Veery: What do you look for in an assistant? George A. Olah: I answer this as to what I look for in coworkers. My greatest satisfaction in my life was that I was always blessed to work with talented young people. Most of them are doing very well in their careers. If I achieved something in life, I really consider it my main contribution that I had some influence on their life. I hope that I was able to convey to them not only some knowledge (this they could have acquired in many places) but maybe some of my enthusiasm, my approach to science and the general human principles I believe in, which are also so important in life. We are first of all human beings, not just scientists. When you work with young people, you get great satisfaction seeing them growing up and maturing; it's the greatest blessing you can have. I am looking in my coworkers and associates for a bright young person who has real interest reflected in some glimmer in their eyes revealing also drive that promises that they are also willing to put in the effort to achieve their goals. I was blessed and honored with all who chose to work with me, and I hope that they also take some pride on their part in our joint efforts.
Veery: As your years in science accumulate and your experience in the field grows, what becomes more clear to you? George A. Olah: You are very polite. You are basically saying what's happening when you get older. Veery: Not old but experienced. You view a scientific problem differently than when you were in your twenties? George A. Olah: Yes and no. Basically, and maybe I'm too frank, but I will tell you anyhow, deep down I am still an inquiring young man who is enjoying greatly that he has a chance to look at some new idea, some concept, and follow it up. Some of these, to my surprise, turned out to be even somewhat significant. I take my science exceedingly seriously. Fortunately, I never did and do not take myself too seriously. As a matter of fact, I think the decline of many good scientists is when they reach a certain point, get some recognition, they start to take themselves too seriously. Veery: At the age of seventy, do you approach a scientific problem differently than you did when you were thirty? George A. Olah: I don't know. I am seventy now and I still approach them, I think, much the same way. Look, I don't believe that when you have some idea which interests you that you immediately try to evaluate it whether it is significant, is it something meaningful for mankind and so on; at least in my case, I always follow only my curiosity; on the other hand, I also believe that there's nothing wrong to keep your eyes open, if you observe or discover something and eventually ask what is really good for and follow up possible applications. For me, all this comes naturally. I ask the question, "So now, what can I do with this?" "Is it good for anything in the broader sense?" For me, the division people frequently put between fundamental and applied research is and always was quite artificial.
Veery: What scientists do you respect? George A. Olah: This is an exceedingly difficult question to answer. I am a chemist, and as you know, people working in a specific field are influenced to a great degree by their own field.
Chemistry is a fascinating science: it has broad implication from biology on one end dealing with the questions of life itself, to the other end where it allows to make all the man-made compounds and materials we are so dependent on. There are many excellent chemists who contributed in a major way, but there are relatively few chemists who also had intellectual interest to look outside their own narrow field and to look at the broader scope. Let's go back to the great Greek philosophers in the early days: they were tackling the problems of the physical and the spiritual world alike. Then followed the so-called Dark Ages and eventually started to emerge in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, a new understanding, and eventually, our modern science. The trouble is, that probably by necessity by the twentieth century, we got all too specialized. People who were not trained at least to some degree of literacy in the physical sciences have great difficulty following the physical world and therefore few philosophers - not to make fools out of themselves - even try to tackle the major general questions of mankind. From those who try, it looks to me, many have a background in physics, particularly in particle physics and some in biology to prepare them to tackle the big questions, "Where did the universe come from? Where did mankind come from? Where are we going?" There are some chemists (such as Ilya Prigogine and Manfred Eigen) - but generally chemists are intellectually not too active outside their own field. Maybe there's a good reason for it as they are too busy pursuing their own field. But the challenge is there, even for chemists, as after all we are all human beings and there is nothing that says that a chemist can't read and think about broad general issues. But to come to your question, which scientists I admire most, they are not necessarily chemists. There are some really towering major figures who advance our understanding of science, understanding of life. The obvious ones that come to everybody's mind are, of course, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and so on. Some of them were at the same time complex human beings. Newton was a great physicist, but he spent, however, probably more time on alchemy, and was a poor alchemist. He also had rather extreme religious opinions. So here is a complex man, you admire him for one part of his being, while you have serious reservations for the others. But certainly there were giants of science who enlarged our knowledge by paradigm jumps. As far as for contemporaries, we should leave their judgment for future generations.
Veery: Is scientific talent something you are simply born with? George A. Olah: I'm a chemist, and I'm not trying to diminish my field, but I don't think that chemistry necessarily is an intellectually extremely demanding field. I think that most people who have a reasonable education and then decide to become chemists, if they stick with it, can turn themselves into quite well-trained, efficient chemists.
Creativity is another question.
Until I finished high school, I had absolutely no interest or ever thought about chemistry. But probably I had a gift or some feeling for the unexpected, for discovery or originality, and this is something you can't define. Originality is something that you can't acquire and it must come with you. At the same time you also must work on it to enable your originality (or whatever it is) to become successful, so you can apply it. If Picasso never would have learned something about the techniques of painting, he wouldn't have turned into the painter he was.
Mathematics is a field that is in many ways much more difficult than chemistry. I believe that there is such a thing as born mathematical talent just as there is musical talent. I guess if you are born without it, you still can turn yourself into a good working mathematician, but probably not a very creative one. And this is true in other fields. In chemistry you can manage very well without any specific talent (like mathematical and musical talent) but again you probably will lack creativity.
It is frequently accepted that there is a hierarchy of science. Even the Nobel committee follows such a hierarchy: physics comes first at its award ceremony followed by chemistry, followed by medicine (and that includes these days to a large degree biology). There is no prize, however, in mathematics. Many believe that mathematics isn't really a science: mathematics is a general expression of thoughts, like language. In any case, I do not believe that you can strictly divide science and compartmentalize it. Mathematics is an advanced form of human expression and in this way it is closely related to the sciences. What I read about Albert Einstein, he was an average mathematician, but a great scientist.
Veery: Yes, on the theory of relativity, he didn't have the mathematics. George A. Olah: Yes. He was not an outstanding mathematician, but always had friends and colleagues (including his first wife) to help him out with the detailed mathematical treatment of his pioneering concepts. This isn't taking anything away from Einstein's genius. I'm just saying that frequently there is much between an idea or concept and its realization. Things are generally much more complicated, and in most areas of science you can't do very well if you are not well-prepared to follow through your ideas yourself.
Nobel Prize, 1994, Science 1998 First Published In Veery 2020
