Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3 Scientists Share Nobel For Parastic Disease Breakthroughs

Posted by timothy on from the boons-to-humanity dept.

The Australian reports that a trio of scientists (hailing from from Japan, China, and Ireland) has been awarded this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work in treating parasitic diseases. Irish scientist William Campbell (currently research fellow emeritus at New Jersey's Drew University), and Japanese biochemist Satoshi Omura, were awarded half of the monetary award for their work in defeating roundworm infections; the drug they developed as a result, Avermectin, has helped drastically lower two devastating diseases -- river blindness and lymphatic filariasis -- and has shown promise in treating other ailments as well. The other half of the prize has been awarded to Chinese researcher Youyou Tu, who discovered a novel antimalarial drug based on her research into traditional herbal medicines. (Also at The Washington Post, CNN, The New York Times, and elsewhere. The awards were live-blogged by The Guardian.)

36 comments

  1. In Other News: Slashdot News Authors Win Prize For by tomxor · · Score: 1

    Most annoying typos in article titles

  2. Sites that require cookies? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    How about a link to an article that does require cookies enabled to view? Maybe you don't mind but I do and I don't really need to allow some random news site to set a cookie for no reason. Provide no value to me whatsoever.

    1. Re:Sites that require cookies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might appreciate the press release directly from the Nobel Prize committee. Unlike other press releases, it actually goes into detail, and gives good background on the topic of the prize. (Though I don't know if the nobelprize.org domain sets cookies or not - I don't think they *require* them, though.)

  3. Queue the misinformation... by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Queue the comments from idiots who think a drug derived from old herbal remedies is the same thing as using old herbal remedies...

    1. Re:Queue the misinformation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but wouldn't it be great if they could then google Youyou Tu and get legit-informed on what she actually did. yaknow, instead of spouting malarkey about eating more ginseng.

    2. Re:Queue the misinformation... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Queue the comments from idiots who think a drug derived from old herbal remedies is the same thing as using old herbal remedies...

      "The fact that this researcher won a Nobel for isolating an effective drug from old herbal remedies is proof that old herbal remedies are completely useless!"

      The first known medical description of Qinghao lies in a 2000-year-old document called "52 Prescriptions" (168 BCE) that had been unearthed from a Mawangdui Han Dynasty tomb. It details the herb's use for soothing hemorrhoids. Later texts also mention the plant's curative powers. Tu discovered a passage in the Handbook of Prescriptions for Emergencies (340 CE) by Ge Hong that referenced Qinghao's malaria-healing capacity. It said "Take a handful of Qinghao, soak in two liters of water, strain the liquid, and drink." She realized that the standard procedure of boiling and high-temperature extraction could destroy the active ingredient.

      With this idea in mind, Tu redesigned the extraction process, performing it at low temperatures with ether as the solvent. She also removed a harmful acidic portion of the extract that did not contribute to antimalarial activity, tracked the material to the leaves rather than other parts of the plant, and figured out when to harvest the herb to maximize yields. These innovations boosted potency and slashed toxicity. At a March 1972 meeting of the Project 523 group's key participants, she reported that the neutral plant extract —number 191—obliterated Plasmodia in the blood of mice and monkeys.

      So basically, she found a 2000 year-old book that says the plant heals malaria, extracted the malaria-healing part and got a Nobel for discovering a malaria drug.

      Ge Hong is laughing his head off.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Queue the misinformation... by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So basically, she found a 2000 year-old book that says the plant heals malaria, extracted the malaria-healing part and got a Nobel for discovering a malaria drug.

      Well, it wasn't a malaria drug before she did the actual science necessary to prove that a 2000-year-old book wasn't simply full of shit, and the end result was many lives saved. I certainly don't begrudge her the Nobel, even though it means we'll spend the next few decades listening to the CCP and alternative medicine practitioners crowing about it. (I can't decide which is worse.)

    4. Re:Queue the misinformation... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The guy who discovered penicillen (and got the prize) ran a few tests, decided it wouldn't work in a human, and shelved it.

      20 years later another guy unshelved it, got it working in humans, and under mass production for WWII. He got his own belated Nobel decades later.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Queue the misinformation... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, it wasn't a malaria drug before she did the actual science necessary to prove that a 2000-year-old book wasn't simply full of shit

      I'll bet the physicians who used the plant and the people who were cured by the plant 2000 years ago had a little proof themselves.

      Hypothesis, experimentation and publishing results were not invented by Roger Bacon. Human beings didn't suddenly become smart in the 13th century.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Queue the misinformation... by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Well, while your point is well taken, the 2000 year old texts are also chock full of dross (for want of a better word), while current medical texts are much, much better in that respect. (Not perfect, not nearly, but much better).

      So, clearly there has been an advancement in and with the scientific process. The main problem before that being that its surprisingly easy to fool yourself, and people often did. It still surprisingly easy to fool yourself, scientists do it all the time, but by disciplining our subjectivity as much as is humanly possible by means of the scientific process, we make much fewer mistakes today, and the ones that are made are caught sooner.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  4. Re: In Other News: by HydroPhonic · · Score: 2

    Parasite found feasting on "I" from headline

  5. Laurels by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    The Nobel Prize (and associated recognition) is as important today as ever, given the profitability limitations on the study of many new drugs and treatments by many of the large companies involved in research and development.

    Prize recipients from three nations! Cudos.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Laurels by gerddie · · Score: 1
      Actually, these big awards are not that important, especially in medical sciences. In fact, one might even say that hey are counter productive:

      All scholarship is, to some extent, built on prior work — but this is especially true in scientific research. Consider James P. Allison, the winner of this year’s Lasker-DeBakey prize in clinical medical research. His work helped clarify one way cancer cells hide from the immune system. [...] Dr. Allison’s work is surely impressive. But [...]it relied on work conducted by 7,000 scientists at 5,700 institutions over a hundred-year period. Yet only he was recognized.

      and

      The prize industry contributes to a deeper problem in scientific research: We throw resources at a privileged few who have already achieved enormous fame.

      Instead

      [...] we could break up big prizes and give out many smaller awards. This may be more effective in supporting science [...]

    2. Re:Laurels by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The Nobel prize is 8.000.000 SEK this year or ~960.000 USD. Divided by three that's $320k each. That you are very likely to only get once for a career in research stretching over decades. I suppose you could say it's a whole lot more than nothing, but if you wanted to make money you should have become a NFL quarterback or something.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Laurels by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      The Nobel prize is 8.000.000 SEK this year or ~960.000 USD. Divided by three that's $320k each. That you are very likely to only get once for a career in research stretching over decades. I suppose you could say it's a whole lot more than nothing, but if you wanted to make money you should have become a NFL quarterback or something.

      Of course, but to be fair, most of us here wrestle daily with the regret we have over opting out of that quarterback gig.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:Laurels by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Of course, but to be fair, most of us here wrestle daily with the regret we have over opting out of that quarterback gig.

      Mod parent up, funniest thing I've read on slashdot in ages.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  6. 3 Scientists Share Nobel for Discovery by Alomex · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do we know they won it because of those discoveries and not something else? after all correlation does not imply causation, and frankly the fact that it is explicitly mentioned in the citation for the prize is just anecdotal evidence not data.

    1. Re:3 Scientists Share Nobel for Discovery by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's true, more and more these days awards are given for political purposes. It's sad because it ruins the original ability of the awards to inspire, but that's where we are these days.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:3 Scientists Share Nobel for Discovery by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's true, more and more these days awards are given for political purposes.

      Translation: "I NEVER WIN AWARDS!"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:3 Scientists Share Nobel for Discovery by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      the fact that it is explicitly mentioned in the citation for the prize is just anecdotal evidence not data

      I can't tell, is this a parody troll or not? Here is the exact citation, from the source:

      The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015 was divided, one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi mura "for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites" and the other half to Youyou Tu "for her discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria"

      How can this be made any clearer? Let me guess, this is going to be another one of those threads where a legion of idiots who don't realize that the Peace Prize is selected and awarded by an entirely different institution using different criteria make irrelevant comments about Obama's prize.

    4. Re:3 Scientists Share Nobel for Discovery by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well all those other treatments to save tens of millions will have to wait for next year.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:3 Scientists Share Nobel for Discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parody son, parody.

    6. Re:3 Scientists Share Nobel for Discovery by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I can't tell, is this a parody troll or not?

      No, it's completely serious.

      FYI, this is sarcasm.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. Horses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neighhhhh!Neighhhhh!!

  8. Re:In Other News: Slashdot News Authors Win Prize by robmarms · · Score: 2

    yeah, it's the drug is spelled Ivermectin, among many other botch ups!

  9. Avermectin/Ivermectin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The two drugs are similar and used in combination.

    1. Re:Avermectin/Ivermectin by robmarms · · Score: 2

      Actually, Ivermectin is the drug given as a mixture of 2 different substances of the avermectin family.

  10. Parasites by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only one scientist did the work. The other two just leeched off of him to take credit.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  11. The biggest break through... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    The biggest break through in the treatment of parasites comes when there is only one manufacturer left in the world for a generic drug that is some 60 odd years old. I takes a particularly sharp eyed man to see the opportunity, buy the company and jack up the price by 7500%. That is a break through.

    Slogging your balls off working in a lab for three decades and hoping there is a chance some foreign committee in Sweden would see your work and throw you a bone 7500% smaller than the new price for the generic drug... That is a fools game.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:The biggest break through... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "The biggest break through in the treatment of parasites comes when there is only one manufacturer left in the world for a generic drug that is some 60 odd years old. I takes a particularly sharp eyed man to see the opportunity, buy the company and jack up the price by 7500%."

      No, that would be the biggest breakthrough in parasites

  12. Still no cure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... for poor editorial discipline.

  13. First real Nobel for mainland China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's worth noting that this is the first time a science Nobel (as opposed to the more political peace and literature prizes) has been awarded for work in Mainland China. Previous Chinese winners have all been emigrants who did their Nobel-winning work outside of China.

  14. overdose X 10 by raymorris · · Score: 1

    It is not at all uncommon for one leaf to have a hundred times higher concentration of the active ingredient than another leaf from another plant, picked at a different time. So to get 10mg of medicine, you might need one leaf, or you might need 100 - and there is no simple way of knowing.

    At the same time, individual "doses" of the raw plant might vary just as much in the concentration of a bad substance which causes significant side effects. Ten leaves might be dangerous, or maybe 100 leaves. You don't know.

    Putting these two together, you don't know if 20 leaves will heal you or hurt you. By seperating out the active ingredient and the hurtful ingredient, you can give the patient the right amount of medicine, without the harmful part. That turns what was Russian roulette with the raw plant into reliable medicine.

  15. first native Chinese science prize? by peter303 · · Score: 2

    I thought I read a blurb in the paper about this. Chinese-born people have won science prizes after emigrating. And Chinese citizens have won literature and peace prizes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... China certainly spends a bundle on R&D these days, perhaps second in world now.

  16. Wow by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    I didn't know you could get a Nobel prize for studying politicians, advertisers, and lawyers. I wonder if they found a cure.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways