Nobel Prize in Chemistry Awarded to Trio of Evolutionary Scientists (theguardian.com) 78
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.
Interesting! (Score:2)
Maybe the phage treatment will get the attention it deserves as a viable alternative to antibiotics!
Re: Interesting! (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.
"Directed" evolution? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAC, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say she programmed those enzymes?
Re: (Score:1)
No. Mutations are incorporated randomly or pseudorandomly and the functioning enzymes are then selected. No programming involved.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But she didn't introduce the mutations randomly, she introduced them intentionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Directed" evolution? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: Twofer (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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 hopefu
Re: (Score:2)
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 spe
Re:Creationist "Scientists" snubbed again! (Score:1)
Fixed those quotation marks for you.
There's been lots of whining about the lack of fem (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.
Re:There's been lots of whining about the lack of (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!
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is positively staggering.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Really, do we "gotta ask" that question? Because that question sounds insecure as hell to me.
relevance of "fifth" "woman" to be awarded? (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
God I wish I had mod points to give you.
do you editors even proofread??? (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."
Wikipedia (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wikipedia (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the edit history [wikipedia.org] 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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hopeless (Score:1)
Use this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Godel sounds like a real idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ke
So why a half prize? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Deserving (Score:2)
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!
Phage has respect. (Score:1)