Prof. Paul Greengard was interviewed by Matthew Swift.

Natural Selections (NS): As a child, what did science represent to you?

Paul Greengard (PG): It was something I did well. And people tend to do the things that they do better than other things.

NS: Have you always known that you wanted to be a scientist?

PG: As far back as I can remember I thought I wanted to be either a mathematician or a scientist.

NS: Can you talk about your experience in graduate school?

PG: In college, I studied mathematics and physics, and I thought I might become a theoretical physicist. But at the time I graduated from college, I wanted to get financial support and all the financial support in that area came from the Atomic Energy Commission—this was just a few years after dropping the atomic bombs in Japan. So I decided I didn’t want to go into that field, and I learned about the nascent field of biophysics. There were only two departments in existence at that time, one was a group in Berkeley who were doing radioisotope studying—metabolic tracing—and the other was a group at Penn doing studies of the brain using electrophysiological techniques. Those were the only two departments in biophysics in the country. So I applied to and was accepted into the department at Penn, and I soon became interested in the biochemical basis of nerve cell function. Everybody in the department was an electrophysiologist, so I effectively did a joint thesis between the biophysics department and the biochemistry department on the biochemical basis of nerve cell function. At that time, there were two kinds of people working on the brain: there were the electrophysiologists, who were not interested in the underlying biochemistry, and there were biochemists who viewed the brain as a source of enzymes. There was virtually no activity in the area in the area of the biochemical basis of nerve cell function, and I thought that would be an interesting field to study, so that’s what I did.

NS: To what do you attribute your success in science?

PG: I’m moderately intelligent and I work fairly hard.

NS: What intellectual and personal qualities do you think make someone a good scientist?

PG: Almost all scientists I know who have been successful have been very committed to their work; worked 80-hour weeks. But that’s the same for every field I know of, where the more successful people have been fanatically devoted to their profession. It’s true in science, medicine, law, politics, art, music, literature.

NS: What has been the most memorable moment of your scientific career?

PG: Meeting my wife.

NS: What is the best part about being a scientist?

PG: Well, as for virtually all committed scientists, it’s not a job—it’s a joy; it’s a hobby. If I had been born a very rich man, I’d still want to be doing exactly what I’m doing.

NS: What is the worst part about being a scientist?

PG: A very small number of people behave in non-admirable ways: ultra-competitive.

NS: Outside of your career, what are your passions, interests, hobbies?

PG: When I was younger, I played a lot of tennis; that was a main hobby. I read a lot [of] non-fiction. I like spending time with my family, with my children and grandchildren. I like going to the theater and to music events, hiking, traveling.

NS: If you could pick one thing to change in the world, what would it be?

PG: George W. Bush. No, that was a joke. Some equivalent of the United Nations which had teeth, I guess.

NS: Is there one piece of advice you wish you had been told when starting your career that you could share? Are there things that you feel science has made you compromise in your life?

PG: Just like George W. Bush, I can’t think of a single mistake I’ve ever made. (I hope people will know I was joking…)

NS: Are there things that you feel science has made you compromise in your life?

PG: Yeah, I wish I’d spent more time with my children when they were younger.

NS: How has your field changed during your career in terms of the challenges that people face, how problems are approached?

PG: There’s much greater opportunity to do exciting research now than there used to be, just because the database upon which we all base our work is so much more enormous. I think that’s the main thing.

NS: Was coming to Rockefeller a big decision for you? If so, what factored into your decision to come here?

PG: I was at Yale University and I was very happy there, but when the University approached me about coming here, it was a very easy decision, because it’s a fabulous place.

NS: Is there anything that you believe to be true though you can’t prove it, in science or otherwise?

PG: I think that one of the most interesting questions in brain research is whether or not there is a single scientific principle underlying brain function, analogous to the double helix for heredity.