maybe I met a future Nobel laureate today

I had an opportunity to have a free form meeting with Gairdner awardee Dr. Kim A. Nasmyth from Oxford University who has made a series of discoveries pinpointing the novel mechanisms in cell division that are essential to life. There was also Dr. Allan Ronald, the 2006 Gairdner Wightman laureate. Gairdner award is Canadian version of Nobel, and 74 people, who have receievd Gairdner, have received Nobel afterwards.
It was such an interesting morning. It took a little while to get going, as usually this kind of events involve everyone introducing themselves and then they get into details of their project, that I think it's completely un-necessary. I really don't care, is the name of the protein Ghfa1 or A#64 or #$%^. But, what can you do... After my turn the turning point came, and the discussion started on science and etc. In a way there was nothing new. It was said, that science has become business. People wants to publish a lot and quickly, as this is the requirement for funding and position. But this leads us to perhaps untrusty and incomplete results, as people are in a hurry, and might just miss the real discoveries, and at the same time claim something insignificant as a big thing, while not knowing the background. So Dr. Nasmyth's advice was not to believe any scientific papers. I like this idea. And it is true. I do know it from my own work, that there would be still so much to study and check, but I gotta finish as soon as possible, and thus I need to publish as soon as possible. I think, there is even a term called minimum publishable unit or something.
Dr. Nasmyth also talked about the Truth a lot. It's all about Truth in your field. And your biggest effort should go to explaining your results simply, so the others can actually understand and follow, and tell you, that you are wrong. Also, you should always just stick to the wheels and cogs, as everything else, all the system, is way too complex. I so agree with him about the simplifying part. I get lost in most of the seminars. For a longest time I thought that I'm just too dumb. But now I think it's the lack of preparation by the presenter. I try to keep my talks simple, and people seem to be liking it. I like it too. But in general it seems to be, that people want to make their work seem very complex and difficult, rather than simple. I think reason for that lies within the business politics - you have to play this game and you have to do as the others are doing. I don't like it. I want to be different.
Dr. Nasmyth also confirmed my theory, that if things don't work, then you need a break. Go walk in the forest, and think of something else. Most of the important discoveries me make, are coming from the subconcious level anyway. So here's the proof, that weekends full of work is not a correct technique.

It was great to see someone so smart, but so normal. I guess thats why he got the award. His talk was also so neat - about chromatin modeling. He covered A LOT of data, but did it so simply and interestingly.

He also said a good quote by someone whose name I forgot: "Worse than being ultimately wrong, is to be ultimately right. " ... because eventually you will be proved to be wrong anyway.