Ben Feringa, Nobel laureate in chemistry: “One cell is more complex than a whole city” | Science

Ben Feringa makes the smallest cars in the world. These are vehicles driven by propellers or on four wheels, the diameter of which is about a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a hair. In this nanometric world, the laws of gravity no longer matter and amazing phenomena can be achieved by following only the laws of chemistry.

In 2016, Feringa received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry along with the Frenchman Jean-Pierre Sauvage and the British Fraser Stoddart for the development and production of these “molecular machines” that predicted a revolution comparable to the industrial one. The goal of this charismatic chemist from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands is that nanomachines could one day penetrate the human body and deliver drugs where they are needed, creating truly recyclable plastics and materials that can repair themselves. Feringa (Barger-Compascuum, Netherlands, 73) visited Madrid to hold a conference at the Ramon Areces Foundation in Madrid, where he is interviewed by EL PAÍS.

Ask. At his lectures, he usually asks listeners where, in their opinion, there are more different chemical elements: in a mobile phone or in the human body. Why?

Reply. Our body is probably the most complex thing we know. Even one cell is more complex than an entire city like Madrid. If you look at how many chemical elements are contained in the body, how many molecules, including those that make up DNA that forms proteins, you get a fairly small number. On the other hand, the things people create reach important levels of complexity. So it’s true: there are more different chemical elements in a mobile phone than in the human body, but this does not mean that it is more complex. Here I see a fantastic message from Mother Nature: you can do a lot with a few simple things if you know how to do it. This is exactly what we are trying to learn. This is the beauty of science.

TO. What are nanomachines capable of today?

R. They are still somewhat primitive and difficult to improve, but after eight years of work we already have molecular motors and switches that can drill holes into cancer cells. This allows us to inject drugs into them. Our goal is to develop smart medicines. We can also use these motors to create surfaces that respond to stimuli. They will be used to make windows that clean themselves or protect you from cold or heat depending on the light and time of year. We are also creating artificial muscles and materials that can repair themselves. One of our goals is to produce plastics that can be very easily recycled by exposing them to light or electricity.

TO. Only with light?

R. Yes, we also work with photopharmaceuticals. They are connections that have two positions: on and off. The goal here is to provide precise therapy. Imagine you have a localized infection. We activate the antibiotic with light and avoid the negative effects of these drugs on beneficial microbes in the intestines. After 24 hours, the drug is deactivated again so that we do not contribute to the growth of antibiotic resistance. The same applies to cancer. We could treat small tumors that are inoperable and avoid the side effects of chemotherapy.

TO. What stage of development are they at?

R. We are about to start preclinical testing on animals. The key point was that the type of harmful light still used was ultraviolet. We have now shown that infrared light, which is harmless and can penetrate deep into tissue, is also useful in activating these molecular switches.

TO. When do you think medical nanomachines will become a reality?

R. This is a big question. For example, the batteries that power today’s electric vehicles were developed in the 1980s. This may take 20 years. But unlike when I started, there are now many teams working in this area at the same time, so I am convinced that this will happen. It’s not that in two decades our bodies will be filled with nanomachines, but they will be used in a similar way to modern prosthetics, such as hip replacements, or as sensors for the state of your body that are embedded in the skin.

TO. You say that nanomachines can also help us understand how life began.

R. This is the biggest question that exists: where are we from? How did a few molecules come together to form a primitive cell that could reproduce, had a metabolism, and already had movement? It is thanks to molecular machines with motors that biology itself had to invent in order to transport energy and other resources from one place to another. The simplest bacteria already had the ability to move in search of food. Movement appeared very early in evolution. This is why the nanomachines we design can help us understand how life first emerged and evolved.

TO. This year, the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry were awarded to experts in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). You say that AI doesn’t make mistakes like humans do, and that’s its big flaw.

R. Failure is fundamental in scientific research. As a result of an experiment, you always learn something that is not what you expected. It’s possible that AI can help us avoid experimentation, for example by choosing the 50 most interesting from among thousands of possibilities, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that some of those chosen will fail, and that’s actually important. One way to improve AI is to give it the ability to make mistakes and try again with a different strategy. Artificial intelligence and robotic labs will change science forever, but I believe that ultimately we will always need the human element and its creativity. We also have to be very critical. The results that AI now offers are only as good as the data we provide at the beginning, which is often poor or very patchy. This is why we see huge discrepancies in results. This can lead us to a faulty way of doing science.

TO. You come from a large family of peasant parents. He often talks about “Mother Nature” and how nanomachines can show us the origins of life. Do you think there is a place for God in all this?

R. I grew up in a Catholic family. But as a scientist, it is difficult to say that something happened according to the will of God. I believe that chemistry and biology can explain everything that happens in our cells, in our body. But at the same time, I wouldn’t say that’s all there is. We can explain human thought, feelings, love, human consciousness by the action of hormones and other molecules and electrical impulses, chemistry. But there is always something more. For me, perhaps God is all the good things that happen between people that we cannot explain in words. Why do we value each other, why do we love each other? It’s a mystery.

TO. Is it true that the TV series The Simpsons predicted that he would win the Nobel Prize?

R. In 2011, a colleague from the University of Illinois (USA) called me and told me that he was among the favorites to receive the Nobel Prize in 2011. The Simpsons. William Moerner of Stanford University also appeared. I think it was Tuesday evening, just a week before the Nobel Prize was awarded. The next day my students greeted me with the same news. I told them that for a humble researcher at the University of Groningen, appearing on American television was the greatest achievement he could aspire to; So if they gave me the Nobel Prize, I might not even have to go for it. The thing is, I won the award five years later! And Mörner had won it two years earlier. I have no idea how they did it, but it was a fantastic prediction.