7 minute read
An Interview with David Haviland
An Interview with David B. Haviland
TEXT JAkOB REICHmANN PHOTO JOHAN LAm
Advertisement
When summertime is over in Sweden and people catch the last rays of the sun before the dark season begins, a special time comes for the citizens of Stockholm. The reason goes back to a 126-year-old will, written by Swedish engineer and entrepreneur Alfred Nobel. He decreed that once a year after his death, five different prizes in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine and Literature would be awarded "to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind”, thus creating the now infamous and prestigious Nobel Prize.
Since 2011, the Swedish/American physicist David Haviland has been a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. For the last 5 years he has been a member of the Nobel Committee for physics, a group of seven people who are instrumental in the selection of Nobel Laureates. Since he is also a professor for nanostructure and mesoscopic physics at kTH, he kindly agreed to be interviewed by Osqledaren.
In 2020, you were the chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics; What does this position mean to you regarding the fact that it's a 233 years old institution with such a rich history and how do you like your job?
The Nobel prize of course, is very prestigious and very important for Swedish science. Therefore it's an important assignment that we choose good prize winners which are respected by the scientific community at large. Also, it made me dig deeper into subjects, which I wouldn't have dug so deeply into had I not been on this committee. I have some expertise in one area of physics, but I have to pass judgment on all these other areas, and I have to learn a lot of new things which is very interesting. It's also quite a privilege to be on the committee as well as the Academy and in the physics class, because we solicit opinions from experts around the world. It's incredible that people, top scientists in the world, commit time and effort to write reports to the committee. We get to evaluate these and go back to ask questions and have a dialogue with these people which is really a privilege. These reports are a real treasure of scientific expert opinion and it's only for our eyes. The reports are kept secret and the archive is only available to historians after 50 years or when everyone involved has passed away..
Why should the reports not be made public then?
I don't think it should be open to the public because it's not only that they give some scientific judgment, but in the end it comes down to opinions. We want the referees to be able to express their views freely without fear of any repercussions. So they know that only our committee is looking at it and what they write will not get spread around.
Which are the criteria to win the Nobel prize?
There are various ground rules that we have to work under. In the end it really comes down to one original document. We have a fiduciary responsibility to choose prize winners after the desire of the benefactor, Alfred Nobel. His will formed the foundation which is a legal entity with a specific mission and constrained by certain laws. We are thinking a lot about Nobel’s will when making a decision about the prize.
How do you actually determine who's responsible for a specific invention regarding the fact that nowadays there is a large collaborative aspect to consider?
One of the things which of course is often talked about is that nowadays science is often done in bigger collaborations. When you look at recent prizes, for example the Higgs particle, there was a monstrous, experimental effort involving a huge number of scientists. I can assure that it's very difficult sometimes to find the right three people. To be sure we go back and get lots of expert opinions by people who know the field for a long time. You'll notice that especially recent prizes were awarding work, which was done a long time ago. That’s also because it's a bit difficult for a discovery which has been made within the last year to be proven to be a great benefit to mankind. Therefore then we have to look back to say that this was the key invention and discovery that led to that and so forth.
How high is the pressure? Do you fear awarding the price by mistake so someone?
Indeed, we can't make a mistake so it's not without pressure and concern. Sometimes I ask myself: Did I really understand everything deeply enough to make a decision? But there are several of us, seven members now. We have expertise from different areas and a lively dialogue.
Which prize in history do you consider as the most important or having the highest impact on society?
I don't have a favourite, there are several very good ones. Some of these prizes can be fantastic for fundamental physics, the benefit to mankind is knowledge. Others are very interesting technology prizes where somebody has done some very clever invention. I really don't want to present my favourite. I have several I like and I have my own ranking but I want to keep that private.
Do you think that the role of the Nobel Prize changed in society during the years? How did the perception of the prize in society change?
I think with time, the prestige of the Nobel Prize has only grown. A senior member of
the academy once told me that in the fifties it was really easy to get an invitation to the Nobel dinner for his graduate students. Then they started to put the dinner on TV and suddenly it became the social event of the fall season in Stockholm. Everybody with power and influence wants to be seen on TV at this event. Women in fancy dresses, men in black tails. I feel lucky to live in a country where the biggest social event of the fall season celebrates science.
What does someone need to win the Nobel Prize? Is it about talent, effort or luck?
Probably all of the above. Yes, you have to be smart and talented and yes, you have to persevere. Oftentimes, the impact of the work of Nobel Prize winners is not immediate so quick feedback and instant gratification is usually not something you should pursue to be a Nobel Laureate. However, you have to be lucky too because one thing you see as a committee member is all that fantastic scientific work which for one reason or another, for example because of a limited number of prizes, doesn't get a Nobel Prize.
Did you dream of winning the Nobel Prize yourself when you were younger?
Maybe when I was your age, but surely nowadays it's not anything I desire. I think about that sometimes. Is that what drove me as a young scientist? I don't know. But you shouldn't be driven by such things. On the other hand I think that the fact that we elevate some people to the status of Nobel Laureates creates a role model which can inspire young people.
In case you would win the Nobel Prize, how would you react to the call?
I don't even want to speculate. But I can say that I have been on the other end of the phone listening when people react. That's one of the privileges being on the committee, being present when the phone calls are made. Actually last year, because of Covid, only one or two of us could be in the room, and I was one of them because I was a chairman. Some years funny things happen. Oftentimes it's difficult to get a hold of the person. One guy was just parking his car in a parking garage and the mobile phone didn't work very well. Another one, his son answered the phone, didn't believe us and hung up. It has happened that we’ve called people in the middle of the night.
What is the most prominent emotion of people who won the Nobel Prize?
Often they are very gracious like "Oh that's fantastic, I never could have dreamed that". I guess some people think "Oh, finally" but no one ever says that.
