A life of science, courage and intellectual freedom, from Fascist Italy to the Nobel Prize
– Made in Italy Stories –
There are people whose lives seem to have been arranged by a particularly imaginative novelist. Rita Levi-Montalcini was born into a cultured Jewish family in Turin, grew up in a household where art and mathematics shared the same table, became a doctor despite expectations that women should choose a quieter destiny, was expelled from Italian academic life by Fascist racial laws, built a laboratory in her bedroom, continued doing science while Europe collapsed around her, escaped Nazi persecution under a false identity, moved to the United States for what was supposed to be a short research visit, remained there for decades, discovered one of the fundamental mechanisms by which nerve cells survive and grow, won the Nobel Prize, returned to Italy, became a senator for life, and continued going to the laboratory past her hundredth birthday. If someone had proposed this as fiction, an editor might have suggested removing a few events for plausibility.
Rita Levi-Montalcini was born in Turin on 22 April 1909, together with her twin sister Paola. Their father, Adamo Levi, was an electrical engineer and mathematician; their mother, Adele Montalcini, was a painter. The family also included an older sister, Anna, and an older brother, Gino, who would become an architect and sculptor. Science and art were therefore not competing worlds in the Levi-Montalcini household. They were simply different ways of looking carefully at reality. Rita later described her childhood as intellectually rich and emotionally secure, even if the expectations placed on daughters reflected the conventions of the time. Her father believed that professional careers could conflict with the traditional roles of wife and mother, a view that was hardly unusual in early twentieth-century Europe but was rather inconvenient if one happened to be raising Rita Levi-Montalcini.
As a girl, Rita did not immediately dream of becoming a scientist. She was drawn to literature and at one point imagined herself becoming a writer. The example of the Swedish author Selma Lagerlof fascinated her. Yet as she grew older, medicine increasingly attracted her. Choosing that path meant persuading her father to accept an ambition he had not planned for his daughter and then making up the classical education required for university entrance. She prepared herself intensely and entered the University of Turin to study medicine. The decision was not simply a change of subject. It was the first of many moments in which Levi-Montalcini quietly declined to accept the future that other people had designed for her.
At Turin she entered one of the most remarkable scientific environments in Italian medical history. Her teacher was Giuseppe Levi, the formidable histologist whose laboratory trained a generation of scientists with an unusually high concentration of future distinction. Among Levi's students were Renato Dulbecco and Salvador Luria, both of whom would later receive Nobel Prizes, as well as Levi-Montalcini herself. Three Nobel laureates emerging from the orbit of one Italian anatomy institute is the sort of academic statistic that makes university administrators dream of cloning professors, although Giuseppe Levi himself would probably have objected to the paperwork.
Levi-Montalcini graduated in medicine in 1936 and continued specialising in neurology and psychiatry while working with Giuseppe Levi on the development of the nervous system. The laboratory exposed her to techniques that would become crucial to her research, including methods for staining nervous tissue with silver salts and early cell-culture approaches. Her interest increasingly focused on a profound biological question: how does the nervous system know how to build itself? An embryo begins as a tiny collection of cells, yet somehow those cells multiply, differentiate, extend fibres and establish extraordinarily precise connections. The adult nervous system looks purposeful. The young scientist wanted to understand the rules hidden beneath that apparent purpose.
Then politics invaded the laboratory. In 1938 Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime introduced racial laws that excluded Jews from universities and many professions. Levi-Montalcini, an Italian citizen born and educated in Turin, was suddenly informed by the state that her ancestry mattered more than her ability. She was removed from the academic world in which she had trained. The absurdity is difficult to overstate: Italy had educated a brilliant young scientist and then decided, for ideological reasons, that allowing her to do science was somehow a threat to the nation. History would eventually provide a rather decisive peer review of that policy.
She briefly continued research in Belgium, where Jewish and refugee scientists had also sought opportunities, but the growing threat of German invasion forced her back to Italy before the war spread fully across Western Europe. Back in Turin, official university laboratories remained closed to her. So she created her own. In a room at home, using improvised equipment, she constructed a small laboratory where she could work with chick embryos. Scientific research is usually associated with institutions, budgets, specialised buildings and technicians. Levi-Montalcini demonstrated that, under sufficiently unreasonable circumstances, a bedroom could also become a neurobiology department.
The experiments she pursued were inspired by work on the developing nervous system performed by the German-American embryologist Viktor Hamburger. Hamburger had studied what happened when a limb bud was removed from a chick embryo. Fewer nerve cells survived in the spinal ganglia that would normally have connected with that limb. One interpretation was that the limb somehow induced the formation of those neurons. Levi-Montalcini and Giuseppe Levi looked more closely. Using techniques that allowed them to observe the nerve cells directly, they saw something different: the neurons initially formed, extended fibres and then died when they failed to reach the missing target tissue. This suggested that the problem was not failure of formation but failure of survival.
That distinction may sound subtle, but it changed the scientific question completely. If neurons were born and then died when they could not establish the right peripheral connections, perhaps target tissues were providing something essential for survival. Instead of asking what caused nerve cells to appear, one could ask what allowed selected nerve cells to remain alive. Levi-Montalcini was moving toward the idea of a biological signal exchanged between developing tissues and neurons. She did not yet know what the signal was, but the conceptual direction was becoming clear.
War made even improvised research difficult. Bombing pushed the family out of Turin for periods, and the laboratory migrated with her. Then, after the German occupation of northern and central Italy in 1943, the danger became immediate. The Levi-Montalcini family fled to Florence and lived under false identities to escape deportation. Rita's scientific career temporarily became secondary to survival. This was the period in which Italian Jews were being arrested and transported to extermination camps. The distance between scientific questions about cell survival and the human question of literal survival had become brutally small.
When Florence was liberated in 1944, Levi-Montalcini worked as a physician in a medical service dealing with refugees and people displaced by the war. The experience confronted her with infectious disease, malnutrition and suffering on a scale that differed completely from laboratory medicine. She later recognised that she was not suited to conventional clinical practice in the same way she was suited to research. This was not indifference to patients; if anything, the opposite. She found the emotional burden of medicine difficult and understood that her strongest contribution would come from scientific investigation.
After the war she returned to Turin and to academic work. Then an unexpected letter arrived from Viktor Hamburger at Washington University in St. Louis. Hamburger had encountered the work produced by Levi-Montalcini and Giuseppe Levi and wanted to investigate their different interpretation of his embryological experiments. He invited her to the United States for what was initially supposed to be a limited research stay. In 1947 she crossed the Atlantic. The temporary visit would stretch into approximately three decades of American scientific life.
St. Louis gave Levi-Montalcini something she had been denied in Fascist Italy: a stable environment in which curiosity could proceed without asking permission from racial ideology. She repeated and extended the embryological experiments with Hamburger. Their collaboration gradually transformed disagreement into discovery. Rather than treating scientific dispute as personal insult, they used it productively – an approach still considered innovative in some corners of academic life. The crucial question remained the same: what determined whether developing nerve cells survived and how vigorously their fibres grew?
A strange clue came from experiments involving mouse tumours transplanted into chick embryos. Researchers observed that certain tumours triggered extraordinary growth of sensory and sympathetic nerve fibres. Nerves seemed almost magnetically attracted toward the tumour tissue. More importantly, the effect occurred even when the tumour was placed where it could not directly touch the nervous tissue. Something appeared to be released by the tumour and carried through the embryo. Levi-Montalcini concluded that a soluble substance was stimulating nerve growth.
This was the conceptual birth of what would become nerve growth factor, or NGF. At the time, the idea that specific tissues released chemical signals controlling the growth and survival of particular cells was far from obvious. Today biology students encounter families of growth factors almost as part of the basic vocabulary of cell biology. In the early 1950s, the concept was new enough to be unsettling. Levi-Montalcini's great strength was not only observing an unexpected result but refusing to treat it as experimental noise simply because it failed to fit accepted theory.
In 1952 she travelled to Rio de Janeiro to work with Hertha Meyer, a former colleague from Turin who had established sophisticated cell-culture methods at the Institute of Biophysics directed by Carlos Chagas. There, Levi-Montalcini developed an experimental system in which chick sensory ganglia could be cultured near tumour tissue. Within a remarkably short period, nerve fibres radiated outward from the ganglia in a dense halo. The image became iconic in neurobiology: a small piece of nervous tissue surrounded by fibres like sunlight around a miniature biological sun. The mysterious factor was no longer merely inferred inside a whole embryo. Its activity could now be watched directly in culture.
Back in St. Louis, the collaboration expanded when the biochemist Stanley Cohen joined the work. Cohen brought the chemical expertise necessary to identify and purify the active substances producing the effect. Science often celebrates the individual genius, but major discoveries usually look more like this: one person notices an anomaly, another provides a method, another brings the chemistry, and a laboratory gradually transforms an intuition into evidence. Levi-Montalcini's observational insight and Cohen's biochemical work became complementary parts of a discovery that would reshape developmental biology.
Chance then contributed one of the most famous twists in the story. In attempts to understand the chemical nature of the growth-promoting substance, snake venom was used because it contained enzymes capable of breaking down nucleic acids. Instead of eliminating the nerve-growth effect, the venom produced an astonishingly strong one. It turned out to be extraordinarily rich in the relevant growth activity. Later, mouse salivary glands provided an even more abundant source. Research had moved from tumour tissue to snake venom to mouse glands, which is a useful reminder that scientific progress does not always proceed in a straight line and that laboratories occasionally resemble very serious versions of a particularly strange kitchen.
The substance became known as Nerve Growth Factor. NGF is a protein signal that plays a crucial role in the growth, survival and maintenance of certain populations of nerve cells. Developing tissues produce the factor; appropriate neurons receive it through their nerve endings and transport the signal back toward the cell body. In simplified terms, target tissues help tell particular neurons that they have reached the right destination and are worth keeping alive. Neurons that fail to establish the proper connections may not receive sufficient trophic support and die. The discovery helped establish the broader concept that cell survival and differentiation can be regulated by specific molecular signals.
This changed how scientists thought about development. The body does not simply manufacture every cell and keep all of them. It frequently creates more cells than the mature system requires and then uses competition, signalling and programmed loss to refine the final structure. In the nervous system, this means that development includes not only growth but selective death. The concept has become fundamental to understanding how complex neural circuits emerge from embryonic tissue. Levi-Montalcini's experiments helped replace a vague image of development with a molecular conversation between cells.
NGF also opened an entire field. Once scientists knew that one specific growth factor existed, the search for others became irresistible. Over subsequent decades researchers identified many molecules that regulate cell survival, proliferation and differentiation, including additional neurotrophins. The broader growth-factor concept became important in developmental biology, immunology, cancer research, wound healing and neuroscience. The Nobel committee later described Levi-Montalcini and Cohen's work as foundational for understanding how growth and differentiation are regulated at the cellular level.
Levi-Montalcini rose through the academic ranks at Washington University and became a full professor. The United States provided professional freedom, but Italy never disappeared from her life. She remained exceptionally close to her family, especially her twin sister Paola, the painter whose artistic sensibility had accompanied Rita since childhood. During the 1960s she began constructing a scientific bridge back to Italy, establishing a research presence in Rome while maintaining collaboration with St. Louis. Her return was gradual rather than dramatic: science, like migration, does not always provide a convenient date on which one life ends and another begins.
In Rome she helped establish and direct neurobiological research within the structures of the National Research Council and the Istituto Superiore di Sanita. By 1969 the laboratory had developed into the CNR Center for Neurobiological Research, and Levi-Montalcini served as director. Later she led the CNR Laboratory of Cell Biology. The scientist whom Fascist Italy had once excluded from its universities was now building Italian research institutions. Governments change. Good experiments have a longer memory.
Her work with colleagues such as Piero Angeletti, Pietro Calissano, Luigi Aloe and many younger researchers extended the study of NGF far beyond its initial role in embryonic nerve growth. Scientists explored its biochemical structure, cellular receptors, transport mechanisms and effects in the immune and endocrine systems. NGF increasingly appeared not as a one-purpose molecule but as part of a much wider network connecting nervous, immune and hormonal functions. Levi-Montalcini continued following these developments throughout her life, repeatedly returning to the discovery that had begun with chick embryos and an inconvenient tumour.
Recognition accumulated slowly and then dramatically. She received major international awards, memberships in scientific academies and honorary degrees. In 1986 the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded jointly to Rita Levi-Montalcini and Stanley Cohen "for their discoveries of growth factors." Levi-Montalcini was seventy-seven years old. The prize recognised not a fashionable recent result but more than three decades of work that had fundamentally changed the language of developmental biology.
The symbolism was difficult to miss. A woman who had once been forced out of an Italian university because she was Jewish stood in Stockholm receiving the highest honour in science. The Fascist racial laws had attempted to define her as biologically unworthy of academic participation. Her Nobel-winning research helped explain the molecular mechanisms by which biological development actually works. History rarely arranges irony with such precision.
Her Nobel lecture, delivered in December 1986, was titled The Nerve Growth Factor: Thirty-Five Years Later. The title itself reveals something essential about scientific discovery. Breakthroughs are rarely single moments. NGF was not discovered in one theatrical flash followed immediately by applause. It emerged through years of observation, argument, revised hypotheses, experimental systems, accidental clues and collaboration. The Nobel Prize arrived long after the first decisive experiments because science needed time to understand how large the discovery really was.
Levi-Montalcini also became famous for the phrase and philosophy expressed in her autobiographical book Elogio dell'imperfezione, In Praise of Imperfection. The title was not merely modesty. She believed that imperfection, biological and human, was often productive. Evolution itself proceeds not through flawless planning but through variation, error, adaptation and selection. Her own scientific career reflected the same principle. A tumour growing where it should not, an experiment producing an unexpected result, a researcher exiled from her institution – none of these circumstances looked like the beginning of a triumph. Yet each became part of the path toward discovery.
She never treated age as a persuasive argument for intellectual retirement. Official retirement rules arrived; she continued working. Her laboratory activity continued through appointments, collaborations and new institutions. She remained involved in research well into her nineties and beyond one hundred. In 2005 she founded the European Brain Research Institute in Rome, conceived as an international centre for neuroscience. She visited laboratories, discussed projects with younger scientists and continued publishing. At an age when society often speaks to people very loudly and very slowly, Levi-Montalcini was still discussing molecular neurobiology.
Her relationship with young researchers became one of the defining features of her later life. She placed enormous emphasis on education, especially opportunities for women. Having begun her own career in a society that questioned whether women should pursue professions at all, she understood structural exclusion personally. She repeatedly argued that intellectual ability was not distributed according to gender and that societies wasted extraordinary talent when they prevented women from studying, working or leading. For her, equality was not an abstract slogan. She had direct evidence of what happens when political and social systems decide in advance who is allowed to contribute.
In 1992 she and her sister Paola established the Levi-Montalcini Foundation in memory of their father, with a particular focus on educational opportunities for young African women. The foundation supported scholarships and training intended to strengthen women's participation in scientific and social development. The choice was consistent with Rita's entire biography. Education had been the instrument through which she escaped the narrow future originally imagined for her, and she spent part of her later life attempting to make that instrument available to others.
Her public activity extended beyond science. She became involved in bioethics, social policy and debates concerning reproductive rights. She served as president of the Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani from 1993 to 1998, bringing scientific energy into one of Italy's great cultural institutions. She was active in organisations concerned with neurological disease and was appointed a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Her public life increasingly reflected the idea that scientific knowledge carried civic responsibilities.
In 2001 President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi appointed her senator for life for outstanding scientific and social merits. She was ninety-two. The appointment transformed the Nobel laureate into a formal participant in Italian parliamentary life. She attended Senate sessions with remarkable regularity and became politically significant during closely balanced votes in the 2006-2008 legislature. Critics occasionally attacked her political positions, as critics generally do when scientists refuse to remain decorative symbols. Levi-Montalcini appeared entirely untroubled by the discovery that having opinions could irritate people.
Her presence in the Senate also carried historical weight. The Italian state had once excluded her as a Jew. Decades later, the Republic made her a senator for life. The institutions were not the same, and democratic Italy was not responsible for Fascist policy, but the biographical contrast remained powerful. Her life crossed monarchy, dictatorship, war, republic, scientific revolution and the arrival of molecular biology. She had personally experienced several different Italies.
Levi-Montalcini's style became almost as recognisable as her scientific biography. In old age she appeared in public with carefully arranged white hair, elegant clothing and an upright posture that gave her the visual authority of someone who had long ago stopped asking whether she was allowed into the room. Yet the refinement could be misleading. Behind the polished appearance was an experimental scientist accustomed to dissecting embryos, handling biological material and spending countless hours at a microscope. Elegance and laboratory work were not opposites. She simply declined to choose between them.
Her twin sister Paola remained central to her emotional and intellectual world. Paola became an accomplished painter associated with abstract art, and the sisters shared a deep bond until Paola's death in 2000. Rita's life is often told as a sequence of scientific achievements, but the artistic environment of her family matters. She was deeply interested in literature, music and visual art, and her scientific thinking frequently relied on observation in the most literal sense: seeing patterns others had not yet interpreted. The division between art and science appears much cleaner in school timetables than it did in the Levi-Montalcini family.
She wrote extensively for general readers, especially in later life. Her books combined autobiography, scientific explanation and reflections on society, ageing, women and the future. She often addressed young people directly, encouraging them to think independently and resist intellectual conformity. Her message was not the sentimental claim that everyone can achieve anything if they simply believe hard enough. Her own life had taught her otherwise. Talent requires opportunity, work requires institutions, and political systems can destroy careers. But she also believed strongly that curiosity and independence could survive hostile conditions if given even a narrow path.
Her longevity naturally became part of her public mythology. Levi-Montalcini lived to 103 and continued working almost until the end. She sometimes commented that the body aged while the brain could remain active when continuously used, remarks that newspapers understandably enjoyed because everyone would like a Nobel laureate to provide a simple method for defeating old age. The reality was less magical. She maintained intense intellectual routines, curiosity and purpose. There was no anti-ageing secret hidden in a laboratory bottle labelled NGF.
Even in 2012, the year of her death, Levi-Montalcini remained scientifically active and appeared as an author on research publications. She died in Rome on 30 December 2012. Her funeral in Turin drew large crowds, and her ashes were placed in the family tomb designed by her brother Gino. She had lived through 103 years in which neuroscience moved from anatomical description toward molecular signalling, genetics and modern brain research. She had not merely witnessed that transformation. She had helped cause it.
What, exactly, made her scientific contribution so important? NGF offered proof that cells communicate through specific chemical signals that regulate whether other cells grow, differentiate and survive. In the nervous system, this helped explain how developing neurons compete for support from target tissues. More broadly, the work helped establish growth factors as a fundamental biological concept. Today the term sounds ordinary because the discovery succeeded so completely. One of the peculiar rewards of great science is that revolutionary ideas eventually become textbook paragraphs students complain about memorising.
The discovery also changed medicine indirectly by giving researchers new ways to think about degeneration, repair, cancer and cellular communication. NGF itself has been investigated in relation to nerve injury, pain, neurodegenerative disorders, immune responses and other conditions. Science is rarely kind enough to turn every foundational discovery immediately into a miracle treatment, but the conceptual tools created by Levi-Montalcini and her colleagues opened research directions that continue long after the original experiments.
Her biography is equally important for the history of women in science. Levi-Montalcini entered medicine when women were still expected to justify ambitions that men could simply possess. She then encountered institutional antisemitism, war and exile. Yet it would be a mistake to remember her only as someone who overcame discrimination. That framing can accidentally make the obstacles more important than the work. She was not a great woman scientist because she survived Fascism. She was a great scientist because she transformed neurobiology. The injustice simply makes the achievement more astonishing.
She also resisted the cult of perfection surrounding scientific genius. Her emphasis on imperfection was a defence of process over mythology. Scientists make mistakes, interpretations fail, experiments produce confusing results and careers wander. Discovery requires the ability to recognise when failure contains information. The chick embryos, the tumours, the snake venom and the unexpected halos of nerve fibres all belonged to a research path shaped as much by curiosity as by planning. Her genius was partly the ability to remain interested when nature refused to behave politely.
For Italy, Rita Levi-Montalcini became more than a Nobel laureate. She became a public symbol of intelligence, secular culture, resilience and scientific modernity. Schoolchildren learned her name. Universities awarded honours. Politicians invoked her authority. Scientists regarded her as part of a lineage of Italian research that had survived extremely difficult historical conditions. Her image entered the national imagination in a way few laboratory researchers ever achieve.
And yet perhaps the most powerful scene in her story remains the smallest one: a young Jewish doctor, excluded from university by racial law, setting up a microscope and incubator in a room at home because she still had questions to answer. There was no guarantee that the work would matter. No Nobel committee was waiting. No senator's seat existed in the future. There was only curiosity and the refusal to allow a government to decide whether curiosity was permitted.
That bedroom laboratory did not contain sophisticated modern equipment, but it contained the essential ingredient of research: a person who had noticed something unexplained and intended to understand it. The rest of her career – St. Louis, Rio, Rome, NGF, Stockholm, the Senate – grew from that attitude. Scientific institutions are essential, but science itself begins slightly earlier, in the moment when someone says, "I do not understand this yet," and considers that an invitation rather than a defeat.
Rita Levi-Montalcini's life therefore belongs to several histories at once. It is part of the history of Italian Jews under Fascism, the history of women entering professional science, the history of neuroscience, the history of Italian migration to the United States, the history of postwar research institutions and the history of the Italian Republic. Very few biographies connect a bedroom laboratory under dictatorship with a Nobel ceremony and a parliamentary chamber. Hers does.
She once chose the title In Praise of Imperfection for her autobiography. It remains perhaps the best key to understanding her. Her life was not smooth, and science did not progress according to a perfect plan. Political catastrophe interrupted education. Exile created new collaborations. Experimental anomalies opened new fields. Age brought new roles rather than closure. Imperfection was not something to apologise for. It was the space in which change became possible.
Rita Levi-Montalcini died as one of the most respected scientists Italy had ever produced, but the grandeur of that final reputation should not hide the stubborn young woman who began the journey. She challenged a father's expectations, a dictatorship's laws, accepted scientific theories, conventional retirement and the idea that public life belonged only to the young. She spent more than a century refusing definitions that were too small for her.
Follow Made in Italy Stories to discover the lives, ideas, inventions, places and extraordinary people that have shaped Italy. We tell Italy from an Italian point of view, because behind every famous name there is a story far richer than the photograph on the cover.