Interview with Susan Greenfeld - there is no doubt that Baroness Prof. Susan Greenfield is an unusual type in the scientific community. A meeting with Britain's most famous scientist
After an exhausting day of meetings scheduled for her as the guest of the Center for Neural Computing at the Hebrew University and a fascinating lecture she gave on the biological basis of awareness, the British baroness Prof. Susan Greenfield arrives for a meeting with her fresh and full of energy.
A busy schedule is an integral part of Baroness Greenfield's life. She serves as a professor of pharmacy at the University of Oxford, manages a research team of about 20 people and is a partner in two pharmaceutical companies developing drugs against Alzheimer's and Parkinson's;
Greenfield is the first woman to head the Royal Institute of Great Britain, attends meetings once a week in the House of Lords, hosts science programs on the BBC, writes personal columns in the daily press, is working on her sixth book - she has published five popular books in the field of the brain, all of them bestsellers - and an active fighter for women's rights. She won 18 honorary degrees and many awards, was named one of the 50 most important women in Britain and was placed 14th in the world in the ranking of inspiring women. In 2000, she was named Woman of the Year by the "Observer" and was awarded the title of baronet for her contribution to the public's understanding of science.
The media loves her. Her photogenic appearance, the designed miniskirts she wears, her openness and enthusiasm when she talks about the matters that occupy her gave her the nickname "Britain's most famous scientist". She sees herself as "someone who not only engages in scientific research but tries to understand science in its broad aspects in the social and theoretical field".
There is no doubt that Greenfield is an unusual type in the scientific community that is mostly in the halls of science. "When she received my invitation to come to Israel, she was not approved by the parliament due to the tense situation in the region. But she wanted to come and we brought her as a visiting professor," says Prof. Idan Segev, director of the Center for Neural Computing. "I'm not afraid," Greenfield adds. "Everywhere in the world is dangerous".
She was born to a Jewish father, an electrician by training, and a dancer mother, who ran away from home because of her parents' opposition to her marrying a Jew. With her birth, relations improved, but according to her, "I don't remember the Christian side of the family sitting together with the Jewish side in the same room." As a child she used to wear a chain around her neck with a cross and Star of David on it.
"The fact that my father is Jewish is very important to me," says Greenfield. "I see myself as a secular Jew, even if in religious terms I am not Jewish at all. I think I also look Jewish. As a child I was exposed to the basics of Jewish culture and when I finished my doctorate I went to Israel, worked for half a year at Kibbutz Gesher Ziv and learned Hebrew. I feel Jewish and proud of it."
Greenfield studied philosophy and psychology at Oxford. Science did not attract her. "I don't find science interesting. It doesn't seem to me that there are many ideas in it and engaging in it is not based on relationships between people. I didn't get to him the usual way and relatively late." From Israel she went to Paris and for three years she did research there. "It was in the seventies, when neuroscience started to develop. It really charmed me", she says. "Because I don't have a scientific background, I am able to think unconventionally and come up with original ideas." Her research touches on areas that neuroscientists are afraid to touch: on the fine line between what is defined as "soul" and the physiology of the brain.
At the age of 40, she married Peter Atkins, a professor of chemistry at the University of Oxford, who also writes science books. "I never imagined that I would get married. I didn't need a dashing prince and I certainly didn't want to wear white and be a fairy tale princess. I cannot be described as a woman of the old generation. I'm a bad cook and hate housework. But when I met Peter, a special relationship was built between us and we got married," she said in one of the interviews. "My husband, who already had a daughter, set a condition in our marriage that we don't want any more children. It doesn't bother me, but I sometimes miss the feeling that something tangible is brewing in my stomach." Today, 52-year-old Greenfield is in divorce proceedings.
Greenfield represents a clear opinion on the limitations faced by women who pursue a scientific career, and for this she receives criticism from her colleagues - most of whom are men. "It is very difficult for a woman to be both in the mainstream of science and raise children, unless she can afford a full-time nanny - and most women cannot do that. Those who choose this, their lives are unbearably difficult." However, three months ago, she submitted a report to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in which she proposed changes in the funding of scientific research, which would make it easier for women to return to work after giving birth so that they would not remain at a disadvantage as a workforce compared to men.
She sees the fight for women's rights as one of her main duties in the House of Lords. The Secretary of State authorized her to offer a strategic approach to increasing women's involvement in science, engineering and technology. The report should identify priorities that will enable focused action on the issue, and increase the number of women who will engage in science policy.
She sees science as crossing borders and as a basis for communication between people. Therefore, when Colin Blakemore, Stephen Rose and Richard Dawkins - three leading scientists at Oxford - wrote an article in the "Guardian" about six months ago in which they called for a boycott of academia in Israel, Greenfield wrote a determined article in the "Times" and caused an uproar on campus that paralyzed the initiative of the three. "It is inconsistent and illogical to cut off contact with our colleagues in Israel," she wrote. "The same boycott can also apply to American scientists: after all, their country can hardly declare impeccable conduct in Afghanistan; Likewise, there is no guarantee that very soon innocent Iraqi citizens will not suffer from the Madun initiative... It would have been better if the distinguished scientists suddenly looked beyond their hall of fame, worried about the state of the world and thought about how to direct their knowledge and expertise to build bridges between people."
Greenfield recently held talks in Davos with Peres and Abu Ala about Israeli-Palestinian scientific cooperation, and at a conference held in Aspen she talked with King Abdullah about Israeli-Jordanian scientific cooperation. "Maybe I'm naive, but I believe in it with all my heart," she says.
She sees the main vocation as imparting science to the public. In her opinion, science scares the public. "Because people don't understand scientific jargon, they are afraid that scientists have the ability to influence their lives." Indeed, the enormous complexity that is revealed in science, with the progress and deepening of research and the difficulty of explaining science equally to every soul, create a disconnect between the scientists and the public. The public is thirsty for knowledge, but is reluctant to try to understand science because there is no one to present it to them in an easy and friendly way. Few scientists accept this task. Greenfield does this - and successfully.
"Even those who do not have a doctorate in literature can enjoy theater," she claims. "Why can't science be like football - entertaining and interesting. This is the goal I set for myself." She hosted a six-episode BBC television series on the brain and drugs, in addition to her numerous television appearances on scientific topics. In 1998 she won a medal from the British Royal Society for her contribution to the understanding of science.
In a lecture she gave in Jerusalem, she addressed the biological basis of awareness - one of the most interesting questions in brain research. The claim that consciousness is a completely material state is not accepted by all neurobiologists, and there are those who claim that it cannot be explained by the accepted scientific theories. Greenfield sees awareness as an overall brain state based on the neurons and their connections. It is possible, in her opinion, to find a correlation between brain activity and states of awareness. In certain situations where the level of awareness decreases, the extensive communication between nerve cells also decreases, such as in anesthesia or taking drugs. Thus, in her opinion, it is possible to talk about the strength of awareness according to the strength of the connections between the nerve cells in the brain. "That's the exciting thing about science; come up with an idea, see how it can be tested and analyze the results. This is the personal side of science, and it is just as creative as art."
"Few scientists allow themselves to touch such a sensitive subject," says Prof. Segev. "Greenfield's attempt to deal with awareness in physiological terms is in itself a brave move that connects nicely with her image as a curious, brave and interesting woman."
