Mr. Di Iorio, you have documented the history of your Institute. What led to its foundation?

Ernesto Di Iorio (ED): The importance of biochemistry was recognised at an early date. The first lecture at ETH was offered as early as 1913: “The Chemistry of Natural Colouring Materials.” This course was intended for engineers. ETH appointed the outside lecturer Alfred Winterstein for the subject of “General Biochemistry and Physiological Chemistry” in 1935. His lecture series “Selected Chapters from Biochemistry" continued until Carl Martius arrived in 1956 as the first Professor for Biochemistry at ETH.

What part was played by the Nobel prizewinner Leopold Ruzicka, who is regarded as the founder of the Institute?

ED: It is thanks to Leopold Ruzicka that Biochemistry was recognised at ETH. He was world-famous in the mid-thirties as a result of his papers on hormones, vitamins and antibiotics. In 1955 be began the preparations for the foundation of a biochemistry institute at ETH. He convinced financial backers in the pharmaceutical industry in Basel and the Rockefeller Foundation, and exerted pressure on the President of ETH. However, the latter was not convinced that there was a need for a professorial chair of biochemistry. Finally it was the pharmaceutical companies and the canton government of Zurich that stood up for the professorial chair. The canton government wanted ETH to be avant-garde.

Well, was ETH avant-garde?

ED: The University of Zurich already had an Institute for Biochemistry, but that had been shaped by medical people. Ruzicka was clever, and made it clear that the new Institute for Dynamic Biochemistry, as he called it, was different to the physiological biochemistry at the University. Finally he received 1.6 million Swiss francs from Ciba-Geigy, Hoffmann-La Roche and Sandoz together with 100,000 Swiss francs from the Rockefeller Foundation. That was enough for the foundation of the Institute. Ruzicka was also involved in stipulating who was to be appointed as professor, and had already chosen two people. However these did not accept the position that was offered. Finally Carl Martius was appointed as the first Professor.

What were the problems the youthful Institute had to struggle with?

ED: The Institute was a part of the Organic Chemistry Department when Martius took up his post. This meant he had no access to first degree students. Only chemistry graduates could apply for a doctorate. Therefore Martius fought for Biochemistry to become independent of Organic Chemistry, and in 1962 he succeeded in causing the Biochemistry Laboratory to move from Chemistry to Natural Sciences and he was able to develop a study course together with Microbiology. After that the number of students increased exponentially. A second professorial chair was soon necessary, and ultimately a third. Larger laboratories were needed. In 1973 Biochemistry obtained four floors and space in the basement of the CHN building. This brought the Institute to its present-day size.

How big is the Institute today?

Yves Barral (YB): The Institute has been able to retain its professorial chairs. However, the Institute’s structure is quite different today to what it was then. We currently have four professors and two SNF (National Competence Centre) professors. However, in the classical ETH way of counting there are only three, but because Ari Helenius will become an Emeritus Professor in three years his position is currently occupied twice. We also have ten group leaders, whose activities are similar to those of professors. In addition there are two lecturers.

ED: The number of staff has increased exponentially. It has grown seven-fold since the Institute was founded, and is currently about 120 people. What makes the subject so attractive?

YB: Biology has experienced a revolution in the past 50 years, for example through the development of Molecular Biology or the discoveries of the double helix and how genes code for proteins. There is a tradition at ETH that Biology is approached through Chemistry. However, at the majority of universities its origin lies in Botany, Zoology or Physiology. Physics also became included in Biology in the fifties and sixties. Biochemistry at ETH has benefited from this. Biochemistry is rather like a common denominator for the traditional subjects such as Biology, Chemistry or Physics. This is why Biochemistry has been so successful at ETH.

Two generations of researchers at the Institute for Biochemistry: PD Ernesto Di Iorio (l.) as one of the “longest serving”, and Institute Director Prof. Yves Barral as one of the newcomers. large

What were the most important scientific successes of Biochemistry at ETH?

ED: Carl Martius made 85 percent of the discoveries about the citric acid cycle, one of the cell’s most important metabolic cycles. For example important research took place in signal transmission, bio-energetics, the transport of substances through the cell membrane, the absorption of nutrients in the digestive system, protein glycolization and much more besides.

BA: Those were the traditional successes in the seventies and eighties. There is a totally new generation of scientists now.

You belong to this new generation, Mr. Barral …

YB: Ten years ago Biochemistry was still stuck in a very classical role. It was a stand-alone science with its own technology. If one looks into an ETH biology laboratory today, the applied technologies rely heavily on biochemistry. Biochemistry is developing in the direction of Structural Biology and towards the biochemistry of the entire cell. Signal transmission, cell architecture and the cell skeleton are new dimensions of Biochemistry. To a certain extent it is the beginning of System Biology. The Institute took this direction nine years ago.

Will this development be sustained?

YB: Certainly. The process has only just begun. We study complex structures. That will be a big challenge in the coming 20 years.

Structural Biology, Cell Biology or Biochemistry – they all seem to come from the same pot. How is Biochemistry differentiated from the other disciplines?

YB: The distinction between Biochemistry and Cell Biology or Structural Biology probably lies less in what we do research on than in how we research it. As biochemists of the cell we try to combine various different approaches. Our particular concern is not to lose sight of the molecules and their functions. We want to understand how molecules contribute to functions, both in the cell and in vitro. In this sense we are biochemists. However, we want to understand a molecule’s dynamics and not just the static molecule in a crystal. Indeed, our Institute was founded as the Institute for Dynamic Biochemistry. It is still that today.

Nevertheless: aren’t you afraid someone will make cutbacks and say everyone is doing the same thing anyway?

YB: I have no fear of that. It would only prove that biochemistry has become so widespread and popular that it need no longer stay within its own four walls.

How are you going to celebrate the anniversary?

YB: The first day is dedicated to the younger generation. Today is the school day when school children can visit the laboratory and perform small experiments themselves. I hope that by doing this we will break down fears of contact and can create pleasure among the next generation of scientists, which is what school children are. On Thursday we will hold a scientific congress. The first convention of alumni for the biochemistry alumni takes place on Friday. The past and the present of biochemistry will meet to work together on the future. I hope the generations will inspire each other.

How much interest is there in this gathering of alumni?

ED: Almost 90 have registered for the event. I also know of some who are not registering but will come nevertheless. About 100 will be present – of the 217 that I was able to trace. The first doctoral candidate of Carl Martius, i.e. the first Biochemistry doctoral candidate of ETH, will also be one of the guests.