_(cropped).jpg)
A reference to pioneering physical organic chemist Jack Roberts in a C&EN article again brought the following question to my mind: Why has MIT, over several decades, managed to lose some of the best chemists in the world to other departments? This question has been nagging at me for several years and resurfaced recently when Dan Nocera moved to Harvard from MIT.
I understand that my information is largely anecdotal, but it seems to me that the school has lost more highly accomplished chemists to other departments than pretty much any other top school.
Of course, since these chemists were attracted to MIT in the first place that says something about the caliber of the department, but why lose them then?
Here's a tentative list of MIT chemists who have been successfully lured away. What is striking about the list is that it spans at least four decades and includes some of the most distinguished scientists of those four decades. Also interesting to note that most of these are organic/bioorganic guys so that could say something about what areas the department is focused on.
Jack Roberts (Caltech)
George Whitesides (Harvard)
Chris Walsh (Harvard)
Barry Sharpless (Scripps)
Peter Seeberger (Max Planck)
Greg Fu (Caltech)
Dan Nocera (Harvard)
Who else am I leaving out? I don't want to speculate on the reasons; a simple one could be that not every school focuses equally on all its disciplines. And nobody can deny that MIT chemistry has still been top notch over the decades; as I indicated before, the very fact that all these people launched their careers there vouches for the quality of the department. But the track record seems to indicate that MIT is much better at attracting people than retaining them. And there's got to be a reason for that.
I understand that my information is largely anecdotal, but it seems to me that the school has lost more highly accomplished chemists to other departments than pretty much any other top school.
Of course, since these chemists were attracted to MIT in the first place that says something about the caliber of the department, but why lose them then?
Here's a tentative list of MIT chemists who have been successfully lured away. What is striking about the list is that it spans at least four decades and includes some of the most distinguished scientists of those four decades. Also interesting to note that most of these are organic/bioorganic guys so that could say something about what areas the department is focused on.
Jack Roberts (Caltech)
George Whitesides (Harvard)
Chris Walsh (Harvard)
Barry Sharpless (Scripps)
Peter Seeberger (Max Planck)
Greg Fu (Caltech)
Dan Nocera (Harvard)
Who else am I leaving out? I don't want to speculate on the reasons; a simple one could be that not every school focuses equally on all its disciplines. And nobody can deny that MIT chemistry has still been top notch over the decades; as I indicated before, the very fact that all these people launched their careers there vouches for the quality of the department. But the track record seems to indicate that MIT is much better at attracting people than retaining them. And there's got to be a reason for that.
Also Andrei Tokmakoff to Chicago
ReplyDeleteBill Roush to Indiana/Michigan/Scripps
ReplyDeleteRoush didn't get tenure, though (lost out to Danheiser, I believe). Not the same as an established PI leaving for greener pastures...
DeleteMIT is a big place, and when I was there as a graduate student (late 1980s), I was surprised that the chemistry department didn't have more clout on campus. After I had a chance to meet students in engineering, computer science, physics, etc. I came to realize that EVERY department was very strong...and chemistry was probably appropriately placed in the MIT pecking order. Many of the aforementioned professors went to places where they could be enjoy greater stature than at MIT, and I can't blame them one bit for leaving. At the same time, I don't know what else MIT could do to keep them without screwing up a very precarious balancing act between a number of powerful departments. For example, MIT was able to keep KBS from going to Cal Tech by offering his group its own NMR (a 300 MHz, if memory serves)...but even that was pretty controversial.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I don't know if Mark Wrighton counts, as he went the administrative route at Washington University.
P.P.S. Bill Roush didn't get tenure at MIT. I don't agree with the decision, but that's a different discussion than the one you've started here.
Thanks for your comment. I think your sentence "I don't know what else MIT could do to keep them without screwing up a very precarious balancing act between a number of powerful departments" says most of what I suspect. Every school probably has a department pecking order which implicitly or explicitly dictates how much the school is going to bend over backwards to support members of a particular department. I am sure chemistry@MIT ranks high in this regard, but perhaps it's just not at the very top.
DeleteRecent MIT PhD here. "Not at the very top" is a pretty charitable way to put it. Course 5, as they not-so-charmingly call it, is at the bottom of the barrel (along with EAPS) within the School of Science, which is itself the red-headed stepchild w/r/t the School of Engineering.
DeleteAnother possible oversight from the list: Mario Molina, though he came to and left MIT a bit late in his career.
Thanks for the input. Molina is indeed another noteworthy example.
DeleteCurrent MIT PhD. I'm under the impression that the school puts less money into course 5 (ie. counter-offers) and I think that has to do with what people have been saying above. Also, I'd like to add that extremely poor facilities has been a part of some of these losses in recent years. I don't feel comfortable going into detail, but some of the things I've heard are astonishing considering the prestige of MIT.
DeleteSarah O'Connor to John Innes Centre (England)
ReplyDeleteAlso denied tenure, but a controversial decision as far as I can tell.
DeleteShe was denied tenure largely because of her gender.
DeleteDefinitely some big names there, but I would be willing to bet that the stats look similar for all top universities. Big names get recruited by other universities all the time. Sometimes they provide better packages. Sometimes it is a better working environment. Sometimes people just want to move closer to home. I have trouble seeing MIT chemistry as bottom of the barrel.
ReplyDeleteJonas Peters -- came from Caltech, was at MIT for a few years, and then moved back to Caltech. I'm unsure of what his reasons were for each of the moves, however!
ReplyDeleteI don't think that MIT is actually unique at all; with the exception of Harvard, the other top departments have also had similar numbers of excellent chemists lured away. Considering just organic and biorganic chemists (since most of your examples were from that area), Caltech has lost Bob Ireland, Dave Evans, Bob Bergman, Barbara Imperiali, Andy Myers, Dave MacMillan, and Erick Carreira. Lost from Berkeley (organic/bioorganic only): Pete Schultz, Dirk Trauner, Jon Ellman, Jean Frechet, and Dave MacMillan.
ReplyDeleteJust came across this old post. Other MIT leavers, most or all departing in the 80s: Mark Wrighton, Dick Holm, Dick Zare, Jim Kinsey, Sir Jack Baldwin, Al Cotton, John Ross, Greg Petsko, Nan Orme-Johnson. Cream always gets skimmed off the top. More has been skimmed from MIT because of its superior quality!
ReplyDeleteSome of these people also left for personal reasons, nothing to do with MIT itself.
Delete