Every person mistakes the limits of their field of vision for the limits of the world

This July, Durban played host to their second International AIDS conference. This is the biggest and most publicised of the HIV conferences, with the likes of Elton John and Prince Harry showing up to support the cause. This meeting is not really recognised for its pure scientific nature, but is regarded in our lab as something everyone should attend at least once. The goal of the meeting is really to bring social issues to the fore: interventions, activism and policy to improve the lives of those affected. Ultimately for basic scientists, it’s about gaining a wider perspective about the work we do, the impact we make and to motivate us to work harder to lighten the burden South Africa has borne for so many years. But the world of activism, especially celebrity activism, is also a world that could learn from science.

Charlize Theron spoke at the conference saying several things that upset me. The media raved about her speech saying she certainly didn’t sugarcoat anything – as if we don’t know how bad the epidemic is already. I think one of the things that upset me most was this, “The real reason we haven’t beaten the epidemic boils down to one simple fact: We value some lives more than others.” I do not deny that this is a very real issue in the world today; but I truly don’t agree that this is why we haven’t beaten the epidemic. It is easy to get swept up in this statement and feel some guilt as a privileged and fairly happy PhD student who lives life with a clean bill of health (apart from sleep deprivation), but I am worried that a statement like this really works against scientists.

There are legitimate and horrifying biological challenges that we face with this formidable foe. HIV adapts so rapidly our immune systems can’t keep up. About 20% of people develop amazing antibodies that can target 90% of the circulating virus but because this only happens 3 years after infection, this doesn’t help the person at all. We have had 6 HIV vaccine trials, none of which have done any better than 31% protection. The virus integrates into the person’s DNA, which makes a complete cure very difficult. We have cured one man by completely irradiating him twice and nearly killing him and we have thought we cured one baby by giving it ARVs in the first hours of its life (it has since rebounded), with little knowledge about how it will affect it over life. Please understand that the dearth of progress is not for lack of trying or because scientists are secretly plotting against adolescent women.

We simply have not figured it out yet.  Even with incredible education, support and dedication by some truly wonderful people in this country, there continues to be a barrage of infections. While social behaviours and injustices definitely help spread the disease, the ONLY thing that will stop it is a vaccine or a cure. It sounds noble to try and reinvent social interactions (a goal that must be pursued in our lifetime) but this is not what brings about a real-world cure to a horrible disease. Polio swept the world several times throughout history. Do you know when they stopped it? When they found a vaccine! (Read about other diseases defeated by vaccines here.)

The second thing that bothered me in Charlize’s talk, “I know this because AIDS does not discriminate on its own. It has no biological preference for black bodies, for women’s bodies, for gay bodies, for youth or for the poor. It doesn’t single out the vulnerable, the oppressed, or the abused.” This isn’t true: the disease does discriminate. Women are biologically more likely than men to contract the disease (read this link for an in-depth analysis and click here for a simplified version), and routes of transmission make gay men in particular vulnerable to infection. I understand what she is trying to say, but to a scientist these statements are incorrect and are once again, making the point that AIDS is only a social disease. People will never perceive themselves to be in a socially-constructed high-risk category. Many of the people I know own cars that they drive every day (a truly high-risk activity!) and not one of them wears a crash helmet.

Charlize later went on to say that we “have all the tools to end HIV.” And we don’t. The fact is education and empowerment doesn’t work completely. We need an intervention that people will not have to think about. How seriously do you worry about Pertussis every day or dying from Mumps? Everyone has access to these vaccines and that is what we need to do for AIDS. I agree completely with Baron Peter Piot (a researcher from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) when he spoke at the same conference, “We need to stop saying that we have the tools to end the HIV and AIDs epidemic, until we have a cure or a vaccine- then we can say that.”

I wouldn’t want any young person to listen to Charlize Theron’s speech and assume that there is any lack of urgency in the scientific field because the disease is not prevalent in the white upper class. We are facing a terrible enemy and while we know a lot about it, it keeps coming up with clever ways to evade our advances. The world could always do with improvement. Young girls should think they are better than their relationships and can go on to live an HIV-free life. I applaud people trying to change this. Ultimately though, scientists are dedicated to making a vaccine for everyone. It, much like ARVs, will shape the lives of people much more quickly than changing social perceptions can. It would be easier if we could just give an injection that would bridge the social divide, but then again, I am a scientist looking out of scientist goggles, with potentially limited eyesight.

You will never influence the world trying to be like it

In October 1927, the Solvay conference (a prestigious invite-only Physics meeting) was in session. In one room were Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Planck and even Erwin Schrödinger. 17 of the 29 attendees would go on to win Nobel prizes, with Marie Curie achieving that honour in two fields. Pictured below is the historic photo (recently colourised by Sanna Dullaway) to serve as proof that those coffee breaks must have been the greatest in history.

Solvay conference

 

These individuals would decide the course of quantum physics at this meeting, what was to come and what the field is now was down to them.

Why do we oooh and ahhh at the guest list of the Solvay conference? People have an obsession with genius. And as scientists, perhaps we have a wish to emulate them. One of the ways to do this is to look at those individuals that have managed to completely distinguish themselves from all other scientists by winning the Nobel Prize.

So what are the trends? Well for a start, it is best not to be a woman. Of the 900 Nobel laureates, only 49 are of the fairer sex. Furthermore, it’s best to be an American, as a whopping 257 individuals have been born there (29%, as compared to 1% of the winners being South African). It is also best if you have a birthday on 21 May or 28 February and happen to be 61 years old at the time of the award. Oh, and be a Harvard affiliate (26 were). The Curie family had 6 Nobel Prizes in the extended family (Marie received 2, Pierre her husband, shared one with her in 1903; their daughter Irène Joliot-Curie and her husband Frederic shared one in 1935 and in 1965 Marie’s second daughter’s husband received the Nobel Peace Prize. There have been 5 married couples, 1 sibling and 8 parent-child pairs of laureates – so perhaps working with family is the best thing to do. Basically, your best chance of winning a Nobel Prize, statistically, is to be a 61 year old male physicist who works for Harvard or Caltech (who have so many Nobel laureates they have their own parking space) and is related to a Curie.

What one must consider is that out of the estimated 108 billion people that have ever lived, only 900 have won this prize. Clearly this is not the best indication of genius. There must have been a good number of other inventors and problem solvers that have lived throughout our time, and not all of them were 61 year old Harvard alumni. It is interesting that humans always look at the exceptional, when really everything we currently understand about human intelligence is based on the average. We tend to think genius is based on how much you’re above the average IQ. Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking had MENSA IQs of 160. But Richard Feynman, widely regarded as a genius, only had an IQ of 120. In addition, last year, a 12 year old girl got an IQ score of 162. Does this mean she will develop the next theory of relativity? Unlikely. Child protégés do not typically remain that way as IQs change over time. In a great article “What your IQ score doesn’t tell you”, the writer goes on to describe that the test doesn’t tell one about the ability to perform tasks or make things work – a pretty big part of life really. IQ is not the same as “common sense” and is certainly not the same as intelligence.

“Intelligence” as defined by Dr Robert Sternberg is made up of 3 facets: analytical skills, practical ability and creativity. You need some common sense to make that IQ work. But perhaps what truly distinguishes genius is not just a Nobel prize, crazy hair and marrying your cousin (something Einstein did) but how creative you can be with the world around you. Einstein and Max Planck were accomplished musicians (violin and piano respectively), Richard Feynman was an acclaimed artist and Marie Curie, well she liked to cycle. Creative people are generally polymaths, they have a wide variety of knowledge and skills and potentially we should focus more energies on other creative pursuits than just work. And while you certainly can’t learn to be a Caucasian bearded man, one can encourage creative behaviours. While some imagine that the coffee breaks during the Savoy conference were packed with Physics, its highly probable that Albert whipped out his violin and Max joined in on piano, while Erwin Schrodinger made a few bits of furniture for his latest dollhouse, Marie went for a brisk cycle and Niels Bohr played a bit of footie.

You will never influence the world trying to boost your exceptional IQ, or fitting into the “workaholic” mould. Be different; feed your creative side. Heck, keep pigeons if you have to; it worked for Tesla (well sort of)!Tesla Oatmeal

An excerpt from “The Oatmeal’s” cartoon“Why  Nikola Tesla was the greatest geek that ever lived”, a truly great read!