3
p e t e r m i t c h e l l
a n d
t h e m a k i n g o f g ly n n
Gardens of the Mind
In many ways, biological science came of age in the twentieth century.
Among the large number of scientists who brought about the new understanding
of living things was Peter Mitchell (1920–1992). Mitchell is
important in twentieth-century biology because he was the major figure
responsible for bringing about a paradigm change in biochemical thinking
about metabolic energy and discovering the link between metabolic
energy and the transfer of substances across membranes. He himself
undertook something of a crusade in the 1950s in trying to bring together
thinking about physiological transport across membranes and
thinking about the general metabolism of cells largely conceived as taking
place in undifferentiated solution. While Mitchell regarded his ideas
on the relation between transport and metabolism as his major contribution,
the world remembers him for a derivative of these ideas—the
chemiosmotic theory developed in the 1960s and 1970s. This theory
explained a phenomenon, which had baffled biochemists since Engelhardt,
Kalckar, Ochoa, and others first described the process of oxidative
phosphorylation, whereby metabolic energy of oxidation is conserved
as ATP (adenosine triphosphate), the energy currency of the cell.
There are other reasons for writing a biography of Mitchell. Apart
from developing the chemiosmotic theory, which solved a long-standing
problem, he engaged in other creative activities. Endowed with
family money, he set out to prove that it was still possible to set up and
run a small independent research institute, the Glynn Research Institute.
This he did with his lifelong associate, Jennifer Moyle. The award
of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Mitchell in 1978 not only provided
recognition of his contribution to biochemistry but also, at least in his
eyes, justified the existence of the institute. To date, there have been two
biographies of Mitchell: a short authoritative Royal Society biographical
memoir by Bill Slater and a short unpublished manuscript by Milton
Saier.
Essentially, Mitchell is that rare breed of scientist, a theoretical biologist.
He believed in thinking about science almost as an activity in its own
right, and, unlike his older contemporary Hans Krebs, Mitchell proposed
complex theories before proceeding to test them. The words of our title appear
on a plaque in the garden of remembrance created by Helen Mitchell
and reflect the spirit with which Peter Mitchell approached biology.
All of these aspects of Mitchell’s life, and many others, are why we
feel a life of Peter Mitchell is needed. The history of the remarkable
achievements of twentieth-century biochemistry is only beginning to be
written, with but a few biographies so far published. It is our intention
that this biography of Peter Mitchell will tell one important story of this
stream of human endeavor.
One of us (J. P.) first heard Peter Mitchell lecture in 1956 and was
fascinated by his approach to biological thinking. Although he heard
him lecture many times over the years, he did not get to know Mitchell
until late in his life. The other (B. W.) first interviewed Mitchell in 1979
and carried out many more interviews over the ensuing years. Both of
us have interviewed, and corresponded with, many biologists and
members of the family over recent years. We owe a great debt to those
who had the patience and were prepared to give time to answering our
questions and telling us about Mitchell. We are especially indebted to
Mrs. Helen Mitchell for her interest, encouragement, and help and to
Dr. Jennifer Moyle for her help. We would also like to record our appreciation
of the advice offered by Professor Mårten Wikström (University
of Helsinki) on chapters 9 and 11 and to Dr. Harmke Kamminga (University
of Cambridge) on chapters 3 and 4.
The biography is based primarily on interviews with Mitchell himself,
discussions with scientists who knew him, and his published papers, but
particularly on the extensive files of letters and other papers he left when
he died. While this work has been proceeding, Mitchell’s papers have now
been catalogued and are housed in the library of the University of Cambridge.
The letters are mostly from the Glynn period (1964–1992), although
there are some from earlier years. Thus the major resource for the early period
has been interviews, while the later years have relied heavily on
archives, principally Mitchell’s archives, but we have also drawn to a
limited extent from Professor E. C. Slater’s archives at Haarlem in the
Netherlands. Wherever possible, significant points have been confirmed
from more than one source, and we have consulted published records such
as the Cambridge University Reporter for the Cambridge period (1939–1955).
Mitchell was a very complex person, and we have discovered
people’s memories of events in which he was involved, and their feelings
about him, vary widely. We offer this biography as our best interpretation
of his life on the basis of the material available to us, but
we are aware that some of his contemporaries will have different
views.
Mitchell left relatively few laboratory notes, and the ones we found
are almost exclusively from the Edinburgh period (1956–1963). He did
not keep good records of his experiments, and those that have survived
are sketchy; they can be interpreted only with difficulty and some uncertainty.
They were originally housed in binders, but by the time we
saw them in the last days of the Glynn Research Institute, they were almost
all loose and mostly undated. During the Glynn period, the laboratory
notes were probably kept exclusively by Jennifer Moyle, who, regrettably,
has forbidden access during her lifetime.
There are special problems about writing a scientific biography of a
twentieth-century scientist, which relate to the nature of the science.
While the central reason for writing about Mitchell is the achievement
of his science, the essential character of that science itself is not easily
conveyed to the reader because of its extremely technical nature. We
have endeavored to simplify the biochemistry but realize that, to biochemists,
we will be seen to have glossed over, and on occasions misrepresented,
important details of Mitchell’s and also other scientists’
work. We also appreciate that our attempts to eliminate the technical
detail may not have gone far enough for some readers, and, to give
some assistance to them, we have added an appendix on the theories of
oxidative phosphorylation.
We would like to acknowledge the help of Dr. Peter Rich, who succeeded
Peter Mitchell as director of the Glynn Research Institute and
who gave us access to Mitchell’s papers before they were transferred
to Cambridge. The many others who have given us their time, advice,
and support are listed in the acknowledgments. Their generosity and
friendship are greatly appreciated. We are indebted to our editor, Kirk
Jensen, and his colleagues at Oxford University Press for their help.
Finally we are most grateful to Professor Sir Tom Blundell for
agreeing to write the foreword to this work in which he has shown interest
and given encouragement.
Royal Holloway, University of London J. P.
California State University, Fullerton B. W.
and Bennington College, Vermont
October 2001
扫码加好友，拉您进群
全部版块
我的主页
收藏
