Camelia-Lucia Cimpianu is trying to decide between a career as a researcher or a practising doctor. In this film, she seeks advice from Nobel Laureate Ferid Murad who faced the same dilemma as a medical student in the 1960s. Murad chose the bench, and he subsequently discovered that a gas called nitric oxide (NO) acts as a signalling molecule in the cardiovascular system. It turns out that NO plays a role in many diseases — and possibly in the head trauma cases that Camelia studies.

Ferid Murad, 1998 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Camelia-Lucia Cimpianu, University of Erlangen-Nurnberg, Germany

 (More)

In the next video of the Nature video team in cooperation with the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings Nobel laureate Eddi Fischer talks to a young researcher from China, Tong Qing, about ways to combat cancer.

 (More)

As last year, the Nature video team in cooperation with the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings filmed discussions between one or two young researchers and a Nobel laureate about current research topics in Physiology and Medicine, the world’s greatest health challenges and how to tackle them. Today we may present the trailer and the first of five such videos.

The young researchers the team follows in these films are working on malaria, cancer, viruses and more. They are also learning how to be scientists; how to write grant applications, how to collaborate with other research groups, and how to find the right career path. See what advice the laureates offer — and what questions the laureates have for them. (More)

Last year saw the introduction of a new session at the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting – the “Turning the Tables” discussion that took place on Wednesday afternoon. Originally a specially recorded session that was featured in a Nature Outlook supplement, the idea behind this 90-minute slot is to move away from the plenaries and afternoon forums where the laureates are the sole focus of the spotlight, and instead to create a conversation where the young scientists themselves can share the stage.

This year’s session involved a similar set-up to the initial experiment – six PhD students and three laureates, chaired this year by Scientific American’s Steve Mirsky, answered a series of informal questions about what it’s like to be a scientist. The students came from a variety of locations including Nigeria, India, Colombia and the US while the all-male laureates were Peter Agre, Thomas Steitz and Torsten Wiesel. The discussions were framed as a chance to compare notes on how scientific practice might have changed since the laureates were themselves starting off on the scientific path, and also whether there are any noticeable differences that arise from where you study.

 (More)

In 1969, one of the more memorable incidents in the public advocacy of science took place. The American physicist Robert Wilson was asked to testify before Congress in support of the construction of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, known as Fermilab. For Wilson, building this huge machine had been a labor of love and nobody had a better background for it. He had worked on the Manhattan Project where he was the youngest group leader in the experimental division, and after the war he had become a professor at Cornell University.

In the daily morning plenary lectures at Lindau, the Nobel laureates have a chance both to share the significance of their discoveries, and also words of advice for the young scientists eager to follow in their footsteps. During the course of the week, the audience is taken on a week-long tour of the ultimate scientific scrapbook as each page is lovingly turned by one narrator after another. Working models of data, scribbled pages from lab books, personal anecdotes, family photos and even famous quotations illuminate what it means to be a scientist for the different speakers.  (More)

What can be done about global health? It's the question on everyone's minds following Peter Agre's moving talk on malaria 'without borders' earlier in the week and Christian De Duve handing the baton of all the world's challenges to the young researchers in the last lecture: "Our generation has made a mess of it... the future is in your hands". 

The need is clear: Better diagnostic tools, as discussed in the panel on the future of biomedicine, will be for people that can afford them. The Economist's science and technology editor Geoffrey Carr starts the concluding panel of the Lindau meeting by setting out the stark reality: "The greatest health needs are in the developing countries".

Hans Rosling, professor of International Health at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and the founder of the Gapminder Foundation, kicks off the debate presenting an animated graph showing how life expectancy and fertility have changed over time for each country. He says that in the 60s, there was a clear 'developing' and 'developed' world division with people in the developing world having big families and short lives, and the opposite for rich countries. Rosling uses the case of Bangladesh to illustrate his point: In the 60s, it was typical of a developing country, but by 2006 the child fertility rate is 2.3 children and people are living longer because of better healthcare. "People say the world isn't getting better... that's bullshit," he exclaims.

Kelly Quesnelle: I came to Lindau as many students nearing the end of their doctoral studies: somewhat disillusioned by the tenacious nature of academic science that I have come to realize in graduate school and in search of inspiration for my future. 

 (More)

In her lecture today, Ada Yonath compared her scientific quest to determine the structure of the ribosome to a climb of the Mount Everest. Time after time she thought that she had reached the peak, only to discover a taller summit. While her journey was long and arduous, Yonath eventually reached the top and was rewarded with a spectacular view of the ribosomal landscape. She shared some of those insights with her audience today.   (More)

Last year, I had my first opportunity to participate in the yearly scholar's festival that takes place in Lindau, the tranquil island situated in beautiful Lake Constance. This unique event is a gathering of intellectuals, ranging from Nobel Prize Laureates, to highly appreciated scientists and talented young students eager to learn, and top media reporters. Indeed, the reality overcame the "stories". Immediately after arrival, I was soaked in immense curiosity, exceptional enthusiasm and significant boldness to inquire by everybody about everything. (More)

Most of us know about the prize-winning work of this year's Lindau Nobel Laureates, but how many of us keep track of what they did after winning the coveted honor? Scientists' lives after the Nobel Prize change dramatically. As former Lindau attendee Richard Ernst put it, they are now expected to be oracles on everything from international politics to religion, even when their knowledge of most other things is as limited as that of other people. There is no common thread; after winning the Prize, scientists' lives become as varied as those of all of us and in some cases a little more interesting. Here's a short portrait of life after the Nobel Prize illustrated with a select few examples. (More)

10 days ago, I was lucky enough to attend the World Science Festival in New York City. One of the sessions I attended was called “Beautiful Minds: The Enigma of Genius,” where a panel composed of successful individuals from the arts and sciences discussed the history, culture and neuroscience of genius. (Read more in the Nature Network write-up, which includes the tweets from the event).

As part of the discussions, Philip Glass, the world-renowned composer, defined genius as “the tools needed to get the job done: technique, independence and stamina”. This seems to sum up many (all?) of the characteristics needed for a successful scientific career, leading me to wonder whether the Nobel Laureates would agree that they’ve had to demonstrate all three to win their prizes? At last year’s Lindau meeting, we heard of the importance of stamina from Oliver Smithies, who shared pages of his lab books with us; these detailed his Saturday morning experiments in dutifully recorded scribbles. He explained the importance of not losing valuable momentum by completely winding down experiments at the weekends and how, when you love your subject, it shouldn’t feel like work most of the time—you simply feel a spontaneous compulsion to work hard. In her talk, Francoise Barre-Sinoussi indicated that you need both independence and technique to have an impact, something she also talked about in her interview with Martin Fenner and me. Aware that a solely research-based approach to HIV and AIDS is not enough, she has spent much time cultivating partnerships in AIDS-stricken countries where education projects are just as important as the therapies her lab works on. We also heard about the importance of maintaining humour from Ada Yonath. Although this was something that Glass didn’t mention, it can be a source of stamina to some researchers, enabling them to persist through inevitable challenges.  
 (More)

When I am often asked about the secrets of success in science, I reply that I have no secrets, because if I had, I would have attempted to repeat my own success rather than disclose the secret. Yet, there is one important "secret" which I love to share with those who inquire, and that is good mentoring and role modelling. As a matter of fact, while I try to be an active mentor and a role model for my graduate students and fellows, as well as for young scientists who are carving their way, wondering at times whether science is the right career choice for them, I am still looking for mentoring and role modelling myself. Somehow, my dream is to return to graduate school and post-doctoral fellowship, where I was surrounded by excellent teachers, to get back to the bench, be free from administrative duties and focus on one important mission - unravelling the secrets of nature. (More)

When I glossed over the list of Nobel laureates that attended the Lindau conferences in the first few decades, I was ashamed to discover that I only recognized a few. And when I did, it was rarely because I was familiar with the laureate or his work. I only knew the Nobel laureate Otto Warburg from the biochemical process that carries his name, for example (the Warburg effect).

These people are yesterday’s greatest scientists. They spent years uncovering the knowledge we now take for granted. And yet all I know of them today is what happens to be written in Wikipedia.

To remedy this lack of familiarity with past Nobel laureates, I turned to the Lindau Meetings’ Mediatheque, which you can find here. This Mediatheque holds a selected set of recordings, chosen from six decades worth of Nobel Laureate Meetings.  Most of the older lectures are available in audio only, but they still are well worth listening to. (More)