Comments on: Liveblogging the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/ News, Analysis, and Commentary for the World of Chemistry & Chemical Research Sat, 18 May 2013 15:18:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: PJ http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-30906 PJ Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:54:30 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-30906 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

]]> By: wolfie http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-30295 wolfie Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:44:22 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-30295 wolfie eck

will come sooner or later

hahaha

]]> By: MJ http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-29489 MJ Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:25:07 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-29489 yonemoto – That *is* a curious one, I’ve always been a bit befuddled by that one as well! It’s especially striking since Berg, Gilbert, and Sanger were awarded the Chemistry prize for recombinant DNA and nucleic acid sequencing two years later. And it’s not as if nucleic acid chemistry hasn’t gone unnoticed since then (PCR in 1993, for example).

]]> By: yonemoto http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-29353 yonemoto Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:59:24 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-29353 MJ: Hamilton O Smith, restriction enzymes, 1978. In fact, that one should have been a chemistry prize, and not a medicine and physiology prize (it’s neither).

]]> By: Nobel 2012: Chemistry | Brent Neal http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-29345 Nobel 2012: Chemistry | Brent Neal Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:13:30 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-29345 [...] who have complained about it. But in this particular case, I share the sentiments expressed at Chembark that this was excellent work deserving of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Share [...]

]]> By: MJ http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-29344 MJ Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:48:10 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-29344 “I’m not arguing this prize was undeserved or that we should prevent structural biology from winning in the future, but when it does win, surely it is fine for me to be less excited than if something more in my wheelhouse had won.”

No argument there – I’m just interested in where the dividing line falls for people. When I was at a medical research institute in 2009 (AKA the year of the ribosome), most of the researchers I knew felt that biochemistry and structural bio fits more naturally in Chemistry – , the medicine Nobel still goes for no-b.s. clinically relevant medical advances every so often, not just molecular/cell biology and various aspects of physiology. I used to think that materials/solid state chemistry was a pretty unobjectionable field until I heard some of the “WTF?” responses last year after Shechtman was recognized for the quasicrystal work. Truth be told, I had figured him on being a potential Physics laureate, though.

]]> By: yonemoto http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-29312 yonemoto Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:10:05 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-29312 I’m still rooting for Stephanie Kwolek. And then it occurred to me that I work for a nobel prize winner, so I’m going to ask him to nominate her.

]]> By: Untenured Prof http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-29299 Untenured Prof Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:09:32 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-29299 I would go so far as to say it isn’t simply ‘personal taste’ it’s validation. If your field is awarded a Nobel Prize it validates your own decision to pursue chemical research in said field.

I was also particularly un-enthused by this year’s award, I feel the awards are chosen more on the basis on how well it will be digested by the public than true merit – try explaining electrochemistry to Joe Public versus a pretty picture of a cell with receptor proteins along the edge with the promise of ‘better drugs’ and see which one is more palatable.

]]> By: See Arr Oh http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-29295 See Arr Oh Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:01:04 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-29295 @Paul – You’ve summed up nearly my entire 8-hour argument on the subject. Well put.

]]> By: Everyday Scientist » 2012 nobel in chemistry: Kobilka and Lefkowitz http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/#comment-29293 Everyday Scientist » 2012 nobel in chemistry: Kobilka and Lefkowitz Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:59:16 +0000 http://blog.chembark.com/?p=3562#comment-29293 [...] http://blog.chembark.com/2012/10/09/liveblogging-the-2012-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/ [...]

]]>