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

Chemistry Nobel: Computational protein design and protein structure prediction

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 343 posts

Re: Chemistry Nobel: Computational protein design and protein structure prediction

#131

Post by myworkinisgood »

ascorbic wrote: post #108
t_mann wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's 8 densely printed pages of contributors to a discovery that lead to a Nobel prize: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7214#page=26 Guess how many of them were included in the prize. It's a shame that the Nobel committee shies away from awarding it to institutions, but the AlphaFold prize doesn't even make the top 10 in a list of most controversial omissions from a Nobel prize. It's a simple case of lab director gets t…

It's not a case of shying away from it: the rules of the prize don't allow it.

rules of the prize can be changed.

Re: Chemistry Nobel: Computational protein design and protein structure prediction

#132

Post by famouswaffles »

atmosx wrote: post #97

> Oppenheimer was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Physics three times[...] pondered why he was never bestowed the honor. > “To understand this [...] you have to first examine the man’s academic life before and after the war.” Quote from: https://discover.lanl.gov/news/0609-oppie-nobel-prize/ Not anymore. You're not required to know or have studied Chemistry to get a Nobel in Chemistry.

The Nobel Prize has always prioritised advances in the field over specific training.

Curie was a trained chemist when she won her prize in physics. Michelson was a Naval Officer. Of course naturally, being able to win a Nobel usually means you studied the field your entire life but that has never been a requirement.

Re: Chemistry Nobel: Computational protein design and protein structure prediction

#134

Post by cmavvv »

singularity2001 wrote: post #126
eig wrote: post #117

I think I disagree with most of the comments here stating it’s premature to give the Nobel to AlphaFold. I’m in biotech academia and it has changed things already. Yes the protein folding problem isn’t “solved” but no problem in biology ever is. Comparing to previous bio/chem Nobel winners like Crispr, touch receptors, quantum dots, click chemistry, I do think AlphaFold already has reached sufficient level of impact.

>> I do think AlphaFold already has reached sufficient level of impact. how so?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2315002121

Re: Chemistry Nobel: Computational protein design and protein structure prediction

#135

Post by nextworddev »

singularity2001 wrote: post #128
seydor wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't beat that patent clerk guy

whose father was one of the leading local industrialists (installing the first electric lighting for the 1885 Munich Oktoberfest)

It’s fascinating how the affluent backgrounds of many famous scientists and entrepreneurs are downplayed. Eg Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, etc

Re: Chemistry Nobel: Computational protein design and protein structure prediction

#136

Post by cmavvv »

mhrmsn wrote: post #84

Great achievement, although I think it's interesting that this Nobel prize was awarded so early, with "the greatest benefit on mankind" still outstanding. Are there already any clinically approved drugs based on AI out there I might have missed? In comparison, the one for lithium batteries was awarded in 2019, over 30 years after the original research, when probably more than half of the world's population already us…

Given that drugs take around 10 years to get to market, and that some time is needed for industrial adoption as well, it's not very reasonable to expect clinically approved drugs before a few years.

Re: Chemistry Nobel: Computational protein design and protein structure prediction

#137

Post by aleph_minus_one »

DevX101 wrote: post #55
DevX101 wrote: post #24

Here's a direct quote from the Alphafold paper: "These authors contributed equally: John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Žídek, Anna Potapenko, Alex Bridgland, Clemens Meyer, Simon A. A. Kohl, Andrew J. Ballard, Andrew Cowie, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Stanislav Nikolov, Rishub Jain, Demis Hassabis"

The nature of scientific work has changed significantly since 1895, when the Nobel Prizes were established. 100 years ago, lots of scientific work really were driven forward largely by a singular person. That's rarely true today for groundbreaking research. I don't know if this means the Nobel needs to change or we need a another prize that reflects the collaborative work of modern science.

> The nature of scientific work has changed significantly since 1895, when the Nobel Prizes were established. 100 years ago, lots of scientific work really were driven forward largely by a singular person. That's rarely true today for groundbreaking research.

The question is: is this a necessity for doing good science today, or rather an artifact of how important research is organized today (i.e. an artifact of the bureacratic and organizational structure that you have to "accept"/"tolerate" if you want to do want to have a career in science)?

Re: Chemistry Nobel: Computational protein design and protein structure prediction

#138

Post by Rochus »

belter wrote: post #39

First Obama got the Peace Prize Nobel, now Demis Hassabis gets the Chemistry Nobel. I expect at a minimum the Nobel Prize in Literature to be Donald E. Knuth.

The Nobel Committee is not unaffected by the global decline in IQ.

Re: Chemistry Nobel: Computational protein design and protein structure prediction

#140

Post by xdavidliu »

nextworddev wrote: post #135
singularity2001 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whose father was one of the leading local industrialists (installing the first electric lighting for the 1885 Munich Oktoberfest)

It’s fascinating how the affluent backgrounds of many famous scientists and entrepreneurs are downplayed. Eg Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, etc

Bill Gates, but (according to the Isaacson book) not Elon Musk
Post reply on HN