Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 99 posts

Re: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

#41

Post by The_rationalist »

What's missing for reseting all / most of the DNA from an organ/a whole body in mammals?? Just reseting the DNA repair section of the DNA of a whole organ would enable massively slowing the ageing/cancer risks of said organ/body!

It is the key towards rejuvenation and preventing cancer, heizeimer and most diseases! I can't find a good resource on why this is not currently possible and where can I track scientific incremental progress towards making this breakthrough a reality, which would then become the biggest technological progress of the 21 century!

Why aren't an enormous amount (and diluted over days or months) of viral vectors enough?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector#:~:text=Viral%2....

Re: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

#43

Post by cosmic_quanta »

dm8 wrote: post #15

Thoroughly deserved. 9 years since publishing their paper in Nature. CRISPR/Cas9 is that revolutionary. Is that the fastest Nobel since breakthrough/discovery? Or was it Graphene Nobel (albeit in Physics) in 2010? EDIT: Looks like fastest Nobel prize since discovery was in 1987 (in Physics) - for high temperature super conductivity. Bednorz and Mueller won their Nobel within 2 years (!!!!!) Ref - https://science.scie…

Wasn't the Nobel awarded for the observation of gravitational waves 1 year after the publication in Physical Review Letters?

Edit: here's the paper (2016) https://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRev...

Re: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

#44

Post by Upvoter33 »

est31 wrote: post #20

The discovery is beyond doubt deserving of the award. It was also awarded only 8 years after the publication. It's a bit sad though that Virginijus Šikšnys didn't get any credit for the discovery, because his paper sent over a month earlier was rejected by Cell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginijus_%C5%A0ik%C5%A1nys#P... Edit: The Nobel award paper writes this on his findings: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2…

This is a complex issue. The good news: Dr. S. has certainly received plenty of recognition (e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05308-5). Would love to hear an interview with him and his thoughts on who should be recognized.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

#45

Post by Upvoter33 »

jray wrote: post #32
pessimist wrote: post #28

Poor Virginijus Šikšnys, left out because the journal he sent it to rejected without review his paper which was sent before Doudna and Charpentier's. https://www.statnews.com/2018/05/31/crispr-scientists-kavli-... "But bad luck with a journal made Šikšnys the forgotten man of CRISPR: Cell rejected his paper in April 2012 without sending it out for peer review. In contrast, when Doudna, Charpentier, and their colleagu…

Poor Francisco Mojica Francisco Juan Martínez Mojica (Elche, October 5, 1963), usually known as Francisco JM Mojica, is a Spanish scientist, molecular biologist, and microbiologist at the University of Alicante in Spain, known for his discovering research on the Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-CRISPR gene editing technique.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Mojica

I don't think it's a case of "poor" Mojica. He discovered some important properties around the palindromic nature of DNA in bacteria, as did others in Japan. While it was important, it is not the same level of contribution as Doudna and Charpentier. I don't think that there is much debate around this.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

#46

Post by hatmatrix »

Upvoter33 wrote: post #40
tuxxy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is academia (at least in the physical sciences) so competitive? My partner is a molecular biologist and she can't collaborate with anyone outside of her lab because of the fear that they collaborators will take their research before they get a chance to publish it. It seems this method of performing groundbreaking research and science is horrifically detrimental to our collective progress. There's no reason for t…

It actually relates to many things, but mostly it's because all the matters is getting credit for an idea. Realize that the process is basically to create something and then write about it to advance knowledge, thus sharing it with all. What's left at the end of that process is to recognize those who have done a lot of positive sharing. Those who are so recognized get the best jobs, the most funding, the best student…

On the other hand, physics seems to not have this issue. Experimentalists working on topics related to CERN publish jointly (with like 500 co-authors) and theoreticians regularly post pre-prints under review on arXiv. They are a much smaller community though.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

#47

Post by evgen »

hatmatrix wrote: post #46
Upvoter33 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually relates to many things, but mostly it's because all the matters is getting credit for an idea. Realize that the process is basically to create something and then write about it to advance knowledge, thus sharing it with all. What's left at the end of that process is to recognize those who have done a lot of positive sharing. Those who are so recognized get the best jobs, the most funding, the best student…

On the other hand, physics seems to not have this issue. Experimentalists working on topics related to CERN publish jointly (with like 500 co-authors) and theoreticians regularly post pre-prints under review on arXiv. They are a much smaller community though.

This is a consequence of the required resources for the experiments. If it takes a ten billion dollar piece of equipment to produce your results then chances are you are going to be one little cog in a very big machine. There are not papers with 500 co-authors in any other field or even in sub-fields of particle physics that do not require massive accelerators to achieve results.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

#48

Post by ricksunny »

tuxxy wrote: post #27
est31 wrote: post #20

The discovery is beyond doubt deserving of the award. It was also awarded only 8 years after the publication. It's a bit sad though that Virginijus Šikšnys didn't get any credit for the discovery, because his paper sent over a month earlier was rejected by Cell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginijus_%C5%A0ik%C5%A1nys#P... Edit: The Nobel award paper writes this on his findings: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2…

Why is academia (at least in the physical sciences) so competitive? My partner is a molecular biologist and she can't collaborate with anyone outside of her lab because of the fear that they collaborators will take their research before they get a chance to publish it. It seems this method of performing groundbreaking research and science is horrifically detrimental to our collective progress. There's no reason for t…

This is a phenomenon that I've only just come to know since tiptoeing into the biotech space only half a year ago. Coming to recognise how poorly academics collaborate and the incentives underlying that has been one of my most saddening and de-motivating realisations since entering the space.

Re: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020

#49

Post by inciampati »

hatmatrix wrote: post #46
Upvoter33 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually relates to many things, but mostly it's because all the matters is getting credit for an idea. Realize that the process is basically to create something and then write about it to advance knowledge, thus sharing it with all. What's left at the end of that process is to recognize those who have done a lot of positive sharing. Those who are so recognized get the best jobs, the most funding, the best student…

On the other hand, physics seems to not have this issue. Experimentalists working on topics related to CERN publish jointly (with like 500 co-authors) and theoreticians regularly post pre-prints under review on arXiv. They are a much smaller community though.

There are many large-scale projects in biology that benefit from open collaboration. In general, these require lots of work and produce useful resources used by a whole field. Insights that could revolutionize a field can sometimes be described in a sentence or two, and reproduced in a few days or weeks, so scientists are more uneasy sharing them.
Post reply on HN