Young Writers Society

Home » Literary works » Article / Essay » Science

E - Everyone

Of Chickens in Italy

by Baezel


In 1909 Rita Levi-Montalcini was born, near the alps in the city of Turin, Italy. Her father, Adamo Levi was an electrical engineer, and her mother, Adele Montalcini was an artist. When she was younger, Rita wanted to be an author, or maybe a philosopher- only, she didn’t have the logical mind for that.

Her childhood was, by some regards, a wonderful one, with her parents raising their children to have strong values and an appreciation for culture and the people around them. While they were descended from Sephardic Jews, the children weren’t raised religious, but instead raised to place value on their rich cultural heritage and faith. But equally, it was a suffocating one: Her father was an iron-willed man, sometimes with an explosive temper, and his wife always stood second to him. The patriarchal upbringing left Rita a shy child, and her apprehension of her father transferred to most adults in her life. But just as equally, it grew some iron in her: she swore to herself she would never marry, refusing to be inferior to anyone, and developed a resilient streak which would serve her well throughout her life.

Then her dear governess developed a stomach tumour and Rita decided to go into medicine. After two years she convinced her father, as well, despite his insistence that studying medicine would prevent her from fulfilling her womanly duties. She promised her governess she would make her better, and in eight months studied all the Greek, Latin, and Mathematics her all-girls school career missed. She passed the entrance exam to the Turin School of Medicine and became one of six girls studying there in a class of 300 students at age 21.

Her governess died before this.

The unrelated Giuseppe Levi quickly caught onto Rita’s intelligence; he was an eccentric but brilliant professor, who taught two other Nobel Peace Prize winners. Under his guidance Rita overcame the prejudice she faced and graduated the school with summa cum laude degree in medicine and surgery. After, she returned as an intern to the Institute of Anatomy where she continued to work with Giuseppe.

Like him, she was interested in the nervous system, and had become adept at Histology, or staining nerve cells. He gave her the task of investigating the formation of the convolutions of the human brain. She would later describe this as an impossible task: To investigate these convolutions you would need human brains at various stages of development, and this is Italy during the 1930s. Abortion was illegal in Italy. Where would you find the embryos?

With Giuseppe’s permission she abandoned the project and started researching the development of the nervous system. But before she could make any progress, it was 1938, and Mussolini’s "Manifesto per la Difesa della Razza" (Manifesto for the Defence of Race) was enacted. This barred any non-Aryan citizens from academic and professional careers.

Rita didn’t wish to put her Catholic peers in danger by remaining at the Institute. Briefly, she accepted an invitation to a Belgium neurological institute, but feared for her family and returned to Turin- just as Mussolini shook hands with Hitler.

The Levi-Montalcini’s didn’t flee Italy, despite Mussolini’s army the Blackshirts, the round-ups and shootings, and the constant, bone-numbing fear-

With her older brother Gino Levi-Montalcini’s help she set up a make shift laboratory in her bedroom in Turin to continue her work; when the bombs fell on Turin and the family fled to the country side this laboratory moved to the communal living space.

She would go around the farmers and share the story of her poor, hungry and scared children, which were also imaginary, so she could beg one or two of their fertilized chicken eggs off them. She had saved up for a stereomicroscope and a binocular Zeiss microscope, but for the microscalpels she filed down spare sewing needles, making do with what she had.

She worked throughout the entirety of the war years. The established theory, proposed by Viktor Hamburger, suggested that there was a factor present in limbs which caused the nerve cells to grow into the limbs. If, early in embryonic development you removed the buds which would grow into limbs, nothing would call the nerve cells away from the spine, and so they would cluster there unspecialized.

But Rita, instead, thought it was a nutrient produced by the limbs which preserved the differentiated nerve cells, and that without the limb and it’s nutrient, these specialized nerve cells died. The limb held no responsibility for their specialization in the first place.

The family had moved down to Florence near the end of the war, and in September 1944 the Ally Forces liberated it from Nazi rule. Secretly, the Levi-Montalcinis had been assisting the Italian resistance, and now Rita volunteered her knowledge of medicine to become a volunteer doctor.

She left as soon as she could though, returning to Turin in 1945.

(The forces and their citizens were plagued by malnutrition and typhoid; as we have seen, she was a resilient woman, but seeing all those old people, soldiers, and babies dying-)

This would be the last time as a practising doctor.

Rita was unsure how she would continue with her research after the war, but some of her work pre-war had made its way into scientific journals. Viktor Hamburger had learned of this peculiar woman; He invited her to the University of Washington, with the intention of seeing who was right.

The post was, in theory, for only a few months, and Viktor and Rita- they couldn’t be more different. While Hamburger was a methodical and slow scientist, Rita was a passionate one, powered by a creative and intuitive mind. She would remain there for 30 years, until 1977, and become a full professor.

She didn’t abandon Italy though; her new position gave her the power to set up a second research centre in Rome, and she became director of both the Research Centre of Neurobiology of the CNR in Rome and the Laboratory of Cellular Biology.

Her passion still lay with those chicken nerve cells, though. She had convinced Viktor, but she continued working on isolating this nutrient. Initially working with a strain of tumour cells found in mice, she transferred these to some chicken embryos and observed the rapid differentiation of nerve cells and generation of nerve fibres it caused. Working with a biochemist Stanley Cohen, she narrowed down the growth factor to a nucleic acid and a protein; using a snake venom with enzymes which broke down those compounds led to the surprising discovery that this nutrient was present in many animals; they also found it produced in the salivary glands of mice.

Together they had isolated the Nerve Growth Factor- one instrumental in the development of nerve cells, and so also, cancer cells. It could also, possibly, be used to regenerate severed or damaged nerves. She and Cohen won a Nobel Peace Prize for this discovery in 1986; When the phone rang to tell her of this news, she was reading Agatha Christie’s Evil under the Sun. Still, on the second-last page of that book, there is a pencil-scrawled message saying, “call from Stockholm”, because immediately she had returned to reading.

She didn’t thrive under the fame the prize won, but she realised it would provide her the opportunity to become involved in matters of importance to her. When appointed to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations she devoted herself to speaking out about hunger across the world; She would travel across schools in Italy to deliver speeches describing hope and faith. In August 2001, at the age of 92, she was appointed as a Senator of Life by the Italian president, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi.

Her life was not without controversy, of course. The Former health minister Duilio Poggiolini suggested in 1994 that her Nobel Peace Prize had been bought by Fidia, a company she had worked with previously. He had recently been accused of corruption. Instead of responding with vitriol, she said: “The allegations against Fidia cannot be true. The process for awarding Nobel prizes is so complex that it cannot be corrupted.”

I think, sweetest for me, was her fight for women’s opportunities. As well as numerous articles, she wrote a paper called "The Feminine Awakening", which described the history of women's emancipation movement, from the early 1800s to her present day in the 70s; her understanding of gender dynamics was a modern one often lacking even today: in her book In Praise of Imperfection she wrote: "The subordinate role played by the female in a society run entirely by men made the status of a wife less than attractive.”

And in 2001 she established the Fondazione Rita Levi-Montalcini, a non-profit organisation with the intention of providing education for girls and women in Africa, because when reflecting on her life she realised she would not have achieved what she did if not for her opportunity to study in university. And she wished that opportunity for every woman in the world.

As of 2009, the foundation had funded 7,000 girls. She said, perhaps proudly: “Young women … can now look toward a future moulded by their own hands.”

She’d live past her siblings, her twin sister, and most people her generation, becoming a centenarian in 2009. Even in her old age she remained attentive and bright, dressing elegantly, holding interviews, and attending conferences. She woke up at five each morning and slept at 11. At 100 she was still making new discoveries about the Nerve Growth Factor.

She died in the 30th December 2012. She lived long enough to make you wonder if perhaps, amongst those nerve cells and egg shell, she found the secret to immortality. But, she didn’t fear death.

“I am indifferent to my own death, that only affects my body. What will remain of me is what I have achieved, the work I have done during my lifetime. You don’t die at the time of your physical death. Your message lives on. I am not in the least frightened of dying, it will only affect this very small body that I have lived in. It is not important when I die. The important thing is to have lived with serenity using the rational left-hand side of one’s brain, and not the right side, the instinctive side, which leads to misery and tragedy.”

Perhaps it was an active life, or a Mediterranean diet. If you are a romantic sort, you might wonder if it’s a kind of karma; After all, can you think of many people who’ve contributed as much to life as she did?

Sources:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finding-the-good-rita-levi-montalcini/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/my-hero-491055.html

http://www.ritalevimontalcini.org/en/support-us/italiano-donare-il-5-x-1000-2/

http://excelle.monster.com/news/articles/3264-secret-of-longevity-no-food-no-husband-no-regrets?page=1

http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/1997spring/sp97_ROHRLICH.php

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/30/rita-levi-montalcini


Note: You are not logged in, but you can still leave a comment or review. Before it shows up, a moderator will need to approve your comment (this is only a safeguard against spambots). Leave your email if you would like to be notified when your message is approved.







Is this a review?


  

Comments



User avatar
1067 Reviews


Points: 112695
Reviews: 1067

Donate
Sun May 27, 2018 10:57 pm
View Likes
Mea wrote a review...



Hey there! I thought I'd drop by for a quick review this lovely Review Day, and we'll see if I can build upon Cadi's already excellent review.

I really enjoyed reading this - I always like reading about cool, underappreciated people in history who do lots of wonderful things for science.

Then her dear governess developed a stomach tumour and Rita decided to go into medicine. After two years she convinced her father, as well, despite his insistence that studying medicine would prevent her from fulfilling her womanly duties.

Something that's really important for these types of biographical essays is to be clear about the times and places things are occurring. Here, I'm left wondering exactly when her governess developed this tumor and how old Rita was at the time - I feel like this is really important information to get a feel for where she is in her life, but we don't get that information and it leaves us a bit lost. In fact, you don't give us any dates at all until almost halfway through the biography - I had no idea when she was even born!

Rita didn’t wish to put her Catholic peers in danger by remaining at the Institute. Briefly, she accepted an invitation to a Belgium neurological institute, but feared for her family and returned to Turin- just as Mussolini shook hands with Hitler.

The Levi-Montalcini’s didn’t flee Italy, despite Mussolini’s army the Blackshirts, the round-ups and shootings, and the constant, bone-numbing fear-

I feel like you could use a little more detail here. Most people will be familiar with WWII obviously, but might be less familiar with what happened in Italy during it, and so detail would be useful. This sentence also seems to just cut off mid-sentence, which is something you want to avoid stylistically when writing an essay.

I also agree with Cadi that a little more explanation of the two scientific theories you mention about the development of nerve cells would be really helpful - I know as a reader I find it really interesting and it would help me get a better sense of her career as a scientist.

I really liked the last half of your essay - I liked how it had a good balance of both talking about her scientific discoveries and the fame she won for them, as well as the women's rights activism she did. You did a good job of not having one overshadow the other, and the way you transitioned into talking about her long life and her death was also very smooth.

I did think your last paragraph was a bit weak, particularly after that lovely quote that precedes it. It just feels awkward, and the sentiment is a bit too much of you as the author injecting your opinions into an otherwise impartial essay.

And that's all I've got for you! Thanks for the read, good luck, and keep writing!




User avatar
107 Reviews


Points: 9326
Reviews: 107

Donate
Tue May 15, 2018 6:38 pm
View Likes
Cadi wrote a review...



Hi Baezel! Thanks for posting this essay - I hadn't heard of Rita Levi-Montalcini before, and it was very interesting to read a bit about her life and work.

This essay is structured well for a short biography - starting with Levi-Montalcini's family of origin, proceeding chronologically through her career, to her death and legacy. You deliver the facts in a logical sequence which, for the most part, segues between topics and areas of Levi-Montalcini's life smoothly.

However, in places, I think you could do with a little more elaboration, to smooth the transition between areas. For example, you start to describe the challenges of the project investigating the formation of the human brain, but then very quickly mention that the project was dropped in favour of one investigating development of the nervous system. Much of the later essay depends on the fact that the latter was Levi-Montalcini's key area of research, so I would recommend expanding on the nervous system development project a bit further early on.

In particular, I was a little confused by the paragraph about Viktor Hamburger's theory regarding nerve cells in limbs. Before talking about Hamburger's theory on the matter, I think it would be good to give a short summary of the research topic i.e. what question were Hamburger and Levi-Montalcini trying to answer with their competing theories? This would allow the reader to make better sense of Hamburger's theory, by providing them with more context.

I am not sure about the following section:

(The forces and their citizens were plagued by malnutrition and typhoid; as we have seen, she was a resilient woman, but seeing all those old people, soldiers, and babies dying-)

This would be the last time as a practising doctor.

The sentence in parentheses is a fragment, which you'd typically avoid in a non-fiction article/essay of this style. It also feels overly dramatic - something that would fit better in a novel than in a biography like this. The sentence "This would be the last time..." doesn't make sense to me - what is "this"? The "last time" she did what?

I think the quote from Levi-Montalcini at the end, regarding death, is well-chosen - it seems appropriate to end with her own words on the topic.

Overall, this is an interesting essay, which could just use a little tightening up in terms of when to fill in a bit more detail, and when to pare back. Keep up the good work!

Cadi x




Baezel says...


Thank you, I need more practise in non-fiction. The "last time" sentence was a mistake on my half: I meant to say, "This would be her last time as a practising doctor", as the experience after the war was so awful it put her off. Thank you for your review!




The capacity of human beings to bore one another seems to be vastly greater than that of any other animal.
— H. L. Mencken