Wolfgang Enard Rather then being a jobless guitar player, Wolfgang Enard works on molecular comparisons of humans and chimpanzees at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Credit: GRAHAM FOWELL

Summarize yourself in the form of a title of a paper in Nature.

Slow explosion of jumping crocodiles enhanced by phosphorylation of the ARHGAP8 superconductivity complex. (Complex issues require complex titles.)

What was your first experiment as a child?

Building an airplane from our old washing machine. (It failed.)

Who have been the most important mentors in your career?

Michael Bölker and Svante Pääbo. Michael Bölker was my first direct contact in a lab. His fast and accurate analytical style of thinking taught me the basics in molecular biology and how to get from experiment to the understanding of a process. And without Svante Pääbo, I would not be in a position to be asked to write something about important mentors in my career. He has the courage and creativity to get into new fields before most people think of them.

Whose graduate student would you most like to have been (historical impossibility notwithstanding)?

Linus Pauling or Erwin Schrödinger.

What single scientific paper or talk changed your career path?

'Life with 6000 genes' (A. Goffeau et al. Science 274, 546, 563–567; 1996). I remember reading this and realizing that 'genomic biology' is exciting and new, and that I definitely wanted to be a part of it.

What gives you the most job satisfaction now? What are your major frustrations?

Satisfaction lies in the understanding of a process, and the process of how one communicates this understanding. But when the process is over, frustration sets in. It is maybe like finding a song, working on it, playing it — and then having to play it over and over again.

What literary character would you employ as a postdoc?

Spider-Man.

You have the audience in your hands, but some smart-alec asks you the killer question you have no idea how to answer. What's your favourite response?

“This is a killer question and I have no idea how to answer it.”

What book currently sits on your bedside table?

At the moment, Intelligente Musik und wie man dazu Liebe macht (Intelligent music and how to make love to it) by Markus Wilmsmann. The author is my room-mate.

Assuming the dead can be raised and/or time travel exists, who from the world outside science would you most like to have dinner with?

Goethe.

What music heads the playlist in your car or lab?

I generally listen to a lot of modern jazz. One of my favourite musicians is Bill Frisell, a jazz/avant-garde guitar player based in New York.

Where and when would you most liked to have lived or worked?

I'm very happy with here and now.

You are on a plane behind two students obviously going to the same conference, who start to talk about your work. What do you do?

Shut up, order a drink and listen.

What one thing would you rescue from your burning laboratory?

My dog.

What is the best piece of advice you've ever received?

'Don't listen to advice.' (I didn't listen to this advice.)

What do you most dislike about having research published?

The fixation in print of an ongoing process.

What would you have become, if not a scientist?

A jobless guitar player. When I was 21, I played electric guitar for about five or six hours a day (rock, blues, a little bit of jazz) and I thought I might turn professional. But I started too late, had not quite enough talent and later got fascinated by biology. So I decided to keep my freedom on the music side at the cost of spending less time on it.

Name one extravagance you can now get away with because of your eminence.

Not having to pick up the equipment from the rehearsal room before a concert.

What single discovery, invention or innovation would most improve your life?

A flying carpet.

What music would you have played at your funeral?

Platonic years by Nils Petter Molvaer from his album Khmer. It creates this state of happiness and sadness at the same time, which seems right for funerals.

Is there a 'tyranny of reductionism' in how scientists are trained today? That is, are students taught to look more into the workings of things and not enough at the 'big picture'?

Generally, I think it is right to train students so that they become experts in one field. However, in order to be able to communicate one's expertise it is crucial to place this field in the context of the 'big picture'. A wider appreciation of the history and philosophy of science might help in that direction.

What's the one thing about science that you wish the public understood better?

That natural science can tell you how things are but not how things should be.

If you could direct more government funding into one area of science (apart from your own, of course), where would you put it?

New approaches to gather data in order to compare the histories of different cultures.

What's just around the corner?

A kebab shop.