Professor Paul Watson Royal Veterinary College, London

My introduction to andrology came during an intercalated year of physiology in the midst of my veterinary training in 1966.  There I was introduced to the academic science of male reproduction, and the basic descriptions of the male contribution to reproductive physiology.  What struck me at the time was how much was unknown, and also how little was being researched.  Whereas the female was considered really interesting and attracted much research, the male was regarded as not worth people’s attention since it was really pretty straightforward.  I think my interest was aroused and, as I qualified as a vet, I asked my physiology professor, one Professor Amoroso, to recommend me a lab where I could study male aspects of reproduction.

For several months we envisaged going to Stockholm, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney or Cambridge, Ma. In the end, we went to Sydney where I was introduced to the national experimental animal, the sheep, and spent three and a half happy years studying the cryopreservation of semen, and that is the subject to which I have devoted the remainder of my career.  This journey has led me to explore some fascinating intellectual paths, to meet some interesting people, and to visit some marvellous regions of the world.  Perhaps it is only the academic career that allows one to develop a topic of interest, to travel extensively and to be included in a select international group of “experts”.  In fact, the Sydney PhD examination system, involving two eminent international experts as examiners, gets one known.  My own examiners, Jim Hancock and Bill Pickett, consequently knew of my work, and followed my progress to my subsequent advantage.

During my post-graduate studies, my supervisor travelled to America to meet Peter Mazur who had developed a general theory of causes of cryopreservation damage which was demonstrable in simple-shaped cells like blood cells.  When my supervisor returned, we discussed how we might investigate the theory with spermatozoa.  After much pondering it was shelved as too hard owing to the shape of sperm cells!  I was to return to this some 20 years later.

My move to the Zoological Society of London in 1973 as a Ford Foundation post-doctoral fellow resulted in my widening my interests to encompass a range of species.  It was there I met Bill Holt, our present Chairman of the BAS, and to explore the possibilities of cryopreservation of semen for conservation.  I organised the first international conference on artificial breeding in non-domestic species and it was the start of the Zoo’s role in conservation ventures which Bill and others have pursued to great success in subsequent years.  The modern terminology is Genetic Resource Banking, and our jointly edited book, Cryobanking the Genetic Resource: Wildlife Conservation for the future? was published in 2001.

I joined the staff of the Royal Veterinary College in a rather unusual way. I had got to know the department during my post-doc years through helping with teaching, and then one of the lecturers was sadly killed in the Paris air disaster in 1974.  I applied for his vacant post and was short-listed and appointed.  It allowed me to continue working with the Zoo and to pursue the contacts I had in the London area, one of whom, Jim Hancock, was already at the College.  By this stage I had developed my own lines of research and began to explore differences between species.  This led me to become interested in cold shock, a phenomenon by which sperm of certain species are damaged by sudden cooling above 0ºC.  I was invited to give a conference review address on this subject to the Society for Low Temperature Biology which forced me to focus on unknown aspects.  I have found frequently that having to prepare a review of a subject provokes critical thinking that leads to new ideas for grant applications and research.  In fact, two of my better and more productive ideas for research, that of calcium and its role in cold shock and cryopreservation damage, and that of the cooling induced premature capacitation-like state of spermatozoa came to me through preparing reviews.

It was about this time that discussions were taking place to start the British Andrology Society, of which I was a founder member.  We were a select group of some 20 people and naturally we did not aspire to such a grand title as the Society now has – we chose British Andrology Group which, as Trevor Cooper has recalled, represented in its acronym what we all work with – the contents of the scrotum or BAG!

During the next phase of my career I wrote several reviews and began to get invitations to international conferences.  While these are very gratifying to receive, it is only later in the lead up to the trip that one realises what one has let oneself in for!  I think the one I remember with terror was the American Society of Andrology in New Orleans.  What a proud moment to receive such an invitation and to visit such a memorable city!  It was as I entered the darkened hall and glimpsed the size of the audience that I wished the floor would open up.  There must have been 2000 andrologists assembled to hear my presentation!  As the lights came up and I gazed on the sea of faces arrayed in front of me, my courage deserted me and I cursed the day I said I would come. Needless to say, it all went off quite smoothly and I didn’t get tongue-tied with my slides.  Actually, an audience of undergraduate students is a good training ground for giving addresses - if you can hold their interest you will certainly be able to hold the interest of fellow scientists.

I had the good fortune about the end of the 1980s to have an invitation to spend a summer vacation with Roy Hammerstedt and Rupert Amann (who had been in Bill Pickett’s department) in Penn State University.  There I discovered the wonders of flow cytometry which was then quite new in biology.  I realised immediately that here at last was a way to test Peter Mazur’s theory about the causes of cell damage during freezing of sperm cells.  Roy and I set to test this theory and to satisfy ourselves that it did indeed apply, although there still were some unexplained questions.  I had to return there the following year to finish the experiments and by then I had arranged to visit John Critser’s lab in Indianapolis and work with him and Peter Mazur at Oak Ridge, Tennessee for a whole year’s sabbatical leave.  By then I was well into flow cytometry and this gave me the chance to develop my interests and to work on concepts of cryoinjury in sperm.  We set about exploring the causes of cryoinjury, wondering if they differed from those of other cells; this was because the predictions from theory were not as good as for other cells.  During this year I gained immensely from working with mathematicians, engineers, biophysicists and learned how much different disciplines can complement one another.

The premature capacitation-like state of cooled or frozen spermatozoa has provided a rich source of ideas to explore.  We have finally demonstrated some of the differences between capacitated and cooled cells and my Australian colleagues have begun to explore how seminal plasma might protect against these changes.  My own research running alongside these ideas has branched to considering what happens to sperm in the female tract and the role of the oviduct in sperm maturation before fertilisation.  As many will now know the oviduct seems to play an essential role in controlling the final stages of sperm development prior to progressing to the site of fertilisation, and in selecting those sperm which will constitute the fertilising cohort.  We and others have suggested that it may play a more subtle selective role and that this may be part of post-copulatory sperm selection between males after polyandrous mating.

In 1995 I was awarded the Marshall Medal of the Society for the Study of Reproduction for my contributions to my subject, and late last year, the committee of the British Andrology Society chose me as the first recipient of the Brian Setchell Medal for outstanding contribution to Andrology.  I was exceedingly honoured and gratified to receive both these prestigious awards.  I believe the pleasure of my experiences as a research scientist has been reward enough, but to receive such an honour as the Setchell Medal from my colleagues in Andrology is a most humbling experience.  Andrology is certainly adventurous, but to reach the summit with this award is a wonderful feeling!

As many of you will know I am a committed Christian and a priest in the Anglican Church.  This has given me a clear guide to the ethics of research which steers me through the minefields of the rush to publish and the choice of journal.  It also provides me with the obligation to reflect on the contributions of my subject to the overall welfare of the human population.  In reproductive andrology, there are many examples where our work can help others, and I believe we have an obligation to strive for research and clinical practice which serves the greatest good.  This has never prevented me from considering any subject for research but it has provided me with a steer from time to time.  As I come to the end of my research career I can only give thanks for the people I have known who have made it both memorable and enjoyable, and urge on younger colleagues to explore your ideas to the full wherever they lead.  Sometimes, the wildest of concepts turns out to be true but none will know until you test it.