 Okay, thanks. Okay, everyone. Thank you for coming. My talk is actually going to be about luck and curiosity eventually leading to a Nobel Prize. As it turns out, I have a presentation on my laptop which unfortunately does not want to work. So I have to sort of do this talk from memory. I think the common conception is that, you know, with respect to the Nobel Prizes, the people who win Nobel Prizes are obviously intelligent, right? That's a basic assumption. And they work really hard. To get to the point where the work qualifies for Nobel Prizes. So can anyone tell me what the Nobel Prizes are? The six that are there? I'm sure you all know because it should be here somewhere. Maybe not. Okay, they are physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. Now in the original will for Alfred Nobel, economic sciences is not there. And the reason is because that was actually given by the Swedish Bank in Memorial or Alfred Nobel. So the original real Nobel Prizes are all of those that I just mentioned except economic sciences. Okay, so just keep that in mind. Now my talk today is going to focus specifically upon these sciences. In other words, physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine. And the reason I chose those because it's because luck does play a role in those, right? One of the quotes I saw was, and this is with respect to penicillin, Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin said, Nature create penicillin. I just discovered it. Sure luck, right? So in the history of the Nobel Prizes itself, excluding literature, which obviously, you know, you have to have a body of work that justifies that as human creation, nothing to do with nature in itself rather, peace, same thing. You know, you look at the Nobel Peace Prize winners, some of them you question to some extent, why did they even get the Nobel Prize? The classic example that comes to mind is anyone? Oh, true. Did he do anything to justify it? Anyone? No, he was nominated shortly after he was elected. He was nominated and won strictly on the basis of what? Potential, no actual achievements. Keep that in mind. So you have literature that I set aside. You have peace that set aside. Economics is actually, as I said, not part of the original Alfred Nobel will. So let's go back to physics, chemistry and physiology slash medicine. Let me just use medicine because it's easier at this point. So the most one of the most well known examples of sure luck, sure serendipity with respect to winning a Nobel Prize is actually Alexander Fleming. Right? What did he do? He went on a holiday. He's a messy guy, brilliant researcher, left his lab in a mess, came back. Boom. Petri dish. Oh, wow. This area. No bacteria. What the hell is going on? Now that's luck, right? The next step is curiosity. Why did it not have the bacteria? So there are two parts to this, right? Luck and curiosity. He had the luck, sheer luck. The man is a messy guy. You know, if he was in Singapore, do you think you'll still have a job? Reality strikes here, right? But the man was sure luck, messy lab. What the hell? I go on holiday, came back a few weeks later. Boom. There it is. But with respect to penicillin, that in itself actually did not lead to anything of value. Why? Because it was not a substance that you could actually use as a medication. I mean, he discovered penicillin. But as he said, nature created it, all I did was discover it. But what was the next step? The next step, he did not take. It was taken by other people, in fact, who actually purified it, made it manufacturable essentially, right? So yet three people won the Nobel Prize for penicillin. Physiology or medicine, right? In this case, Flory and Chain were the two British guys who said, hey, this looks like an interesting thing. It was about to get to World War II. What do you need? Medication to take care of people in that sort of situation. So Flaming discovered Flory and Chain were the ones who said, we can distill this, we can purify, we can make it part of a manufacturing process essentially to make it widely, widely available. Because in the beginning, Flaming had something that was just a bunch of blob, basically. It wasn't dispensable as a medication, antibiotics essentially. So the three people who won the Nobel Prize were Flaming for discovering Flory and Chain for making it available as a production process. And they actually had to do the production process in the United States, in Iowa, in fact, just because, hey, UK, Britain, World War II, that sort of thing, you know, everything was directed towards a war effort. So they had to do it in Iowa, where they actually were used to doing this sort of things, farming community. So they actually went very well. So the three of them won it. But unfortunately, that was the fourth person who was very key to the effort that Flory and Chain were involved with. And of course, well, with respect to the Nobel Prizes, UNICAD three winners. So this third person, whose name was Henley, if I can remember correctly, did not get a Nobel Prize. So what happened was Oxford University say, you know, not much can do about it. I mean, not much that the Nobel Prize Committee can do about it because they are limited to three, according to stipulations and the will of Alfred Nobel. So what Oxford did is they gave him honorary doctorate of medicine. He was the first person, a non-doctor, excuse me, a non-medical person in the history of Oxford University to get an honorary doctorate of medicine. And this gentleman said, you know, I just happen to be in the right place at the right time to do this. I'm a third-rate scientist. Hey, when opportunity strikes take it, seize the day, right, cup of tea, I'm essentially. So that's one instance where, sure luck, right place, right time. Alexander Fleming, most of us would be like, jump up, you know, throw it away. It's a messed up thing. The guy says, hey, this looks interesting. Actually, my slides, which you cannot see because my laptop won't boot up. They actually have a picture of the patty dish, right, with that little, you know, section that's free of growth, thanks to that penicillin organism there. Going back to the guys, to the British guys, they actually went to the United States during World War II to figure out how else can they grow penicillin. I believe it was either a rotten cantaloupe or melon that provided the best environment to grow penicillin. And once they figured that out, they did all sort of work, and then the US started pumping it out, I mean, producing it in mass, which is actually a big contribution to the World War II effort for the Allied powers. Because it saved people, lots and lots of people. So that's what I know of. The other is actually quite interesting. This is actually quite recent, in terms of the past 40 years or so. So I've talked about medicine, right? Physiology or medicine for penicillin. Something more recent was about 1970s. Traditionally, plastics do not conduct electricity, right? It's insulated, in other words, okay? So what happened was that there are two things going on at the same time, one in the US at University of Pennsylvania, the other in Japan. Let me start with the guy in Japan first of all. He had a graduate student, a Korean graduate student working with him in Japan. And he has a graduate student to do something, or add this reagent to this particular substance you're working with. And the student totally misheard the professor. He didn't write it down. He misheard the professor. The concentration that he put in for the reagent was 1,000 times that of what the professor requested. Sure luck, sure total misunderstanding. If the graduate student had written it down, we might not know about what's going on right now in terms of polymers that can conduct electricity or conductive polymers, in other words, right? Lucky stroke number one. Totally misheard what the professor asked of him, graduate student, you know, whatever. So that's lucky stroke number one. Lucky stroke number two was in University of Pennsylvania, these guys, well, the guys in Japan were doing organic polymers. The guys in the US were doing inorganic polymers. One of the American guys said, well, I'm traveling. I'm going to Japan. Let me bring the stuff that I developed, inorganic polymers that can conduct electricity, very, very badly, early stages. So not really very conductive like metal, for example. So in Japan, he was talking to various professors and all that, he happened. Sure luck, lucky stroke number two. It was actually in the Nobel Prize lecture. American professor met Japanese guy, say, hey, let me show you what I've got. They met over green tea if I'm not mistaken. A green tea, you know, get together, essentially. Let me show you what I've got. American guy showed Japanese guy likewise. Japanese guy said, wow. You're doing the same thing I'm doing. You're doing inorganic, I'm doing organic. American guy says, I'll bring you over to the state. Let's work this out, okay? They did. They found out that plastics can conduct electricity through doping, not like drugs, drugs, but an ability to add substances, make it more chemically equivalent to, excuse me, to metal in other words, okay. So two lucky strokes here. One, totally misunderstood what the professor asked of him. Post-doc student did thousand times. Number two, right place, right time. Sure luck, serendipity. Never questioned that. As Bill Gates, he'll tell you the same thing. So there are three people, Higa, Shirakawa, and McDermott. McDermott is actually from New Zealand, okay? So when he found out that he had won the Nobel Prize, what did he do as somebody from New Zealand would do? He performed the haka at the Nobel Prize ceremony. From what I've read of his biography, he actually was brought up in a Maori boarding school. So he actually was very used to doing that sort of thing. And he would do that at the Nobel Prize ceremony. So it's one of those interesting things where sometimes luck does play a role. We always think that it has to be a situation where work hard, work really hard, do the right thing, and things will come out well. True, but in a conventional career path to success. Okay, conventional career path to success. I mentioned three guys, Higa. The primary guy is actually McDermott, the Kiwi guy who's in the United States, University of Pennsylvania. Number two, Shirakawa. Number three is interesting, Higa. He's a physicist. Two chemists, one physicist, okay? McDermott asked Higa, do you want to come on board with this project and working on to see whether plastics, polymers can conduct electricity? Higa was incredibly lucky because he was the second guy asked for this project. Imagine if you were the first guy asked by McDermott to work on this project and you turn him down because you risk averse and you eventually found out that Nobel Prize was waiting for you at the end of the thing, you will be pissed. Truly, according to the buyer read, McDermott and Higa, these two gentlemen, right? If it wasn't for what they did, they will have a very, they will have a successful career path as academics but conventional, very conventional career path. Higa actually is, it's a risk taker. He's the number two guy who was asked to be on this project to see whether polymers can conduct electricity. He took the risk. And he has this thing where he says, he actually wrote a book, excuse me. And the title of the book is, Never Lose Your Nerve. Never lose your nerve. Because in order to be creative, you gotta take risks, you gotta be able to say that, damn it, I'm gonna do it. I don't know what's gonna come out of the end of it but I'm gonna do it. I'm trying it because it's worth it. The journey is itself worth it, essentially in other words. The death destination in this case was a Nobel Prize or obviously worth it but the journey was worth it too for him personally. And he was asked, where did the phrase Never Lose Your Nerve come from? Some of you might know who this singer is, Maria Callas, C-A-L-L-A-S. She's an opera singer in Italy during actually, during El Capone's time to some extent if I'm not mistaken. Higa was a theater lover, right? And he once saw a situation where Maria Callas was doing, she's opera singer, or teaching her class but she doesn't perform on stage anymore. So one of the students asked her, why do you stop singing? Did you lose your voice? And Maria Callas said, I didn't lose my voice, I lost my nerve. Because at the level that she performed at, you're stretching the vocal cords, you're really pushing, pushing, pushing. I understand the situation because at some point your body's gonna give up. But the lesson that Higa took, this University of Pennsylvania scientist took from this is, you gotta take risk if you're gonna come out on top to really succeed in a very different and distinctive way. So he wrote a book as I said called Never Lose Your Nerve. Right? So there are two different situations where luck did play a tremendous role in a Nobel Prize. Is this it? Flaming, physiology and medicine. These three gentlemen, one Japanese to one American, one Kiwi guy, what we have now, conductive polymers. Plasks do conduct. I'm gonna step back and give you a different, take on Nobel Prizes at this point. Winning a Nobel Prize is actually obviously a very noteworthy achievement, right? Singapore doesn't have any as far as I know. Does anyone know, have anyone actually been nominated for a Nobel Prize in Singapore? Okay, there's actually one guy who has been nominated. He's the Singaporean guy who works at Google. Jolly Good Fellow? Chan Mingde? Okay, he actually was nominated, not by himself, solo, but as a group, right? For a Nobel Peace Prize several years ago. It's part of a group. I don't remember what the group was, but he was part of a group. I believe, I think there was like maybe five or six Nobel Prize winners, Peace Laureate, excuse me, that nominated a group that he was part of for a Nobel Peace Prize. So as far as I know, he's the only Singaporean who's ever been nominated for any of the Nobel Prizes. So the winner of the Nobel Prize is obviously a significant achievement. There are actually four people in history who have two Nobel Prizes. The first one is one of the most famous, Marie Curie, right? Physics Chemistry, okay? Number two, I believe it's John Bardeen. Physics Physics. Number three is Frederick Sanger. British guy? Chemistry Chemistry, okay? The fourth one is actually kind of interesting. Linus Pauling. He won for Chemistry and Peace. Okay? Chemistry was 1950 something, Peace was 1962. He actually interestingly enough, I'm gonna keep trying my life though, hopefully it'll boot up. He's one of the four people in the entire world, history of mankind, excuse me, who has won two Nobel Prizes. He actually had a shot of winning a third Nobel Prize. So he won a Chemistry in 1950 something, Peace in 1962. He actually was competing against Watson and Creek to discover the structure of DNA. Very close, very close by the way. He was, you know, DNA is double helix, right? Pauling was looking at triple helix. Simplify, simplify, you know, from three to two, he would have possibly, he could have possibly gotten there by the way. And the reason Watson and Creek actually got there first before him, is because they had access to Rosalind Franklin's extra image of DNA. That was the key, because she actually had the best images of DNA at that time. They had access to it unfortunately without her permission by the way. Saw the image, says, boom, there it is. This is the structure of DNA, a double helix. So let me go back, let me reset this. Pauling, Chemistry, 1957, something I don't remember the date. Peace, 1962. When did Watson and Creek won their Nobel Prize for Physiology of Medicine? 1962, if he had, if he had figured the structure of DNA before Watson and Creek, purely hypothetical, he could have won two Nobel Prizes in one year, right? Peace, Physiology of Medicine. Incredible, isn't it? Actually, he's also so singular because he's the only person who won it unshared. No more Peace, Press, Chemistry, alone, solo. Peace, solo. So it's actually an incredible story behind Linus Pauling. He's a Caltech guy by the way, California Institute of Technology guy. It's kind of a worship like I got there along with, you know, people like Richard Feynman and all that. But let me go back to Watson and Creek. 1962, Nobel Prize winners for Structure of DNA. Does anyone know who the third person was? There's a third person, by the way, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, excuse me, Nobel Prize for Physiology of Medicine for DNA, actually. No one knows about it. Maurice Wilkins. And the reason he got it is because Francis Creek told one of the nominators, put it down, put it down, put it down. Because at this point, 50 years after the nominations are released, you can find out who nominated who for whom, right? People when they say, only one person nominated Maurice Wilkins for the Nobel Prize. And that's only because Francis Creek told him to. Otherwise, Maurice Wilkins actually, when I looked at the history of it, he actually didn't do a whole lot. He's like, you know, I'm going cocky. Actually he wasn't going cocky, but he really didn't play a major role in the discovery of DNA. So that's why you always see pictures of Watson and Creek. You never see Maurice Wilkins. But in the Nobel Prize, he's listed there. So it's, I mean, he was in the right place at the right time. And to some extent, he got it, I think, because he was the one who passed the picture of the DNA structure taken by Rosalind Franken to Watson and Creek. Now, he actually had authority to do that in a legal sense because he was the chairman of the department that Rosalind Franken was part of. I mean, he had legal authority. Now, whether he had moral authority is another matter, right? He should actually, Maurice Wilkins should have asked Rosalind Franklin's permission to show her work to Watson and Creek. Here, truly. Legally, he's entitled because he chairs the department, but ethically, morally. Now, on the other hand, she could not have won the Nobel Prize. Why? She died before I was awarded. I think at three or four years. So all of this actually, you know, speculative history. From what I read, she actually was, whatever, no big deal. I mean, she did it for the work, not for the recognition. There are people like that. Okay, thanks. Let me talk a little bit about Frederick Sanger, the British guy who won two chemistry awards. Very self-effacing British guy. He says, no, I'm not that brilliant. I didn't get any scholarships to go to Cambridge, but I, you know, I work hard. I'm in the right place at the right time. I figure it out. Very, very self-effacing guy. He actually declined a knighthood, a sir, you know, sir, Fred, sort of thing. And the reason he gave us, I don't want anyone to call me sir. I just want to be called Fred. Just call me Fred. I don't care, right? So, you know, Fred. He retired at 65 at the peak of intellectual powers. Why? I think I need to take up gardening. That's what he did. He retired, became a gardener. Number two, he says, you know what? If I stay where I am, I may block other people from coming up. He wanted to nurture a new generation of scientists. Tremendous guy, very self-effacing, a sort of thing. So, sort of, let me wrap up at this point. This is about James Watson, by the way. He's still alive, I'm not mistaken. Very interesting character. And one of the things he does, he's a very ambitious American guy who went to the United States, I mean, United States, went to the UK to do work, whereas in this case, Francis Creek. After he's given a Nobel Prize, he's sort of pontificating top pick and a sort of thing. So, one of the things he says is, he has these rules, Watson's rules, right? Number one is avoid dumb people. Kind of interesting. But the other thing that he actually said, which I, you know, which actually causes a stir in college classrooms when he sort of mentions this is, look for the most interesting person in the room and sit with them. Why? If you're there to learn, learn from the most interesting person. Whoever that is. The problem with that sort of advice is, how do you tell? Do you go for the ugliest, the most handsome, the one with the most interesting outfit or whatever the case? So that advice is sort of interesting. As I say, it's interesting. I got in trouble because of some race-related remarks several years ago. And the thing I think that actually is the funniest to me to some extent is, if you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room. Does that make sense? Joe Wamy explained that. If I have to explain that then... Hahaha. Any questions? I mean, to some extent, what is the future of Singapore? You know, every time I pass that by MOE, what do I see on the signboard? You know, to mold the future of Moe. Every time I see the word Moe, I like, screwed. This country screwed, right? Moe means you know what to expect. You know what they want? You know what they want. It should be in terms of economic resource. These guys are QRSRT different. Flaming, QRSRT driven. What the hell, I don't know. Look, let me try it out and find out. Japanese guys saying, hey. Cause here there has to be, you know, payoff. I remember that years ago, Singapore did all this investment in biotech research and all that. Fundamental research. And then they realized time frame too long. So they went into, I think the term is translational if I'm not mistaken, where it's small short term. So it's interesting to see that Singapore is sort of moving. In the beginning they were doing QRSRT driven research but they say we cannot afford it. We gotta do more short term driven. To some extent, that's gonna be a challenge for Singapore in the long run. It's because how do you nurture the creativity and the innovation that's required in order for this country to basically move forward. Not being a follower, even though Singapore is actually a really, really fast follower of ideas. But to some extent, where is that, you know, I'm willing to take the risk, new ideas. Okay, any questions? Okay, I know it's the end of the day, you're tired. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you.