ChemBark

Hello, sports fans. Tune in tonight for a very special episode of ChemBark, in which I will be liveblogging the announcement of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Admire my audacity in predicting who will win based on the committee member tasked with making the announcement. Watch in horror as I try to translate Swedish and get a jump on the English-speaking press. It’s going to be grand!

ChemBark’s Official List of Odds for the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Liveblog entries after the jump…

(more…)

We are exactly one month away from the announcement of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, so it’s time for ChemBark to commence its traditional rampant speculation.

Presented below is the official ChemBark list of odds against winning the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The list is a revised version of last year’s predictions, where I shamefully neglected to score the discovery that won. Quasicrystals seemed to come out of nowhere. It’ll never happen again; I promise.

Once again, the candidates are sorted below by discovery/invention rather than by scientist. The lists of scientists can get complicated. Some are listed more than once. In cases where someone not listed could easily share in the prize for the associated discovery, a “+” is listed. In cases where one of the scientists listed could easily not share in that prize, a “–” is listed.  The odds are reported in “odds against” format. Remember, this list attempts to address who will win the prize this year, not who should win the prize. There’s a big difference.

Odds Against Winning the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Nuclear Hormone Signaling, Chambon/Evans/Jensen, 6-1
Bioinorganic Chemistry, Gray/Lippard/Holm/–, 7-1
Spectroscopy & Application of Lasers, Zare/Moerner/+, 8-1
Techniques in DNA Synthesis, Caruthers/Hood/+, 13-1
The Field (everything not listed), 14-1
Electrochemistry/Electron Transfer, Bard/Hush/Gray/–, 19-1
Biological Membrane Vesicles, Rothman/Schekman/+, 19-1
Instrumentation/Techniques in Genomics, Venter/+, 24-1
Molecular Studies of Gene Recognition, Ptashne, 24-1
Polymer Science, Matyjaszewski/Rizzardo/+/– 24-1
Organic Electronics, Tang/+, 49-1
Solar Cells, Grätzel/+, 74-1
Nanotechnology, Lieber/Whitesides/Alivisatos/Mirkin/Seeman/+/–, 74-1
Transmission Electron Aberration-Corrected Microscopy, Haider/Rose/Urban, 74-1
Chemically-Amplified Photoresists, Frechet/Willson, 74-1
Protein Folding, Hartl/Horwich/+, 74-1
Mechanistic Enzymology, Walsh/Stubbe/+/–, 99-1
Lithium-Ion Batteries, Goodenough, 99-1
Development of the Birth Control Pill, Djerassi, 99-1
Molecular Modeling and Assorted Applications, Karplus/Houk/Schleyer/Miller/+/–, 99-1
Applications of NMR Spectroscopy, Waugh/Pines/Roberts/McConnell/+/–, 99-1
Development of Chemical Biology, Schultz/Schreiber/+, 99-1
Self-Assembly, Whitesides/Nuzzo/Stang/–, 149-1
Pigments of Life, Battersby/+, 149-1
DNA Methylation, Cedar/Razin/+, 149-1
Small Regulatory RNA, Ambros/Baulcombe/Ruvkun, 149-1
Eukaryotic RNA Polymerases, Roeder, 149-1
Contributions to Theoretical Physical Chemistry, Rice/+, 149-1
Metal-Organic Frameworks, Yaghi/Ferey/Kitagawa/+/–, 149-1
Bio- & Organo-catalysis, List/Lerner/Barbas/+/–, 149-1
Alternative Nucleic Acid Motifs, Rich/+, 149-1
Hydrogen Maser, Kleppner/+, 149-1
Drug Delivery/Tissue Engineering, Langer/+, 149-1
Assorted Protein Work, Levitzki/Hunter/Pawson/+, 149-1
Novel Cancer Therapeutics, Ullrich/+, 149-1
Combinatorial Chemistry/DOS, Schreiber/+, 199-1
Leptin, Coleman/Friedman/Leong, 199-1
Zeolites, Flanigan/+, 199-1
Fluorocarbons, DuPont/Curran/–, 199-1
Dendrimers, Frechet/Tomalia/+, 199-1
Organic Synthesis, Evans/Danishefsky/Nicolaou/Ley/Trost/Stork/Wender/Kishi/+/–, 249-1
Mechanical Bonds and Applications, Sauvage/Stoddart/+, 299-
Contributions to Bioorganic Chemistry, Breslow/Eschenmoser/+, 299-1
Understanding of Organic Stereochemistry, Mislow, 399-1
Molecular Machines, Stoddart/Tour/+/–, 499-1
Molecular Recognition, Dervan/+, 999-1
Astrochemistry, Oka, 999-1

Notes

1. This rundown is meant to approximate fair odds (without a built-in vig). In case you don’t know how this way of reporting odds works, the listed numbers (“m-n”) mean the associated entry has an expected probabilty to win of n/(m+n). Thus, 4-1 odds equates to a 20% expectation of winning. If your pick wins at 4-1 and you’ve bet $1, you get paid $5 ($4 + your $1 bet back) minus the house’s vig.

2. I’m not taking any wagers.

3. The (qualitative) criteria that went into assigning these odds were discussed in a previous post. Results from old predictions were also discussed in a previous post.

4. I don’t think any of the chemists on my previous list died within the past year (which is important, since awards are not made posthumously).

5. Lieber and Alivisatos make a huge jump up the rankings in the wake of receiving the 2012 Wolf Prize in Chemistry, but I am still skeptical about nanotechnology winning a Nobel until there is a monster, practical achievement. Ronald Evans took the 2012 Wolf Prize in Medicine, but the nuclear hormone receptor group has already been on short odds for quite some time.

6. Dan Shechtman is a professor of materials science and won a Wolf Prize in physics, not chemistry, which is probably why he escaped my notice. I’ve gone back through the list of Wolf Prizes in subjects other than chemistry and added the following discoveries: Transmission Electron Aberration-Corrected Microscopy (physics, 2011); giant magnetoresistance (physics, 2007); hydrogen maser (physics, 2005); novel cancer therapeutics (medicine, 2010); DNA methylation (medicine, 2008).

7. Alexander Rich, a past winner of the Welch Award, has been added for his work with nucleic acids.

8. The last five prizes have gone physical/materials (quasicrystals), organic (organopalladium chemistry), biological (ribosome), biological (GFP), physical/surfaces (Ertl). It has been a long time since something distinctly inorganic won, unless you are going to count organopalladium (2010) or Grubbs/Schrock (2005). Perhaps inorganic is due? Or perhaps it is time for chemistry to take a side step for biology again?

9. The Nobel Committee for chemistry this year is a pretty diverse group. I don’t think there is an obvious bias that would favor a prize going to one particular sub-discipline over another.

10. Who is my final prediction for the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (i.e., my one pick if someone were to put a gun to my head and say that a winning prediction was the only thing that would save my life)?  I’m going with the nuclear hormone signaling people, Chambon, Evans, and Jensen.  Last year was distinctly physical, so maybe biology is next in line? Also, these guys are getting up there in years, which adds an extra incentive for their recognition now instead of kicking the can down the road. They have won everything else, so their credentials are well established. I think this is the year it finally happens.

This post will be updated with links to other fresh (2012) predictions as they appear on other blogs.  For links to past predictions made by other sites, see the bottom of this post.

2012 predictions: Curious Wavefunction, Derek Lowe, Musings on Music and Life, Everyday Scientist, Brent Neal, Thomson-Reuters, Nanotella, Reddit Chemistry, Karin Bojs.

2012 press: Slate, Chemistry World Blog.

For more random #Nobel thoughts and chemistry banter, follow @ChemBark on Twitter.

LIVEBLOG OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 2011 NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY

ChemBark’s Official List of Odds for the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

T+00:40:00 — OK, I’m signing off. Time to wipe the tears from my eyes and take a nap.

T+00:38:00 — Incidentally, Sven Lidin is very well spoken and is doing an excellent job explaining what is interesting about quasicrystals and why the discovery is important. Given the esoteric nature of the subject, Lidin’s treatment is particularly valuable.

T+00:34:00 — I think (molecular) chemists are going to feel cheated here, but the argument that this subject isn’t chemistry is untenable. The subject also falls into physics and math, but there is definitely chemistry here.

T+00:27:00 — The winner of this year’s World Series is the San Francisco 49ers. Well, I’m sure quasicrystals are deserving. I mean, they sound interesting, but I really don’t know much about them. My class in materials chemistry in grad school never touched on them. Time for some reading…

T+00:22:00 — That’s it for the presser. No phoner.

T+00:20:00 — So….who’s excited about this one? Anyone? Bueller?

T+00:17:00 — Pointed question from the press about why other contributors  were not recognized.

T+00:15:00 — The Committee can’t get Shechtman on the phone.

T+00:14:00 — Field bet paid off at 11-1. ChemBark’s string of success in chemistry predictions is snapped.

T+00:13:00 — Shechtman won the Wolf Prize in Physics in 1999 and is a Thomson Reuters citation laureate in physics.

T+00:10:00 — Crystallography never seemed so fun.

T+00:09:00 — Did I get that date right? Wikipedia is saying 1984.

T+00:06:00 — Discovery took place April 8th, 1982.

T+00:03:00 — Physics just paid us back for last year.

T+00:00:00 — Daniel Shechtman for quasicrystals

T–00:00:00 — Sven Lidin in da house!!! Inorganic?!

T–00:00:00 — Zero and holding. Here they come!!

T–00:00:00 — Nobel clock registers zeros. Where are they?

T–00:02:12 — I should have used the restroom 15 minutes ago.

T–00:03:13 — My heart is aflutter. Is this the year I finally win?

T–00:04:26 — No name tags at the podium yet.

T–00:07:00 — Pay careful attention to who walks in to explain the science. Might tip off the sub-discipline of the winner.

T–00:09:10 — TV feed is live. The press has gathered.

T–00:13:50 — I’ve tuned into the Webcast to enjoy the trance music.

T–03:22:00 — If you don’t like ChemBark, then don’t hit the “like” button on the ChemBark Facebook page.

T–03:39:00 — Please, please, please not structural biology.

T–18:53:00 — How accurate are the ChemBark community’s predictions? Well, the top 10 favorites on the 2007 list included the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 winners of the prize in chemistry as well as the 2009 winners in medicine.

T–19:04:00 — If you’re going to pick (mp3) Jean Fréchet to win the prize, you should know that his first name is pronounced like Jean-Luc Picard, not Billie Jean King.

T–23:22:00 — From the Nobel Web site, here’s the selection committee for 2011:

Lars Thelander (Chairman)
Professor Emeritus in Physiological Chemistry

Astrid Gräslund (Member, Secretary)
Professor of Biophysics

Jan-Erling Bäckvall (Member)
Professor of Organic Chemistry

Måns Ehrenberg (Member)
Professor of Molecular Biology

Sven Lidin (Member)
Professor of Inorganic Chemistry

Who walks in the door to explain the science will be the first big clue about the winner.

T–23:43:00 — Swedish TV reporter to Schmidt: “You were one of the favorites on the betting lists. Were you expecting this call?” Hooray for betting lists.

T–23:57:00 — Does this mean Hawking won’t be winning any time soon?

T–24:00:00 — Cosmology and supernova dudes

T–24:01:30 — Tension building.

T–24:04:43 — Watching the live Web feed for the physics announcement. I’m glad the Foundation has kept their signature house-trance theme music.

T–27:22:00 — The Nobel site has the countdown clock started for physics: 3 hours and 22 minutes to go. Plenty of time for a trip to Jack in the Box.

T–29:36:00 — I’m terribly excited about this year’s Nobel Prize in chemistry…so much so that I’m kicking off the liveblogging a day early. Anyway, there’s a good chance we can steal the physics prize again. Here is the time in Sweden.

We’re less than one month away from the most exciting time of the year…the Nobel Prize in Chemistry is set to be announced on October 5th.

Presented below is the official ChemBark list of odds against winning the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.  The list is a revised version of last year’s predictions, where the discovery with the third-best odds ended up winning and the esteemed institution that is USA Today contacted your humble blogger for a quote (thanks to a kind reference from David Pendlebury, the gentleman who predicts prizes for Thomson Reuters). 

Anyway, the candidates are sorted below by discovery/invention rather than by scientist.  The lists of scientists can get complicated.  Some scientists are listed more than once.  In cases where someone not listed could easily share in the prize for the associated discovery, a “+” is listed.  In cases where one of the scientists listed could easily not share in that prize, a “–” is listed.  The odds are reported in “odds against” format.  Remember, this list attempts to address who will win the prize this year, not who should win the prize.  There’s a big difference.

Odds Against Winning the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry – UPDATED 9/28

Spectroscopy & Application of Lasers, Zare/Moerner/+, 6-1
Nuclear Hormone Signaling, Chambon/Evans/Jensen, 7-1
Bioinorganic Chemistry, Gray/Lippard/Holm/–, 8-1
Techniques in DNA Synthesis, Caruthers/Hood/+, 10-1
The Field (everything not listed), 11-1
Electrochemistry/Electron Transfer, Bard/Hush/Gray/–, 19-1
Instrumentation/Techniques in Genomics, Venter/+, 19-1
Biological Membrane Vesicles, Rothman/Schekman/+, 19-1
Molecular Studies of Gene Recognition, Ptashne, 19-1
Polymer Science, Matyjaszewski/Rizzardo/+/– 29-1
Organic Electronics, Tang/+, 49-1
Solar Cells, Grätzel/+, 74-1
Chemically-Amplified Photoresists, Frechet/Willson, 74-1
Mechanistic Enzymology, Walsh/Stubbe/+/–, 74-1
Lithium-Ion Batteries, Goodenough, 99-1
Development of the Birth Control Pill, Djerassi, 99-1
Molecular Modeling and Assorted Applications, Karplus/Houk/Schleyer/Miller/+/–, 99-1
Applications of NMR Spectroscopy, Pines/Roberts/McConnell/+/–, 99-1
Development of Chemical Biology, Schultz/Schreiber/+, 99-1
Self-Assembly, Whitesides/Nuzzo/Stang/–, 149-1
Pigments of Life, Battersby/+, 149-1
Small Regulatory RNA, Ambros/Baulcombe/Ruvkun, 149-1
Nanotechnology, Lieber/Whitesides/Alivisatos/Mirkin/Seeman/+/–, 149-1
Eukaryotic RNA Polymerases, Roeder, 149-1
Contributions to Theoretical Physical Chemistry, Rice/+, 149-1
Bio- & Organo-catalysis, List/Lerner/Barbas/+/–, 149-1
Drug Delivery/Tissue Engineering, Langer/+, 149-1
Combinatorial Chemistry/DOS, Schreiber/+, 199-1
Leptin, Coleman/Friedman/Leong, 199-1
Metal-Organic Frameworks, Yaghi/Ferey/Kitagawa/+/–, 199-1
Zeolites, Flanigan/+, 199-1
Fluorocarbons, DuPont/Curran/–, 199-1
Dendrimers, Frechet/Tomalia/+, 199-1
Mechanical Bonds and Applications, Sauvage/Stoddart/+, 299-1
Understanding of Organic Stereochemistry, Mislow, 299-1
Contributions to Bioorganic Chemistry, Breslow/Eschenmoser/+, 299-1
Organic Synthesis, Evans/Danishefsky/Nicolaou/Ley/Trost/Stork/Wender/Kishi/+/–, 299-1
Molecular Machines, Stoddart/Tour/+/–, 499-1
Molecular Recognition, Dervan/+, 999-1
Astrochemistry, Oka, 999-1

Notes

1. This rundown is meant to approximate fair odds (without a built-in vig).  In case you don’t know how this way of reporting odds works, the listed numbers (“m-n”) mean the associated entry has an expected probabilty to win of n/(m+n).  Thus, 4-1 odds equates to a 20% expectation of winning.  If your pick wins at 4-1 and you’ve bet $1, you get paid $5 ($4 + your $1 bet back) minus the house’s vig.

2. I’m not taking any wagers.

3. The (qualitative) criteria that went into assigning these odds were discussed in a previous post.  Results from old predictions were also discussed in a previous post.  

4. Walsh and Stubbe’s receipt of the Welch Award Wolf Prize significantly bumps up the chance that mechanistic enzymology is recognized.

5. The nuclear hormone signaling guys are kind of getting up there in years.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this fact entered into the equation for their seeing a prize sooner rather than later.

6. Who is my final prediction for the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (i.e., my one pick if someone were to put a gun to my head and say that a winning prediction was the only thing that would save my life)?  I’m going with the laser people, Zare and Moerner, for a second year in a row.  Last year was distinctly organic and the prize before that was structural biology.  Is it p-chem’s turn?  I wouldn’t be surprised.

This post will be updated with links to other fresh (2011) predictions as they appear on other blogs.  For links to past predictions made by other sites, see the bottom of this post.

2011 predictions: Curious Wavefunction, Everyday Scientist, Interfacial Digressions, Thomson Reuters (podcast), In the Pipeline, Reddit people, Lamentations on Chemistry, Unstable Isotope

2011 press: Science Insider, Discover Magazine, LA Times, Heute

Every year, Thomson Reuters predicts who’s going to win the Nobel Prize, and every year, the media eats it up.  Here’s the 2010 press release.

Each year, Thomson Reuters uses data from its research solution, Web of Knowledge (SM), to quantitatively determine the most influential researchers in the Nobel categories of Physiology or Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, and Economics. Based on citations to their works, the company names these high-impact researchers as Thomson Reuters Citation Laureates and predicts them to be Nobel Prize winners, either this year or in the near future.

Thomson Reuters is the only organization to use quantitative data to make annual predictions of Nobel Prize winners. Since 2002, 19 Citation Laureates have gone on to win Nobel Prizes.

“We choose our Citation Laureates by assessing citation counts and the number of high-impact papers while identifying discoveries or themes that may be considered worthy of recognition by the Nobel Committee,” said David Pendlebury, Citation Analyst, Research Services, Thomson Reuters. “A strong correlation exists between citations in literature and peer esteem.  Professional awards, like the Nobel Prize, are a reflection of this peer esteem.”

I get that Reuters is an organization great at funneling news to lazy subscribers, but scientific news organizations should treat this stuff with a bit more scutiny.  For instance, a Nature blog implies that the Thomson method is especially ”analytical”.  Bulldoody.  Thomson’s picks are just as subjective as everyone else’s.  Note that Thomson does not release any details about its method… how, exactly, do they “identify discoveries or themes that may be considered worthy of recognition”?  What quantitative method are they using to do this?  My guess: none.  After the citation data are passed through the qualitative filter of what some guy at the company thinks is important, the quantitative aspect of the “method” is practically meaningless.  C&EN, Nature, or someone, should get David Pendlebury on the horn to explain himself.

And with that said, I’d like to take this opportunity to direct members of the press to what is, unquestionably, the definitive set of predictions for who’s going to win the Nobel Prize in chemistry.  I am available for interviews, and I can provide a detailed description of my rigorous, highly objective, quantitative method.  It entails reading stuff, talking to people, guessing, and incessantly congratulating myself when I stumble upon winners.

Presented below is the official ChemBark list of odds against winning the 2010 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.  The candidates are sorted by discovery/invention rather than by scientist, so you will note that some scientists are listed more than once.  The lists of scientists can get complicated.  In cases where someone not listed could easily share in the prize for the associated discovery, a “+” is listed.  In cases where one of the scientists listed could easily not share in that prize, a “–” is listed.  The odds are reported in “odds against” format.  Remember, this list attempts to address who will win the prize this year, not who should win the prize.  There’s a big difference, and the latter subject is best left for another day.

Odds Against Winning the 2010 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Spectrosocopy & Application of Lasers, Zare/Moerner/+, 6-1
Nuclear Hormone Signaling, Chambon/Evans/Jensen, 7-1
Transition-Metal-Catalyzed Cross-Couplings, Suzuki/Heck/Sonogashira/Tsuji/+/–, 9-1
Bioinorganic Chemistry, Gray/Lippard/Holm/–, 9-1
The Field (everything not listed), 10-1
Electrochemistry/Electron Transfer, Bard/Hush/Gray/–, 15-1
Techniques in DNA Synthesis, Caruthers/Hood/+, 15-1
Instrumentation/Techniques in Genomics, Venter/+, 19-1
Biological Membrane Vesicles, Rothman/Schekman/+, 19-1
Molecular Studies of Gene Recognition, Ptashne, 19-1
Combinatorial Chemistry/DOS, Schreiber/+, 74-1
Solar Cells, Grätzel/+, 74-1
Pigments of Life, Battersby/+, 99-1
Development of the Birth Control Pill, Djerassi, 99-1
Applications of NMR Spectroscopy, Pines/Roberts/McConnell/+/–, 99-1
Development of Chemical Biology, Schultz/Schreiber/+, 99-1
Self-Assembly, Whitesides/Nuzzo/Stang/–, 99-1
Molecular Modeling and Assorted Applications, Karplus/Houk/Schleyer/Miller/+/–, 99-1
Small Regulatory RNA, Ambros/Baulcombe/Ruvkun, 149-1
Eukaryotic RNA Polymerases, Roeder, 149-1
Mechanical Bonds and Applications, Sauvage/Stoddart/+, 149-1
Bio- & Organo-catalysis, List/Lerner/Barbas, 149-1
Organic Synthesis, Evans/Danishefsky/Nicolaou/Ley/Trost/Stork/Wender/Kishi/+/–, 199-1
Mechanistic Enzymology, Walsh, 199-1
Fluorocarbons, DuPont/Curran/–, 199-1
Polymer Science, Matyjaszewski/Langer/+/– 199-1
Understanding of Organic Stereochemistry, Mislow, 199-1
Tissue Engineering, Langer/+, 199-1
Contributions to Bioorganic Chemistry, Breslow/Eschenmoser/+, 199-1
Nanotechnology, Lieber/Whitesides/Alivisatos/Mirkin/Seeman/+/–, 199-1
Dendrimers, Frechet/Tomalia/+, 399-1
Astrochemistry, Oka, 399-1
Zeolites, Flanigan, 399-1
Molecular Recognition, Dervan/+, 399-1
Molecular Machines, Stoddart/Tour/+/–, 399-1

Notes

1.  This rundown is meant to approximate fair odds (without a built-in vig).  In case you don’t know how this way of reporting odds works, the listed numbers (“m-n”) mean the associated entry has an expected probabilty to win of n/(m+n).  Thus, 4-1 odds equates to a 20% expectation of winning.  If your pick wins at 4-1 and you’ve bet $1, you get paid $5 ($4 + your $1 bet back) minus the house’s vig.

2.  I’m not taking any action, you degenerate gamblers.

3.  The (qualitative) criteria that went into assigning these odds were discussed in a previous post.  Results from old predictions were also discussed in a previous post.  

4.  I think any decent list of this sort shouldn’t have many (or any) surprises on it.  Every other year, I read the ISI Thomson Reuters predictions and laugh at their sheer nonsense.  While there are people on the list above that would blow my mind if they won, they’re all appropriately listed at long odds.  If you’re baffled at something, feel free to deposit your ridicule in the comments.

5.  Note the drastically lowered odds for the field (i.e., a win by anyone unlisted) versus the 2007 list.  When you consider that the last three prizes in chemistry were all picked from the top half of the 2007 list, this modification doesn’t seem unwarranted.

6.   To all of you screaming, “Grätzel!”:  I think you’re overestimating his chances this year.  A prize for solar cells will probably not be awarded until someone actually “solves” the energy problem by inventing a cost-effective system for harnessing solar energy.   That area is simply too immature; however, his chances are not insignificant.  He does seem to have generated good buzz online, and the committee could always decide to give a “statement” prize about the importance of research in solar energy.

7.  The organocatalysis work of List et al. has generated a lot of buzz online, but I can’t see it winning any time soon.  Would the committee really recognize it before all of the Pd-catalysis work?

8.  Several people have noted in comments threads that Sonogashira is dead.  I can’t find an obituary anywhere, so I’m assuming he’s alive.

9.  Who is my final prediction for the 2010 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (i.e., my one pick if someone were to put a gun to my head and say that a winning prediction was the only thing that would save my life)?  Since last year went to hard-core structural biology, I don’t fancy anything biological to win this year.  I’ve got to go with the laser people: Zare and Moerner.  If last year had gone to something to do with materials or physical chemsitry, I would probably have the nuclear hormone signaling people at the top of the list.  It’s so close that relatively minor factors are coming into play.

10.  Please share your disgust in the comments.

Other 2010 predictions (to be updated): Everyday Scientist, Curious Wavefunction, In the Pipeline, Thomson Reuters, Gaussling