Nobel Prizes 2011

So it's that time of the year again, the time when just like Richard Feynman and Paul Dirac, three lucky people get to mull over whether they will incur more publicity by accepting the Nobel Prize or rejecting it.

Predicting the Nobel Prizes gets easier every year ((I said predicting, not getting your predictions right) since there's very little you can add in the previous year's list, although there are a few changes; the Plucky Palladists can now happily be struck off the list. As before, I am dividing categories into 'easy', and 'difficult' and assigning pros and cons to every prediction.

The easy ones are those regarding discoveries whose importance is (now) ‘obvious’; these discoveries inevitably make it to lists everywhere each year and the palladists clearly fell into this category. The difficult predictions would either be discoveries which have been predicted by few others or ones that that are ‘non-obvious’. But what exactly is a discovery of ‘non-obvious’ importance? Well, one of the criteria in my mind for a ‘non-obvious’ Nobel Prize is one that is awarded to an individual for general achievements in a field rather than for specific discoveries, much like the lifetime achievement Academy Awards given out to men and women with canes. Such predictions are somewhat harder to make simply because fields are honored by prizes much less frequently than specific discoveries.

Anyway, here's the N-list

2. Computational chemistry and biochemistry (Difficult):
Pros: Computational chemistry as a field has not been recognized since 1999 so the time seems due. One obvious candidate would be Martin Karplus.
Cons: This would definitely be a lifetime achievement award. Karplus did do the first MD simulation of a protein ever but that by itself wouldn’t command a Nobel Prize. The other question is regarding what field exactly the prize would honor. If it’s specifically applications to biochemistry, then Karplus alone would probably suffice. But if the prize is for computational methods and applications in general, then others would also have to be considered, most notably Ken Houk who has been foremost in applying such methods to organic chemistry. Another interesting candidate is David Baker whose program Rosetta has really produced some fantastic results in predicting protein structure and folding. It even spawned a cool game. But the field is probably too new for a prize.

3. Chemical biology and chemical genetics (Easy)
Another favorite for years, with Stuart Schreiber and Peter Schultz being touted as leading candidates.
Pros: The general field has had a significant impact on basic and applied science
Cons: This again would be more of a lifetime achievement award which is rare. Plus, there are several individuals in recent years (Cravatt, Bertozzi, Shokat) who have contributed to the field. It may make some sense to award Schreiber a ‘pioneer’ award for raising ‘awareness’ but that’s sure going to make a lot of people unhappy. Also, a prize for chemical biology might be yet another one whose time has just passed.

4. Single-molecule spectroscopy (Easy)
Pros: The field has obviously matured and is now a powerful tool for exploring everything from nanoparticles to DNA. It’s been touted as a candidate for years. The frontrunners seem to be W E Moerner and M Orrit, although Richard Zare has also been floated often.
Cons: The only con I can think of is that the field might yet be too new for a prize

5. Electron transfer in biological systems (Easy)
Pros: Another field which has matured and has been well-validated. Gray and Bard seem to be leading candidates.

Among other fields, I don’t really see a prize for the long lionized birth pill and Carl Djerassi; although we might yet be surprised, the time just seems to have passed. Then there are fields which seem too immature for the prize; among these are molecular machines (Stoddart et al.) and solar cells (Gratzel).

MEDICINE:

1. Nuclear receptors (Easy)
Pros: The importance of these proteins is unquestioned. Most predictors seem to converge on the names of Chambon/Jensen/Evans.

2. Statins (Difficult)
Akira Endo’s name does not seem to have been discussed much. Endo discovered the first statin. Although this particular compound was not a blockbuster drug, since then statins have revolutionized the treatment of heart disease.
Pros: The “importance” as described in Nobel’s will is obvious since statins have become the best-selling drugs in history. It also might be a nice statement to award the prize to the discovery of a drug for a change. Who knows, it might even boost the image of a much maligned pharmaceutical industry...
Cons: The committee is not really known for awarding actual drug discovery. Precedents like Alexander Fleming (antibiotics), James Black (beta blockers, antiulcer drugs) and Gertrude Elion (immunosuppresants, anticancer agents) exist but are far and few in between. On the other hand this fact might make a prize for drug discovery overdue.

2. Genomics (Difficult)
A lot of people say that Venter should get the prize, but it’s not clear exactly for what. Not for the human genome, which others would deserve too. If a prize was to be given out for synthetic biology, it’s almost certainly premature. Venter’s synthetic organisms from last year may rule the world, but for now we humans still prevail. On the other hand, a possible prize for genomics may rope in people like Carruthers and Hood who pioneered methods for DNA synthesis.

3. DNA diagnostics (Difficult)
Now this seems to me to be a field whose time is very much due. The impact of DNA fingerprinting and Western and Southern Blots on pure and applied science, everything from discovering new drugs to hunting down serial killers, is at least as big as the prizeworthy PCR. I think the committee would be doing itself a favor by honoring Jeffreys, Stark, Burnette and Southern.

4. Stem Cells (Easy)
This seems to be yet another favorite. McCulloch and Till are often listed.
Pros: Surely one of the most important biological discoveries of the last 50 years, promising fascinating advances in human health and disease.
Cons: Politically controversial (although we hope the committee can rise above this). Plus, a 2007 Nobel was awarded for work on embryonic stem cells using gene targeting strategies so there’s a recent precedent.

4. Membrane vesicle trafficking (Easy)

Rothman and Schekman

Pros: Clearly important. The last trafficking/transport prize was given out in 1999 (Blobel) so another one is due and Rothman and Schekman seem to be the most likely canidates. Plus, they have already won the Lasker Award which in the past has been a good indicator of the Nobel.

PHYSICS

I am not a physicist
But if I were
I would dare
To shout from my lair
“Give Hawking and Penrose the Prize!”
For being rock stars of humungous size

Also, Anton Zeilinger, John Clauser and Alain Aspect probably deserve it for bringing the unbelievably weird phenomenon of quantum entanglement to the masses. Zeilinger's book "Dance of the Photons" presents an informative and revealing account of this book.

I have also always wondered whether non-linear dynamics and chaos deserves a prize. The proliferation and importance of the field certainly seems to warrant one; the problem is that there are way too many deserving recipients (and Mandelbrot is dead).

Lindau 2011: What do scientists do after winning the Nobel Prize?

Most of us know about the prize-winning work of this year's Lindau Nobel Laureates, but how many of us keep track of what they did after winning the coveted honor? Scientists' lives after the Nobel Prize change dramatically. As former Lindau attendee Richard Ernst put it, they are now expected to be oracles on everything from international politics to religion, even when their knowledge of most other things is as limited as that of other people. There is no common thread; after winning the Prize, scientists' lives become as varied as those of all of us and in some cases a little more interesting. Here's a short portrait of life after the Nobel Prize illustrated with a select few examples...

Read the rest of the post on the Lindau blogs site...

Lindau 2011: The beginning

This year I am privileged to be invited again to write for and attend the 61st Meeting of Nobel Laureates in Lindau, Germany. This year's meeting is dedicated to Physiology or Medicine and the list of attendees provides a glimpse of the diversity and impact of biomedical research. These men and women have made enormous contributions to our understanding of biological systems, from elucidating structures and pathways to providing tools of inestimable value. My first post just went up and I will be linking to others as I write more. Here's the first one.

From messy to magical: Preparing for the future of medicine

In the early 1940s, as war raged over the continent, the British mathematician Freeman Dyson and the Indian physicist Harish Chandra were taking a walk in Cambridge. Harish Chandra was studying theoretical physics under the legendary Paul Dirac while Dyson was getting ready to spend a depressing time calculating bombing statistics at Bomber Command.

“I have decided to leave physics for mathematics”, quipped Harish Chandra. “I find physics messy, unrigorous, elusive”. “That’s interesting”, replied Dyson. “I am planning to leave mathematics for physics for exactly the same reason.” Leave their respective disciplines the two did, and both of them had highly distinguished careers in their new fields at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

I narrate this story because I can imagine almost exactly the same conversation taking place today between a biomedical researcher and any other kind of natural scientist. In fact it’s interesting to compare the status of medicine today with the status of physics when Dyson and Harish Chandra had their conversation. By 1940 physics had underwent a great revolution in the form of quantum mechanics and relativity. Yet there was much to be done and the “second revolution” was in the making. In retrospect it’s clear that very little was known about the strong and weak nuclear forces and nothing was known about the particle “zoo” that would be uncovered in the next few years. It took the efforts of many brilliant individuals to unify crucial concepts and make the whole structure look more consistent and complete.

Medicine in the year 2011 is like physics in the year 1940. Just like physics it has had a recent revolutionary past in the advent of molecular biology. Just like physics there is much of it that is “messy, unrigorous, elusive”. And it’s exactly these qualities that make it a field ripe for another revolution. The future beckons for medicine and biology today as it did for physics in 1940.

Read more at the Lindau blogs website...

Lindau 2011: The beginning

This year I am privileged to be invited again to write for and attend the 61st Meeting of Nobel Laureates in Lindau, Germany. This year's meeting is dedicated to Physiology or Medicine and the list of attendees provides a glimpse of the diversity and impact of biomedical research. These men and women have made enormous contributions to our understanding of biological systems, from elucidating structures and pathways to providing tools of inestimable value. My first post just went up and I will be linking to others as I write more. Here's the first one.

From messy to magical: Preparing for the future of medicine

In the early 1940s, as war raged over the continent, the British mathematician Freeman Dyson and the Indian physicist Harish Chandra were taking a walk in Cambridge. Harish Chandra was studying theoretical physics under the legendary Paul Dirac while Dyson was getting ready to spend a depressing time calculating bombing statistics at Bomber Command.

“I have decided to leave physics for mathematics”, quipped Harish Chandra. “I find physics messy, unrigorous, elusive”. “That’s interesting”, replied Dyson. “I am planning to leave mathematics for physics for exactly the same reason.” Leave their respective disciplines the two did, and both of them had highly distinguished careers in their new fields at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

I narrate this story because I can imagine almost exactly the same conversation taking place today between a biomedical researcher and any other kind of natural scientist. In fact it’s interesting to compare the status of medicine today with the status of physics when Dyson and Harish Chandra had their conversation. By 1940 physics had underwent a great revolution in the form of quantum mechanics and relativity. Yet there was much to be done and the “second revolution” was in the making. In retrospect it’s clear that very little was known about the strong and weak nuclear forces and nothing was known about the particle “zoo” that would be uncovered in the next few years. It took the efforts of many brilliant individuals to unify crucial concepts and make the whole structure look more consistent and complete.

Medicine in the year 2011 is like physics in the year 1940. Just like physics it has had a recent revolutionary past in the advent of molecular biology. Just like physics there is much of it that is “messy, unrigorous, elusive”. And it’s exactly these qualities that make it a field ripe for another revolution. The future beckons for medicine and biology today as it did for physics in 1940.

Read more at the Lindau blogs website...

Lindau 2010: Island Full Of Ideas

I am very fortunate in being invited again to blog for the 60th Meeting of Nobel Laureates in Lindau, Germany. This year's interdisciplinary star cast features more than 60 Nobel Prize winners from physics, chemistry and medicine and more than 600 young students and researchers from around the world. It's been a pleasure blogging for this one-of-a-kind meeting. Below are listed some of my posts with excerpts. You can click on the titles to read the full posts.

1. Reflections on Nobel City

Cities, just like human beings, have character. The character is frequently defined by little things as well as big. For instance New York is The Big Apple, Paris the city of fashion, Sydney the city with the Opera House and Rio de Janeiro the carnival city. Small cities are also known for their own accomplishments. For instance, last year I visited the the little German city of Magdeburg which is known for Otto von Guericke, the man who established the physics of vacuums through a famous experiment involving horses...

2. Microwaves, Magnetism and Machine Grease: A Paean to Tool-Driven Science

John Turton Randall was trying hard, real hard. For some time now, the University of Birmingham physicist was focusing on trying to improve the features of a machine which transmitted and received electromagnetic waves. A few years back this would have been just another intriguing academic problem for a physicist to crack, but this time it was a matter of life and death for thousands. Literally. It was 1939, and an ominous menace loomed large over Europe in the person of Adolf Hitler. The machine Randall was working on was designed to thwart Hitler's attempts to invade the British mainland. It sent out electromagnetic waves of meter wavelength and tried to deduce the position of an object based on its reflection of these waves. The operating principle of this humble machine later turned into a household name- Radar...

3. Pigeon Waste, Cosmic Melodies and Noise in Scientific Communication

There it was, that darned noise again.

Nobody could possibly be happy cleaning pigeon droppings. Yet Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were being forced to do it. As good scientists they simply could not avoid it, since they had to discount the role of this "white dielectric substance" in the noise that was plaguing their equipment. When they finished with the cleaning and dispatched the pigeons by mail to a faraway place, the noise still did not disappear. And it seemed to come from all directions. The implications of this annoying constant background hum, corresponding to a temperature of only 3 degrees above absolute zero, signified one of the most momentous discoveries in twentieth-century physics, notable even among Nobel Prize-winning discoveries...

4. Paul Crutzen's Other Big Idea

Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen will be at Lindau this year, along with his fellow recipient F. Sherwood Rowland. The two along with Mario Molina contributed to one of the most significant intersections of science with politics and public policy in the twentieth century when they discovered the effects of chlorofluorocarbons and other chemical compounds on the all-important ozone layer. Crutzen is well-known for that contribution...

5. Mountains Beyond Mountains

The scientist, by the very nature of his commitment, creates more and more questions, never fewer. Indeed, the measure of our intellectual maturity is our capacity to feel less and less satisfied with our answers to better problems.- G.W. Allport, Becoming, 1955

Science in the popular mind consists of a series of "Eureka!" moments. Such moments are supposed to suddenly propel scientific fields ahead at accelerating rates. Many anecdotes from scientific history seem to confirm this belief. It all begins with Archimedes jumping out of the bath after discovering the principle of buoyancy. Other examples include the apple falling on Isaac Newton’s head, August Kekule waking up from a dream and realizing the structure of benzene, Enrico Fermi discovering slow neutrons by ‘randomly’ substituting a block of paraffin for a tabletop, Alexander Fleming ‘accidentally’ discovering the action of a famous mold on bacteria, and Werner Heisenberg discovering the awesome structure of the quantum world after an all-night session on the island of Heligoland in the North Sea...

6. Heisenberg and Dirac

Beatrice's story about Heisenberg possibly inspiring the "Schunkelwalzer" dancing tradition at Lindau reminds me of an ancedote about Heisenberg and Paul Dirac. Both were two of the most accomplished scientists of the twentieth century who made foundational contributions to quantum mechanics. But while Heisenberg loved song, dance and wine, Dirac was a very quiet man and a singularly unusual character who generously extended his abstract thinking to interpreting the world literally. This inevitably led him to being an anecdote generator throughout his life and many stories about him abound. Here are a few, concluding with the story about him and Heisenberg...

7. Infections and Disease: The Golden Age

Harald zur Hausen's discovery of the link between infection and cancer provides a window into what may turn out to be one of the most fascinating lines of inquiry in twenty-first century medical research: the link between microorganisms and what have been traditionally considered chronic diseases.

This line of inquiry is founded on an evolutionary truth. Bacteria and viruses have been human beings' most constant companions, existing on this planet billions of years before we did and greeting us as we climbed out of the trees and walked out of Africa. Since the very beginning we have been engaged in an arms race with microbes. The conventional wisdom is that these arms races have led to an essentially benign co-existence between us and "them". But recent thinking has challenged this widespread belief and the truth appears to be more complicated...

The official slide into absurdity

There's been so much said about Obama prematurely winning the Nobel Peace Prize that I cannot possibly add to it. This was one of the very few times when both his detractors and his supporters were united in their recognition of this absurdity. I bet the news has given a headache to Obama and undoubtedly introduced another lofty expectation and complication in his life.

Suffice it to say that it's at times like this that I feel gratified to be working in the sciences. Sure, Nobel Prizes in the sciences have also been controversial, but nowhere as controversial as the literature, peace and economics prizes. The peace prize has officially turned into a joke and the economics prize is close to being one. But the ribosome, DNA structure, symmetry breaking in weak interactions and high-temperature ceramic superconductors have a ring of certainty and permanence that no achievement in finance or peace can have, although an achievement in literature might come close to being this way. Uncle Alby's words speak again; "Politics is ephemeral but an equation is forever"...

More on V. Ramakrishnan and a book that started it all

You could start with the telephone interview on the Nobel website. What's interesting is that Ramakrishnan did his PhD. from a not particularly distinguished university; his rather peripatetic career really seems to have taken off only several years after graduate school. I think this is a good illustration of what you can achieve even later in life if you put your mind to it. In the interview he says that in fact he was not very interested in his PhD. research project. He used to subscribe to Scientific American at the time and it was through the magazine that he realized that the most exciting developments were happening in biology (I was about to switch my subscription from Scientific American to Discover; maybe I should stick to Scientific American now). He was also inspired by the example of famous physicists like Francis Crick and Walter Gilbert who switched to molecular biology and made pathbreaking contributions.

It is worth remembering that one of the key influences that propelled physicists into molecular biology after the War was a little book by Erwin Schrödinger named "What is Life"? which laid out the basic questions- but tantalizingly, not the answers- necessary for addressing the questions of life and heredity at a molecular level. It makes for very interesting reading even today. The book was based on lectures that Schrödinger gave in neutral Ireland in 1943, one of the very few places not torn by the conflict. Schrödinger was also woefully ignorant of chemistry and therefore did not focus on metabolism (proteins), only on heredity. Now we know that metabolism might have evolved separately from genetics and is at least as important as genetics.

More links; profile of Ramakrishnan in TOI featuring interviews with his father. It's always amusing when, the moment someone wins a Nobel Prize, the fact that he or she does not own a car and bicycles to work every day suddenly becomes the title of a news piece! In this particular case, given that Ramakrishnan works in bicycle-friendly Cambridge, it's probably not surprising that he rides to work. He would probably not have done this had he worked in San Diego or at Yale.

Ramakrishnan is astonishingly the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology's 13th Nobel Laureate. The laboratory has been to molecular and structural biology what Rutherford's Cavendish Laboratory was to physics in the first half of the twentieth century. It was set up by Nobel Laureates and has served as a magnet for biostructural research for half a century.

More: A video interview with Ramakrishnan about his ribosome work, recorded at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (another molecular biology pioneer). It's worth noting how, in addition to being extremely perseverant and creative, Ramakrishnan was definitely also in the right place at the right time. For instance after his PhD. he ended up working with Peter Moore at Yale, a scientist who was then one of the very few people working on the ribosome. In addition, most modern high resolution structure determinations need access to a synchrotron which provides a very high intensity beam of x-rays. Ramakrishnan ended up at one of the world's premier sources of synchrotrons, Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Ramakrishnan also spares few words in castigating both the press and the general public for taking cognizance of important work only after it wins prizes. He says,

I think it’s a mistake to define good work by awards. This is a typical mistake that the public or even the press make. None of you called me about my work even two days ago… right?”

The first Indian to win a Nobel Prize for chemistry

Venki Ramakrishnan has done it. He, Ada Yonath and Tom Seitz have won the Nobel Prize for chemistry for 2009 for their pioneering studies on the structure of the ribosome. The prize was predicted by many for many years and I myself have listed these names in my lists for a couple of years now; in fact I remember talking with a friend about Yonath and Ramakrishnan getting it as early as 2002. Ramakrishnan thus joins the ranks of Raman, Khorana and Chandrasekhar as the latest Indian science Nobel Laureate. Will his achievement inspire more students in India to study science? I sure hope so...


...Read the rest of the entry on Desipundit

The 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics: Kao, Boyle and Smith

Seems nobody saw this coming but the importance of optical fibers and CCDs is obvious. It's also interesting that Indian physicist Narinder Kapany's name is not on the list. I am not completely familiar with the history but from what I know Kapany was one of the early pioneers in fiber optics.

It's no small irony that the CCD research was done in 1969 at Bell Labs. With this Bell Labs may well be the most productive basic industrial research organization in history, and yet today it is less than a mere shadow of itself. The CCD research was done 40 years back and the time in which it was done seems disconnected from the present not just temporally, but more fundamentally. The research lab that once housed six Nobel Prize winners on its staff can now count a total of four scientists in its basic physics division.

The 80s and indeed most of the postwar decades before then seem to be part of a different universe now. The Great American Industrial Research Laboratory seems like a relic of the past. Merck, IBM, Bell Labs...what on earth happened to all that research productivity?

The 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Source: Nobelprize.org

The 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to Elizabeth Blackburn (UCSF), Carol Greider (Johns Hopkins) and Jack Szostak (Harvard) for their discovery of the enzyme telomerase and its role in human health and disease.

This prize was highly predictable because the trio’s discovery is of obvious and fundamental importance to an understanding of living systems...

...Read the rest of the post on Desipundit

The 2009 Lindau Nobel Laureates meeting

It is a great privilege for me to be invited to live-blog and write about the 2009 Lindau Nobel Prize Winners meeting in the scenic Bavarian town of Lindau, Germany. Since 1951, dozens of Nobel laureates have been joined every year by about 500 carefully chosen students from around the world for a full week of informal discussions, seminars, lunches and lectures where students and Nobelists mingle with each other and one can find at least one laureate on every square foot of the floor no matter what direction he looks.

This year's focus is on chemistry and an august list of no less than 22 Nobel Prize winners in the subject is going to gather in this scenic town. I am honored to be invited because of my background in chemistry and blogging and relish the opportunity like nothing else. I am supposed to be on a small team of 7 journalists and bloggers blogging the event for scienceblogs.com and scienceblogs.de. Along with Matthew Chalmers who is an editor and writer for several publications like New Scientist and the Times, I will largely be responsible for writing about the event in English for Scienceblogs.com. The writing will include both general observations about the meeting as well as descriptions of the talks and seminars. Hopefully I can bring it all together.

Nobel laureates have long been a particular interest of mine. People interested in this kind of a thing collect Nobel statistics like sports and stock market statistics; it was only when exploring facts about youngest, oldest, tallest, most awarded, famous father-son duos, and most neglected non-winners that I realised the allure of cricket or sensex figures.

Calling the list of scheduled speakers at Lindau stellar is a futile and redundant effort because every one of them has won the highest honor in his or her field. Many of the names are familiar and not only have I long admired these people, but I have even directly and indirectly used their work in my own research, as have thousands of scientists and students around the world. Now we will all experience a connection to our work like no other.

In any case, this is as magnificent a concatenation of minds as you can expect to find and I am immensely looking forward to it. The meeting is going to be held from June 28 - July 3. 22 Nobelists in one of the most beautiful parts of the world. It does not get better than this. I will naturally keep on updating.

2008 MEDICINE NOBEL: MONTAGNIER FINALLY WINS

If you knew little about the Nobel prizes, you could be easily forgiven for assuming that somebody must have already won the Nobel for discovering the AIDS virus. Many people probably do assume this. It just seems hard that such an important discovery has not already been recognized by the prize.

And yet, those who know the history know about the acrimonious dispute between Frenchman Luc Montagnier and American Robert Gallo about priority. The two were involved in a protracted and cantankerous debate with both camps claiming that they were the ones who discovered HIV and demonstrated its action. When I read the history, to me it was always clear that it was Montagnier whose team not only undoubtedly first isolated the virus, but actually proved that HIV causes AIDS, an absolutely crucial step in establishing the identity of a causative agent and a diagnostic step for the disease. While Gallo also played an important role in the latter, the history also indicated to me that he had engaged in some pretty cunning and disingenuous political manipulation to claim priority for the discovery.

It didn't really seem that the prize would be awarded to both of them. It may well have not been awarded to any of them. The Nobel committee usually steers clear of controversial people and topics. But it seems to have realized that it can no longer neglect the truly important people behind such an obviously groundbreaking discovery. So Luc Montaginer, along with Francois-Barre Sinoussi have finally been awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine. Barre-Sinoussi first isolated HIV. The committee clearly is trying to avoid controversy by specifically saying that the prize is for discovering HIV. Even Gallo should not have a problem conceding that it was Montagnier and Barre-Sinoussi who first saw and isolated the virus.

The other half deservedly goes to Harald Zur Hausen, discoverer of the human papilloma virus which causes cervical cancer.

I would recommend reading Virus, Montagnier's story of his life and his work.

A CHAT WITH NOBEL LAUREATE PETER AGRE

It’s not everyday that you get to have a relaxed, inspirational and informal almost one-on-one chat for an hour with a Nobel Prize winner. Yet that was what it was today morning...

Read the rest of the entry on Desipundit...