wandering in the gardens of the mind peter mitchell and the making of glynn

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Prebble, John, 1944– Wandering in the gardens of the mind : Peter Mitchell and the making of Glynn / John Prebble, Bruce Weber... P r e

W a n d e r i n g i n t h e g a r d e n s o f t h e m i n d

Oxford New York

Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai

Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi São Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto

Copyright © 2003 by Oxford University Press, Inc.Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.

198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016

www.oup.com

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Prebble, John, 1944–

Wandering in the gardens of the mind :

Peter Mitchell and the making of Glynn /

John Prebble, Bruce Weber.

To Pat and Kathy

P r e f a c e

In many ways, biological science came of age in the twentieth century.Among the large number of scientists who brought about the new un-derstanding of living things was Peter Mitchell (1920–1992) Mitchell isimportant in twentieth-century biology because he was the major figureresponsible for bringing about a paradigm change in biochemical think-ing about metabolic energy and discovering the link between metabolicenergy and the transfer of substances across membranes He himselfundertook something of a crusade in the 1950s in trying to bring to-gether thinking about physiological transport across membranes andthinking about the general metabolism of cells largely conceived as tak-ing place in undifferentiated solution While Mitchell regarded his ideas

on the relation between transport and metabolism as his major bution, the world remembers him for a derivative of these ideas—thechemiosmotic theory developed in the 1960s and 1970s This theory explained a phenomenon, which had baffled biochemists since Engel-hardt, Kalckar, Ochoa, and others first described the process of oxida-tive phosphorylation, whereby metabolic energy of oxidation is con-served as ATP (adenosine triphosphate), the energy currency of the cell.There are other reasons for writing a biography of Mitchell Apartfrom developing the chemiosmotic theory, which solved a long-stand-ing problem, he engaged in other creative activities Endowed withfamily money, he set out to prove that it was still possible to set up andrun a small independent research institute, the Glynn Research Insti-tute This he did with his lifelong associate, Jennifer Moyle The award

contri-of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Mitchell in 1978 not only providedrecognition of his contribution to biochemistry but also, at least in his

eyes, justified the existence of the institute To date, there have been twobiographies of Mitchell: a short authoritative Royal Society biographicalmemoir by Bill Slater and a short unpublished manuscript by MiltonSaier.

Essentially, Mitchell is that rare breed of scientist, a theoretical gist He believed in thinking about science almost as an activity in its ownright, and, unlike his older contemporary Hans Krebs, Mitchell proposedcomplex theories before proceeding to test them The words of our title ap-pear on a plaque in the garden of remembrance created by Helen Mitchelland reflect the spirit with which Peter Mitchell approached biology.All of these aspects of Mitchell’s life, and many others, are why wefeel a life of Peter Mitchell is needed The history of the remarkableachievements of twentieth-century biochemistry is only beginning to bewritten, with but a few biographies so far published It is our intentionthat this biography of Peter Mitchell will tell one important story of thisstream of human endeavor

biolo-One of us (J P.) first heard Peter Mitchell lecture in 1956 and wasfascinated by his approach to biological thinking Although he heardhim lecture many times over the years, he did not get to know Mitchelluntil late in his life The other (B W.) first interviewed Mitchell in 1979and carried out many more interviews over the ensuing years Both of

us have interviewed, and corresponded with, many biologists andmembers of the family over recent years We owe a great debt to thosewho had the patience and were prepared to give time to answering ourquestions and telling us about Mitchell We are especially indebted toMrs Helen Mitchell for her interest, encouragement, and help and to

Dr Jennifer Moyle for her help We would also like to record our ciation of the advice offered by Professor Mårten Wikström (University

appre-of Helsinki) on chapters 9 and 11 and to Dr Harmke Kamminga versity of Cambridge) on chapters 3 and 4

(Uni-The biography is based primarily on interviews with Mitchell himself,discussions with scientists who knew him, and his published papers, butparticularly on the extensive files of letters and other papers he left when

he died While this work has been proceeding, Mitchell’s papers have nowbeen catalogued and are housed in the library of the University of Cam-bridge The letters are mostly from the Glynn period (1964–1992), althoughthere are some from earlier years Thus the major resource for the early pe-riod has been interviews, while the later years have relied heavily onarchives, principally Mitchell’s archives, but we have also drawn to a

limited extent from Professor E C Slater’s archives at Haarlem in theNetherlands Wherever possible, significant points have been confirmedfrom more than one source, and we have consulted published records such

as the Cambridge University Reporter for the Cambridge period (1939–1955).

Mitchell was a very complex person, and we have discovered people’s memories of events in which he was involved, and their feel-ings about him, vary widely We offer this biography as our best inter-pretation of his life on the basis of the material available to us, but

we are aware that some of his contemporaries will have differentviews

Mitchell left relatively few laboratory notes, and the ones we foundare almost exclusively from the Edinburgh period (1956–1963) He didnot keep good records of his experiments, and those that have survivedare sketchy; they can be interpreted only with difficulty and some un-certainty They were originally housed in binders, but by the time wesaw them in the last days of the Glynn Research Institute, they were al-most all loose and mostly undated During the Glynn period, the labo-ratory notes were probably kept exclusively by Jennifer Moyle, who, re-grettably, has forbidden access during her lifetime

There are special problems about writing a scientific biography of atwentieth-century scientist, which relate to the nature of the science.While the central reason for writing about Mitchell is the achievement

of his science, the essential character of that science itself is not easilyconveyed to the reader because of its extremely technical nature Wehave endeavored to simplify the biochemistry but realize that, to bio-chemists, we will be seen to have glossed over, and on occasions mis-represented, important details of Mitchell’s and also other scientists’work We also appreciate that our attempts to eliminate the technicaldetail may not have gone far enough for some readers, and, to givesome assistance to them, we have added an appendix on the theories ofoxidative phosphorylation

We would like to acknowledge the help of Dr Peter Rich, who ceeded Peter Mitchell as director of the Glynn Research Institute andwho gave us access to Mitchell’s papers before they were transferred

suc-to Cambridge The many others who have given us their time, advice,and support are listed in the acknowledgments Their generosity andfriendship are greatly appreciated We are indebted to our editor, KirkJensen, and his colleagues at Oxford University Press for their help

Finally we are most grateful to Professor Sir Tom Blundell for

agreeing to write the foreword to this work in which he has shown terest and given encouragement.

in-Royal Holloway, University of London J P

California State University, Fullerton B W

and Bennington College, Vermont

October 2001

C P LeeAlbert LehningerAlan MaddyAubry ManningVanessa MartinEileen McNeil (formerly Eileen Mitchell)Helen MitchellJeremy MitchellPeter MitchellMurdoch MitchisonHarold MorowitzJennifer MoyleDon NorthcoteSam PerryMax PerutzLord George Porter

Ef RackerBob ReidBryan RobertsonDaniel RobertsonSir Rutherford Robertson

We would also like to acknowledge those who corresponded with

us about Peter Mitchell: Ernest Gale, Eva Ibbotson, Yasuo Kagawa, JoanKeilin-Whiteley, James Moore, Harold Morowitz, Jennifer Moyle, Sandy(A G.) Ogston, Sir Rudolph Peters, Sir Rutherford Robertson, Bill (E.C.) Slater, Nobuhito Sone, Ian West, and Mårten Wikström

We wish to acknowledge financial support from the AmericanPhilosophical Society (B W.), Burroughs-Wellcome (B W.), the NationalScience Foundation (B W.), and the Wellcome Trust (J P.)

We express our appreciation to those who kindly read all or part ofthe manuscript: David Depew, Chuck Dyke, Ann Marshall, GideonMitchell, Harold Morowitz, Jack Pridham, and Peter Rich However,any errors are solely our responsibility

We are grateful to those who have given permission to reproducematerial from their published work or letters to Mitchell or others: Hel-mut Beinert, Paul Boyer, Britton Chance, Brian Chappell, Michael Gor-don, Franklin Harold, Peter Hinkle, Andre Jagendorf, Jennifer Moyle,Sergio Papa, Gottfried Schatz, Bill (E C.) Slater, Ian West, Mårten Wik-ström, and Bob (R J P.) Williams We acknowledge the permission ofthe Cambridge University Library to reproduce material from PeterMitchell’s letters and unpublished material

Finally, we wish to thank Professor Britton Chance and Dr HelenDavies for copies of letters and Mrs Helen Mitchell for her diary of theNobel Prize celebrations and Peter Mitchell’s diary for the refurbish-ment of Glynn

C o n t e n t s

Foreword, by Sir Tom Blundell xv

Chronology xix

1 Prologue: Who Was Peter Mitchell? 3

2 Early Years and Education: 1920–1939 10

3 The Early Cambridge Years: 1939–1947 24

4 Research at Cambridge: 1947–1955 44

5 Edinburgh: 1955–1963 64

6 The Creation of Glynn: 1962–1965 96

7 Testing the Theory: 1965–1968 115

8 Exploring the Implications of the Theory: 1969–1973 146

9 Getting the Arithmetic Right: 1974–1976 170

10 From Review to Nobel Prize: 1977–1978 195

11 The Cytochrome Oxidase Controversy: 1977–1986 222

12 Science for Humanity: 1985–1992 248

13 Epilogue: Mitchell and Glynn 269

Appendix: Theories of Oxidative Phosphorylation 278

F o r e w o r d

The popular image of science bears little relationship to what most novative scientists do Stories in the newspapers often depict science asstrong on authority, reinforcing the image of the scientist as an expertwho can reveal truths that are unassailable and unalterable.1 Sciencewriters who use a detective story approach to scientific explanation re-inforce the same sense of certainty Many science students consider sci-entific theories to be unchanging and offer exact predictions Scientificexperiments are often considered exercises that have a right answer thatstudents fail to deliver most of the time.2Science is characterized asfrom unanswered questions to unquestioned answers

in-For those who have such views of science, this biography will come as a shock Peter Mitchell was a larger-than-life individual whochanged the way we think about the key processes of energy metabo-lism and membrane transport in living organisms His work was surrounded by controversy and uncertainty For several decades twotheories—or perhaps more correctly, hypotheses—competed with hisfor recognition, in what was known as the “ox phos wars.” Mitchell andhis talented experimentalist coworker, Jennifer Moyle, had to repeatmany of the experiments on which they had based their theory as theywere challenged elsewhere in Europe and in the United States Evenwhen Mitchell had received the Nobel Prize for his work, there was stilluncertainty and controversy about detailed mechanisms

Of course, Mitchell was an unusual scientist He was brought up inupper-middle-class affluence, with money from one of the U.K.’s mostsuccessful builders, which was run by his uncle Not too many researchstudents could afford a Rolls Royce in Cambridge in the 1940s By in-

stinct he was nonideological; he despised what he characterized as thehothouse atmosphere of Marxism that he found in the department ofbiochemistry in Cambridge Those who knew him in Cambridge at thattime found that he had an assurance and ruthlessness found amongstthe rich He dressed flamboyantly and wore his hair long, looking likeBeethoven His natural independence of mind was reinforced by theconfidence of his class

But Mitchell did not have things all his own way His ate exams were not a success; he gained only a third-class pass in hisfirst year at Cambridge University His Ph.D dissertation was a mixture

undergradu-of theory and somewhat unrelated experiment; he was asked to mit by his examiners Indeed, even at this early stage in his career, hismain interest was to establish a theoretical framework, devising experi-ments only thereafter Whereas this approach was accepted as neces-sary in some areas of theoretical physics and astronomy, where experi-ments are difficult and expensive, it was certainly unconventional in thelife sciences For a community that was used to devising experiments in

resub-a series of cresub-areful steps, eresub-ach resub-arising out of the previous, this resub-approresub-achraised eyebrows It also led to the appearance, and probably to the prac-tice, that experiments needed as controls had not been done appropri-ately Indeed, this was the view of Hans Krebs, another Nobel Prizewinner, on listening to one of Mitchell’s early talks

Biochemistry in Cambridge is now a large department with overfour hundred researchers In the 1940s, when Mitchell started his re-search, it was known as the Dunn Institute of Biochemistry and wasmuch smaller It occupied less than a quarter of the present space, butwith a cabin annex and space made available in the neighboringMolteno Institute It had been established twenty years earlier by Fred-erick Gowland Hopkins, who won the Nobel Prize for his work on vita-mins and who advised the U.K government on nutrition during theFirst World War It had become the center of biochemistry in the UnitedKingdom during the 1930s, welcoming many who were fleeing fromNazi Germany, including Hans Krebs, but also including major figureslike J B S Haldane and Joseph and Dorothy Needham Contemporarywith Mitchell were other future Nobel Prize winners, Fred Sanger andRodney Porter The department was clearly a very exciting place wherescientific history was being made by many talented researchers work-ing cheek to jowl When challenged by my colleagues now about the in-sufficient space they have for their experiments in the present depart-ment of biochemistry, I have occasionally remarked that it is presently

much greater than that allocated to Mitchell, Porter, and Sanger fiftyyears ago, and they all got Nobel Prizes! But in reality, space seems tohave been as much an issue then as now.

Mitchell was a controversial figure in many ways His unusualmethods of approaching his science clearly contributed to his success inpursuing his ideas, but these approaches were often seen as weaknesses

by his peers His preference for working things out from first principleswas certainly a strength when a shift in paradigm thinking was re-quired, but it was often perceived as a failure to review the literaturecarefully as a first step Moreover, he did not seem to like reading, a fea-ture evident from his school days The authors often refer to his interest

in philosophy, but chiefly to his reading of Ogden and Richards’s

Mean-ing of MeanMean-ing, and also to Popper and Heraclitus And he clearly did

not join the many others who listened to the influential lectures ofWittgenstein, Ayer, Russell, and others in Cambridge at the time Later,

he did realize that he had not read around his subject properly, and only then spent time reviewing the complex biochemistry of oxidativephosphorylation

Mitchell had a very focused approach to supervision of research

He was reprimanded early in his career at Cambridge for setting goalsthat were too well defined for the research student whose work he wassupervising One wonders whether his approach was appropriate forresearch training But his interaction with Jennifer Moyle through sev-eral decades of collaboration was remarkably successful He was alsoappreciated by his technical staff at Glynn And of course it worked: hedeveloped a new area of science, with a relatively small team, and with-out much of the infrastructure on which other institutions depended

In reading this biography, I found myself often asking whetherMitchell needed to be so uncompromising about his science Perhaps itwas necessary to sustain his more holistic approach in terms of the strongtheoretical framework of the chemiosmotic theory But perhaps it wasmore his nervousness about having his theory diluted and his ideas lost

in the process I still find his treatment of the debate with Bob Williams,the very imaginative and original Oxford chemist, quite extraordinary

An open publication of their extensive correspondence in the 1960s, gether with a recognition that it had taken place, would have allowed amore balanced assessment of the development of the theory and wouldhave been a fair response to Williams’s generosity in discussing his ideasearlier Mitchell’s reactions to the conformational model of Paul Boyerare also difficult to understand, especially with the advantage of the sub-

to-sequent work of Boyer, John Walker, and others It is clear that tional change does play a major role in coupling transport and me-tabolism and in many of the concepts complementary to those of thechemiosmotic theory But then it does take an extraordinary person to se-cure a paradigm shift in scientific thinking This biography makes it clearthat Peter Mitchell was such an extraordinary person.

August 2001

C h r o n o l o g y

1920 Mitchell born in Mitcham, Surrey, England

1931 Entered Queen’s College, Taunton

1939 Entered Jesus College, Cambridge

1942 Graduated in biochemistry with upper second class honors

1944 Married Eileen Rollo

1948 Collaboration with Jennifer Moyle commenced

1951 Awarded the Ph.D degree

1954 First marriage ended

1955 Moved to Edinburgh University to set up the chemical biologyunit in the zoology department

1958 Married Helen Robertson

First published use of the term chemiosmotic

1961 Published the first version of the chemiosmotic hypothesis

1963 Resigned from appointment at Edinburgh University

1964 Established with Moyle Glynn Research Ltd and the Glynn

Research Laboratories at Bodmin, Cornwall, England

Beginning of the further evaluation of the chemiosmotic

hypothesis

1966 The revised version of the chemiosmotic theory published

1972 Failed ear operation renders Mitchell almost completely deaf

1975 Publication of the Q cycle

1977 Nervous breakdown

Awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry

Name of the laboratories changed to Glynn Research Institute

1981 Awarded the Copley Medal of the Royal Society

1983 Retirement of Jennifer Moyle

1985 Glynn Research Ltd renamed Glynn Research Foundation Ltd

1986 Conclusion of the disputes on the arithmetic of proton

translocation

1987 Mitchell retired

1990 Celebration of Glynn’s silver jubilee

1992 Death of Peter Mitchell

1996 Glynn Research Institute closed

1998 Glynn Laboratory of Bioenergetics opened at University College,London

W a n d e r i n g i n t h e g a r d e n s o f t h e m i n d

1

Prologue

Who Was Peter Mitchell?

The life of Peter Dennis Mitchell (1920–1992), like that of most people, ischaracterized by complexities, contradictions, and paradoxes Biogra-phers, to the extent that they succeed, can capture only partially therichness of the phenomenon of another human being and his or her ac-tion in the world Our knowledge is limited, no matter how much de-tailed information is available Thus this biography inevitably repre-sents an interpretation of Mitchell’s life from several of the numerousperspectives possible This problem is compounded by the fact that thesubject was a scientist, and much of Mitchell’s creativity and passionwere engaged in activities that required both a technical and a specialistknowledge Hence, there is a need to balance the personal and the sci-entific, as well as to endeavor to make the science as accessible as pos-sible to a broader audience Moreover, in this book we deal with an additional factor, the “life” of Mitchell’s private, independent researchinstitute, the Glynn Research Foundation

Peter Mitchell, British biochemist and Nobel laureate, broughtabout a paradigm shift in one area of biology—bioenergetics, the fieldthat looks at obtaining and using energy in cells Although initially anacademic in Cambridge and Edinburgh Universities, he became disillu-sioned with university life and set up his own research institute atGlynn near Bodmin in Cornwall, England To house his institute satis-factorily, Mitchell bought a derelict Georgian manor house, which herenovated, giving part to the institute and keeping part for a familyhome While the roots of Mitchell’s science are in his education and ex-periences at Cambridge and early career at Edinburgh, it was at theGlynn Research Institute that Mitchell developed, deployed, tested, and

argued for his ideas about energy transformation in living cells When

he founded Glynn in the early 1960s, Mitchell consciously undertook adouble experimental program First, he set out to test his theory (origi-nally formulated while he was in Edinburgh); second, he sought to findout whether world-class science could be accomplished in a small insti-tute, remote from the usual pressures of university life, but also withoutthe supportive environment of academic science In both of these hewas successful

Peter Mitchell’s life spanned much of the twentieth century His mal education was drawn from the ethos that prevailed in England up tothe Second World War His initial head of department at Cambridge, SirFrederick Gowland Hopkins, had fashioned the department at Cam-bridge in the prewar years, and his ideas had dominated the field far be-yond Mitchell was nurtured in the intellectual milieu of that period.However, he made his contribution to biological thinking in the secondhalf of the twentieth century, which was a very different world Hismajor contribution—the theory for which he is most remembered, thechemiosmotic theory—was not formulated until 1961 and was not prop-erly understood in the field until the 1970s It was in this latter decadethat the bioenergetic community finally felt the full force of his ideas

for- Mitchell’s Achievement, Contributions,

and Controversies

Mitchell’s two major contributions to biology, well documented in temporary textbooks of biochemistry, concern the link between the oxi-dation of foodstuffs by oxygen and the conservation of energy as ATP(adenosine triphosphate) ATP is the energy currency of the cell and isformed in the small particles (organelles) in the cell that are known asmitochondria The link between ATP formation and the oxidation offoodstuffs had been a mystery that puzzled biochemists for some thirtyyears To try to solve the puzzle, a hypothetical chemical intermediatehad been proposed, but despite enormous effort and expenditure ofmoney, particularly in Europe and North America, such intermediatescould not be found One philosopher regarded the field as havingreached a state little short of crisis It was against this background thatMitchell proposed his chemiosmotic theory in 1961, his first major con-tribution, which described the link between oxidation (cellular respira-tion) and ATP synthesis (phosphorylation) as a gradient of protons

con-(with an accompanying electrical potential) across a biological brane Oxidation (respiration) would create the gradient; the gradientwould be used to drive ATP synthesis Therefore, while his contempo-raries saw the link as a chemical substance, Mitchell saw it as a gradient

mem-of protons (with an accompanying electrical potential) Such a mental change in thinking was not easily accepted, and it took at least afurther fifteen years for most of the field to accept Mitchell’s proposals,

funda-a period of much debfunda-ate thfunda-at often becfunda-ame contentious

Mitchell’s second major contribution, in 1975, was to propose amechanism whereby some of the protons were moved across the mem-brane; this became known as the Q cycle While the Q-cycle proposalcan be seen as an adventurous and imaginative interpretation of theavailable experimental evidence, the original chemiosmotic theorylacked any direct evidence when it was formulated It is true that therewas circumstantial evidence, mainly drawn from other fields of re-search, but the question arises for the chemiosmotic theory: Where did

it come from? Such a question is best answered within a consideration

of Mitchell’s life and thought

Mitchell was endowed with a strong personality, and without it hemight never have emerged as one of the significant figures of twentieth-century biology At a cursory glance, his life might seem to be a series ofdisputes that commence as early as the Cambridge period The mostimportant controversy concerned the mechanism for gaining energyfrom the oxidation of foodstuffs, the chemiosmotic theory Here heeventually surmounted initial hostility to his ideas from the leaders ofthe research community, whose views he sought to change In 1978 hewas the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry This award re-flected Mitchell’s achievement not only in solving a major problem intwentieth-century biochemistry and cell biology but also in unifyingseveral areas of research within a common conceptual framework Fur-ther, it confirmed that significant research could be conducted at a smallinstitute, such as Glynn

As often happens with the Nobel Prize, there was controversy insome quarters about Mitchell’s selection and a dispute over the origi-nality and priority of his theory, which continues to this day Even asMitchell triumphed in getting the qualitative aspects of his theory ac-cepted by most of his peers, new disputes broke out The controversiesthat emerged in the mid-1970s concerned the quantitative aspects of hisproposals and lasted for a further decade They involved both the de-tailed mechanisms for moving protons across membranes, as proposed

by Mitchell, and the quantitative results obtained in Mitchell’s andother laboratories This second round of controversies mostly wentagainst Mitchell.

Mitchell’s last years were spent reformulating aspects of his theory

to bring it into accord with experimental findings and attempting to cure funding and a stable future for the Glynn Research Institute as anindependent entity Glynn did survive Mitchell’s death in 1992, butonly for a few years

se-Mitchell is regarded as one of the “superstars” of biochemistry His

picture is included in many contemporary textbooks of biochemistry,where the basic insights of his chemiosmotic theory are presented as acentral and unifying conceptual framework, tying together what hadpreviously appeared to be disparate phenomena Indeed, Mitchell was

featured in a millennium essay in Nature, where his contribution was

compared with that of Darwin and Einstein.1This echoed earlier praisals that likened Mitchell’s contribution in cell bioenergetics to aparadigm change comparable to the Copernican,2 although it is tooearly to know whether such views are justified

ap- Mitchell the Man

Anyone who met and interacted with Peter Mitchell was impressed bythe originality and force of his intellect and personality They usuallyalso responded to an impishness and youthful demeanor and to the energy and enthusiasm of his wide-ranging interests He could be for-midable and playful, simultaneously or by turns He valued gentle-ness, but he could be as aggressive as any scientist who competes at thehighest levels People were drawn to his elfin looks and to his charm.Mitchell’s last days were characterized by both an élan and grace, ac-cording to one eyewitness, that reflected his life But what of Mitchellthe man who left an indelible mark on the history of twentieth-centurybiology?

Through most of his life Mitchell had no shortage of money Hisparents lived a very comfortable but not ostentatious life It was hisuncle, Godfrey Mitchell, known as “Uncle G,” who was a very success-ful businessman and who endowed Peter Mitchell with both moneyand a window into the commercial world This family background in-stilled in Mitchell a confidence and entrepreneurial sensibility thatmarked him throughout his life

Indeed, it was Mitchell’s supreme confidence and fierce dence that characterized his approach to science, coupled with an ability

indepen-to figure out things on his own He possessed a self-assurance about thecorrectness of his insights into nature that almost, but not quite, bordered

on arrogance He preferred learning something new by thinking about itfrom first principles rather than reading accounts in standard textbooks,

a habit started in his schooldays that continued throughout his career Early in his life, his artistic temperament expressed itself in a deeplove of Romantic music and visual art, and as a student he affected thehairstyle and general demeanor of Beethoven, as is evidenced in thesketch of him at that time by the artist Elizabeth Vellacott Later in hislife, deafness severely hampered his ability to enjoy music

He was a colorful and somewhat eccentric dresser There was aflamboyant aspect to Mitchell, certainly in his younger days, when hewore vibrant coats and pants; later, after he received the Nobel Prize, hesported an earring The choice of the fine Georgian house at Glynn, inwhich he accommodated his family and the institute, was consistentwith this aspect of Mitchell’s self-image Through the formality of theinstitute’s founding and management, he sought to give his institute anadministration comparable to that of much larger bodies

Mitchell’s confidence, creativity, and love of independent actionshaped his approach to science and to much else He had no hesitation

in extensively remodeling the first two homes he owned, and, moving

on from that experience, he enthusiastically undertook the two-yearrestoration of Glynn House by directing the work Subsequently, he re-stored a number of ancient buildings in Cornwall Mitchell, a city boyand academic, took on running a dairy farm that was initially part ofthe Glynn House complex of buildings, and he won awards for thequality of the cream He also engaged in various quixotic activities such

as minting his own silver “Glynn pieces”; he initiated schemes, whichdid not come to fruition, for bottling and selling spring water from theestate, and he designed a windmill for electricity generation

 Mitchell the Scientist

Much of Mitchell’s approach to science can be understood in terms ofhis personality He had a passionate, creative, confident, and imagina-tive engagement in his research His strength lay more in the develop-ment of theory rather than in the life and work of the laboratory His

highly imaginative mind, coupled with his artistic temperament, gavehim the ability to develop a unique approach to the study of livingthings Although his work centered on the study of cell membranes andmembranes in small particles within cells (mitochondria and chloro-plasts), it was derived from a consideration of the basic properties ofliving things

In contrast to most biochemists of his generation, Mitchell felt thatunderstanding the molecular basis of life was best accomplished by anintense formulation of theory, which became the driving force for ex-periment, rather than the empirically driven experimental approach ofmost biochemists of his day Mitchell had a deeply intuitive sense ofhow chemical processes in living beings were organized, which grewout of his own philosophy He developed a way of thinking about therelationship of static biological structures with dynamic processes; hefelt such ideas were supported in the work of the pre-Socratic philoso-pher Heraclitus Thus his abiding metaphor for a living system was theflame, which is sustained as molecules pass into it, undergo reactions(burning), and pass out again as the products of combustion This gavehim a three-dimensional view of molecules passing into a cell and un-dergoing metabolic reactions, then the products leaving the cell He sawthe membrane as controlling these processes, and the study of move-ment of substances across membranes linked to metabolism gave himhis insights into how biological systems worked This represented atype of personal knowledge and an interpretative principle that wasfoundational to his creative scientific thought The principle was onesource of his successful insights, as well as a possible reason for his reluctance to give up aspects of his mechanism in the face of contraryevidence in the post-Nobel period

 Glynn

Mitchell had difficulty working within systems and in particular withauthority when it impinged on his freedom of thought and action Thistrait limited his academic career in the department of biochemistry atCambridge in the early 1950s, leading him to seek the somewhat moreopen structure of the department of zoology at Edinburgh Ultimately,his efforts to work even within this more congenial environment werefrustrated; he found university life too onerous, and this led to a dete-rioration of his health and to his resignation from Edinburgh

He was fortunate to have considerable money available from hisfamily, such that, in 1964, he was able to fund Glynn Research Limited

as an independent, private research organization that managed theGlynn Research Laboratories At Glynn, Mitchell finally had the scope

to work unfettered by the usual constraints and demands of academiclife It took great confidence and independence to weather the firestorm

of controversy that greeted his efforts to support his theoretical claimsduring the “heroic” phase of his work at Glynn It was during this pe-riod (1964–1977) that he moved most of the field to accept the phe-nomena his theory predicted However, the personal traits and theseclusion and academic isolation of Glynn that served him so well in hisbattle with the scientific establishment also proved to be a limitation insome of the subsequent controversies over the quantitative evidence.These later debates, which took place during the period 1975–1985, seri-ously threatened the mechanisms Mitchell had proposed as elucida-tions of his chemiosmotic theory By the end of this time, he was forced

to concede the correctness of his critics’ experimental data However,rather than countenancing the widely accepted mechanistic schemes ofhis opponents, he reformulated some of his mechanisms within his gen-eral conceptual framework of vectorial (directional) chemistry Conse-quently, he sought to preserve what he regarded as his fundamental in-sight into biological processes

It was only in the special environment of Glynn that Mitchell wasable to give full rein to his creativity and to his uniquely idiosyncratic

approach Since Glynn did not exist, he had to invent it There was no

institutional structure at universities or government laboratories thatcould give Mitchell such independence and autonomy and, because ofits small scale, the focus and lack of bureaucracy that Glynn afforded If

he had not founded Glynn, it is not clear how Mitchell and his ideaswould have fared Glynn was probably essential to Mitchell’s survivaland success as a scientist, and the story of Mitchell’s life after 1963 andthe history of Glynn are almost synonymous

31and his mother, Kate Beatrice Dorothy (née Taplin) Mitchell, was 27.They had married in 1914 just before World War I broke out An olderson, Christopher John (Bill) Mitchell, was born in 1916.

The Mitchell family was from Dorset, but it is not clear how manygenerations may have lived there or what occupation they followed.Family lore was that they were descended from seventeenth-centuryFrench Huguenot immigrants named Michelle and the name had beenanglicized to Mitchell Although some of the family suspect that a few

of their ancestors were engaged in smuggling,1Peter Mitchell liked tothink that at least some of his forebears had been pirates in the EnglishChannel.2What is certain is that Peter Mitchell’s grandfather, Christo-pher Mitchell, was trained as a stone mason but rose to be manager of aquarry in Portland, the Portland Stone Works Christopher Mitchell wasambitious and an able businessman whose investments included thefirm Minimax, which made fire extinguishers and of which he later be-came director Probably in the 1880s he moved to Peckham, London,and became a clerk of works employed by the London County Council.His quarrying expertise led to his forming a partnership with MatthewAscot Rowe, who had made his fortune in the United States The firmRowe and Mitchell brought granite from quarries in Alderney to Lon-don to make road surfacing for the various London boroughs Christo-pher Mitchell married Margaret Way of Weymouth and had two sons,Christopher Gibbs Mitchell, born in 1889, and Godfrey Way Mitchell,born in 1891

Of particular significance to Peter Mitchell was his father’s younger

brother, Godfrey, Peter’s “Uncle G.” Godfrey attended the academicallyexcellent Haberdashers’ Aske’s School at Hatcham where he shone inmathematics and science On leaving school at 16, he went into his father’s business rather than further his formal education Because ofthe wartime increase of shipping rates and the death of Rowe, coupledwith serious illnesses of both father and son, the Mitchells sold theirbusiness, and Christopher Mitchell retired During the war, Godfreyserved as a captain in the Royal Engineers, running quarries in the Pas

de Calais using German prisoners as his workforce In 1919, shortlyafter returning from the war, with his father’s help, he purchased asmall, insolvent construction company, George Wimpey and CompanyLtd The firm had been founded in 1880 and had a good reputation until

it fell on hard times after the death of George Wimpey in 1913 By 1927,Godfrey Mitchell had expanded the activities of the company into pri-vate home building, and more than 300,000 homes had been built in England by the time of Godfrey’s death in 1982 During World War II,Wimpey Construction built ninety-eight airfields, as well as balloon stations, docks, and army camps, for which activities Godfrey wasknighted in 1948 After the war, he further expanded the company’s op-erations, building Heathrow Airport and many other major projects inEngland and overseas In 1934 Wimpey went public, but Godfrey andhis father retained 57 percent of the ordinary shares.3Wimpey has sub-sequently become one of the largest contractors in Europe Gifts ofshares of this stock became a major factor in Peter Mitchell’s later life,allowing him not only considerable economic freedom but also fundinghis research and research institute Peter Mitchell felt he knew the rea-son for his uncle’s great success: “He had an idea that a good business islike a living organism and that there should be a strong devolution ofresponsibility for the different kinds of activities.”4Peter Mitchell al-ways enjoyed visits to Uncle G’s because his conversation reflected akeen and nimble intellect interested in social, economic, philosophical,and religious matters These, apart from the last, were to become abid-ing concerns of Peter’s, too

that the basic personalities of his father and his uncle were very ent; whereas Godfrey was confident, Christopher was diffident DuringWorld War I Christopher served as a captain in the army, although thefamily, especially his wife, did not consider that he had distinguishedhimself for bravery After the war, he took a position as an engineeringinspector at the National Ministry of Transport He had a responsiblejob and came to supervise over seventy staff members He designedand oversaw the construction of roads for about a fifth of the country,mainly the Midlands, and he was responsible for the controversial inno-vation of one-way streets He received an Order of the British Empire(OBE) for his services, a not uncommon award for a successful civil ser-vant of his standing

differ-Peter remembered his father as a slight and short man with a limitedsense of humor, although he referred to his OBE as his “Old Boiled Egg.”

He also had a short temper and brought home the stress of his place He was able in mathematics and was an avid bridge, golf, and ten-nis player, but he had little interest in art or music Nor was he particu-larly interested in philosophy or religion, and he did not attend church

work-In general, he was viewed by his wife and sons as not being interested inmuch other than his job; he relaxed by playing games Although he wasclearly concerned with providing for his family and giving his sons agood education, he was not successful to the degree that his youngerbrother Godfrey was He did not form a strong emotional bond with hisboys, especially in the case of Peter, a situation that worsened as Christo-pher’s marriage began to unravel Later, he committed suicide, an eventthat had an impact on Peter In fact, Peter was much more influenced byhis mother, but he also seemed to look for a father substitute This rolewas soon to be filled by his headmaster at Queen’s College, ChristopherLuke Wiseman, and later by the eminent biochemist, David Keilin

 Mother

Peter Mitchell’s mother, Kate Beatrice Dorothy Taplin, was born in 1892.She was the daughter of William George Taplin and Rosetta (née King)Taplin, who lived in a relatively less affluent section of Fulham, Lon-don Late in his life, Peter Mitchell asserted that William Taplin’smother had been Jewish and his wife was of Polish Jewish extraction It

is not clear if this was indeed so, but it is interesting that Mitchell’s image was that of being of partial Jewish descent Indeed, Mitchell

self-seems to have regarded the only interesting people in England as “theCelts, the foreigners and the Jews.”5In any event, it appears that the Ta-plins, like the Mitchells, were conventionally observant of the religiouspractice of the day, although Peter Mitchell could not recall any timewhen either set of grandparents ever talked about religion or God.William Taplin was a commercial traveler and wholesaler who sold tosmall-town grocers and was only modestly successful However, he val-ued education highly and encouraged his daughters’ academic efforts.Kate received a scholarship to attend the Haberdashers’ Aske’s School(for girls); Christopher Mitchell had attended the boys’ school Uponcompletion of her course of study, Kate was sent for a year to a finishingschool in Switzerland to increase her knowledge of literature and arts,

as well as to improve her French

Peter Mitchell recalled that his mother was a tall woman (over fivefoot ten, and taller than her husband) and was very beautiful with darkhair and eyes She was a gentle, shy person but of firm will and inde-pendent thought and action She had strong artistic perceptiveness and

an abiding interest in visual arts and music, but unlike her husband shedisliked any form of games or sports.6Her face reflected her serious-ness and moral earnestness, but she could break into a most charmingsmile with ease Kate was a talented amateur musician who made cer-tain that her sons’ environment at home reflected her interests She tookher young sons regularly to the promenade concerts at the Queen’sHall, thus helping to inculcate in them a lifelong love of classical music.She was a rationalistic atheist, whom Peter Mitchell characterized asnonaggressive and whose deep concern about philosophical issues andquestions of morality reflected an innate religious nature put off bydogma Among Kate’s favorite authors were Marcus Aurelius andBertrand Russell

Christopher Mitchell and Kate Taplin apparently met during theirschool days, although the nature and duration of their courtship anddecision to marry seem not to have become part of the family lore Theywere married on 3 July 1914 in the Wesleyan Methodist Church on KittoStreet, Nunhead, in Greenwich, London Christopher was then a firstlieutenant in the Royal Infantry and reportedly cut a dashing figure inhis uniform Pictures of Kate at that time suggest both intelligence andshyness However long they had known each other, it is likely that theyhad married primarily because of a physical attraction and in haste be-cause of the possibility of war The Mitchell family considered the Ta-plins to be social inferiors, which was to become one source of strain on

the marriage of Kate and Christopher Mitchell Unfortunately for thedurability of their marriage, Kate and Christopher Mitchell were of dif-ferent temperaments and interests in ways that clashed rather thancomplemented

 Growing Up in the Family

One of Peter Mitchell’s earlier memories was of a fierce row between hisparents concerning the day maid, after which he recalls that his parentsseemed increasingly estranged Shortly afterward, Kate Mitchell began

to behave more independently, learning to drive and purchasing a car

of her own The bickering between Kate and her husband intensified.Eventually Peter’s father came to feel the object of a family conspiracyagainst him since the boys tended to side with their mother

Other early memories of Peter Mitchell were of visits to his parents, usually on Sundays, about once a month to each family Bythen his paternal grandparents, Christopher and Margaret Mitchell,had moved to a grand house in the upper-middle-class neighborhood

grand-of Ealing, complete with several servants The visits there were stiff, mal, and boring for young boys The only compensation was that asthey left, Grandfather Mitchell gave the boys a ten-shilling note each, aconsiderable sum at that time In contrast, the boys looked forward tovisits with William and Rosetta Taplin, who lived in a modest home inFulham, an area Peter Mitchell regarded as Jewish Visits there were in-formal and relaxed; the boys were encouraged to play in the garden,and no concern was shown if they got their clothes dirty Peter Mitchellrecalled especially the odors in the Taplin home, of pipe tobacco, herbs,spices, and in the cellar an aroma of wood from his grandfather’swoodcarving hobby In recollection in 1991, Peter Mitchell recalled thishome as having a slightly exotic, Middle Eastern or Jewish character

for-He also recalled visits to another of his mother’s relatives, an “UncleHinkle” who seemed even more Jewish and whose home was filledwith even more exotic odors The contrast of the family traditions leftPeter feeling even closer to his mother

Kate Mitchell was not one to enforce rules for their own sake or totreat children as other than personalities of their own When Peter wasabout 1 or 2 years old, his older brother came in from playing and an-nounced that henceforth he was to be known as “Bill” and not asChristopher John He had met a friendly workman down the street who

seemed to be just the sort of chap he would like to be, and the man’s name was Bill Kate respected her son’s wish and henceforth hewas Bill Bill’s father was not pleased, but he finally accepted the namechange

work-As a young boy, Peter brought home all sorts of junk from which hewould construct various mechanical devices Kate’s response would be,

“Oh, Peter, what a dirty old rusty thing Well, come on, put it in thekitchen.” The fact that she let him keep such things and even helpedhim clean them further cemented the relationship between them Katealso helped Peter with his collection of different-colored birds’ eggs col-lected on Peter’s many sojourns in the nearby woods Later she toler-ated his and Bill’s experiments making gunpowder and other explo-sives After a particularly loud report, she reacted by saying, “Oh, yes,Bill and Pete, I did hear a rather big bang If you do something stupidyou’ll hurt yourself But you take whatever risks you want to take, and

if you kill yourselves, well, that’s pretty stupid.” Kate constantly forced her notion of personal responsibility even as she acted as a co-conspirator in their less paternally approved activities A few yearslater, Peter was making hydrogen from zinc and hydrochloric acid in aflask that exploded, glass fragments entering Peter’s legs Peter rusheddown the stairs pulling off his trousers, to which his mother responded,

rein-“Oh, what have you done now? This is silly Get the tweezers I’ll pullout the pieces of glass.” Peter later commented, “I suppose all that was

a very good training for an adventurous person, never to be forbidden

to do something stupid But of course, we had one or two accidents, fortunately nothing fatal We learned by our own mistakes and becamereally quite sensible and responsible people.”7

 Early Schooling

Peter Mitchell entered Streatham Grammar School in the autumn of

1926, a small, one-room school with twenty students of all levels At thistime he was more interested in exploring woods or participating intrack events, for which he had considerable ability A year later, Peterand his brother, Bill, were transferred to Barrow Hedges School in Car-shalton Christopher Mitchell, who was now earning more money, built

a new, larger home for his family, Mayfield House, on West Way, in themore salubrious neighborhood of Carshalton Beeches The school wasnot particularly distinguished, and, although Bill was happy enough

there, Peter hated it, except for the instruction in mathematics He called that he frequently feigned illness and stayed at home in order tohave time on his own in the well-equipped workshop This had been established above the garage for Bill and Peter and included a metal-working lathe There he made various devices In addition to several ra-dios, he constructed a camera of his own design with which he pho-tographed the view of the London skyline from a viewpoint in the attic.Otherwise, he spent long hours exploring the woods next to the house.Bill, who later received a degree in engineering from Cambridge, be-came increasingly bookish, whereas Peter at this stage was much morepractically minded However, they collaborated in exploring the chem-istry of explosives and in various building projects

re-In 1931 their grandfather Mitchell purchased an old Wolsey mobile so that they could take it apart to see how an internal combus-tion engine worked Their first attempt to start the rebuilt engine re-sulted in a fire because they had incorrectly fitted a valve They wereable to discover their error and correct it, from which Peter again tookthe lesson that making mistakes was part of learning A few years ear-lier, their grandfather had set up both boys with their own bank ac-counts at Lloyd’s Bank, which they were to use for such things as schoolpayments, in order that they learn how to manage money properly; healso gave them shares in Wimpey

auto- Queen’s College, Taunton

In 1931, Bill and Peter were sent to Queen’s College, Taunton, by theirparents to further their education, provide them with a healthier envi-ronment in the country, and correct the Cockney accent that the boyshad picked up from their mother The Mitchell family physician, Dr.Cameron, had had an affiliation with the college and recommended it tothe Mitchells as a place where the boys would be taught to be polite andwould not learn to swear An additional reason may well have been toremove Bill and Peter from the parents’ deteriorating marriage Since

1929 both brothers had been boarders during the week at BarrowHedges School, and when they were home on weekends their fatherwas often absent Indeed, from about 1931 on, Christopher Mitchelllived in Birmingham most of the time in order to be near his work Heand Kate were effectively though informally separated Peter Mitchellmaintained an independent if emotionally distant relationship with his

father, especially after moving to Cambridge in 1939, until his father’ssuicide in 1951 It was only much later that Peter began to appreciatethe qualities of his father that made him a success in his work, respectedand liked by his peers and subordinates.

Queen’s College was established by the Wesleyan MethodistChurch in 1843; it was designed to provide secondary education formiddle-class boys from the Methodist school of Kingswood, for minis-ters’ children, and for overseas students, especially from West Africa Itwas regarded in its time as the premier Methodist school.8Queen’s Col-lege was located about one mile outside of Taunton (in southwest En-gland) in a specifically built structure (1846) in a late Domestic Tudor

style The school’s motto non scholae sed vitae discimus, “we learn not for

scholarship but for life,” reflected the goal of providing more than demic learning to the students The Mitchells chose Queen’s because ofits scholarly reputation rather than for its religious affiliation, as theyhad never bothered to have either boy baptized Christopher Mitchellwas not particularly interested in religion, whereas Kate Mitchell was aself-defined atheist The headmaster, Mr Christopher Luke Wiseman,was a deeply religious person of a liberal and pacifist persuasion Hisbrother F Luke Wiseman was general secretary for home missions ofthe Methodist Church Headmaster Wiseman became a major influence

aca-on Peter Mitchell’s life, if not aca-on his religious beliefs

Bill went to the main school, which at that time accommodatedabout two hundred boys (although this number fell substantially dur-ing the depression), whereas Peter went to the junior school of aboutthirty boys that was located in a separate building on the grounds Ex-cept for holidays at home, the brothers saw each other for only one hour

a week In addition to daily Bible readings and hymns, Peter Mitchell’scurriculum consisted of scripture, English, Latin, French, geography,history, mathematics, and physical training When he went to the seniorschool he dropped Latin and added physics and chemistry, since bythen he knew that he wanted to study engineering or science Each Sun-day, regardless of weather, the entire school would walk the mile toTaunton in a long line to attend chapel, a distance that in 1991 Mitchellremembered as three miles Peter Mitchell would recall that the reli-gious instruction and devotion taught him a great deal about Chris-tianity but did not have the intended effect When at home on vacation,

he talked to his mother extensively about his reactions to the religiousteachings and the problems he had with dogma She did not try to per-suade him but was a good sounding board By the time he was 15, Peter

decided that he was an atheist like his mother Later in life he would corporate into this worldview notions he learned from Confucianismand Taoism.

in-In 1932 Kate Mitchell took both boys to be tested by the NationalInstitute of Industrial Psychology in London Peter Mitchell was as-sessed as having an above-average intelligence and an exceptionalability in problem solving and in mechanical aptitude The assessmentstatement concluded that Peter had a pleasant personality, and this,combined with his talents, suggested that he would have a successfuleducational and professional career.9

During the same year, Kate Mitchell, who had been a friend of theaviatrix Amy Johnson, obtained her pilot’s license and taught both ofher sons to fly Because Peter was not yet 14, he could not qualify for alicense, but Bill could and did Although Peter never went back to fly-ing, Bill continued and during the war was a flight instructor for theRoyal Navy

Music had always been important to Peter, an interest that hismother strongly encouraged Since Peter was away from ready access toconcerts and because of his desire to play a musical instrument, Katearranged for Peter to get violin lessons from a Miss King, a professionalviolinist, who came to Queen’s once a week for the lesson Peter played

in the school orchestra and also sang in both the choir and the more vanced and demanding madrigal consort Mr Wiseman, in addition tobeing a skilled mathematician and mathematics teacher, with first-classdegrees in mathematics and physics from Peterhouse College, Cam-bridge University,10was also a first-rate amateur pianist He providedinformal musical education for those boys who were seriously inter-ested in supplementing their musical education Each Sunday nightafter the normal bedtime, Peter and six or seven others would go intheir pajamas to Wiseman’s room where he would play classical musicfrom his extensive record collection on a mechanical gramophone thatone of the boys had to wind up Wiseman would then illustrate pointsabout the music on his fine Bechstein piano and do improvisations onkey passages In this fashion Wiseman not only taught music apprecia-tion but also basic music theory These evenings were among PeterMitchell’s fondest memories of his time at Queen’s

ad-Wiseman was important to Peter Mitchell beyond enriching his sical education: “It was not just the influence of these studies, but it wasWiseman’s personality, which was very gentle, civilized and refined, thataffected the way I wanted to live.”11In later life Mitchell would use terms

mu-to describe his self-ideal that were very similar mu-to those he used mu-to scribe Wiseman If Mitchell responded to Wiseman’s character and sawhim as a role model and a father substitute, Wiseman apparently re-sponded to his student’s serious musical interests, as well as his consid-erable mathematical ability Wiseman accorded Mitchell some specialprivileges Because he craved some time alone (“I didn’t find it easy toexist in a crowd, although I liked other individual boys”12), Mitchell wasallowed to rise an hour or so before the other boys and to leave the schoolgrounds so that he could have a walk in the countryside and enjoy somesolitary time In inclement weather he could find a quiet corner in the ref-erence room to read or to let his mind wander in contemplation Thesebecame habits that lasted Mitchell’s lifetime

de-Mitchell looked forward to the holidays when he would have time

at home and the opportunity to use the workshop When he expressed

to Wiseman how much he missed the times he spent making thingswith his hands, Wiseman arranged for a basement room, complete withlock, personal key, and some tools The room was made available toMitchell during the term so that he could construct his gadgets duringfree time This was time that Mitchell treasured, not only because he en-joyed the opportunity of being alone but also because he was increas-ingly applying what he was learning in his science and mathematicsclasses to help his designs and constructions Mitchell was especiallyproud of a primitive, but functioning, sound-recording machine that hemade He employed the technology of a recording head involving a lit-tle armature moving the steel stylus to cut a groove in a soft plastic discthat could be subsequently hardened As he did not have any batteries,

he had to make do with a large, old transformer Considering the rials and tools available, the gramophone recorder gave surprisinglygood results He used it as a way to record music and some of his

mate-“meditations” as he let his mind wander However, it was the actualmaking of something that was most satisfying for him

Mitchell had strongly disliked the tradition of hazing and bullyingthat he had encountered when he arrived at Queen’s, as well as a num-ber of rules that struck him as silly Initially, there was little that hecould do except chafe under the system and miss the freedom and self-responsibility that his mother had established at home When he be-came a house prefect, he tried with some success to relax some of themore stringent rules that seemed unreasonable or unproductive Then,

in his last year, when he was school prefect, he worked strenuously toabolish hazing, which he was able to do with Wiseman’s support

Given Mitchell’s love of solitude and aversion to group activities, it

is not surprising that, although a natural athlete, he did not particularlyenjoy the school’s strong rugby tradition Along with gymnastics, hemuch preferred individual track activities, such as running and jump-ing, in all of which he excelled; indeed, his name appears several times

on the athletics honors boards at Queen’s Because he was somewhatsmall for his age, he was intimidated by the physical roughness ofrugby and sought to avoid it The physical training instructor, Mr.Ward, encouraged Mitchell to participate enough to show that he wasnot afraid but realized that Mitchell’s true skills lay elsewhere How-ever, it turned out that Mitchell played well and was respected by theother boys for his courage, and for a time he was even the captain of theteam Mitchell remained grateful for Ward’s advice and sought to recall

it when he felt inclined to avoid something he did not like

Ward and an academic teacher, Mr Spencer, who was also an lent athlete, took the boys on three-week camp outings to North Devoneach year Before Bill went to Cambridge it was about the only opportu-nity, other than holidays, for the brothers to spend much time together.Both enjoyed the more relaxed and informal atmosphere this event pro-vided Ward also taught a course in basic mechanics that Peter Mitchellfound especially interesting Mitchell discovered, however, that he didnot feel he really understood what Ward was teaching until he wroteout the basic principles in the form of a short textbook using his own ex-amples This became a habitual form of learning and exploring a subjectfor Mitchell

excel-In youthful exuberance, Mitchell was in the habit of jumping downhalf a flight of stairs in the school each day on his way to classes On oneoccasion, however, he misjudged and hit his head, resulting in an ab-normal landing that badly broke his right ankle For a while the sur-geon thought that Mitchell would lose the use of his leg, but in the end

he only had a lifelong deformity in his ankle However, this did meanthat he could no longer participate in the athletics he enjoyed so much.Ultimately, this would mean that Mitchell would spend more time onhis studies In order to recover from his injury, he was laid up on hisback for three weeks, during which time he wrote an essay/text on heatengines and turbines to keep himself occupied

I remember being quite pleased by being able to calculate quitesimply from first principles that the best speed for a primitive tur-bine blade would be half the velocity of the steam jet that was

driving it I didn’t get that out of a textbook I just got it out of thetop of my head, which was quite fun I was a bit surprised that

one’s knowledge of maths was adequate to do something quite

practical like that.13

Mitchell increasingly found that he preferred to work things out fromfirst principles rather than starting from a textbook Instead, he wouldthink his own way through something and then check what he had de-duced against the textbook

The lack of appeal of standard textbooks and modes of teachingmade it difficult for Mitchell in areas other than the sciences and mathe-matics Whereas he was at or near the top of his class in these subjects,

as well as in physical training, he was only average or below average inscripture and languages In history and geography, however, he wasconsistently at the bottom of his class He earned such low marks inthese two subjects that on one occasion when he obtained 3 out of 100,

he was detained from going on holiday for three days because the structor thought that this poor performance was deliberate Retestingshowed that he just had not mastered the material because of a combi-nation of lack of interest and confusion about details due to his inatten-tion to the textbooks Some of the problem was more than lack of inter-est and reveals something of how Mitchell’s mind worked

in-History was almost entirely made up of battles, and people like

Newton didn’t exist in history at all It was all English history Andthen you had geography I always used to get muddled up becauseall the maps in the atlas were the same size and so the map of

Africa was the same size as England It was all very silly and

boring.14

It seemed to Mitchell that such subjects and approaches were not ous in their content or manner of presentation, and, further, it was notpossible to reason from first principles in these disciplines

seri-In general, Mitchell was also put off by literature An evaluation byhis English teacher was that he “did not understand the raison d’être ofEnglish literature.”15It was not just the required reading, but literature

in general that did not interest him, in spite of the fact that he had astrong imagination himself Literature seemed artificial and abstractcompared with the real things discussed in science or which could bedescribed by mathematics Later in life he wrote quite a bit about what

he saw as the conflict of the “word” and the “world” and how wordscould lead to mischief in the world However, in addition to reading

considerable reference material on music, he later recalled that he didrespond to poetry and read extensively Donne, Hardy, Eliot, and

Spender, of whom he liked Eliot best He did read Brave New World and

Eyeless in Gaza when they were published since there was so much

dis-cussion about them among his friends Nevertheless, Mitchell sponded to the imaginativeness of the language of Shakespeare and hisstrongly drawn characters One of his happiest memories was of play-ing Lady Macbeth in the school’s production; the play was covered in

re-The Daily Mail of 29 June 1934, including a picture of Mitchell in his role.

Wiseman taught the sixth-form class in calculus Since there was asmall number of students, he taught it in an informal tutorial modeusing many practical problems from Newtonian mechanics From thisMitchell felt that he gained a surer sense of the principles of calculusand also deepened his understanding of physics This further contactwith Wiseman reinforced Mitchell’s respect for him He saw in Wise-man’s approach to both intellectual and administrative problems the importance of imagination combined with analysis Most of all,Mitchell felt that through Wiseman and his mother he experienced andlearned the most important of human virtues: tolerance

Mitchell also had coursework in electricity and magnetism, as well

as in inorganic, organic, and analytical chemistry He did not larly like the way that chemistry was taught since it seemed to be pre-sented as a mass of unconnected empirical observations that in theworst case was reminiscent of history He much preferred the concep-tual structure of physics and those parts of chemistry that were pre-sented in the same spirit He felt empowered by being able to reasonfrom first principles to get the answers that interested him, or whichhad some practical application When asked much later why he had be-come a chemist, Mitchell responded that he did not know—certainly itwas not based on his experience at Queen’s He went on to say thatwhile in school he expected to become an engineer, like his brother Infact, he mused that he felt still more of an engineer in spirit than achemist However, he learned to think biologically as a physiologistwhen he went to Cambridge

particu-Mitchell expected to follow Bill to Cambridge Because he did notcare for Latin and since it seemed likely that Latin would be dropped as

a requirement for admission to Cambridge science curricula, he hadstopped taking Latin quite early It came as a shock in his final year atQueen’s to learn that passing an examination in Latin was still a Cam-bridge requirement He presented his dilemma to Wiseman, who came