??? 化學(xué)家羅德?霍夫曼獲得過諾貝爾獎，但他的成功之路并不平坦,。他生于波蘭,，從納粹集中營里死里逃生。他12歲時到達(dá)美國,，就讀于紐約著名的史岱文森高中（Stuyvesant High School），然后是哥倫比亞大學(xué)（Columbia）和哈佛大學(xué)（Harvard）,。

????霍夫曼在1981年榮獲諾貝爾化學(xué)獎時年僅44歲,，但他此后并沒有不思進(jìn)取，坐享清福,。這位75歲的科學(xué)家至今已經(jīng)指導(dǎo)了超過200名研究生、博士和博士后,，還在康奈爾大學(xué)（Cornell）教授化學(xué)入門,，同時與人合作劇本，發(fā)表詩歌,。每個月的第二個星期天,，他還在紐約的科妮莉亞街咖啡館（Cornelia Street cafe）協(xié)助主持一個兼顧科學(xué)與表演的沙龍,。他最近接受了《財富》雜志的采訪，討論領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力,、分子和提倡大膽想法的心路歷程,。以下是經(jīng)過剪輯的對話稿。

????《財富》：您的研究工作可以看作是一門生意,，你是不是也是這么看的,？

????羅德?霍夫曼：是的,，你可以對我的工作做一個投入-產(chǎn)出的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析。我的成果包括560篇論文和不計其數(shù)的報告和其它事項,，但論文是最重要的成果,。我的業(yè)務(wù)就是提出想法,，沒有專利、版權(quán)或是別的什么考慮,。有趣吧？投入就是每年20萬到30萬美元的研究經(jīng)費(fèi),，用于雇員和合作者的開支,，產(chǎn)出就是560篇科學(xué)論文。

?????這是不是有點像做生意,，得要點管理技巧,？

????在科學(xué)領(lǐng)域,，我們發(fā)表的所有論文幾乎都是和其它研究小組合作的產(chǎn)品。而在研究小組內(nèi)部,，我們也合作得很好,。

????告訴人們，組里某人提出的想法不好或不對時,，要注意方式。首先,，即使是批評，也要讓那個人有機(jī)會進(jìn)一步證明自己的想法,。但更重要的是,，不要讓他們從此信心全無，再也不敢提出新想法,。

????有時很難把握分寸。管理學(xué)院或許可以教授一些心理技巧,。通過這些技巧可以培育一個環(huán)境,，讓人勇于提出大膽的想法。

?????科學(xué)界對研究資金的競爭非常激烈,。在這種情況下,，您如何保持進(jìn)取心,，發(fā)表了那么多論文？

????沒錯,，競爭的確激烈,。但我首先得說,，盡管這個說法在科學(xué)界并不受歡迎，我覺得就資金來源而言,，和藝術(shù)及人文學(xué)科相比，理工科還是幸福得多,。因為我對兩個世界都有所了解,。國家藝術(shù)基金會（National Endowment for the Arts）的總預(yù)算不過是康奈爾大學(xué)在理工科領(lǐng)域所得到的政府研究及支持資金的一半。

????不過金錢并不是我們的研究動力,。從某種意義上說,，我們加入了這個讓人著迷,、而又永無止境的奇妙事業(yè)，事業(yè)的目的是獲取關(guān)于宇宙和我們自身的可靠知識,。這種動力從年輕時開始,，直到現(xiàn)在也沒有衰退，一直讓人樂在其中,。

????有些化學(xué)家也會名利雙收,，對吧,？

????是的，不過開公司的人一般都是發(fā)現(xiàn)了某種催化劑或者藥物,。那些領(lǐng)域曾經(jīng)有過很多有趣,、但讓人心碎的故事，某人從一個精彩的點子出發(fā),，開辦公司,。然后自然而然地就考慮上市,，就有風(fēng)投參與（畢竟我們在做《財富》的訪談），最早的投資者（此處指科學(xué)家——譯注）就被排擠出公司的運(yùn)營,，最終完全失去自己的公司,。

????但很多人在商業(yè)化產(chǎn)品的時候還保持著單純的熱情，但如果他們太過糾結(jié)于自己的研究,，也可能會導(dǎo)致心理問題,。我敢肯定讀者們也聽說過這類故事,。

????在商業(yè)界,，這樣的事數(shù)不勝數(shù)。但在科學(xué)領(lǐng)域,，單純地了解世界依然還是主流,。

????認(rèn)識世界,，或者創(chuàng)造世界。我的一部分研究工作就是去預(yù)測在地球上此前并不存在的分子,，實在有趣得緊,，我希望有人能制造出那些分子。但我認(rèn)為創(chuàng)造出新分子的科學(xué)家和化學(xué)家應(yīng)該擔(dān)心那些分子的用途,，可能有人會將之用于不當(dāng)用途,。我覺得他們對這個問題的重視還不夠,。造物有種天然的道德責(zé)任，不管是生小孩,、制造分子,，還是制造武器。

????Nobel-prize winning chemist Roald Hoffmann has had anything but a simple path to success. He was born in Poland, and survived the Nazi labor camps. He came to America at the age of 12, attended the prestigious Stuyvesant High School in New York, then Columbia, then Harvard.

????Hoffmann received a Nobel in Chemistry in 1981 at the age of 44, but certainly didn't rest on his laurels. The 75-year-old scientist has advised over 200 graduate students, Ph.D.s, and postdocs, taught introductory chemistry at Cornell, co-authored plays, and published poetry. Currently, he helps run a science and performance event on the second Sunday of every month at the Cornelia Street cafe in New York. He recently talked to Fortune about leadership, molecules, and the psychology of enabling crazy ideas. Here is an edited transcript of the conversation.

????Fortune: You can think of your work as a kind of business, can you not?

????Roald Hoffmann: Yes, so you can do an economic input-output analysis of what I do. Our product is 560 scientific papers plus countless talks and other things, but really the papers. I am in the business of making ideas and they're not patentable nor copy-writable nor anything. Interesting. Input is perhaps $200,000 - $300,000 per-year of research funds to employees and co-workers and the output is 560 scientific papers.

????And that requires some of the management skills you see in business?

????In science, almost all the papers we publish are written together with several people in research groups. But within that research group, somehow, we have mastered the ethics of collaboration.

????There's something about the way that the group leader tells people that an idea made by one of the other people in the group is not good or not right. The criticism is made in a way which allows the person, first of all, to come up with further evidence, but more importantly, doesn't shake them so that they're afraid of making another idea.

????It is a fine line. And probably in management school, one tries to teach the psychological skills by which you create a situation where people aren't afraid to come out with crazy ideas.

????How do you stay motivated to produce those papers, given that the funding in the science world is so cutthroat?

????Well, it is competitive. But first let me say, in an unpopular view in my own community, I think scientists are filthy rich in terms of funds compared to the arts and humanities. It's because I move in both worlds. The total budget for the National Endowment for the Arts is one half of what Cornell gets from the government in terms of research and support for science and engineering.

????But where do we get the energy for research? It is in part that we enter this remarkably addictive, self-propagating, wonderful enterprise of gaining reliable knowledge about the universe around us and within us. It begins in youth and still goes on -- it's fun.

????And that research can be lucrative for some chemists, right?

????Yes, but the people who are more likely to start a company are the ones who discover a catalyst or a possible pharmaceutical. There is a precedent for exploiting some of those things with very interesting and heartbreaking stories of someone starting a company based on a wonderful idea. Then, the natural course is to move toward an IPO, and as venture capital comes in -- now we're on Fortune ground -- the initial investors are squeezed out of the running of the company and eventually lose it.

????But a lot of them carry over to the commercialization of a product the same single-mindedness about some idea that could conceivably lead to disaster psychologically, if they're too close to what they're studying. I'm sure there are many more stories your readers can tell of such situations.

????In business, certainly. But in science, there is something to be said for simply learning more about the world.

????Or creating a world. Something I do as part of my work is predict molecules that weren't on Earth before, and that's lots of fun, and I hope that somebody else will make them. But I think that scientists and chemists who make new molecules should worry about the potential use and misuse by others of the molecules they make. I don't think they worry enough. Creation brings with it ethical responsibility, whether it's a child or a molecule or a gun.