Nobel Prize In Chemistry Awarded To Trio For Microscope Advancement 29
The 2014 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to Eric Betzig, Stefan W. Hell, and William E. Moerner for their work in bypassing the limits of traditional optical microscopy. Hell developed a method called Simulated Emission Depletion microscopy, which uses one laser beam to cause a collection of molecules to fluoresce, and another laser beam to cancel out that fluorescence everywhere other than a nanometer-sized volume. Repeating this process over an entire sample provides nanometer resolution for the resulting image. Betzig and Moerner did important work on Single-Molecule microscopy. "The method relies upon the possibility to turn the fluorescence of individual molecules on and off. Scientists image the same area multiple times, letting just a few interspersed molecules glow each time. Superimposing these images yields a dense super-image resolved at the nanolevel." The three scientists' work was pivotal to enabling nano-scale microscopy and allowing detailed study of objects at the molecular level.
Nobel prize for Microsoft advancement (Score:2)
Nobel prize for Microsoft advancement.
Oh, sorry, I misread.
Re: (Score:2)
If they use the principles of physics to create technology that helps biologists and doctors scan the human body better than before, shouldn't it be a Nobel prize in biology or physics?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the manipulation of molecules, which falls under chemistry.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The distinction between the three science related fields is not as clear as they were when Alfred Nobel wrote his will.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, maybe they wanted to give a Nobel prize to both trios:
Physics: Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura.
Chemistry: Eric Betzig, Stefan W. Hell and William E. Moerner
And the second trio fitted better in chemistry than in physics.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe... [nobelprize.org]
STimulated Emission Depletion. (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing simulated about it. ;)
Why Chemistry? (Score:2)
This seems more "Physics", even though the techniques will be used by chemists.
Re:Why Chemistry? (Score:5, Informative)
Because it's a molecular spectroscopy technique. This is work is in the realm of chemical physics, the overlap of physics and chemistry. There are more than a few occasions where physicists have been awarded the prize in Chemistry because their work has had its greatest impact in chemistry research.
Re: (Score:2)
Though that's still an improvement over "Not being George W Bush"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's for two reasons: first, because the technique enables to watch molecular processes at the 'single molecule' level, and this is highly significant for chemistry, obviously.
I think there might be a second reason too: the effectiveness of the technique depends on a lot of photochemical knowledge and proper selection of dyes, which again is another significant area of study and research in chemistry.
Fuck you, chemists! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They should give it to Klapoetke for advances in blowing shit up with hilariously unstable molecules. I think he's featured several times on the "things I won't work with" blog.
Re:Fuck you, chemists! (Score:5, Informative)
Spectroscopist here (chemical physics). we're not the bad guys here! It's the biochemists fault!
Here are the most recent "pure" chemical physics Nobel prizes: 2014, 2013 (I'd argue this is more a biochemical win than anything), 1999, 1998, 1992, 1991. Maybe you could argue fullerenes in 1996, since Kroto and Curl are pure-bred spectroscopists.
Organic/inorganic chemistry: 2011, 2010, 2007 (sort of), 2005, 2001, 2000, 1994, 1990
Then there's biochemistry: 2013, 2012, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1997, 1993...
I'd say at the rate that organic chemistry develops, I think they're pretty well-represented, same with physical chemistry. Can you think of a major development in organic chemistry outside of cross-coupling and Grubbs metathesis that is Nobel prize worthy at this point? Dave MacMillian has iminium catalysis and chiral Diels-Alder, perhaps, but it's still early. After Corey's win in 1990, I can't imagine that total synthesis needs another Nobel, unfortunately. There is a lot of good developments in this field but nothing stands out to me for Nobel at the moment.
In terms of spectroscopy, maybe the next "big" win is surface-enhanced Raman? Solid state NMR? There's the Nature paper from last year where from John Doyle at Harvard demonstrating enantiomer-specific spectroscopy using microwave spectroscopy, that could be a big deal in the next 10 years perhaps.
Anyway, tl;dr: I'd argue biochemistry is over-represented, especially in the general literature, but that might just be me being bitter.
What the Hell (pun intended) (Score:2)
Not surprising that Hell got it.
No idea why Moerner got the Nobel for this, he did a bunch of single molecule work, but not really anything in super res itself. Both X. Zhuang and S. Hess are far more deserving of the prize than that chap.
Also, it's odd: Nobel prizes used to be given to things which hae proven their worth. Super-res microscopy while cool and wile showing a *lot* of promise has not yet reached the stage where it looks more than "very very promising".
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's odd: Nobel prizes used to be given to things which hae proven their worth. Super-res microscopy while cool and wile showing a *lot* of promise has not yet reached the stage where it looks more than "very very promising".
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Sometimes the prize is for research done decades ago that turned out to be really fundamental, and sometimes it's for huge breakthroughs that fundamentally and immediately change what we're capable of doing. This certainly looks like the latter to [corante.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hell yes, as a neuroscientist working in Goettingen (same city as S.Hell) I've seen plenty of presentations on the theory behind STED but have been waiting at least 6 years to see more than a few actually use it (for neuroscience).
Re: (Score:2)
Mod aprent UP. I've been a researcher in super-res, on the localisation end of things, but I keep up. This is also my assessment of STED.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
STED is widely used by neuroscientists. It has more than proven its worth.
[citation needed] literally.
It's used a bit. Partly because the microscopes are really expensive. It's also only reliable on fixed cells: it can't do large areas fast and needs an immense light dose for the depletion beam, making any live cell results even more dubious than usual. I've seen the paper and video claiming 50 Hz performance. Utter crap.
And finally, the resolution improvement is moderate. In practice on a commercial syste
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say is that Weo is one of the smartest guys I know (his wife is no slouch either!)
He has been involved in Laser related research since I met both of them back in the 1980s. He also has some note from ham radio world where he and N6KL wrote something called ARESDATA that provided a real time database available on packet radio.
Do chip firms get Nobels for doing it in reverse? (Score:3)
Semiconductor manufacturers don't just look at things with sub wavelength resolution, they build things with sub wavelength resolution.