m not negative about politicians,” Paul says, but he is clear that we need to challenge politicians who support policies based on pseudoscience. Often politicians “misuse science to push a particular position. It’s a problem for scientists and politicians both; don’t pretend science can do something it can’t.”

If Sir Paul Nurse were not a scientist he would go into theatre, and his favourite play is ‘The Tempest’. “I’m a bit of a showman myself,” he confessed. Suddenly my ears pricked up. Finally I was back on home turf. “I am pretty high on Shakespeare and I was an American trustee for the Royal Shakespeare Company, so I was heavily involved and I quite often quote Shakespeare.”

Paul is a strong advocate for the integration between arts- and science-based subjects. “Humanities and science need to be entwined.” He suggests a more joined up approach would be hugely beneficial for scientists and the rest of society. Perhaps invoking Shakespeare during his talks helps Paul to join up the artistic and scientific parts of his brain. “The great quote I quite often use from Midsummer’s Night Dream is ‘lord what fools these mortals be’, because for most of my time in academic interaction people are being foolish – it’s amazing how foolish people are.”

And, sitting listening to Sir Paul Nurse in the Union chamber, I couldn’t help thinking I was probably one of those foolish people. 

@LottieHowson