An Interview With Prof. Haim Harari

English

 

Prof. Haim Harari. Ready for another term
 
Prof. Haim Harari
 

 

Q: Looking back over the last 5 years, what do you see as the major achievements of your first term of office?

A: I am proudest of our dynamic new research initiatives. The ongoing reorganization of our research structure has brought together new coalitions of scientists and facilitated new forms of collaboration, some of which are already beginning to bear fruit.

Q: Has there been a parallel change in the financial sphere?

A: There have been many changes in that sphere as well, as a result of which we have had four consecutive years of balanced budgets. In the first instance, increased support was received from donors all over the world. In the last five years they gave us $235m. in new cash gifts -- way above anything we have ever seen before. There has also been a slow but steady increase in support from the Government of Israel and, last but far from least, Institute scientists of all ranks brought us $130m. in research grants during those five years. That means an average of $500,000 per scientist!
 

Q:
What about the expenditure side of the Institute's balance sheet?

A: We have decreased the number of our non-scientists by 120, while at the same time, increasing the number of our scientists and students by 100 each. The latter two groups of newcomers, by the way, were financed to a significant extent by outside sources.

Q: Where did the additional scientists and students come from?

A: Mainly from the former Soviet Union but, of course, we have also taken in many additional young scientists from other places.

Q: Did the Institute recruit any scientific "stars" during this period?

A: Yes, no fewer than 11, all of them world leaders in their respective fields. Five are from the former Soviet Union, two are American, three are Israelis who have returned after many years abroad and one is an Israeli who came from another institution of higher learning in this country. They are a tremendous addition.

Q: What changes have been made in the Institute's physical facilities to accommodate this influx of talent and meet other needs?

A: We've put up many new buildings, including the Brain Research Building, the Ebner Auditorium, the Goldschleger Life Sciences Library, the Musher Building for Science Teaching, the Mayer Building housing the Braun Submicron Center and the Laub International Youth Village. We've also renovated several other structures on the campus.

Q: Was this accompanied by an investment in the Institute's infrastructure?

A: We've invested a great deal in improving our research infrastructure. For example, our computer system has been substantially upgraded and our library budget has been doubled. However, I hasten to add, we still have a long way to go.

Q: Have there been specific changes where research is concerned?

A: A great many. In mathematics and physics, for instance we have embarked upon new types of research thanks mainly to the influx of students and scientists from the former Soviet Union.

Q: Does that mean the Russians have "taken over" in mathematics and physics?

A: Of course not. Sabras and immigrants from elsewhere still lead the way in most fields, including, for instance, the physics of solid-state condensed matter, where we are emphasizing its impact on electronics and modern technology.

Q: What is going on in other spheres of Institute research at this time?

A: While I can't go into everything, I'd like to point out that chemistry research has taken a giant step forward, multidisciplinary brain research has gone very well, studies of diseases ? autoimmune and others ? have been extremely fruitful and our efforts to safeguard the environment through, among other things, developing new approaches to the utilization of solar energy, have yielded important results that are likely to be of significance in this country and elsewhere in the world.

Q: Is the emphasis now on "results," or is pure research still important?

A: There is nothing so important as pure research at the Weizmann Institute, yet I wouldn't deny our growing success in technology transfer. The income of Yeda, our interface with industry, went up from $5 million five years ago to $12 million last year, and I see it only growing. That is why we have now appointed, for the first time, a Vice President for Technology Transfer.

Q: What about money from other sources? Isn't there likely to be a problem with U.S. grants because of cuts in research funding there and with grants from Germany because of that country's deteriorating economic situation?

A: There may be such a problem. However, the sources of our research grants are so diverse that so long as we do first class work, I believe the flow of grants will continue.

Q: Can we expect to go on getting so much money from Jewish philanthropic sources at a time when younger Jews are less attached to Jewish causes than their parents and grandparents?

A: We are already receiving substantial amounts of money from younger donors. As a matter of fact, I think we may do even better in the future because many younger people prefer to give money to organizations with which they identify, and whose goals they understand, rather than to larger amorphous bodies which serve very general purposes.

Q: Will we also go on getting more "stars" to join our staff, despite the low salaries we offer them?

A: Yes, because there are some people who will make sacrifices where salary is concerned so long as we can provide them with good research conditions.

Q: Isn't what you say no less true of other Institute scientists?

A: Certainly, which is why my number one goal for the next five years is to give as many groups of researchers as possible all the conditions they require to compete with their counterparts in other countries. That means trained staff, first class equipment, adequate laboratory space and last, but not least, a strong Institute infrastructure. Success or failure will then depend solely on the talent and efforts of the scientists themselves.

Q: Doesn't that mean that some groups will have a plethora of resources while others will go short?

A: That is precisely my intention. I refuse to allow a situation in which whatever resources we have are divided equally. We have to decide on priorities and to put everything possible at the disposal of the very best research groups on the campus.

Q: During these next five years, will you also be emphasizing the contributions we can make to the new Middle East?

A: We can and must play an important role in spheres where we already excel. I am thinking in particular of environmental science, energy research, plant genetics, nutrition, science education, and parasitic and tropical diseases.

No matter what shape the new Middle East takes, problems in these spheres will have to be tackled, and the Weizmann Institute will do its share in tackling them.
 
 


English

Closer Links with Industry

English

The Yeda Research & Development Company, last year received a record $12m. in royalties and research grants from industry, a clear indication of its increasingly successful efforts to commercialize Weizmann Institute research. A significant part of this sum, in turn, was used to finance further research at the Institute.

Commenting on this phenomenon at a recent Weizmann Institute Executive Council discussion on the subject, Prof. David Mirelman, Chairman of Yeda, said that while the Institute doesn't have a specific department devoted to applied science, it has "found mechanisms to stimulate projects with applicable potential".

Among scientists who have linked up with industry is Prof. Michal Schwartz of the Neurobiology Department, now working on a project which will, if successful, permit the regeneration of severed nerves. Though her research is still in the laboratory stage, a large European pharmaceutical firm has agreed to finance it in return for the right to exploit her findings, if they prove applicable.

Prof. Irun Cohen, in turn, is working with a start-up biotechnology company that was specially created to exploit his research results. If all goes well, the products of the new firm -- established by Yeda and an American venture capital company -- should contribute to the diagnosis and cure of juvenile diabetes as well as facilitate the treatment of other autoimmune diseases.

"Having the means to really get to the bottom of research is a very precious commodity and if the only way we can get it is through partnership with business, then we will have to learn to live with that situation," Cohen declared.

Prof. Shimon Ullman, of the Dept. of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, has yet a different link with industry: he provides a scientific input to Orbotech, a company that produces equipment for inspecting printed circuit boards, which are a key feature of almost all electronic equipment. Orbotech -- a firm recently formed by the merger of two Israeli companies, Orbot and Optrotech - -accounts for some 80% of the inspection machines produced in the world.

Ullman believes that while scientists provide ideas for new products, their successful commercialization depends primarily on the engineering and marketing arms of a firm.
Institute President Prof. Haim Harari summarized the discussion by stating that "applied science is now an integral part of the activities of the Weizmann Institute."

Prof. Cohen holds the Helen and Morris Mauerberger Chair in Immunology; Prof. Mirelman, the Besen-Brender Chair of Microbiology and Parasitology; Prof. Schwartz, the Maurice and Ilse Katz Chair in Neuroimmunology; and Prof. Ullman, the Ruth and Samy Cohn Chair in Computer Sciences.
English

Weizmann Institute Mourns Scientists and Supporters

English
 
Prof. Albert Sabin. President and supporter
Prof. Sabin

 

The global Weizmann Institute family has lost some of its most prominent and creative leaders in recent months.

Prof. Albert Sabin, developer of the oral polio vaccine and world-famous virologist, was the fourth President of Weizmann Institute, serving between 1970 and 1972. Sabin was also a member of the Institute's Board of Governors for a quarter of a century.

In recent years Prof. Sabin showed special interest in solar energy research at the Weizmann Institute and personally contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars for such research. As he put it: "The earliest possible development of a suitable technology for replacing the exhaustible, polluting fossil fuels by inexhaustible, clean solar energy is of the greatest importance for the whole world, and I would like the Weizmann Institute to continue to be in the lead in this effort."

Distinguished Institute Professor Chaim L. Pekeris, one of the world's authorities on applied mathematics and geophysics, founded the Institute's Applied Mathematics Department, which he headed until 1973. Concurrently, he organized and managed Israel's first geophysical survey; built the WEIZAC, Israel's first computer and among the most advanced in the world at the time; and established the country's Institute for Petroleum Research and Geophysics.

Prof. Pekeris's research achievements included studies in convection within the earth, propagation of sound in layered media, and the computation of tides on a global scale. Among the many honors bestowed upon him was the Vetlesen Prize in Geophysics, considered to be the "Nobel Prize" in this field.
 
Prof. Pekeris. Mathematics founder
Prof. Pekeris
Prof. Yosef Aloni, who made major contributions to unraveling the control systems involved in processing DNA, was head of the Dept. of Molecular Genetics and Virology at the time of his death.

Shirley Weisgal, widow of the late Institute President and Chancellor Meyer W. Weisgal, was a full partner in her husband's efforts to win friends for the Weizmann Institute.

Avraham Agmon served as chairman of the Association of Friends of the Weizmann Institute in Israel; under his leadership it greatly expanded the scope of its activities.

Adold Ebner, an active member of the Israel Association, was the recipient of an honorary doctorate from the Institute and a generous donor, most recently of the Ebner Auditorium.

Ludwig Jesselson, a New Yorker, not only made significant contributions to the Institute itself, but also persuaded many others to provide meaningful support.

Prof. Aloni held the George F. Duckwitz Chair of Cancer Research and Prof. Pekeris, the Herman P. Taubman Chair of Applied Mathematics.
 
English

An Interview with Prof. Yadin Dudai

English

Prof. Yadin Dudai. Dean of Biology


Q: How do you see the future of biological research at the Weizmann Institute?

A: I think there will be major changes because biological research is at a turning point. We must consider restructuring the life sciences at Weizmann in order to avoid stagnation and adjust to the changing situation. In fact, we have just started doing so.

Q: Why, in your opinion, has this turning point been reached?

A: It stems from very rapid developments in the life sciences and from the sheer volume of contemporary research. Just in my own field --
the neurobiology of learning and memory -- more than 200 papers are published every week. I obviously can't read most of them, let alone the 5,000 weekly papers in biology as a whole.

Q: That is certainly a problem, but are there other factors as well?

A: Yes. Today, if you are to compete with top research groups in the life sciences, you usually need relatively large research teams supported by a very sophisticated and expensive infrastructure.

Q: What conclusions are we at the Institute to draw from this situation?

A: There are several things. First, we must carefully consider the fields in which we are to specialize and in which we might be able to make an important or even unique contribution. We must go into those fields in depth and avoid jumping from one trendy project to another. Second, we must carefully choose the leaders of research groups. And finally, we must have a satisfactory infrastructure in terms of state-or-the-art technology and services. This costs a lot of money. In parallel, we may have to cut down the overall number of topics on which we work.

Q: What criteria should be applied in deciding on which topics to forego?

A: There are areas of biological research -- like the study of particular oncogenes, growth regulation factors and some facets of brain research -- where we are definitely at the cutting edge. There are others where we are not, and some of the latter may have to be abandoned, however difficult this may be. In general, I would like people to think that some very important topics in biological research are particularly associated with Weizmann Institute.

Q: Does that mean that Institute scientists will have less freedom of choice, that they will be told what to investigate?

A: I don't think that is a problem. Generally speaking, excellent scientists choose excellent projects. But when we are selecting new personnel or contemplating investment in new equipment, we may wish to consider the need to create a critical mass in a particular field. Moreover, we may decide to limit the number of groups and give more resources to certain ones.

Q: You yourself are working on one of the subjects receiving ever more emphasis at the Institute, namely brain research. What are your goals?

A: The objective of my research is to contribute to an understanding of the processes of learning and memory. Specifically, I am interested in the events that take place in our brain during learning and a few minutes afterwards, when short-term memory becomes consolidated into long-term memory.

Q: Where brain research is concerned, do we have any advantages over other institutions?

A:
Our mutidisciplinary character is certainly an advantage, because the brain can best be understood by studying it with the combined insights of biology, mathematics, physics and chemistry. In addition, we have a number of top scientist doing brain research. This has helped us to excel in topics like imaging the living brain and elucidating the biological correlates of higher brain function, particularly perception and memory.

Q: Despite the mutidisciplinary character of brain research here, isn't biology the dominant discipline in that field, as it is, indeed, in the Institute as a whole?

A:
Yes, since over 50 percent of Institute research is in biology. But even so, we don't cover everything; for example, we do nothing or next to nothing in classic areas like zoology and whole-animal physiology.

Q: Apart from the balance of disciplines, how do you feel about the balance between basic and applied research?

A: I feel that we should devote almost all our energy to basic research. I'm happy if something of economic importance emerges as a by-product of that research, but I don't think that we should decide to investigate some subject just because it is of interest to industry and will attract its support.

Q: You may not have as strong links with industry as do many scientists, but you do have closer links with the press than your colleagues. Didn't you -- albeit a good many years ago -- work as a journalist yourself?

A:
Yes I did, and perhaps that strengthens my desire to make science understandable to the public. Though some of my friends would disagree, I personally believe that if scientists can't explain what they are doing to laymen, then they may not understand it themselves.

Q: Do scientists also have special responsibilities in the educational system?

A: I think they should devote some time to education, even at the elementary school level. As things stand, I'm afraid most kids don't acquire a basic knowledge of science in school. And most important, they are not exposed to the scientific methodology that will be crucial for making decisions in the 21st century.

Q: If youngsters become interested in science and decide to become scientists, will they find jobs? Indeed, will all the Russian immigrant scientists find work?

A: Very good scientists, the top two to five percent, will find work in institutions of higher learning, while some of the others will get jobs in industry, depending on how far and in what direction it expands. But I think that it is the responsibility of government and industry alike to create more employment opportunities, because investment in the scientific community is investment in the strength and well-being of our society. In addition, there should be an expansion of colleges, both because this will mean more teaching positions and because those colleges are needed to accommodate, among others, some of the immigrant students.

If all these things are done, most science graduates will find their niche.

Prof. Dudai holds the Sara and Michael Sela Chair of Neurobiology.
English