THE SCIENTIST

I always saw Keith as an artist and it was clear that it was what he wanted to do. It surprised me when he abruptly left school, and I guess so did his career choice.

There is a rigour and discipline and career path that comes with what I do that does not come with what Keith does. I came to the University of Kent in 1989 to work on a project about fragrances and microbiology and have not left.

I always admire people who have skills I simply do not have. I am proud of Keith and what he has achieved, and I am glad we can do these projects together. I admire Keith and his wife Kerry, who is a photographic stylist, and the way they live. I like going to visit them because Keith is more laid-back than I am. I like to engage and enjoy the disorder, and then leave again when it gets too much.

I admire Keith’s ease and his tenacity to keep doing what he is doing. I think fundamentally we have similar interests and come from a very similar political space. We both have a strong sense of what is right and wrong.

I am a scientist and I do what I do because it interests me, and I am all for people doing what they are interested in. I do not care if they go to university or what they do, but I think that it is important that people are doing something they are enthused by.

I never saw a problem in Keith pursuing a creative and artistic career over a career like mine, and I would actually argue that there are similarities in both.

The overriding thing in science, and what I wake up for every morning, is the belief that you are going to discover something that nobody has ever seen before. Scientists often have to be creative thinkers, and it is about having something that you have discovered, or in terms of art, you have created.

To me, it is about discovery and originality and I think that is science’s commonality with art. A lot of people would say that science and art are unlikely bedfellows, and that has actually been the topic of discussion for many of Keith and I’s drunken conversations!