|
About the Academy
Awards
Basser Library
Education
Events
Fellowship listing
International
Media releases
National Committees
Nobel Australians
Policy
Reports and submissions
Publications
The Shine Dome
|
Home > About the Academy > Biographical memoirs
BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIRS
John Edwin Rogers Falk 1917-1970
By M.R. Lemberg and O.H. Frankel
This memoir was originally published in Records of the Australian
Academy of Science, vol.2, no.3, 1972.
Introduction
John Edwin Rogers Falk
was born on 22 August 1917 at Cessnock, NSW. His father, H.J.
Falk, was a pharmaceutical chemist in Sydney.
John was educated at the North Sydney Boys High School in Sydney.
He was trained as a pharmaceutical chemist at the University of
Sydney. Earnings as a pharmacist and musician John was an accomplished
flautist of professional standing enabled him to re-enter Sydney
University and to get his BSc in 1942, followed in 1947 by an
MSc on the basis of a thesis with A. Albert
on cytochrome c reactions with adrenaline and acridine
compounds. After his graduation John held a scholarship at Sydney
University with V.M. Trikojus.
This was a wartime research begun by the Drug Sub-committee of
the Association of Scientific Workers to provide essential drugs
which had become unavailable in Australia. This work consisted
of the ad hoc emergency preparation of some anti-dysentery
drugs which, together with the development of anti-malarial drugs
and insect repellants of the phthalate ester class, were important
in the New Guinea campaign. The contribution which this group
made to the success of this campaign has never received the recognition
it deserved.
From 1944-1945 Falk was Chief Chemist of the Bayer Company of
Sydney, responsible for process research. His discovery of a process
for the large scale synthesis of 5-amino-acridine was patented
and is still in general use. In 1946-47 Falk worked under a Wellcome
Research Fellowship with A. Albert beginning investigations on
the interaction of acridine compounds with enzyme systems with
particular reference to the mode of action of anti-malarial agents.
When Albert left for London, Falk obtained a National Health and
Medical Research Council grant enabling him to work with M.R.
Lemberg at the Institute of Medical Research at the Royal North
Shore Hospital of Sydney. He was also a part-time lecturer in
Agricultural Biochemistry at Sydney University.
The investigations carried out at the Institute of Medical Research
from 1947-1949 on porphyrins and the prosthetic group of cytochrome
oxidase determined the direction of much of his later scientific
work. He obtained a Nuffield Travelling Fellowship to work with
C. Rimington at University College Hospital Medical School from
1949 to early in 1951. He obtained his PhD at the University
of London in 1951. From February 1951 to November 1955 Falk became
the Leader of the Nuffield Unit for Research in Pyrrole Pigment
Metabolism under Rimington. His studies on analytical, in particular
chromatographic methods, opened the way to important insights
into the biochemical mechanisms controlling porphyrin and haem
biosynthesis. He also was Honorary Lecturer in Biochemistry at
University College and from October, 1953 to October, 1955, Foulerton
Research Fellow of the Royal Society, London. This work in London
brought Falk into contact with many English and Continental, particularly
French, scholars and established his scientific reputation. Apart
from the analytic and biosynthetic approach, he developed a wide
knowledge of the physicochemical and ligand theory aspects of
porphyrin and haem chemistry.
From November 1955 to March 1963, Falk was Head of the Biochemistry
Section of the Division of Plant Industry, led by Sir Otto Frankel,
and in 1963 he became his successor. However, he never gave up
his interest in the field of tetrapyrroles. His book on Porphyrins
and Metalloporphyrins published by Elsevier Publishing Co. in
Amsterdam in 1964 has become a classic.
He was elected in 1961 to Fellowship of the Academy. From 1964-1966
he was President of the Australian Biochemical Society and in
1965 was President of Section M (Botany) of ANZAAS. In 1956 he
was made a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute,
during 1958/9 he was the first Chairman of the ACT Branch of
the Institute, while in 1964 he was awarded the Olle Prize by
the New South Wales Branch. He was a member of the Biochemical
and Chemical Societies, London, the Australian Society for Plant
Physiology and the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science.
Together with Lemberg and Morton he organized the 1959 International
Symposium on Haematin Enzymes for the Academy and the International
Union of Biochemistry. The arrangements made for this Conference
greatly impressed overseas visitors and undoubtedly served in
many ways as a model for subsequent meetings in both the USA
and Japan.
In a revealing small section of his short autobiography entitled
'Peer evaluation', Falk stresses that far from being laurels upon
which to rest, such honours and recognitions are of great benefit
for the recipient with regard not only to strengthening his authority
but even more so by including him in the 'invisible colleges'
of international science and international exchange.
John Falk as a man
Some people mature fast and are at a comparatively early age sure
of themselves, of their plans for their future; they ascend in
a rather untroubled way and reach their aims comparatively early.
Others, less extroverted and less self-secure, take a longer time
for their development. The first type is slightly more frequently
found among scientists, the second among artists However, both
types are to be found among scientists as well as in artists,
with biochemists Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins being an example
being perhaps somewhat more frequently of the second, physicists
and engineers of the first type. In any case, the final achievement
is quite independent of the time scale and ease of achievement,
and the more introvert types often become those of the greater
depth. John Falk belonged to this type. His slow development,
his artistic leanings, his vacillations between his possibilities
and his rather late choice, while perhaps partially due to external
and financial factors, were also parts of his make-up. This lack
of self-assurance was perhaps hidden under a certain apparent
blandness on occasion, but in fact in contributed a great deal
to the charm of his personality. He was still young when he died,
in fact even much younger than his 53 years of age.
I met John Falk first in a kind of seminary which from 1946 onwards
frequently met in the Botany Department of the University under
R.N. Robertson, now Sir Rutherford Robertson,
the President of the Australian Academy of Science. It was, somewhat
irreverently, called the 'Bible Class' and was attended among
others by members of my Department. John Falk impressed me immediately
as a keen young scientist of promise, so that I did not hesitate
to recommend him for an NH&MRC grant to work at the
Institute of Medical Research. Soon he became easily integrated
with the work of myself and all my colleagues, not only in work
but also in play. I remember him enjoying some of our rather adventurous
bushwalks and swims in the wildest part of the Blue Mountains
and in the Hawkesbury area. Even after he had gone to London on
my recommendation to obtain his PhD with Rimington, close personal
relationships and a feeling of scientific kinship persisted for
which his 1964 book is a testimony.
He married Enid K.M. Smith in 1942 who bore him three children,
two girls and a boy. Theirs was a deeply united family in which
music in their home they were all musically gifted and enjoyed
playing together was an important bond. John Falk contributed
a great deal to the musical life of Canberra after he had come
back to Australia. He became President of the Canberra Orchestral
Society and was also participating in the establishment of a Canberra
school of music.
The testimonials of Prof. C. Rimington, and Prof. Gajdos add further
traits to the picture of John Falk as a person, but perhaps the
most telling tribute is that of his London co-worker, Miss Amy
Benson (Mrs Latter) who writes:
John Falk quickly established a friendly partnership with the
five or six members of the Nuffield Unit. I know that the four
years I worked with him were the happiest, hardest and most productive
of my life. He was a born teacher and unlike so many academics.
He was also a natural technician he taught me my craft, made me
a good technician and made me realise that it is possible to have
a pride in that fact. I like to think that those years were also
some of the best for him.
He loved his work, he loved people and I chiefly remember those
four years for the 'puckish'-faced 'boss' who galloped into the
lab at 9.00 a.m. bursting with ideas, who worked very hard but
who was never too busy to be a good and very generous friend;
a friend who taught me the high standards necessary for a good
technician. Anything that I have accomplished since then I owe
to the fact that I worked with John Falk.
John was ambitious and drove himself hard, perhaps too hard, but
he nevertheless enjoyed the many great gifts of life. If he was
ambitious, he certainly would not misuse other persons for his
purpose. Thus he commanded the only true authority, that which
is freely given in love and admiration. It is this which in fact
made him the leader. And as he received loyalty of others, so
he gave to those who had helped him in his development.
John Falk suffered a severe heart attack in December 1969, shortly
after he had presided over the successful International Symposium
on 'Autonomy and Biogenesis of Mitochondria and Chloroplasts',
sponsored by the International Union of Biochemistry, the Australian
Academy of Science and the National Academy of Sciences, which
in itself was a recognition of the value of the work of Australian
scientists in this field and particularly the Biochemistry Section
of the Division of Plant Industry. After a difficult and slow
recovery he appeared to rally and when he rejoined my laboratory
for a brief period he had hopes and began to make plans, but I
was concerned that I found him still unable to relax completely.
Perhaps it was better for him to suffer the sudden death by another
heart attack shortly after his return to Canberra in October,
1970. He would have found a gradual recognition of continuing
or even increasing incapacitation very hard to bear. I felt greatly
honoured when CSIRO authorities asked me to deliver the first
John Falk Memorial Lecture for my dear departed friend and I chose
a subject which, had he been permitted to live and work, would
have had his closest attention.
Scientific work
The more than 50 publications of John Falk include a book Porphyrins
and Metalloporphyrins, several reviews and the co-editorship
of the contributions and discussions at the 1959 Canberra Symposium
of the International Union of Biochemistry, published in 1961
in two volumes as Haematin Enzymes.
Broadly speaking Falk's published work deals with six, partly
overlapping subjects.
Drug, organic chemistry, synthesis and pharmacological action
This work resulted in several papers, including a USA patent on q-aminoacridine. Three papers show how his interests gradually turned to biochemical
problems. His 1949 papers deal with peroxidative reactions of
haem compounds which were not relevant to the main reaction mechanism
of cytochrome oxidase but proved to be of considerable interest
by explaining deviations under abnormal conditions.
The prosthetic group of cytochrome oxidase
In 1948 and 1949, Rawlinson and Hale, working in Rimington's laboratory,
had achieved a satisfactory separation of haem a as they
called the prosthetic group of cytochrome oxidase, from protohaem
in extracts from Corynebacterium diptheriae and ox heart
muscle. When Falk joined Lemberg's department he undertook a systematic
study of a variety of porphyrins and haems of known structure
in order to compare them with purified porphyrin a and
haem a. At the first International Congress of Biochemistry
the three Australian-British groups presented together their findings
on haem a, which mostly agreed. They brought more exact
evidence for one formyl side chain The use of the term 'haem a'
thus preceded the term 'cytohaem' later used by Warburg's co-workers.
The work on the spectroscopic comparison of haem a with
other porphyrins continued after 1949 both in Sydney and London
and the results were published in 1951. In attempts to purify
porphyrin a Falk struck unexpected difficulties and satisfactory
methods were only slowly developed in the succeeding nine years
by Lemberg and his co-workers. Then, however, the rules found
by Falk in his 1949-1951 work bore fruit and contributed much
to the elucidation of the structure of haem a and related
compounds.
Porphyrin spectra and chromatography
Falk and Willis were the first to subject a large number of purified
porphyrins, porphyrin esters and haemin, partly prepared by themselves,
and partly by Rimington and Lemberg, to a systematic study of
their infrared spectra. Of special interest was the evidence for
a hydrogen bondage of the porphyrin nitrogens.
The application of chromatographic methods to the separation and
purification of porphyrins was an important methodological advance.
It opened the way to a detailed analysis of the complex pattern
of porphyrin excretion both normal and under pathological conditions.
Even more important was that the new methods allowed a new approach
to the problem of porphyrin and haem biosynthesis. Rimington's
lutidine method for the separation of free porphyrins according
to their number of carboxylic acids was further developed by Falk
and Dresel. Uroporphyrins with 8 and coproporphyrins with 4 carboxylic
acids were readily separated from each other and dicarboxylic
porphyrins. The discovery of 'pseudouroporphyrin' introduced a
complication through failure to recognize that it was a mixture
of heptacarboxylic porphyrins. Of particular importance, however,
were methods which allowed the chromatographic separation of coproporphyrin
isomers I and III as esters and for uroporphyrin esters I and
III although the latter method provided no ideal solution, since
no separation of pure isomers was achieved. The field has been reviewed by Falk in a 1961 journal article and again in his book.
Porphyrin biosynthesis
The important work of Rimington, Falk and Dresel on the biosynthesis
of porphyrins and haem compounds began in 1952 in London and continued
later in Canberra with Porra and Jones and its results are contained
in their publications.
The Ciba Foundation Symposium on 'Porphyrin Biosynthesis and Metabolism'
in 1955 was a happy culmination of Falk's period of work in London.
After his return to Australia he retained his interest in this
field. Falk, Porra et al studied the effect of oxygen concentration
on porphyrin biosynthesis. Free porphyrins in leguminous root
nodules were studied by Falk with Appleby and Porra. Studies were
also made of the conversion of coproporphyrinogen III to protoporphyrin
IX.
The physicochemistry of the porphyrins and their metal complexes
One of the intrinsic difficulties in the study of many physical
properties of porphyrins was their very low solubility in aqueous
solutions of a pH near to those found under physiological conditions.
An important step forward was their solubilization by detergents
by Falk and Phillips. The monomeric dispersion allowed the quantitative
study in good approximation to physiological conditions of a variety
of physicochemical properties, such as ionization and stability
constants: the study of Dempsey, Lowe and Phillips in 1961 was
the first where quantitative data on the stability of the zinc
complex of mesoporphyrin dimethylester were obtained. It also
allowed studies of kinetics of formation of metalloporphyrins
in enzymic and non-enzymic reactions. The effects of electronegative
side chain substituents on these properties could be now studied
quantitatively and correlated with spectroscopic observations.
These studies were then extended to the reactions of haem compounds
with ligands and their dimerization in aqueous solution. Further
studies were performed on the equilibria of haem compounds with
cyanide, pyridine and other bases as well as the effect of ligands
on the oxidation-reduction behaviour, on the magnetochemical properties
of metalloporphyring and on bond types. Falk preferred to study
simple haem bases as models; however, some investigations on haemoproteins
were also carried out. It was noted early that the knowledge of
the chemical structure of the prosthetic group and the iron ligands
was not sufficient to explain the many anomalies observed in the
field of haemoproteins; notably, the large variations in the redox
potential of cytochrome c. It may also be mentioned that in the
mercaptoethanol compound of haem, the first example of a haem
iron co-ordination with sulphur was obtained.
Falk lacked, and knew he lacked, knowledge of theoretical and
quantum physics, but during his London period by discussions with
London colleagues, in particular with the late Sir Ronald Nyholm
he had learned sufficiently of the ligand field theory to become
its best interpreter to haemoprotein biochemists, both in his
contributions to the 1959 International Congress at Canberra and
later in his book.
It was typical of John Falk that in spite of this theoretical
interest in the field, one half of his book was devoted to Laboratory
Methods which he was first to compile systematically. This has
been of unique value for the further development of the field.
Finally, some later publications show his growing concern with
the general responsibilities of his Department and beyond that
of the whole field of the social responsibility and philosophy
of science.
Professor Rimington and Gajdos were kind enough to send the following
statements which contribute more than the reviewers themselves
could have done. They also go beyond the evaluation of Falk's
scientific contributions and add much to his evaluation as a man.
Professor Rimington states:
John Falk joined my laboratory just at the critical period when
a generous grant from the Nuffield Foundation had made it possible
for me to build up a Unit for the study of pyrrole pigment metabolism.
In fact John was the first appointment to the Unit where he was
quickly joined by Elizabeth Dresel, formerly with the late Professor
Munro Fox. These two formed an ideal pair complementing each other
in temperament. John was imaginative, tremendously enthusiastic
to the point of impatience at times while Elizabeth was unhurried,
cautious and soberly matter-of-fact in her approach to all problems.
The time was an exciting one. Shemin's work had indicated the
gross framework of haem biosynthesis but the actual pathway was
still unknown. My team was able to show clearly that it was not
the porphyrins as such which were the true intermediates. Next
came the demonstration that porphobilinogen, isolated from acute
porphyria urine, was the key metabolite, the first pyrrolic compound
formed from delta-aminolaevulinic acid and giving rise to uroporphyrinogen III and I according to conditions. Cookson and I had established
the structure of porphobilinogen and offered a chemical explanation
of the mechanism of uroporphyrin isomer formation. At the same
time, work was going on in the Unit on the fate of these intermediates
in vivo and the ready production of experimental porphyria in
animals by allylisopropylacetamide.
A rapidly expanding field such as this demanded the elaboration
of many specialized techniques and of some very clear thinking.
John Falk contributed notably to both. His work on chromatographic
separation of the uroporphyrin and coproporphyrin isomers was
invaluable and he found time to contribute a review on porphyrin
chromatography which was for a long time the authoritative work
on the subject. He also, with Willis, mapped the infrared spectra
of representative porphyrins and with Nyholm and others explored
the theoretical aspects of metal co-ordination compounds of porphyrins.
Such activity and widespread interest made great demands both
physically and mentally. John was indefatigable and in our opinion
pushed himself too hard, even in those days. I remember an occasion,
later, when he arrived by air from Australia on a whirlwind scientific
visit only to have to spend the first two days in bed. It is tragic
that he was temperamentally unable to conserve his energy for
the sake of future science.
In his rare moments of relaxation John Falk was a most engaging
companion and his relations with fellow scientists were generally
smooth. He helped me to organize the first International Conference
on the porphyrins at the Ciba Foundation and his spirited participation
in the discussions contributed in no small measure to the success
of that meeting.
He was an excellent teacher, as two of my trusted assistants Miss
A. Benson (Mrs Latter) and Miss B. Knight (Mrs Sawyer) would wholeheartedly
testify. He inspired rather than enforced meticulous accuracy
and scrupulous care in everything which transpired in the laboratory.
It was a sad day when he had to return to Australia but we all
knew that he would bring to his new post the same wholehearted
devotion and integrity of purpose.
Professor Gajdos says:
I have made the acquaintance of John Falk on his first trip to
Paris during his London years. It was the beginning of a friendship
that time made always deeper.
This London period which, if I remember well, lasted from 1949
to 1956, was surely one of the most happy and scientifically most
productive ones of his professional life. It coincided with a
prodigious development in the porphyrin field and his part in
it was so enormous that I can only mention here his most important
contributions. He worked out the reconstituted red cell hemolysate
which proved to be one of the most useful biological mediums for
the study of porphyrin biosynthesis. With this technique, John
Falk was one of the first researchers showing that the then just
discovered delta-aminolaevulinic acid is an obligatory intermediate
in the biosynthetic pathway of porphyrins. Using the same method
he has largely contributed to the elucidation of the biochemical
conditions of the different steps of this complicated pathway.
This work was highly facilitated by the paper chromatographic
method he worked out for the separation of minute quantities of
the various porphyrins and their isomers. But in my opinion, his
greatest contribution was the discovery of the role of porphyrinogens.
He has indeed shown, by a particularly precise isotopic study,
that porphyrins themselves are metabolically inactive by-products
formed by the oxidation of more hydrogenated precursors, the porphyrinogens.
It was only by the recognition of these last compounds that the
biosynthetic pathway of porphyrins became clear and really opened
to enzymic studies.
Exceptionally rich as it was, the scientific activity of John
Falk was only one of the many facets of his personality. He was
a great musician. I shall never forget the Sunday afternoon when,
in his modest apartment in London, he gave a Bach concert to me
and my wife. He admired and thoroughly knew French literature
and French history. One of his greatest pleasures was to make
a weekend trip to Paris, where porphyrins formed only a little
part of our conversations.
With the untimely death of John Falk at the age of 53, biochemistry
has lost one of its best workers. I have lost one of my dearest
friends.
John Falk as administrator (*)
In the 1950s the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry was developing
research sections in fields basic to agricultural production genetics,
physiology, microbiology, and biochemistry to complement the strong
teams in Canberra and elsewhere which were directly concerned
with agricultural processes and problems. Dr Falk was appointed
in 1955 to lead and develop the Biochemistry Section. He had been
very much the laboratory bench worker, but, as he said in a draft
for a submission to the Arbitration Commission, 'I had gone from
the world of applied science to the academic world, and back again,
in CSIRO, to an applied research context. At the same time while
I established myself as "pure" biochemist during my periods in
medical research laboratories, by its nature medical research
is in fact, "applied" research. Even when I was engaged upon the
most sophisticated research in medical schools, I felt conscious
all the time of the patients in bed nearby. Indeed, both at North
Shore and in University College Hospital (London), my research
was related in great part to the need to discover the underlying
causes of certain types of anaemia, and of the group of diseases
known as the porphyrias. Thus I came to CSIRO with a conditioning
to do research at the best possible level with applied motives.
At the time, not knowing much about CSIRO, I did not clearly appreciate
how closely this attitude coincided with the philosophy of CSIRO.'
The research programme in biochemistry was developed in several
directions arising from his earlier experiences. His interest
in porphyrins led to the formation of a group working on photosynthesis
and chloroplast biochemistry, as well as on the physicochemistry
and biochemistry of porphyrins and haemoproteins. He was quick
to recognise the possible significance of an observation that
certain porphyrins synthesized within the section showed anti-fungal
activity. He foresaw that research into the chemical control of
parasites linking basic research with industrial application could
be a highly appropriate activity for the Division of Plant Industry.
On his initiative an agreement was concluded in 1961 with Fisons
Pest Control Ltd of England and J.R. Geigy of Switzerland which
continued for several years, and, with the latter firm, is still
current. This agreement provided funds for research concerned
with the synthesis and screening of compounds for biological activity
and with studies on their mode or action. This work had industrial
possibilities, and has resulted in a number of patents, though
none has yet come to commercial exploitation.
During his 11 years as head, he built the Biochemistry section
from a few scattered people to a group of 15-20 scientists. The
section became a leading plant biochemical laboratory and Falk
and his colleagues had many distinguished guest workers from overseas
institutions in their laboratory. Falk was an enthusiastic leader.
He devoted much effort to ensure that the section was well housed
and equipped, and to create an atmosphere for work of the highest
quality. He was imaginative and quick to recognize the significance
of experimental observations made by his colleagues, sometimes
better than they did themselves. Anyone making significant progress
received enthusiastic encouragement and support; but he did not
hesitate to let a colleague know when he thought that work was
progressing too slowly. He encouraged and took an active part
in symposia and seminars within his section and assisted his colleagues
to participate in national as well as international affairs in
biochemistry.
In 1963 Falk was invited by the Executive of CSIRO to become my
successor as chief of the Division of Plant Industry. For several
years he had been a member of the Divisional Committee which had
played an increasing role in policy making and adrninistration,
so that he had acquired insight into the running of the Division
as a whole. However, his new responsiblity as chief made it necessary
for him to acquire first-hand knowledge of the agricultural industry
and to establish personal contacts with agricultural research
and extension in the States, the Commonwealth and the Universities.
John Falk had a remarkable ability to tackle new and difficult
tasks with vigour, and his enthusiasm secured goodwill and help
from others, within and beyond his Division. As a result he played
a greater role in the agricultural sphere than in the guidance
of what he called the laboratory sciences with which he was a
good deal more at home. One may well ask why this should have
been the case. There was a curious inversion between John Falk
and myself with regard to our past research experience and the
principal direction of our activities as chief. I had been associated
with agriculture for many years; yet owing to the emphasis given
to agronomic research in the preceding decade, it had been my
brief to build up the basic research activities in the Division.
This had been virtually completed, and Falk found it necessary
to review and invigorate the programme in the, to him, much less
familiar agricultural sphere.
Dr F.H.W. Morley, at the time an assistant chief of the Division,
lists the following as Falk's main contributions to agricultural
research within the Division:
- He gave strong encouragement and support to individuals or
groups, provided their research was a. relevant to actually or
potentially important production systems, b. of general rather
than limited regional significance, c. scientifically well designed,
performed and intergrated.
- He encouraged agricultural and other scientists to think
about the relevance of their work to real-world problems and production
systems.
- He greatly improved liaison with state Departments of Agriculture.
About this more must be said later on.
On a more personal note L.F. Myers comments:
As might be expected, his fresh outlook often benefited individual
projects, especially in the planning stage. The necessity to brief
him succinctly about the objectives of a project in terms devoid
of jargon was often a salutary exercise for the agronomist.
He took considerable pains to appreciate the economic as well
as scientific relevance of projects. This was a personal involvement
stimulated by his concern for the role of science in the community.
Falk was greatly concerned that research results should be effectively
developed and applied in farming practice, and therefore he fostered
close co-operation with State Departments of Agriculture. He took
a strong personal interest in establishing a working partnership
between Departmental and CSIRO officers. The number of co-operative
projects increased greatly, and training facilities in special
fields of research previously started on a modest scale in genetics
were greatly extended and diversified. He also succeeded in establishing
good working relations with members of the seed industry so as
to encourage the acceptance of new cultivars resulting from Divisional
research activities.
This strong pre-occupation with research liaison in agriculture
resulted very naturally from his responsibility as the head of
an agricultural research institution. But his interest in the
communications of science with industry, with administrators,
with the general public arose from his broad concern with the
role of science in society. He believed that to make science intelligible
to non-scientists was an important social responsibility in which
science writers and scientists should be jointly involved. He
felt convinced that the public, and especially the young, were
receptive to good science writing, and it was therefore 'an error
to overdo the writing down'. It was the responsibility of scientists
'to envisage and to state freely and publicly, implications of
the results of their work...it is largely from the mass media
that politicians and the people can be taught to understand science
and be kept informed of new developments'.
'To make people understand' was something which concerned him
greatly, and which he himself did very well. Some years before
he became chief, when the Division was to be visited by the CSIRO
Advisory Council, John Falk took complete charge, organized speakers,
demonstrations, rehearsals, to such good effect that he set a
pattern for effective, or as he might have said, professional
ways of explaining research in progress.
When a group of science writers from the British Press visited
Australia in 1966, Falk was chosen to give the Australian Scientists'
point of view at a symposium held in the Academy; and again in
1967 he was invited to speak on 'Journalism and Science' to the
Third Summer School of Professional Journalism in Canberra. It
was after this summer school that he proposed a journalists' fellowship
which would enable science writers to spend some time in research
laboratories to gain experience of research and research workers.
About the time he became interested in the interrelations between
science, technology and society, the study of which he called
'scienomics'. There were two reasons for this pre-occupation,
both arising from his constant quest for principles and generalizations.
First, he was convinced that since science had become the central
motive power of society, its orientation in society required an
intellectual infrastructure and social organization commensurate
with its responsibilities. His ideas were influenced by those
of the Ossowskis, by H.G. Wells, and Bernal, but, as M.R. Lemberg
comments, 'John Falk characteristically differs from Bernal in
that he sees that the humanities must be as deeply involved in
this task as science economics and technology'.
Second, as a 'director of research' he felt the need for more
objective guidance in decision making than could derive from the
subjective information gathered and dispensed by one's built-in
computer a subject of occasional friendly banter between us.
He wrote that the direction of research, as a skilled operation,
is indeed still in its infancy. Only last year appeared the first
serious study...designed to provide at least a semi-quantitative
approach to the quality evaluation of scientists. It was fortunate
that in his human relations, inside and beyond his own institution,
the semi-quantitative approach was not discernible. He was a most
approachable chief and a warm-hearted and generous colleague.
His diverse interests and talents made him many friends. Shared
interests in science, music and literature brought about a deep
friendship with Professor Laurens Baas Becking.
As a result of the understanding between them, Falk actively encouraged
and supported Baas Becking's pioneering studies on the geochemical
activities of living organisms. Following Baas Becking's death,
Falk's concern that these studies be continued was, in large measure,
responsible for the establishment, in 1965, of the Baas Becking
Geobiological Laboratory as a joint venture between CSIRO, the
Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Australian Mineral Industries
Research Organization.
Lemberg has written of John Falk as a man, and of his impact on
others, especially in his years before he came to Canberra. Let
me conclude with some impressions he gave to some of us in his
Division. He was always active, his mind working whatever was
being done or said. He read, thought and talked quickly; he liked
to 'talk shorthand' with those who understood and practised it.
He read a good deal science, and not only his own; 'scienomics';
economics and social sciences in general; and of course a good
deal of general literature, and he integrated and used his reading
perceptively and imaginatively. He spoke and, as he said, 'thought'
impeccable French. He was an excellent craftsman, though his taste
in the visual arts and crafts was often not impeccable. He was,
as M.R.L. points out, a very fine musician. He had a prodigious
work capacity and drove himself to its limits.
Max Rudolf Lemberg, DPhil, FRS, Director of Biochemical Studies and Assistant
Director, Institute of Medical Research, The Royal North Shore
Hospital, Crows Nest, NSW and Emeritus Professor of Heidelberg
University. Foundation Fellow of the Academy; Councillor, 1956-58; and Vice-President, 1957-58.
(*)Sir Otto Frankel, Kt, DSc, FRS, Senior Research Fellow, Division of Plant Industry CSIRO. Frankel is the author of the second part of the obituary dealing with Falk as an Administrator.
|