17 July 2024 – Francesco Cassata is a Professor of Contemporary History at the University of Genoa, Italy. From 2022 to 2025, he is working on the early history of EMBO, EMBC and EMBL as a Fellow in Residence at the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei – Centro Linceo “B. Segre” in Rome.
How have you become interested in the history of EMBO?
I started from the establishment of the International Laboratory of Genetics and Biophysics in Naples by Adriano Buzzati-Traverso, who was also one of the founders of EMBO. I discovered that the EMBO history was more complex than I expected. It was not just a British story; it was a European story. It was also important for me to explore biology as a form of European integration on the political level.
What materials have you used?
I used three sources: First, private correspondence between John Kendrew and other EMBO Council Members, kept at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, to understand the diplomatic action of EMBO Members. Second, the archives of the scientific organizations – EMBO, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Euratom, etc. – to reconstruct the institutional framework. Finally, the state archives of countries such as Switzerland, UK, France or Italy, to explore the reaction of the national governments.
Why were both the scientific and political levels important for establishing molecular biology in Europe?
The creation of an intergovernmental structure was considered a crucial means to secure international and political legitimacy for molecular biology at the European level, to ensure the survival of EMBO itself and to establish it as the representative of the field in Europe. The value of molecular biology for understanding life was still unclear and challenged by traditional disciplines of biology. In contrast, the role of high-energy physics, the focus of CERN, was unquestionable among physical scientists.
How did the association to physics in the early days of EMBO come about?
The connection between physics and molecular biology was crucial in the atomic age, the period between the end of World War II and the first half of the 60s. Molecular biologists defined themselves as biophysicists and relied heavily on instrumentation related to physics. The connection was a way to achieve epistemological authority for molecular biology, and to include the field in the science policy discourse and imaginary of the atomic age. Physics was the symbol of modernity and innovation, and it received impressive state support. Molecular biologists were asking European countries to invest the same level of funds.
Where has the analogy with CERN worked?
CERN was an important reference for the first steps of EMBO. It was a symbolic, diplomatic and political resource to be exploited. It provided facilities and technical support for EMBO and EMBC meetings before the establishment of the Heidelberg offices. It was also a source of acronyms. In official documentation, EMBC (the European Molecular Biology Conference) was long called CEBM (Conférence Européenne de Biologie Moléculaire), and EMBL was called CERB (Conseil Européen de la Recherche Biologique).
Where has it not worked?
The analogy emphasizes the connection between big equipment and an intergovernmental laboratory as the only institutional framework for international cooperation in science and technology. But the institutional architecture of molecular biology in Europe was not just a mere replica of CERN. It was an original three-dimensional model: a scientific organization (EMBO) made proposals to an intergovernmental organization (EMBC) funding its activities, and the laboratory (EMBL).
What have EMBO/EMBC meant for the establishment of the European Research Council (ERC)?
Three organizations, EMBO, EMBL and the Federation of European Biochemical Societies (FEBS), were fundamental for the discussion and creation of the ERC. It was an institutional collaboration, and part of a personal relationship between three figures at the time: Frank Gannon, Executive Director of EMBO; Fotis Kafatos, Director of EMBL, who became President of ERC; and Julio Celis, President of EMBC and FEBS. The organizations were crucial for establishing the European Life Sciences Forum in 2000 and the Initiative of Science in Europe in 2004, two arenas in which the ERC took shape.
Is there anything surprising in the history of EMBO you came across?
It was amazing to explore the importance of language and translation in science diplomacy. The signing of the EMBC Agreement was delayed by the request from West Germany to include German as the third official language. When this was raised, Italy and Greece asked for their own languages to be recognized as official languages. It took several months to find a compromise. I quote a letter from an exhausted Max Perutz, Chairman of the EMBO Council: “International agreement is a difficult business even when all the interested parties are agreed on what they want to do!”.
Read more:
Francesco Cassata (2024): A ‘heavy hammer to crack a small nut’? The creation of the European Molecular Biology Conference (EMBC), 1963–1970. Annals of Science, DOI: 10.1080/00033790.2024.2351511
