Scientists Win Historic Nobel Chemistry Prize for 'Genetic Scissors' (bbc.com) 33
Two scientists have been awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for developing the tools to edit DNA. Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna are the first two women to share the prize, which honours their work on the technology of genome editing. From a report: Their discovery, known as Crispr-Cas9 "genetic scissors", is a way of making specific and precise changes to the DNA contained in living cells. They will split the prize money of 10 million krona ($1,110,400). The women's technology has been transformative for basic science research and it could also be used to treat, or even cure, inherited illnesses. Prof Charpentier, from the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens in Berlin, said it was an emotional moment when she learned about the award. "When it happens, you're very surprised, and you think it's not real. But obviously it's real," she said.
Obligatory FP pun (Score:2)
Really, those 2? They're just a couple of cut-ups.
The recipients graciously accepted the award... (Score:3)
A stick in the eye for Harvard/BROAD (Score:3)
The Broad institute won the patent battle for CRISPR/CAS with better attorneys. But the Nobel committee decided to recognize the other group
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that CRISPR-Cas9 is just an incremental step i
Re: (Score:2)
The patent is worth billions.
So the losers are getting the Nobel as a consolation prize.
Personally I'd prefer the Nobel over the Billions (Score:2)
The point of money is to buy happiness. A nobel would make me happy. Unless I was deperately poor, a billion would only make me marginally happier. The nobel would make me more happy than that.
I realize not everyone would reason it that way. just my own take.
So I'm happy to see there is some karmic compensation here.
Re: (Score:2)
A nobel would make me happy. Unless I was deperately poor, a billion would only make me marginally happier.
The Nobel prize is a monetary prize ($935k/€849k/£716k total), they both got more than 400.000 euros/dollars each. A Nobel would make you happy, even if you are desperately poor.
What about others? (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone knows they have to award a Nobel for CRISPR/cas9 technology --- which apparently the committee agreed should be Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna. But is that correct when so many have contributed?
I mean, shouldn't any of the following also get the Nobel for CRISPR/cas9 technology:
Yoshizumi Ishino who first identified the existence of CRISPR sequences in the late 1980s .. but after stating that the significance was unknown didn't do further research on it (for whatever reason).
Francisco Mojica who identified that the CRISPR sequences were apparently captured from bacterial viruses somehow. In my opinion he should definitely get a Nobel because he pursued the most curiosity driven and thoughtful work without much apparent reward. That's the sort of thing the Nobel prize should encourage.
Eugene Koonin -- who suggested it might be related to bacterial immunity
Horvath -- who proved it was related to bacterial immunity
John van der Oost - figured out the guide RNA system (CRISPR's targeting mechanism)
Luciano Marraffini and Erik Sontheimer - who showed it does something to DNA not necessarily RNA
Sylvain Moineau -- found out it can cut DNA, discovered cas9
Emmanuelle Charpentier - discovered how exactly cas9 works
Siksnys, Gasiunas, and Karvelis -- filed the first provisional patent on gene editing with cas9 on Apr. 17, 2012 but it's not very detailed.
Siksnys submits paper to a journal prior to Jennifer Doudna showing details on how cas9 mediated gene editing would work but it doesnt get published till September 2012
Jennifer Doudna applies for a patent on cas9 gene editing in May 2012
Jennifer Doudna first to publication on a paper detailing how cas9 gene editing can work (June 2012) but doesn't show how to make it work in animal cells
Feng Zhang applies for a patent on cas9 gene editing in mammalian cells December 2012.
I probably missed some in the above and probably F'd up some details too -- also I cannot be bothered to mention subsequent important advances in CRISPR such as SHERLOCK and destroying cancer cells using collateral cleavage etc. The only solution I see is to award it across at least two years if not three. All the people I mentioned above are probably qualified. But when you award to the some, there'll be hell on why others were left out .. unless you announce that next year you'll give it to another three -- but that's like awarding more than 3 Nobels -- which isn't allowed.
And this is if you totally forget the people who invented the previous (more tedious, and less efficient (though you might dispute that for TALEN)) methods of programmable gene editing, ZFN and TALEN. CRISPR gene editing builds on the concept shown in ZFN .. that you can design a molecule to cut DNA in a specific location and enable gene editing.
This is the whole problem with awards, it nearly always rewards the person who does the final step not necessarily the pioneers. Imagine someone piggybacks you to near the top of the mountain and then you take the last step and everyone thinks you climbed the whole mountain.
Re: (Score:1)
How did I know this story on slashdot would result in fury from the incel crowd?
Re: (Score:1)
How did I know this story on slashdot would result in fury from the incel crowd?
That's not fair to OP - OP lists alternatives of both genders clearly in his/her argument. Though I confess to having had the same knee-jerk reaction as you at first.
Re: (Score:2)
How did I know this story on slashdot would result in fury from the incel crowd?
That's not fair to OP - OP lists alternatives of both genders clearly in his/her argument. Though I confess to having had the same knee-jerk reaction as you at first.
Aaand I was too quick and missed the post you _actually_ responded to. My bad.
Re:What about others? (Score:5, Informative)
If you are curious as to why these two particular scientists won the prize instead of your long list of contributors, the source text is probably a good starting point: https://www.nobelprize.org/pri... [nobelprize.org]
Generally, this is and pretty much has always been the case. Not many lone scientist without collaborators making major breakthroughs in a vacuum any more. And if you read the text, you'll see it' being awarded for a very specific experiment primarily. Not for coming up with CRISPR/cas9.
From the press release: " Together, they succeeded in recreating the bacteria’s genetic scissors in a test tube and simplifying the scissors’ molecular components so they were easier to use. In an epoch-making experiment, they then reprogrammed the genetic scissors. In their natural form, the scissors recognise DNA from viruses, but Charpentier and Doudna proved that they could be controlled so that they can cut any DNA molecule at a predetermined site. Where the DNA is cut it is then easy to rewrite the code of life."
This is not my field, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Well actually Virginijus Siksnys and I think even Maraffini did that too, before them .. just that Doudna got published first. Unfortunately the journal Siksnys sent his paper to sat on it longer than the journal Doudna sent it to. That's like 100% bad luck. But my point is that if two people can almost simultaneously come up with something, then in my opinion it's not really groundbreaking, or ingenius. How is it an intellectual leap? If something is an intellectual leap, then nobody else could have had th
Re: (Score:2)
Realizing I'm out of my depth here, I'll only feebly respond: is that not the case if you investigate almost all academic awards handed out the last half century or so? As complexity grows progress becomes ever more incremental. Deciding exactly where the line is drawn is subjective, and it's up to the Nobel committee to make that subjective decision for their particular prize after all.
Re: (Score:3)
is that not the case if you investigate almost all academic awards handed out the last half century or so?
Not really. The matter here is not that a lot of people contributed to it, but that those contributions were pretty equal in importance (in my opinion the real groundbreaking discoveries were those by Francisco Mojica). For example, Roger Penrose (Nobel prize for Physics 2020) is really someone who stands out in his field, these two chemists not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
"But my point is that if two people can almost simultaneously come up with something, then in my opinion it's not really groundbreaking, or ingenius. How is it an intellectual leap?"
A tremendous number of groundbreaking scientific advances were like that, though. Hell, if Watson and Crick hadn't come up with the double helix of DNA Linus Pauling or one of the other people working on it would have come up with it shortly after.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, if Watson and Crick hadn't come up with the double helix of DNA Linus Pauling or one of the other people working on it would have come up with it shortly after.
The problem here is not that someone else could have developed the same technology, the problem here is that others actually developed the same technology (Siksnys) or even a better version of it (Zhang) around the same time. Those two did not come first by any significant metrics, not by time (Siksnys), nor by quality (Zhang). On top of that, there is a number of problems with this prize: ongoing litigations on the invention of this technique, the problem of science versus technology (this prize went all t
Re: (Score:2)
Simple answer: NO
Only the two scientists investigated / discovered / developed the full CRISPR mechanism and subsequently the CRISPR/CAS9 gene editing method. While others may have been important along the way, they didn't do the same. Back then there were a lot of people who _could_ have invented PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction), but only Kary Mullis did it. There's no price for "almost inventions".
Re: (Score:2)
OK, by that criteria Virginijus Siksnys or Feng Zhang should get the prize. You realize Doudna and Charpentier have been losing every court case so far when it comes to CRISPR?
Reference:
https://endpts.com/the-broad-w... [endpts.com]
Re: (Score:1)
It is my understanding that Fang Zheng / Broad Institute won the patent dispute, because they extended CRISPR/CAS9 to animal cells (while Doudna / Carpentier were focused on procaryotes). But that does not take away, that Doudna / Carpentier are the original inventors of the CRISPR/CAS9 gene editing method
Re: (Score:2)
No that would be Virginijus Siksnys, who had trouble getting published. Doudna/Carpentier got their paper published first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Listen up (Score:3)
Search for Radiolab CRISPR for an episode explaining CRISPR and a brief history of how its discovery and development into a tool happened.
It's unbelievable the biological system it is based on.
Scissors (Score:2)
Too bad a nerd site hasn't ever discussed CRISPR before.
It actually takes more cognitive processing to stop and remember what 'genetic scissors' would be referring to in the muggle world than to just read about a prize for CRISPR.
Re: (Score:3)
It actually takes more cognitive processing to stop and remember what 'genetic scissors' would be referring to in the muggle world than to just read about a prize for CRISPR.
A term more appropriate for this site would be 'genetic MacGyvering'.
As folks here say things like, "The damn part didn't fit correctly, but I MacGyvered it in".
So we could say, "Two doctors won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for figuring out how to MacGyver DNA".
Not as great as the public thinks! (Score:2)
While it's not the fault of the guys who discovered this that it was adopted at breakneck speed, there are problems with CRISPR. These problems have even been covered on this site [slashdot.org].
"A suite of experiments that use the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 to modify human embryos have revealed how the process can make large, unwanted changes to the genome at or near the target site. "