Slashdot Mirror


Nobel Prize for Medicine For MRI

andy1307 writes "American Paul C. Lauterbur and Briton Sir Peter Mansfield have won the Nobel prize for medicine for discoveries leading to MRI. Worldwide, more than 60 million investigations with MRI are performed each year, and the technique is ``a breakthrough in medical diagnostics and research,'' the Assembly said. The work was done on the 1970s. Lauterbur is at the Biomedical Magnetic Resonance Laboratory at the University of Illinois in Urbana and Mansfield is at the University of Nottingham in Britain. "

34 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finally! That's good. He had considerable opposition when he was developing the technology. Nuclear magnetic resonance didn't seem a good technology to make into a scanning system. His department chair cut off his funding at one point.

    1. Re:Finally! by Faust7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nuclear magnetic resonance didn't seem a good technology to make into a scanning system.

      I doubt that was it. Edward Purcell and Felix Bloch pioneered NMR spectroscopy back in 1946 -- and they won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1952.

    2. Re:Finally! by lcde · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work researching and designing resonators for Electron Paramagnetic Resonance and the technology that has come from this is quite amazing. At the University of Chicago they are developing a way to image cancer cells using EPR. EPR is very sensitive to oxygen and in cancerous cells there is less flow of oxygen. This allows EPR to pick up dead spots where the cancer is.

      --
      :%s/teh/the/g
    3. Re:Finally! by 'nother+poster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't use the "N" word. It scares people. It's just MRI, got it. ;)

    4. Re:Finally! by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

      EPR is very sensitive to oxygen and in cancerous cells there is less flow of oxygen.

      While I am a physiologist by training, I am not an oncologist. However, that said, I should probably clarify your statement. Many forms of cancer are rapidly growing cell populations and therefore have high metabolic rates and therefore high oxygen utilization. Technically in these cells there is greater "flux" of oxygen through these cells but as they are imaged, they might appear to have lower levels of oxygen at any one instant due to their high metabolic usage.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    5. Re:Finally! by VCAGuy · · Score: 4, Informative
      considerable opposition???

      As the history books record, they were both dismissed as nutcases; when they did the first NMR scan of a brain, they were told that they had fabricated it. It's like Fred Smith of FedEx--his graduate paper on a hub-based air transportation system for packages was given a "C" by his professor (as good as an "F"), yet his idea "took off" (and in a very real way) just a few short years later.

      --
      Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
      A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
    6. Re:Finally! by calidoscope · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Bloembergen(sp?), Pound and Purcell paper published in 1948 anticipated imaging. The main thrust of the paper was NMR relaxation, which provides much of the contrast in imaging. The paper mentioned that some of the signal effects were localized to specific regions in the sample (the magnet they were using had really rotten homogeneity compared to modern NMR magnets).

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  2. Explanation by Karamchand · · Score: 4, Informative

    For all us laymen who don't know what MRI means: Google Glossary Search knows more!

  3. exaggeration by ih8apple · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the article:
    "There are very few people around now that haven't been in an MRI machine these days..."

    Does this guy really think that everyone in the world is very ill and requires the depth of testing of an MRI? (Maybe he's just really old and all his peers have been through MRI's...)

    1. Re:exaggeration by BWJones · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does this guy really think that everyone in the world is very ill and requires the depth of testing of an MRI? (Maybe he's just really old and all his peers have been through MRI's...)

      Shoot, at one of the companies I am involved with, our MRI get lots of use from young, healthy folks who have injured themselves playing sports, hiking, biking etc.... MRI provides great visual access to bones and joints that previously was impossible without surgery.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    2. Re:exaggeration by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks to the insane lawsuit culture in the US, people get MRI's for just about anything. Complain to a doctor about a heachache, ear pain or something similar and a referral for an MRI will be right behind the amoxicillin prescription.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  4. No need to register, here's the text! by scumbucket · · Score: 4, Informative

    American and Briton Win Nobel for Medicine
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- American Paul C. Lauterbur and Briton Sir Peter Mansfield won the 2003 Nobel Prize for medicine Monday for discoveries leading to the development of MRI, now relied on by doctors for getting a detailed look into their patients' bodies.

    Magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, has become a routine method for medical diagnosis and treatment. It is used to examine almost all organs without need for surgery, but is especially valuable for detailed examination of the brain and spinal cord.

    MRI can reveal whether lower back pain is is due to pressure on a nerve or spinal cord, for example. It can give surgeons a roadmap for operations, revealing the limits of a tumor. And since MRI itself does not require physically entering the body, it can replace some procedures that patients find uncomfortable.

    Worldwide, more than 60 million investigations with MRI are performed each year, and the technique is ``a breakthrough in medical diagnostics and research,'' the Assembly said.

    Monday's prize honors pioneering work done in the 1970s that laid the groundwork for making MRI a useful method, the assembly said.

    Lauterbur, 74, discovered the possibility of creating a two-dimensional picture by producing variations in a magnetic field. He did the work at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, but is now at the Biomedical Magnetic Resonance Laboratory at the University of Illinois in Urbana.

    ``I'm surprised and very gratified,'' Lauterbur said when contacted at his home early Monday. ``In particular, I believe, I think the work has been helpful to many people, and I'm happy that has been acknowledged by the Swedish academy.''

    Mansfield, 69, showed how the signals the body emits during an MRI exam could be rapidly analyzed and transformed into an image. Mansfield also showed how extremely fast imaging could be achievable. This became technically possible within medicine a decade later.

    Mansfield is at the University of Nottingham in Britain.

    ``We've waited a long time, but I must say, I didn't really expect anything like this to come at this point in my life,'' he said. ``My 70th birthday is this week and although I'm retired, I'm still working in research, but I'd given up all hopes and ideas of receiving anything in the way of an accolade of this type.''

    The prize for the two men is ``long overdue,'' said Sir George Radda, an MRI expert from Oxford University. ``These two people have clearly been the inventors of magnetic resonance imaging and developed it.''

    The Medical Research Council, Britain's equivalent to the National Instititutes of Health, funded Mansfield's early work.

    ``They recognized even at the very early physics and engineering stage that this was worth supporting in the long run and it paid off,'' said Radda, former chief executive of the Medical Research Council.

    ``There are a lot of people who along the line contributed, like in all these cases, but they published the key papers.''

    Radda noted that MRI has become very versatile, and can produce images that indicate brain functioning as well as anatomy.

    ``There are very few people around now that haven't been in an MRI machine these days,'' Radda said. ``It turned out to be extremely useful for looking at joints and knees, the brain, the heart -- basically every organ. The difficult one is the lung.''

    Essentially, MRI provokes hydrogen atoms in the body's tissues to emit radio signals, which it then detects and uses to build up three-dimensional images of internal organs.

    The prize includes a check for 10 million kronor, or $1.3 million, and bestows a deeper sense of academic and medical integrity upon the winners.

    There are no set guidelines for deciding who wins. Alfred Nobel, who endowed the awards that bear his name, simply said the winner ``shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or

    --
    CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
    1. Re:No need to register, here's the text! by c_oflynn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also use this:

      username: plasticuser
      password: plastic

  5. Not to sound superficial or whiny, but... by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Monday's prize honors pioneering work done in the 1970s that laid the groundwork for making MRI a useful method, the assembly said.

    Heck, the first whole-body MRI scanner was finished in 1977 -- and the Nobel Prize is being awarded just now? What am I missing on how long it takes for the committee to conclude that something has been revolutionary? I realize that Nobel Prizes must be awarded in hindsight, and that belated high-stature recognition is of course better than none at all, but the time gap still seems a little excessive to me.

    1. Re:Not to sound superficial or whiny, but... by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I realize that Nobel Prizes must be awarded in hindsight

      Well, one of the criterias is that the discovery has benefitted the mankind.

      To my mind, one or two decades is an absolute minimum for such a conclusion. I'd rather see the honour bestowed posthumously - these professors don't do anything with the money they get (at least in the large-scale experimental physics the prize is peanuts compared to the real yearly budgets) and they're too old to really benefit from the fame too.

    2. Re:Not to sound superficial or whiny, but... by TheTwoBest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd rather see the honour bestowed posthumously

      Unfortunately the Nobel prize it not awarded posthumously. This was one of the contributing factors in the whole Rosalind Franklin and DNA issue.

    3. Re:Not to sound superficial or whiny, but... by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd rather see the honour bestowed posthumously

      Whoa! A scientist who's worked hard enough to win the Nobel Prize should at the very least live to see it, and enjoy the peer acclaim of having gotten one, if not for the monetary commendation.

      And yes, if they've done enough to contribute so much to society, you cannot spare a few hundred thousand dollars to them just because they're old?

      Remember, age is not a deterrent to feel accomplished -- and this is something that should not be taken away. They deserve atleast this much.

    4. Re:Not to sound superficial or whiny, but... by Mononoke · · Score: 3, Insightful
      A scientist who's worked hard enough to win the Nobel Prize should at the very least live to see it...
      Any scientist who's worked hard enough to win wasn't attempting to win anything.

      The unrestricted 'grant' money is quite nice, though.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  6. why such a delay? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why are the Nobel Prizes always awarded so long after the prize-winning research has taken place? Is it part of the charter to make sure that the advance that's being rewarded is truly beneficial?

    1. Re:why such a delay? by kfg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, it is. And it often takes some time to determine just how beneficial such work really is.

      As an example how likely do you think Yasser Arafat would be to receive a Nobel for peace today?

      How likely Jimmy Carter NOT to receive one?

      Sometimes you have to wait a fairly long time just to make sure you have identified the proper party.

      I can attest to this with my own family's history. My uncle Albert Schatz invented streptomyicin, and another got awarded the Nobel Prize for it only a few years later. We're so sorry, Uncle Albert.

      This sad state of affairs is now "common" knowledge and had the Acadamy waited 10 years or so to see how things shook out Uncle Albert would have had his Nobel. As it is he now struggles just to get recongnition for what he did, since only those "in the know," know he did it.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,8 23 114,00.html

      They have only rarely caused injustice by prudence. They have jumped the gun and caused injustice on a number of occasions.

      Prudence now seems the wisest course to them.

      KFG

    2. Re:why such a delay? by HardCase · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why are the Nobel Prizes always awarded so long after the prize-winning research has taken place? Is it part of the charter to make sure that the advance that's being rewarded is truly beneficial?


      It's so that they know that the advance that is being rewarded is really an advance and not a mistake. For example, up until Michelson's experiments, the prevailing theory was that outer space was not a vacuum, but rather space filled with some sort of aether that allowed electromagnetic radiation to propagate. After all, there has to be some kind of medium for waves to propagate in, right?


      -h-

  7. NUCLEAR Magnetic Resonance Imaging by StandardCell · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason most of the public knows MRI as MRI, and not NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), is because people would be scared of the term "nuclear" as radiation and would avoid them. In fact, it actually does have everything to do with both nuclei and radiation, but why sit and argue what it really means with Joe and Jane Average? It's a very similar situation to the bad rap that microwave ovens initially had.

    Note: This is not my factoid, I owe this to one of my EE professors who did research in this field.

  8. Official press trelease by oll · · Score: 4, Informative

    The official press release from The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet.

  9. 'Tis not uncommon by SiMac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look at the list of previous winners. It's usually a long time before a Nobel prize is awarded.

  10. MRI is wonderful. by cgranade · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now, thanks to MRI, we get to see pictures of very interesting things such as sex in an MRI tube...

    --

    #define DRM chmod 000

  11. Re:Old News by watzinaneihm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have the exact opposite point of view. These routine news items like awards shouldnt be on slashdot frontpage at all. Look at slashdot, everytime a hugo award is given out its on slashdot (even though after harry potter getting it, its no more fun). Every time an Ig Nobel is announced its a story (Ok those are fun). Now Nobel awards are frontpage material.
    From the linked article
    The physics award will be announced Tuesday and the chemistry and economics awards Wednesday in the Swedish capital.
    This potentially means two more frontpage stories on slashdot and 3 if the Economics award goes to behavioral economics or computational (is there a term like this) economics.
    This makes no sense because I can read it on newspapers anyway, no paper is going to miss the nobel awards. And the invention was in 70s and its not like slammer that we must know that NOW before its too late. Sorry for ranting ..Maybe comments on stories add some informational value to the stories..
    BTW did slashdot put up stories on fields medals??

    --
    .ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
  12. Nobel has always been that way by bluGill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Nobel prize has traditionally been very slow to make awards. They are based not on scientifi merit, but significant scientifi merit. The committe has been burned a few times in the past when the awarded a prize for something that seemed revolutionary and worth a prize today, only to have significant flaws develope meaning the work that seemed for revlutionary is insignificant in 20 years. This work may have seemed cool 20 years ago (though other posters dispute that), but it has since shown lasting value to sciencie.

    Remember, Nobel himself was interested in science for the sake of improving people's life. Science for science sake didn't really interest him. (More in the math FAQ on why there isn't a math award) Nobel himself wouldn't have wanted this award given in the '70s just in case it didn't pan out.

    One other point, the committe takes into account personal background. If you deserve an award, but they feel your personaly life would lead you to "wasting" it, they will give the award to someone else. Turn your life around, and you may suddenly get an award at 60 for something you did when you were 25.

    Of course the nobel committies are political. Some awards are given far too soon, and others are ignored for less achivements of "lesser" merit. Overall though, they do a fairly good job.

    1. Re:Nobel has always been that way by Magnus+Reftel · · Score: 2, Interesting
      One other point, the committe takes into account personal background. If you deserve an award, but they feel your personaly life would lead you to "wasting" it, they will give the award to someone else.

      Are you sure about that? While I cannot find a source for it, I can definitily remember hearing a member of the Nobel Committe stating that they totally disregard any comments in a nomination about the nominee's character, and that they would give the prize to a criminal if he/she had conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. The statues, at least, do not mention anything about the character of the nominees (though, incidentally, the original will says that the prize should be given to the ones who had done the most to benefit mankind in the preceeding year, so they do not appear to be followed too strictly).

      --
      print "Yet another p{erl,ython} hacker\n",
  13. Goliath finally won this battle... Damadian lost? by pohzer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Raymond Damadian has been the "David" in this battle since he first submitted to publish his original images in 1969.... and started to experience the "outsider syndrome". It was Damadian's experiment that led Lauterbur to employ a gradient field and achieve high resolution, using existing methods from Computed Tomography imaging.

    Damadian has the patents on use of T1 and T2 relaxation times in MRI. I met him at a small seminar in the early 80's where he was about to abandon his attempts to defend his patents against GE, Seimens, et al. due to costs... he eventually won against all of them. He's at www.fonar.com and a nice summary of the controversy is at www.mult-sclerosis.org .

  14. Was there a complementary prize given for... by vudufixit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pioneering research into anti-claustrophobia treatments?

  15. Re:wonderful by for_usenet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The gentlemen in question are not "medicinists." Both have backgrounds in the natural sciences, namely Physics and Chemistry.

    What is cool is they received their Nobel for medicine, yet neither of their backgrounds are strictly in medicine, or even Biology. Which is why the relatively open and collaborative nature of science, and research in general, is pretty neat !!

  16. MRIs are fun by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've had some fun with MRIs too. After I got a head scan with a closed MRI, the tech picked up a screwdriver and gave it to me. I walked over to the machine, and felt a very strong force begin to tug and tug on the screwdriver. Waving it in the tunnel, it almost latched onto the ceiling. Luckily the machine was turned off, and the outside had some shielding, or I imagine would have been dragged accross the room.

    The MRI technology was developed at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, right by where I live. The first machine over here was built with permanent magnets, dozens of them in metal brick form stacked to form the plates. The lab was situated right above the parking garage, which was unlucky for the cars below. People began to notice that all the cars parked in a certain corner wouldn't start if they were left there for a while. It turns out the machine wasn't shielded enough, and the magnetism was somehow draining all the car batteries below. The floor, as well as the walls, soon got lead or copper shielding after that. Can anyone explain to me why that happened?

    Another interesting story there: One day, the custodian somehow ignored the red "In Progress" signs and entered while using the floor buffing machine. Immediately the machine was yanked off the ground, and dragged into the tunnel, where I imagine a patient was lying since the machine was on. The patient was OK, just had to crawl out the other side. The custodian was fired, and the radiologists were left with the task of getting a heavy twisted hunk of metal out from in between two permanent magnets. In the end, a tow truck had to use a winch to slowly pull the tangled floor buffer out. Owch.

  17. Nobel, nitroglycerine, and Robert Furchgott by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Turn your life around, and you may suddenly get an award at 60 for something you did when you were 25

    Think also of the story of Robert Furchgott. When I first met him, in 1980, he was an emininent pharmacologist who had made important early theoretical and experimental contributions to the field. But he was getting on in years, and many people seemed to think that his major work was behind him. He was working on this obscure problem in pharmacology: he was trying to figure out how acetylcholine relaxes vascular smooth muscle to (dilate blood vessels).

    It was an obscure problem because acetylcholine doesn't actually seem to play much of a role physiologically in controlling vascular smooth muscle. But Furchgott had discovered that if he prepared his smooth muscle samples really cleanly, with no endothelium (the "skin" on the inside of the vessel) attached, acetylcholine no longer worked. He figured out that the endothelium had to be releasing somthing, which he named "Endothelium Derived Relaxing Factor," EDRF for short. Evenually he and others identified EDRF as nitric oxide, and for this he shared the 1998 Nobel Prize in Medicine.

    What makes this particularly cool is that Nobel supposedly established his Prizes because he felt kind of bad about some of the uses to which his great discovery had been put--namely, the stablized form of nitroglycerine known as dynamite. However, nitroglycerine also has a medical use, relieving the pain of angina. Nobody knew how it did this, until Furchgott's discovery opened up the nitric oxide field, and nitroglycerine was recognized to act by releasing nitric oxide (thereby dilating blood vessels in the heart and improving blood flow).

    And of course, a few years later, Furchgott's discovery led to the development of Viagra...

  18. The original gradient amps were audio gear by djh101010 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know most of the pulse sequence designers for GE's MRI scanners - trust me, the noises aren't the only strange thing in that department. A bunch of brilliant physicists and computer scientists, to be sure, but uniformly goofy.

    That having been said - the physics dictates the sound. You've got three gradient coils around you, for X,Y, and Z, each of which are pulsing in the audio frequencies, so an RF pulse can excite a particular area for imaging.

    Originally, the gradient amps for GE's scanners were Techron 8603's, which had an analog input on the front panel. Some interesting (and highly unauthorized) experiments took place involving Dark Side of the Moon and that analog input; an MRI scanner is a very good speaker...and the effect of lying in the tube with that music swirling around is absolutely indescribable.