For Top Scientists, California Offers the Climate to Excel

There’s nothing the ivy-covered East Coast intelligentsia likes better than looking down its collective nose at the Mickey Mouse mentality of California--land of surfers and starlets and sun-dried brains. That’s one reason last month’s Nobel Prizes to California scientists were so gratifying to some here: They proved once again that the Golden State is a mother lode of scientific thought.

In 1997, three prizes in chemistry, physics and physiology went to scientists at UCLA, Stanford University and UC San Francisco. For Stanford physics, it was the third Nobel in a row. Just two years earlier, two Nobels went to UC Irvine and one to Caltech. A year before that, in 1994, the chemistry prize went to USC.

Nobody claims that Nobel Prizes are the only--or even the best--way to measure scientific prowess. For one thing, “there’s always significant luck component,” said Stanford physics department Chairman Blas Cabrera. And the prize is frequently spread among scientists at several institutions, each claiming the new laureate as its own.

To confuse the Nobel count further, prize-winning research isn’t always done at the institution that gets the credit. Stanford’s Steven Chu won the physics prize this year for work done in the mid-1980s at Bell Labs. “Some people count every [Nobel laureate] who went to the restroom here,” said one source at Caltech, who understandably wished to remain anonymous.

Still, the number of Nobels points to a statewide scientific enterprise that is strong and growing stronger, according to its practitioners. “Nobels are the tip of the iceberg,” said Charles Kennel, physicist and vice chancellor at UCLA.

So why does California attract so many world-class scientists? The reasons are as varied as the state’s cultural and physical terrain. The short answer is: It’s not only the weather.

It is also high peaks that make fine perches for gazing out into the universe, industries that depend on scientific expertise and are willing to support its development, a freewheeling mind-set that values talent above tradition, and a frontier spirit that respects no boundaries or barriers.

“There’s something about California that encourages creativity,” said one of this year’s laureates, UCLA chemist Paul Boyer.

The laid-back state also spawns a cadre of fiercely ambitious scientists with a strong desire to prove themselves the best and the brightest in the world.

And, well, the weather doesn’t hurt.

Historically, sunny skies and tall mountains made California the clear choice for big telescopes. And telescopes need astronomers, who in turn need universities--which beget research and, sometimes, prestigious prizes.

When George Ellery Hale wanted to build the next huge telescope in the early years of this century, he chose Mt. Wilson, just outside Los Angeles. “Ironically, smog is good for astronomy, as long as you’re above it,” said Caltech astrophysicist Shri Kulkarni. “You need very stable air.” The same inversion layer that traps stale air in the valleys also settles and clears the skies above, giving telescopes a steady view.

To go with his telescopes, Hale helped found Caltech, with ample support from local Pasadena businessmen. Today, the tops of California mountains still prop up some of the best astronomical instruments in the world.

Good weather also aided the growth of the aerospace industry, which relies on scientifically trained workers, said Caltech science historian Daniel Kevles. And other natural resources, like minerals and timber, spurred the growth of technologies needed to extract them. From the first, said Kevles, “it was evident that new economic development would depend on technical innovation.”

Today, the partnership between university brains and industrial brawn is perhaps stronger then ever, although the fruits of science are as likely to be seen in Hollywood special effects as aerospace. “Nowhere is the connection of science to the economy as clear as it is in California,” said UCLA’s Kumar Patel, vice chancellor of research.

Strong economies--along with a strong competitive drive to beat the MITs and Harvards at their own game--spurred California business moguls to invest in Stanford and Caltech, while the state built up what was regarded as the strongest public university system in the country.

“California was profoundly eager to grow up and demonstrate that it was not only as good as the East, but even better,” Kevles said. The operation was a success. Since 1939, the University of California has won 31 Nobel Prizes, more than any other public university system.

California not only supported science and education, it had the sense to leave the system pretty much to its own devices, said UC Berkeley chemistry laureate Glenn Seaborg. “The state supported the universities and didn’t interfere. They left it in the hands of the regents, who’ve worked very well with the faculty.”

And in the last couple of years, California has eaten into the traditional East Coast domination of the Nobel Prize.

Along with the weather, California scientists credit California public higher education for putting the state at the forefront of research. “It’s the ultimate open system,” said UCLA chemist David Eisenberg. “All three tiers”--the community colleges and the Cal State and UC systems--provide opportunities for students from a wide variety of backgrounds, he said. “It doesn’t matter who your parents are.”

This open spirit is as central to science as the libraries and professors and labs, said Eisenberg, who did stints at Harvard, Princeton and Oxford before coming to UCLA. “Everything [in the East] is a pyramid, with things controlled by someone at the top,” he said. “Here, good ideas can come from a graduate student.”

The same willingness to break ranks propels science at Stanford, said Cabrera. “The culture doesn’t tend to prevent ideas from propagating based on merit as opposed to more traditional kinds of structures.”

Barriers between the disciplines also seem to crumble more easily beneath the California sun. And that’s a great advantage in an era in which the future looks decidedly interdisciplinary.

“There’s an informality and ease in talking to people in other disciplines,” said Stanford physicist Burton Richter, himself a Nobel laureate. “There’s an ease in going into new areas.”

It seems that California’s much maligned mental state has done as much for its science as skies, minerals and mountains. “There’s something about California that encourages creativity,” said one of this year’s laureates, UCLA chemist Paul Boyer.

Between the open vistas, open shirts and general open-mindedness of California’s diverse society, scientists are encouraged to broaden their way of thinking. “Maybe it’s my Italian perspective, but I think it’s looser here,” said UCLA physicist Roberto Peccei, dean of physical sciences. “That’s good for science.”

Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas commutes to Los Angeles to do research at Mt. Wilson, and notices a difference in her scientific productivity.

“If I’m on the freeway out there [in Los Angeles], even if it’s jammed, there’s all this space in the sky. It leads to a world view that’s less constraining. Here, everything is brown and covered with dead snow. It’s grinding. It takes away some of your thought energy.”

Distance from the Eastern establishment puts California scientists at arm’s length from the bonds of habit and tradition--and farther from the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C.

“You’re not as forced to do things in the way they’ve always been done,” said Sonoma State College astrophysicist Lynn Cominksy, who also works at Stanford. “You don’t have 300 years of history telling you: ‘This is the way our department has always thought about this.’ You get people who are attracted by the ability to think in new ways.”

Breaking new ground often requires going out on a limb. And some California scientists said they are more willing than their East Coast counterparts to take on frontier research. “California is more adventurous than most places,” Richter said. “And adventurous scientists make the discoveries.”

UCLA’s Peccei agreed: “People here are willing to take more risks, to do things at the edges.”

And then there’s that other California natural resource: the competitiveness that comes from ego. California scientists try harder, many said, because they don’t want to be viewed as anything but the best.

“In the East, there isn’t the same kind of drive,” Patel said. “People are hungry here. They want to be recognized as being at the top of the heap.”

Not surprisingly, some scientists working on the East Coast aren’t so quick to tout California’s advantages. “I don’t think which ocean [where one practices science] makes any difference,” said physicist Frank Wilzcek, now at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Studies and formerly of UC Santa Barbara Institute for Theoretical Physics. “Science is pretty universal.”

Wilzcek agreed that the newer, West Coast institutions probably put more emphasis on science than their more traditional East Coast counterparts. But the East is more compact, making it easier for scientists to get together.

“I don’t accept that the West Coast is in any way superior,” he said.

And what of the future? Today’s Nobel Prizes are the fruits of seeds planted 20 or 30 years ago. Whether California will continue to lead science is an open question. In the 1930s, said Patel, Europe was winning all the Nobel Prizes, “but the real ferment was [in the United States]. Now we’re seeing the results. There’s a lesson here: Every 30 years or so, you have to renew yourself.”

It’s going to be hard to sustain the state’s winning streak, Kevles said, because the competition is catching up. California scientists were the first to see the future direction of science in the multidisciplinary approach. “They had the vision to move physics and chemistry into biology and tie those into engineering,” he said.

“Now everything does that. It’s tougher to stay above the landscape of the lead institutions.”

Perhaps most important, the crucial support that California scientists received from both public and private sources is in danger. Public dollars for public higher education have not been keeping up with increasing costs.

One big question, Kevles said, is whether the entertainment industry is going to give back to the society the way the aerospace and microelectronics industry did. Smart young techies who used to go into aerospace are today working for DreamWorks and Lucasfilms, using their math and engineering skills on computer graphics and special effects.

Until recently, said Kevles, “every single industry that grew up in California [has] given back money and support for education and training” in the form of fellowships, endowments and grants.

“So far,” he said, “the entertainment industry is not giving back, nd has shown no signs of interest in doing so.”