Nobel Prize in Chemistry Awarded To 3 Scientists for Work 'Snapping Molecules Together' (nytimes.com) 37
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Carolyn R. Bertozzi, Morten Meldal and K. Barry Sharpless on Wednesday for the development of click chemistry and bio-orthogonal chemistry -- work that has "led to a revolution in how chemists think about linking molecules together," the Nobel committee said. The New York Times: Dr. Bertozzi is the eighth woman to be awarded the prize, and Dr. Sharpless is the fifth scientist to be honored with two Nobels, the committee noted. Johan Aqvist, the chair of the chemistry committee, said that this year's prize dealt with "not overcomplicating matters, instead working with what is easy and simple."
"Click chemistry is almost like it sounds," he said of a field whose name Dr. Sharpless coined in 2000. "It's all about snapping molecules together. Imagine that you could attach small chemical buckles to different types of building blocks. Then you could link these buckles together and produce molecules of greater complexity and variation." Shortly after Dr. Sharpless coined the concept, both he and Dr. Meldal independently discovered a chemical reaction called copper-catalyzed azide-alkyne cycloaddition, known today as the crown jewel of click chemistry. "When this reaction was discovered, it was like opening the floodgates," Olof Ramstrom, a member of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, said in a briefing after the laureates were announced. "We were using it everywhere, to build everything." Dr. Bertozzi, a chemist and professor at Stanford, was able to apply this reaction to biomolecules, often found on cell surfaces, in living organisms without affecting the chemistry of the cells she was observing. Before her extensive research with glycans, or sugar chains, scientists' understanding of this subfield of glycobiology had been hampered by an inability to see molecules in action in living cells.
"Click chemistry is almost like it sounds," he said of a field whose name Dr. Sharpless coined in 2000. "It's all about snapping molecules together. Imagine that you could attach small chemical buckles to different types of building blocks. Then you could link these buckles together and produce molecules of greater complexity and variation." Shortly after Dr. Sharpless coined the concept, both he and Dr. Meldal independently discovered a chemical reaction called copper-catalyzed azide-alkyne cycloaddition, known today as the crown jewel of click chemistry. "When this reaction was discovered, it was like opening the floodgates," Olof Ramstrom, a member of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, said in a briefing after the laureates were announced. "We were using it everywhere, to build everything." Dr. Bertozzi, a chemist and professor at Stanford, was able to apply this reaction to biomolecules, often found on cell surfaces, in living organisms without affecting the chemistry of the cells she was observing. Before her extensive research with glycans, or sugar chains, scientists' understanding of this subfield of glycobiology had been hampered by an inability to see molecules in action in living cells.
I have a dream (Score:2, Insightful)
That one day we will quit counting the number of Nobel prizes won as if it were some sort of athletic contest.
Congratulations to Dr Bertozzi and Dr Sharpless for advancing the numbers, and sorry Dr Meldol, after you get a few more Nobels under your belt, we'll give you a little credit, or maybe if you can show some relationship to a group that needs promoted. 8^/
I've worked with a lot of scientists and engineers who ar
Re:I have a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe someday we can stop caring about what someone's gender is, but that's not going to happen until gender prejudice goes away, so GLWT.
The idea that we shouldn't take time to recognize great achievements until after scientists are dead is dumb, though. Science has a real awareness problem.
Re:I have a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe someday we can stop caring about what someone's gender is, but that's not going to happen until gender prejudice goes away, so GLWT.
The idea that we shouldn't take time to recognize great achievements until after scientists are dead is dumb, though. Science has a real awareness problem.
Yes, we have a real problem with non-science things promoted over science.
Some of the ladies I worked with were very unhappy at being trotted out to show how inclusive we were, not because of any thing she did, but very specifically because of her sex. One engineer I worked with was terribly upset because she was trotted out to present a male co-workers work. He was unhappy - which no one cared about that but her (and me) but she felt like she was being forced to plagiarize his work.
While it is simple and reflexive to say that this sort of thing must continue until some parity is reached, the treatment is often heavy handed.
Perhaps we should ask Doctor Bertozzi if she like being announced as a woman or a scientist?
I won't try to argue from authority, but I've been working with women in STEM for three+ decades, and most feel just as much objectified by the people who are claiming to be "helping" them as any of the standard targets, and that women scientists and engineers are given priority for being women over their status as scientists? a bit over 50 percent of humanity is women, the number of scientists is rather lower.
If I could pull one experience from many, I was working with a group of High school students who were in a sort of pre-engineering class. There were about 75 percent male, the rest female (I note that because there were no transgenders).
We had one young lady who was very promising for a career in engineering. I was there to document the event. There was also a public relations woman who was going to write up an article. She told me to not take pictures of the young men, and to focus on this one young lady.
Ans the young lady was upset. She most definitely did not want to be focused upon, and it was going to be difficult to get good pictures if her eyes were all red. Even the PR lady could acknowledge that. So I took the girl aside and chatted with her a while. Damn, talk about unloading! But she needed it. She even said maybe she was making a mistake if the only thing people thought about was her sex.
So we chatted, and she calmed down. She was a really nice person, and I told her that at least for my part, I would include the guys as well. I went to tell the PR woman that I was going to include the young males in what I was doing, and that she could ignore or use that work as she saw fit, but that the prospective engineer young lady and I had reached an understanding.
PR lady wasn't super happy, but agreed that if I could get good pictures, go for it. She'd just use the women in the class, especially the one I just spent a half hour settling down because of the sexist treatment she was getting.
Sexism doesn't cure sexism. I hope the young lady continued on in a science based career. She had no issue with the young men in her class, but was horribly upset by the Sexism of the people trying to promote her over the guys. Idealistic, but a female engineer or scientist has to come to grips that the people who are trying to promote them are much more sexist than the people who are blamed for the sexism.
Just 35 years of experience in the failure of getting females into STEM, and an alternative conclusion of why it has been a complete failure for those 35 years but I have an unacceptable solution of treating people equally, not replace sexism with sexism. That's okay. Maybe my solution will fail too, but I assume that my conclusions will always be rejected for another sexism based failure.
Re: (Score:2)
While it is simple and reflexive to say that this sort of thing must continue until some parity is reached, the treatment is often heavy handed.
You keep saying stuff like this like you're surprised that the pendulum swings. Get on that fucker and ride it over to where it's going, don't stand around and wait for it to smack you.
If you believe that it is all a pendulum of sexism, then wear that label like a medal. I'm here to fix problems, not to just get revenge, or just reverse the damage done.
Sexism doesn't cure sexism.
Being deliberately inclusive of women isn't sexist, because it's not based on any ideas that sex is what matters — the goal is to oppose the entrenched effects of sexism. It's based on the idea that representation matters. Men don't need to see more representation of themselves in media about science because they are massively well-represented already. Nobody has to show a man that he can be a scientist despite his gender.
Oh, now there ya go -telling me that I'm against being inclusive of women. Enough of that BS.
Let us go back to my post - did you even read it?
I was very specifically told to not take pictures of the males in that class, and to concentrate on the women, and especially one in particular.
Being inclusive of women in no way shape or form e
Re: (Score:2)
Eloquently stated.
I know! It's amazing how sometimes a thought-canceling cliche reduced to an initialism is actually the most reasonable response. And you know, Brevity.
I bet you get a lot of impressions with that kind of hot take on Twitter.
Eh, I do OK. I don't have much of a follower count though, since I'm not whoring for one. Just bein' me, baby.
You should go to Twitter for your services will be appreciated.
Because of the magic of the internets, I can be in two places at once!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Triggered?
Re:I have a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I like my women the way I like my holes -- supermassive and black!
Re: (Score:2)
"My life philosophy is that what kind of genitals someone has is irrelevant."
Exactly.
Nowadays we only look at their pronouns, not their crotch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have a dream (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, there are people here on this site that care too much about the recipient's genitals. When Andrea Ghez shared the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics [slashdot.org] for her work on supermassive black holes, for one poster she only got the prize because she was a "token". For another, it had to be sexism because Kamala Harris was the Democratic nominee for Vice President . That was relevant for him on the topic of Nobel Prizes because . . . I do not know.
Bizzare, and no doubt. But sexism is alive and well, and it knows no specific gender or sex.
See my reply to drinkypoo for some first person experience with what happens when sexism is replaced with sexism. That poor kid was turned into a white hot focus by people trying to focus on her and bluntly discard all the males in her group. I like to think maybe I helped her by showing that not everyone in the sciences was focussing on her genitals, and not her abilities.
My short interaction with her left me
Re:I have a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
" for one poster she only got the prize because she was a "token"."
Yeah, a lot of incel narcissistic clowns on places like this: "I don't care about the color of someone's skin or their gender just as long as they can do the work, but I also assume anyone who isn't white and male given credit for something only got it because everyone is woke"
Re: I have a dream (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You are pretending not to know? Absolutely Nobel prizes are awarded due to identity. Obama won one for being black.
Stop pretending the Nobel committee doesn't take identity into account, because they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes thanks for admitting that identity matters in Nobel prizes. Absolutely it does. They 100% think of skin color when handing them out. Of course, Nobel prizes have been a joke for a long time. Remember when they gave one to Yasser Arafat?
It depends on what prize is what. Some are for technical achievements, some are weird popularity contests. Here's a listing I posted before on Literature Nobels.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Literature
Yaknow - I would think that someone like Tolkien might be on that list. Nope. That's all we need to know about that one.
The peace prize is just plain weird. There are some that make some sense, like the people who worked on getting rid of land mines, but mostly a hodgepodge. h [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because the Nobel Prize in Physics is determined the exact same way as the Peace Prize. That's why Kim Kardashian will win a prize in Chemistry, Physics, or Medicine any year now.
And yes, exactly. There are multiple Nobel prizes, people don't seem to get that. You get a Physics or Chemistry prize because you are really good at physics or chemistry.
Literature or Peace? A whole different world. Here's the Nobel Laureates in Literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . Who could forget Sully Prudhomme? Well, Bob Dylan is on the list.
Dream On (Score:3)
That one day we will stop the knee-jerk checklist counting of the winner's genitals.
That will never happen because Nobel's will limits the prize to be awarded to no more than three people, so there will never be more than three sets of genitals.
This is actually a serious problem for modern science and will likely, over time, greatly erode the prestige of the prize since more and more discoveries are being made by large collaborations of scientists. For example, while the Higgs theory was awarded a prize, the actual discovery of the Higgs will never be awarded one because it was made by
Re: (Score:2)
That one day we will stop the knee-jerk checklist counting of the winner's genitals.
That will never happen because Nobel's will limits the prize to be awarded to no more than three people, so there will never be more than three sets of genitals.
I was more referring to general society - but don't tune out, because you hit on a real dose of truth below!
This is actually a serious problem for modern science and will likely, over time, greatly erode the prestige of the prize since more and more discoveries are being made by large collaborations of scientists. For example, while the Higgs theory was awarded a prize, the actual discovery of the Higgs will never be awarded one because it was made by two large teams of physicists. This arbitrary limit of three is going to make the prize less and less relevant to an increasing number of fields.
This is so true. I've known about the three people limit, but didn't think about the team problem. I work solo now, but before, always in teams. Not that anything I ever worked on would be Nobel-ish worthy, but yeah - a big problem.
So maybe it will just become totally a check box award, which is kinda sad.
Re: (Score:2)
How do they know that that person is a woman? Last I heard, your body parts have no role in your gender.
One of those malleable things. Once upon a time, Gender was more or less based on your sex. Now it has become something different.
They must have written statements of gender identity from all previous winners.
Oh wait, that's all complete and total bullshit. I keep forgetting.
We're working on re-education camps for the people who don't think correctly. I've been sent there 5 times already.
Readable Article (Score:4, Informative)
For those on the wrong side of the paywall: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But it's such a big, beautiful wall. I'm just not happy being on the side that has to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
For those on the wrong side of the paywall: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05... [cnn.com]
What paywall? The link works fine. Something must be wrong on your end.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be a registration wall, I suppose I could register for limited free articles, but don't care much for that either.
Click Chemistry is just great (Score:2)
I love working with biologists. Physicists are just weird but amazing people. But chemists; a good one is worth 100X their weight in gold, mostly because they can probably make gold.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not a chemist but I work with many. Click chemistry is just damned awesome. "
Awesome?
Was 'snappy' too much on the nose?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chemistry has to do with the bonding of electrons. What element something is has to do with the number of protons it has and that's in the purview of physics, not chemistry.
All this talk re: "sexism" is a bit silly. (Score:2)
The real point of interest is how do scientists (like the aforementioned Nobel Prize winners) manage to exist in a place where over 60% of the population is functionally retarded ?
It really does interest me.
The US is capable o fantastic scientific innovations in spite of having an enormous percent of the population literally believing in all sorts of completely crazy shit.