Slashdot Mirror
Nobel Prize in Chemistry Awarded to Trio of Evolutionary Scientists (theguardian.com)
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.
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.
Maybe the phage treatment will get the attention it deserves as a viable alternative to antibiotics!
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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."
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!
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!
They should use evolution feedback to continuously respond to bacteria that are developing immunity to antibiotics.
E Proelio Veritas.
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.
"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.
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"
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?
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
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.
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.
Really, do we "gotta ask" that question? Because that question sounds insecure as hell to me.
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?
It needs ERs to appreciate its antibacterial value.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
Don't use Wikipedia, it's a hopeless mess now.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
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.
Godel sounds like a real idiot.