Shechtman and Pauling
I heard the news that Dan Shechtman had won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry on the radio as I was driving to work. Amanda Yarnell’s e-mail was waiting for me when I got to the office just before 7 a.m. In it she provided a link to Mitch Jacoby’s 1999 story in C&EN on quasicrystals, which leads with Shechtman’s discovery: “In 1982, Dan Shechtman peered through the window at the viewing stage of an electron microscope and saw something that broke the rules of crystallography.”
Mitch’s story also had a sidebar that noted just how radical Shechtman’s claim of a quasicrystal with 10-fold rotational symmetry was. “Shechtman says some colleagues handed him textbooks and told him that if studied he’d realize his claims were impossible. Others, most notably two-time Nobel-prize winner Linus Pauling, denounced the quasicrystal concept in scientific forums.”
Reading that brought back a flash of memory. I’d heard Pauling deride the idea of quasicrystals, almost surely in a talk at Caltech. I didn’t have time just then to follow up on my memory, but later in the day, I searched the C&EN Archives for “Pauling at Caltech” and, sure enough, the first hit was to a story I had written that had appeared in the March 17, 1986, issue of C&EN, “Caltech Celebrates Pauling’s 85th Birthday.” (We’ll get a link to that story shortly.)
The main focus of my story was that Caltech chemistry professor Ahmed Zewail had used the occasion of Pauling’s 85th birthday to engineer a rapprochement between the institute and very likely its most distinguished alumnus and faculty member. Pauling’s antiwar and anti-nuclear weapons activities in the 1950s and 1960s had not set well with Caltech’s then very conservative board and leadership. “After Pauling received the 1963 Nobel Peace Prize,” I wrote, “Caltech’s president publicly questioned the value of the activities that led to the award. Pauling resigned from Caltech the same day.”
I remember almost nothing about the talk Pauling gave at the conclusion of the day-long symposium. I think it focused mostly on his work throughout his lifetime, which began, after all, with pioneering work in crystallography. However, I distinctly remember him going on a five- or 10-minute tangent to denounce in fairly harsh terms the entire concept of quasicrystals and the possibility of five-fold rotational symmetry. I believe he compared it to polywater.
Pauling was a genius and he was right about many chemical concepts. But he didn’t get the structure of DNA right, and he definitely missed the boat on Dan Shechtman’s remarkable insight.
Comments are closed.