_(cropped).jpg?width=300)
South African-British biologist, Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine 2002 (1927–2019)
Missing: 5, 8. Present digits repeat to show how many times they occur.
Six is read as the number of responsibility — family, service, the assumption that if something needs doing for someone else you are the one who does it. The tradition treats it warmly and then names the trap plainly: care given without limit becomes control, and the person who is always needed rarely learns to ask. Six is described as the number most likely to be exhausted and least likely to say so.
A complete line in the grid.
The 8-1-6 row complete. Read as follow-through — the traditional marker of someone whose plans reliably become events.
A complete line in the grid.
A complete line in the grid.
A complete line in the grid.
Concentrated self-direction. Read as conviction that does not need external agreement — and does not always seek it.
The centre of the grid, so its absence is weighted heavily. Read as difficulty adapting mid-course — a preference for the plan already chosen over the plan now indicated.
Read as discomfort with power and money — not incapacity, but an unwillingness to claim authority openly.
Moolank 4 comes from the day of the month alone; Bhagyank 6 from the whole date. They differ, which is the ordinary case — the two numbers answer different questions.
The ascending lunar node — a shadow graha, not a physical body. Disruption, ambition, the unconventional. Read with more caution than any other.
Bhagyank uses the same arithmetic as the Western life path, so the two will always agree. That is not two traditions confirming each other — it is one calculation under two names.
For many years it was widely held that molecular biology was a completely useless subject, a 'fundamental' science of no interest to those working on practical matters
Current ideas of the uses of Model Organisms spring form the exemplars of the past and choosing the right organism for one's research is as important as finding the right problems to work on. In all my research these two problems have been closely intertwined.
A lot of the things that have been accomplished in science have been accomplished on the basis of ignorance … in the sense that you import into the science people from outside. Because once you have an established science, it has got its high priests — the guys who know everything that will work or won't work. And they don't want to be bothered. So you have to have a challenge. And the great thing is that young people are ignorant, and we should catch them before they turn into the priesthood. So I think that science should have a much more daring approach.
Even God wouldn't get a grant today because somebody on the committee would say, oh those were very interesting experiments (creating the universe), but they've never been repeated. And then someone else would say, yes and he did it a long time ago, what's he done recently? And a third would say, to top it all, he published it all in an un-refereed journal (The Bible).
Then we started clinical work ... and I just wasn't suited to that. I didn't like ... the whole structure of a teaching hospital. That is, I felt very much that treating patients as things is the wrong thing. And since I thought it was very hard to be a scientist and not do this, then I preferred not to do it at all. So, in fact, I think I am the only person who has ever passed medicine who had never seen a patient until his examination — because I never went. And, in fact, one of the great stories is that I failed my medicine because I was asked to smell this patient's breath and correctly diagnosed Macleans toothpaste where I should have diagnosed acetone.
Well, I think my skills are in getting things started. ... In fact, that's what I enjoy most — it's the opening game. And I'm afraid that once it gets past that point I get rather bored with it and want to do other things. ... The other thing I'm good at is talking.
Sourced from Wikiquote, restricted to the subject’s own sourced sections.