Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nobel Prize in Chemistry Awarded to Trio of Evolutionary Scientists (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the marching-forward dept.

Three scientists have won the Nobel prize in chemistry for their work in harnessing evolution to produce new enzymes and antibodies. From a report: British scientist Sir Gregory P Winter and Americans Frances H Arnold and George P Smith will share the 9m Swedish kronor ($1 million) prize, awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Half of the prize goes to Arnold, from the California Institute of Technology, for her work on directing the evolution of enzymes -- proteins that speed up chemical reactions. In a nutshell, Arnold introduced genetic mutations into enzymes, and then looked to see what effect the mutations had. She then selected the cases where a particular mutation proved useful -- for example, allowing the enzyme to work in a solvent it would otherwise not work in. Her work has made it possible to cut out the use of many toxic catalysts and has led to the development of enzymes for all manner of fields, including the development of biofuels and the production of pharmaceuticals.

The other half of the award goes to Winter and Smith, for their work on "phage display of peptides and antibodies." A phage is a virus that can infect bacteria, "tricking" bacteria to reproduce it. Smith genetically engineered phages so that they would include a certain molecule on their outer capsule which allowed him to that encompasses out particular proteins crop up on the outer. Winter used this technology to develop new drugs that have transformed medicine, offering therapies for diseases ranging from cancer to autoimmune conditions. Arnold is only the fifth woman to be awarded the prize for Chemistry -- the last female scientist to scoop the award was Ada E. Yonath in 2009 who shared the prize for her work on understanding the structure of ribosomes: the protein-manufacturing structures inside cells.

78 comments

  1. Interesting! by Evtim · · Score: 1

    Maybe the phage treatment will get the attention it deserves as a viable alternative to antibiotics!

    1. Re: Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You missed the important part: "which allowed him to that encompasses out particular proteins crop up on the outer". This was clearly generated by random evolutionary processes.

    2. Re: Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. God did it you filthy heathen.

  2. "Directed" evolution? by davide+marney · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Half of the prize goes to Arnold, from the California Institute of Technology, for her work on directing the evolution of enzymes -- proteins that speed up chemical reactions. In a nutshell, Arnold introduced genetic mutations into enzymes, and then looked to see what effect the mutations had. She then selected the cases where a particular mutation proved useful...

    IANAC, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say she programmed those enzymes?

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:"Directed" evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Mutations are incorporated randomly or pseudorandomly and the functioning enzymes are then selected. No programming involved.

    2. Re:"Directed" evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Richard Stallman's writings about the GPL are designed to hide his true
      intent and to make it seem as if he is engaged in some form of "noble"
      cause. In fact, the aim of the GPL is to destroy a particular group --
      to sabotage a legitimate class of endeavor which Richard claims is
      "immoral."

      Open source itself is a noble pursuit, as are public libraries. It's
      wonderful when software which was developed at the public's expense, or
      by those generous enough to share their work, is available to all. But
      the GPL is an attempt to use open source as a weapon by preventing
      exactly one group of people from benefiting from it: programmers and
      engineers who would build upon that work and be rewarded for doing so.
      In fact, it goes farther in that it damages or destroys the prospects
      of ANYONE who would hope to make a living by creating software.

      When he played in the sandbox of academia more than 20 years ago,
      Richard insisted upon MAKING everyone else share his or her toys. When
      they did not, he vowed vengeance. He has, for more than 20 years, nursed
      a grudge against those who would not give their work away for free.
      He has built a storehouse of rhetoric -- employing time-honored propaganda
      techniques -- in an attempt to sabotage their efforts.

      The fundamental problem with Richard's crusade was (and is!) that he failed
      to recognize that the norms and practices of academia were artificially created
      to bring about a particular end: the development of knowledge which can then be
      used "outside the bubble" in the real world. In the world of academic research,
      researchers forego material rewards, but are rewarded instead with an
      opportunity to live, full-time, in an incredibly rewarding intellectual
      playground. But that world is not self-sustaining; rather, it is created
      and supported by funding from government and from private businesses. What
      they ask, in return, is that they be able to build practical products based
      on the work that is done there. This symbiotic relationship works well, and
      most academics understand it. But Richard did not -- and was angered by the
      efforts of companies such as Symbolics, which sought to use the work
      done in the MIT AI Lab to produce real world products. (It failed,
      incidentally, though for reasons which had nothing to do with the quality
      of its products.)

      In short, the GPL is effectively the result of an academic's tantrum --
      railing against the "unfortunate" reality that the real world is not entirely
      like the cloistered world which once existed in the MIT AI Lab. In the
      real world, the reward systems are inescapably and irrevocably different,
      and we must recognize and in fact appreciate this.

      Richard, it's still time to recognize that what you are doing is hurtful and
      harmful and stop doing it. Would you really like to be remembered for having
      spent your entire life nursing a petty grudge?

    3. Re:"Directed" evolution? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      If you code by banging out random changes until it compiles and then delete the branches that compiled but didn't execute properly and repeat over and over...

    4. Re:"Directed" evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short answer: NO!

      When you program, you know the result of each instruction. Here, she changed some amino acids (randomly) hoping some desirable properties will appear. Then, she put an artificial selective pressure to guide the process.

      Long answer.

      PS: Biologist here.

    5. Re:"Directed" evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kind of how most people "program" in the first place. Make a change, see if an issue goes away or a desire feature happens to occur. Why design?

    6. Re:"Directed" evolution? by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Be careful. You are giving people ideas.

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    7. Re:"Directed" evolution? by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      But she didn't introduce the mutations randomly, she introduced them intentionally.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    8. Re:"Directed" evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you are a biologist I have a question for you about the summary, where it says " In a nutshell, Arnold introduced genetic mutations into enzymes, and then looked to see what effect the mutations had. She then selected the cases where a particular mutation proved useful -- for example, allowing the enzyme to work in a solvent it would otherwise not work in."

      Do enzymes actually contain genes? I did a quick search and the terminology discusses genes producing enzymes, not enzymes having genes.

    9. Re:"Directed" evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. She uses techniques that use error prone methods to introduce random mutations.

    10. Re:"Directed" evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      f you code by banging out random changes until it compiles and then delete the branches that compiled but didn't execute properly and repeat over and over..

      Web programming in a nutshell...

  3. I am APK and I am GAY !! ... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    yo
    yo
    yo
    :o
    !!

    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!

    HOSTS ARE THE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING
    !!

    I post and pretend to not be me when I get REALLY FUCKING MAD about what you people are saying about me
    !!

    I HATE JEWS
    !!

    I've been posting a long rant about why Jews are evil and repeating it over and over in multiple articles... AND I'M DAMNED PROUD OF IT
    !!

    I am APK and I am GAY
    !!

    The APK has spoken
    !!

    P.S.=> You SOYBOY weasels can go fUcK yourselves in the ass with a spork, rastanbooyez
    !!

    Disagree with me? Want to post fake-creimer spam in reply because you are obsessed with him? Post your real name, address, and phone number, too, you cowardly bastards
    !!
    ... apk

  4. Twofer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For the first time, Physics _and_ Chemistry, 2018.
    Congratulations Strickland and Arnold!

    Now, Slashdot, you may commence your usual loathsome misogynistic/racist rants.
    We no longer expect any better from you.

    1. Re:Twofer by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I don't really care much for the gender of scientists. I don't want to fuck them, I want them to make groundbreaking discoveries.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Twofer by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah.
      And considering the last time that happened for each subject was 9 and 51 years since for the odds of 2% and 10% if it was the same still (odds of both happening at the same time 0.2%?) my question become whatever it was just a lucky coincidence or whatever they have put effort into finding some women who actually mattered.

    3. Re:Twofer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      For the first time, Physics _and_ Chemistry, 2018.
      Congratulations Strickland and Arnold!

      Now, Slashdot, you may commence your usual loathsome misogynistic/racist rants.
      We no longer expect any better from you.

      Singling out women for being women - even to praise them - is still, get this SINGLING OUT WOMEN BECAUSE THEY'RE WOMEN.

      By definition, that makes people like you the sexist ones.

      And calling people who really don't care that the person who won the Nobel prize is a woman or a man or a wimyn or a hermaphrodite names like "misogynist" and "RAAAACIS'!!!" doesn't change the fact that it is YOU who is being divisive.

      Seriously: GO FUCK YOURSELF with your "progressive", balkanizing, "intersectional" race-to-being-the-biggest-victim virtue signalling BULLSHIT.

      If we're all equal, THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

      But that's the point, isn't it? You DON'T really want equality, you want power for your chosen classes.

      So, again: GO FUCK YOURSELF.

    4. Re: Twofer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, you must be working for the Russians!

    5. Re:Twofer by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it *must* be misogyny to point out that the Nobel prizes have become a joke and are given out not for merit, but to say, "I'm far left and it agrees with my politics to give this once-respected award to this person." Pure hatred of women, that. Just like if you don't like SJW movies, that makes you a dirty foreigner.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Twofer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it *must* be misogyny to point out that the Nobel prizes have become a joke and are given out not for merit

      Well, it is either that or complete ignorance of what the testament actually dictates.

      Most people who criticizes the Nobel prizes have no clue to what the purpose of the prize. It is not supposed to go to the top minds in each field or to those who made the most spectacular advances.
      Heck, even a thing like finding a unified model or disproving the standard model isn't necessarily in line with what the Nobel prize is supposed to be awarded for.

      The Nobel prize was created for political reasons and will hopefully always be awarded with politics in mind.
      It is supposed to promote science that benefits humanity as a whole and not let profit or warfare be the only driving forces.

      The peace prize is a bit of an exception to the others but the idea behind it is similar. It isn't given to the most peaceful person in the world. (let's face it, that is probably some old lady in the middle of nowhere who no-one ever heard about.)
      It is a political tool used as a carrot to guide people in power, often in advance so that their future decisions will be influenced of what would be appropriate for a peace prize winner.

    7. Re:Twofer by nagora · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I don't really care much for the gender of scientists. I don't want to fuck them, I want them to make groundbreaking discoveries.

      With me, they can do both!

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    8. Re:Twofer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the significance of culling through random results? Aside from gender significance, obviously.

    9. Re:Twofer by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      even a thing like finding a unified model or disproving the standard model isn't necessarily in line with what the Nobel prize is supposed to be awarded for.

      The scientific hegemony would never allow any disproving of the Standard Model to occur. Instead it would be "new results" which "extend" it, and may "hint" at "dark matter", "dark energy" and "exotic new particles".

      As to a unified physics model not winning, if that doesn't win a Nobel prize in physics it ain't much of a prize, is it?

      - - - - -

      Nobel specified "greatest benefit on mankind"

      My new (and unified) model of physics provides great potential benefit to mankind because it steers physics away from the lunacy of particle smashing & endless star cataloguing, and toward valid models & simulation. With zero tolerance for ludicrous fudge factors. The economic benefit of that would be in the billions (to tens of billions) of dollars a year.

      But let's be frank here. The physics shell gamers don't want a unified theory. They have managed to transform a scientific field to a science fiction cash cow and want status quo (or SNAFU) until the end of time.

      - - - - -

      The Nobel prize has a fairly absurd list of rules that effectively snuff out true innovation.

      (1) "Nomination forms are sent by the Nobel Committee to about 3,000 individuals, usually in September the year before the prizes are awarded. These individuals are generally prominent academics working in a relevant area."

      So if one is working in a completely new way (i.e. area), then no one else is and so none of the 3,000 will nominate you. In this method the Nobel mirrors the Oscar process. An elite club decides which person becomes part of the elite club.

      (2) "The Nobel Committee then prepares a report reflecting the advice of experts in the relevant fields."

      Again, true innovations will be specifically avoided by this approach. The Higgs monstrosity will succeed, though.

      (3) Why no posthumous award? What does that have to do with anything? Great innovators have families, or at least relatives. What am I missing here?

      (4) "Nobel's will provided for prizes to be awarded in recognition of discoveries made "during the preceding year"."

      Again, why? If it takes 366 days to figure out how advanced someone was, then too bad? Idiotic.

      At least this last one has morphed -- "According to Ralf Pettersson, former chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology or Medicine, "the criterion 'the previous year' is interpreted by the Nobel Assembly as the year when the full impact of the discovery has become evident."

      Clearly what is needed is more input from the general public. Not a popularity contest, but at least some way to break through the decades of dust and repetition that cloud the minds of most.

      Theorists who prove to be right should be valued about cataloguers.

      The "maximum of 3" constraint should be dissolved in battery acid. The cash amount is fixed, and that is enough. If more win, they get less each. Simple.

      - - - - -

      Radical ways to improve the Nobel process...

      (a) If there is no real winner that year, the prize money carries forward to the next year.

      (b) People nominated but not winning get an automatic re-nomination the next year.

      (c) People from other disciplines get to judge the merits of a nominee. I've found alleged scientists to be the most closed-minded group I deal with on a day-to-day basis. They have found their religion and have turned off the "Welcome" sign. Artists are wide open and often on the same wavelength as myself, because they are creative dreamers with vision. I'm pretty sure the world needs more of those.

      --
      I come here for the love
    10. Re:Twofer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the author of the OP in question, thanks. It appears not everybody remaining on Slashdot was hatched out of 4Chan. You are quite right, the Nobel Prizes were always Political, founded out of guilt, and funded from the profits derived from materials of Mass Destruction.
      Questions might be asked as to whether such things make up for being a Monster in life. After all, Andrew Carnegie founded free Libraries across Northern America and Britain, including Open Stack Libraries for Blacks, with profits largely derived from the misery he inflicted on those who worked for him. His partner Frick is remembered less fondly.
      My OP is labeled Flamebait; that it is. Come on Laddies, pile it on. You did such a great job on the Strickland article that not one posting dealt with the subject at hand, Chirping. Do you know how to Chirp? You pucker your lips to kiss Trump's ass, while a really brawny woman, preferably black, jams a petrochemical plant so far up your ass that Trump gets a Santorum Surprise.
      Now as to the Poster who insisted, twice, that I perform an unnatural, and possibly physiologically impossible, act on myself... you really need to understand the definition of the word "Balkanizing" before using it in mixed company. We don't despise each other, we are united in despising you.

  5. "Creationist" Scientists snubbed again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Ima let you finish but scientists who believe in God had the BEST RESEARCH EVER!

  6. Re:Creationist "Scientists" snubbed again! by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    Fixed those quotation marks for you.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. There's been lots of whining about the lack of fem by aliquis · · Score: 2

    Here in Sweden.

    Considering both this prize and the previous on yesterday include a female one gotta ask whatever they went with merits and it's just a coincidence it happened now or whatever these are kinda forced political choices due to media/political pressure.

  8. relevance of "fifth" "woman" to be awarded? by sittingnut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "arnold is only the fifth woman to be awarded the prize for chemistry. the last female scientist to scoop the award was ada e. yonath in 2009"

    does that matter? it shouldn't. in my opinion.
    and shouldn't be highlighted. as if noting the fulfillment, or not, of some quota.

    1. Re:relevance of "fifth" "woman" to be awarded? by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      I read it as more of an interesting fact. Kind of like baseball statistics...they come up with the most convoluted pieces of information that have almost no bearing to anything...but "Hey, cool, number 5!"

    2. Re:relevance of "fifth" "woman" to be awarded? by Jahoda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Poor, poor sad slashdotters. So threatened by the mean women. So angry that society continues to exclude them and fails to recognize their inherent greatness at every turn!

    3. Re:relevance of "fifth" "woman" to be awarded? by greythax · · Score: 1

      God I wish I had mod points to give you.

  9. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, this is exactly the question. And the problem.

    There should be no doubt that these women deserve those laurels. Their accomplishments are groundbreaking, both in physics and chemistry those Prizes went to the right people. This will change the world and we will soon see research jump forwards due to those accomplishments. These women worked hard for those goals and I do not doubt that they dedicated years if not decades of their life to be where they are now.

    And without the constant whining from the alleged feminists (I can't in good faith believe they actually give a shit about the advancement of gender equality anymore, sorry), this would stand by itself. There would be NO doubt, from anyone, that these merits are fully deserved.

    Thanks. Thanks a lot, you whiny, self absorbed bitches who never accomplished, or ever will accomplish, anything in your lives for ruining this for these great women. Thank you so much. You know that you'll never amount to anything and can only ever hope to get any kind of accolades if you skew and twist the rules until you get your participation trophy for belonging to a certain group. And you don't give a FUCK about anyone else from the group that actually CAN and DO accomplish anything.

    Go to hell, assholes!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. A shame sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    It's truely a shame this award includes a women. How can we men be reassured we aren't being reverse sexism-d if women are winning Nobel prizes? What they really should do is ban women from winning any prizes so we know there isnâ(TM)t any bias against men whatsoever. After all, we all know women are terrible at science and thereâ(TM)s no way they really can compete on an equal playing field with men, because men are clearly stronger.

  11. I am APK and I am GAY !! ... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    yo
    yo
    yo
    :o
    !!

    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!
    I'm 31337
    !!

    HOSTS ARE THE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING
    !!

    I post and pretend to not be me when I get REALLY FUCKING MAD about what you people are saying about me
    !!

    My ex-marine roommate and I are butt buddies
    !!

    I HATE JEWS
    !!

    I've been posting a long rant about why Jews are evil and repeating it over and over in multiple articles... AND I'M DAMNED PROUD OF IT
    !!

    I am APK and I am GAY
    !!

    The APK has spoken
    !!

    P.S.=> You SOYBOY weasels can go fUcK yourselves in the ass with a spork, rastanbooyez
    !!

    Disagree with me? Want to post fake-creimer spam in reply because you are obsessed with him? Post your real name, address, and phone number, too, you cowardly bastards
    !!
    ... apk

  12. do you editors even proofread??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    what is wrong with this sentence?: "Smith genetically engineered phages so that they would include a certain molecule on their outer capsule which allowed him to that encompasses out particular proteins crop up on the outer."

  13. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "arnold is only the fifth woman to be awarded the prize for chemistry. the last female scientist to scoop the award was ada e. yonath in 2009"

    does that matter? it shouldn't. in my opinion.
    and shouldn't be highlighted. as if noting the fulfillment, or not, of some quota.

    Because women in science is a rarity - especially those that win Nobels. And I think it would encourage some young women to continue with science because they will have role models.

    And maybe get some men to chill out. I've seen female students be ignored and even actively discouraged from going into science and engineering. "Do you plan on having a family one day? A scientific career is very challenging and requires your full attention." - heard that one myself.

    It's all these little things that build up over time that discourages people. Let's try some empathy here: how many of you learned "through osmosis" that you suck at sports? Do you really or were you told by others who had no business telling you that? I had a chemistry professor years ago who told us that he loved playing football but his graduate advisor said, "Scientists don't play football."

    It's the same with people of color. Fortunately, Neil De Grasse Tyson was lucky enough to have caught the attention of Carl Sagan who encouraged him. I wonder how many unfortunate brilliant kids are stuck in some inner city shithole and would never even consider a career in science because it's just off their radar. And it's a loss to all of us.

    Your a product of your environment and it is very very difficult to break out of it. And with upward mobility becoming a thing of the past here in the USA, I think we're headed for some dark times - a definitely times were we are going to fall behind the rest of the World.

    1. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "arnold is only the fifth woman to be awarded the prize for chemistry. the last female scientist to scoop the award was ada e. yonath in 2009"

      does that matter? it shouldn't. in my opinion.
      and shouldn't be highlighted. as if noting the fulfillment, or not, of some quota.

      ... I wonder how many unfortunate brilliant kids are stuck in some inner city shithole and would never even consider a career in science because it's just off their radar. And it's a loss to all of us.

      ...

      Maybe if those inner city shitholes would stop reelecting the same Democrats that have ruled those shitholes for a century or so they'd get better results.

    2. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking dumbass. A seriously deranged nitwit.

      Go fuck yourself.

    3. Re: Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet you can't explain why. Grats, you're a moron!

  14. Wikipedia by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Informative

    I notice that Wikipedia politically corrected itself already today. Earlier, it had the story of this (joke of an) award on its front page, with one of the men's photos featured. His photo has been deleted and been replaced with the woman's photo. Not because she's the best, but because she's a woman.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Wikipedia by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you sure it's not because she's the best? She won half of the prize, and the other two shared the other half.

    2. Re:Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your Jordan Peterson incel screeching somewhere else. Christ, some people aren't happy unless they're constantly whining about women.

    3. Re:Wikipedia by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Can the feminists and the anti-feminists get sent to an island to NOT BREED and just glare at each other for decades? Thanks, asking for a friend.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    4. Re:Wikipedia by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Nope. Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is TV most likely.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Wikipedia by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      TV = the on my stupid auto correct.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Wikipedia by skoskav · · Score: 1

      Well, the edit history does show that the picture was changed because of an article on vox.com. However, the picture of Gérard Mourou lasted for 13h 24m. The picture of Donna Strickland has as of now only lasted 6h ~50m. As Wikipedia is largely a community effort, any of the administrators could change it to, say, the third guy's picture (which currently isn't available) if there was a reason to, or maybe to whatever subject is interesting tomorrow. You shouldn't speculate so wildly that Wikipedia as an entity has done this.

      Fittingly, you got the definition of Occam's Razor wrong. It's about preferring the most parsimonious answer, i.e. the one that makes the fewest assumptions.

    7. Re:Wikipedia by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Nope. Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is [the] most likely.

      Nope. Won the most money, therefore must be the best. You can't beat objective measures of success, and we all know that money is the sina qua non of objectivity.

  15. Use this by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    They should use evolution feedback to continuously respond to bacteria that are developing immunity to antibiotics.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:Use this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should use evolution feedback to continuously respond to bacteria that are developing immunity to antibiotics.

      How? By introducing hundreds of compounds, the effects of which we don't know, into the human body to see if some of the cases kill off harmful bacteria?

      Nothing could possibly be wrong with this plan.

    2. Re:Use this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is already an idea. You develop phages that target the evolving bacteria. It's an arms race, but at least you have evolution on your side...

  16. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    This has to be the single whiniest post I've ever seen on Slashdot. I mean, this is the closest thing to throwing a real-life temper tantrum I think I've ever seen from an adult on the internet.

    So strong. So manly.

  17. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should read Alfred Nobels testament. His idea of who should receive the prize probably differs a lot from your idea of it.

  18. What? by mark_reh · · Score: -1, Troll

    Nobel prizes for studying evolution? Evolution is the biggest conspiracy in so-called "science". Everyone with a brain and a bible knows the Earth was created 6000 years ago, and people and aminals were made by Gawd as they are now. "Fossils" are a Satanic hoax designed to shake our faith in Gawd (that's why there were no dinosaurs on the Ark).

    When the revolution is complete, the elites will all be put up against a wall, and we'll start a 1000 years of progress and prosperity.

    Pray for our glorius president!

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't even get your propaganda right. Fossils aren't satanic. They were placed there by God himself as a test of faith for his flock. Because we all NEED to be tested and PASS THAT TEST or we are not worthy of his love. So pull your head out, and get your shit straight, or you'll burn in hell for all eternity. And there's nothing that pisses off Lucifer more than being falsely accused of something his father did, so you'll get "the special treatment."

    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4.3.15 The rulers find it hard to manipulate the population: so they use materialism to manipulate the intellectuals and use religion to manipulate the workers. Before the communists can conquer the world, they will have to have some rational religion. The present ideal is not a sufficiently strong motive. Can't reform the world with a wrong philosophy. The founders of science were not atheists or materialists. Materialists began to appear only in the second half of the eighteenth century. (A logical journey: from Godel to philosophy, Hao Wang, p. 146)

      1. Toute proposition divine est vraie.
      2. Celui [deux mots illisibles entre parenthèses] qui croit à la négation d'un dogme commet un péché mortel.
      3. Celui qui ne croit pas à un dogme tout en sachant qu'il s'agit d'un dogme commet un péché mortel.
      4. Celui qui enseigne publiquement la négation d'un dogme comme étant la vérité commet un péché mortel.
      5. Celui qui affinne en privé [la négation d'un dogme comme étant la vérité commet un péché mortel].
      6. Le monde existe depuis approximativement 6000 ans.
      7. Le ciel est fait de matière solide

      Ce sont les sept premières propositions d'une liste de quarante. Manifestement, le problème vient de ce que la science donne pour vraies des propositions contraires à celles de la Bible. La Bible permet de faire remonter l'origine du monde à quelque six mille ans. (Les démons de Gödel, Pierre Cassou-Noguès, pp. 202-203)

      Le problème du rapport entre science et religion, que soulèvent les premières propositions, réapparaît par exemple en 1961 dans les lettres de Godel à sa mère, sur l'immortalité de l'âme. Le conflit est alors considéré comme résolu:
      Nous sommes loin de pouvoir justifier scientifiquement la vue théologique du monde, mais je crois qu'il est déjà aujourd'hui possible de montrer de façon purement rationnelle (sans le secours de la foi ou d'aucune sorte de religion) que la vue théologique du monde est tout à fait compatible avec les faits connus. Dans la liste de 1939, Gödel donne deux propositions suggérant une résolution du conflit en faveur de la religion. L'une d'elles est anecdotique :

      25. Les fossiles sont-ils l'uvre du diable?

      Le diable nous tromperait en nous livrant des fossiles, et toutes sortes d'indices, du reste, qui donnent à penser que le monde est plus vieux que ne le dit la Bible. (ibid. p. 204)

      John Bahcall was a promising young astrophysicist when he was introduced to Godel at a small Institute dinner. He identied himself as a physicist, to which Godel’s curt response was "I don’t believe in natural science." The philosopher Thomas Nagel recalled also being seated next to Godel at a small gathering for dinner at the Institute and discussing the mind—body problem with him, a philosophical chestnut that both men had tried to crack. Nagel pointed out to Godel that Godel’s extreme dualist view (according to which souls and bodies have quite separate existences, linking up with one another at birth to conjoin in a sort of partnership that is severed upon death) seems hard to reconcile with the theory of evolution. Godel professed himself a nonbeliever in evolution and topped this off by pointing out, as if this were additional corroboration for his own rejection of Darwinism: “You know Stalin didn’t believe in evolution either, and he was a very intelligent man.”(Incompleteness: the proof and paradox of Kurt Gödel, Rebecca Goldstein, pp. 31-32)

    3. Re:What? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      Actually, my post was entirely sarcastic. I don't believe primitive superstition in which the threat of eternal punishment by monsters is used to coerce specific behavior demanded by preachers. I stopped believing in monsters and Santa Claus when I was about 5 years old.

      Prayer has never accomplished anything. The computer on which you're typing superstitious nonsense and the network that brings it to my computer are the products of centuries of science, as are the farming techniques and medicines that keep you alive and relatively comfortable, and transport you and everything else by land, sea, and air.

    4. Re:What? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      Godel sounds like a real idiot.

  19. So why a half prize? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    Sharing a prize for research in the same field I've seen plenty of times before, but these are clearly two entirely separate areas of research. Is this split weird or have I just been paying too little attention?

    1. Re:So why a half prize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too little attention. The directed evolution technique covers a much broader range of different methodological approaches.

    2. Re:So why a half prize? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Yet these people wouldn't even cite each other in their papers ... you can find some broad classification to cover them both, but the commonality is fucking thin.

      Could you show me some other shared prize where the commonality is that thin?

  20. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    And it got voted 4, insightful. It tells you that there are more reactionary man-babies here than adults. The tech scene has become embarrassing.

  21. Oh god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this trend continues women will be half the Nobel Prize winners. We need some alpha males to go show all these cucks how real men do science, by pushing men and women out of the way with pure masculine energy. Science is theirs by right!

  22. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No joke. Half of our software team is women. They're fine developers and engineers equal in knowledge and ability to any man here. There's never any question that they know what they're doing and they always approach problems as technical issues to be solve rationally. The fact that that needs said is fucking embarrassing. If someone is constantly whining about women in tech, the problem isn't the women, it's that the person doing the whining is a weak, emotionally stunted, bitchy little man-child.

  23. Permanently Divide Chemistry Nobel Prize in Two! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO, Nobel Prize for chemistry better be divided in 2, permanently, for organic and inorganic chemistry!
    (Otherwise, I highly doubt, originally, chemistry prize was intended for advances in organic chemistry (which is, also, like a sub-branch of biology)!)

  24. "Chemistry" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again the Chemistry Nobel is given to people who would not even have an office, let alone a lab, in their institution's Department of Chemistry.

  25. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Jahoda · · Score: 1

    from anyone, that these merits are fully deserved. Thanks. Thanks a lot, you whiny, self absorbed bitches who never accomplished, or ever will accomplish, anything in your lives

    The irony is positively staggering.

  26. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There should be no doubt that these women deserve those laurels. Their accomplishments are groundbreaking,...

    I've already forgotten what the physics prize was for this year. But, when I saw the chemistry prize this morning, I was like "Wow, slow year! I guess nobody has made any interesting discoveries in chemistry lately."

    Back when I worked in academic research, the people at the very top were always putting on the pressure to win a Nobel prize. But the way the funding was allocated, scientists were generally not allowed to do research on topics that would be capable of winning a Nobel prize. The only thing that was allowed was small little incremental research that could be be understood even by the small-minded bureaucrats on the grant funding committees.

    The molecular evolution stuff that the chemistry prize was awarded for was clever and interesting - but also kind of obvious and hardly ground breaking. That's not to say that women are inherently any better or worse than men at doing science. But if you were trying argue for the scientific superiority of women then this particular chemistry Nobel prize is not a good place to start.

  27. Re: There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough edge in your post there, edgelord?

  28. Deserving by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Smith genetically engineered phages so that they would include a certain molecule on their outer capsule which allowed him to that encompasses out particular proteins crop up on the outer.

    Sounds complicated indeed!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  29. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by greythax · · Score: 1

    Really, do we "gotta ask" that question? Because that question sounds insecure as hell to me.

  30. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by greythax · · Score: 1

    This post getting a +5 insightful is just an embarrassment. Ever stop to think that all of these doubts swirling around in your head weren't put there by the "feminists", and may be more about the frustrations of not getting a date until you were out of high school?

  31. Pneumatic drills are groundbreaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This years Nobel prize is awarded for work in evolutionary biology, medical biology, and genetic engineering. Nothing to do with Chemistry.

  32. Phage has respect. by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    It needs ERs to appreciate its antibacterial value.

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  33. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's never any question that they know what they're doing and they always approach problems as technical issues to be solve rationally. The fact that that needs said is fucking embarrassing.

    I believe you just reiterated the same point that you are attempting to descredit. I'll explain.

    Ignoring the divisive tone and the rant in the last paragraph, there is a valid point being made.

    There should be no doubt that these women deserve those laurels.

    ... this would stand by itself. There would be NO doubt, from anyone, that these merits are fully deserved.

    Honestly give this some thought, I believe that an individual who can avoid projecting a sexist ideology should not have completely missed that.

  34. Hopeless by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    Don't use Wikipedia, it's a hopeless mess now.

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  35. Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His argument is that people like you make it impossible to know if a woman's achievement is due to her actual merit, or just people pandering to the "women are oppressed!!1" narrative. Literally the only reason why this was posted to /. was because it's a woman. That's it. Otherwise this isn't news at all. And why should it be? It's just another day in scientific advancement, another Nobel prize for something new and useful in their field. Nothing super ground breaking. So yeah, this is being shoved in our faces because... Female. Really? Really. In 2018 we seriously feel the need to pay special attention to this because she's female. How about don't? If we just let people do what they want, and buried anyone who says "hey you can't do that, you're an X!", then parent comment wouldn't be upset. If the last sentence were left off then there'd be no drama.

    Just stop giving people special treatment (positive or negative) over their sex / race already! Doing so is ALWAYS sexist and ALWAYS racist BY DEFINITION. As someone who is completely against both, just stop.