Understanding how cells fix themselves could advance disease treatment and anti-aging research. Congrats to the three who uncovered how the body goes about repairing damaged DNA.
1
If only government takes more risk to invest in new ideas instead of keep investing in the same ideas of established academicians, then U.S would have gotten more Nobel prizes. Young scientists are deprived of opportunities to pursue careers for which they were trained and moving out to Wall Street or other lucrative jobs. The same in defense R&D, keep giving to people they know rather than entertaining the new ideas. Rest of the world is catching up with U.S because U.S is falling behind.
1
In the attempt to create a perfect human.....even if you were able to clone humans.....you would unfortunately also clone all of man's mental and physical imperfections. Be that in a virtual computer type, or in the vivo human flesh.
I often wonder how man's ingenuity can be so intricate with exacting mathematical computations to explain distant entities millions of light years away. Man has traveled to the moon and back and is planning to inhabit Mars. And finally man has created a wealth of nuclear weapons capable of initiating a global nuclear holocaust. Yet man somehow fails to eradicate human diseases such as Alzheimer's, Ebola, Polio, Lupus Erythematosus, Influenza, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, Diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Asthma, Cancer, and the common cold.
I often wonder how man's ingenuity can be so intricate with exacting mathematical computations to explain distant entities millions of light years away. Man has traveled to the moon and back and is planning to inhabit Mars. And finally man has created a wealth of nuclear weapons capable of initiating a global nuclear holocaust. Yet man somehow fails to eradicate human diseases such as Alzheimer's, Ebola, Polio, Lupus Erythematosus, Influenza, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, Diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Asthma, Cancer, and the common cold.
1
Mark's other half...
Congratulations to the winners. They have done some remarkable work.
It does disappoint me that the best minds of the world continue to migrate to the US...where more than 80% of cutting research, state of the art research and very daring research are being conducted.
The world is not globalizing in talent. In many countries the best or brilliant minds can only dream about going to the US or escaping to the US for basic opportunities.
This speaks highly of the US, but poorly of the world. If Dr. Sarcar and Dr. Lindhal could have found better support in their native countries they would have succeeded in their home countries, contributing to their countries' research and their higher education.
This is not only greatness of the US but also privilege that America should never take for granted. Treat your educated people, including your amazingly bright or brilliant legal immigrants, with respect and honor. For your nation has benefited from them. And give back to the world for you took their best through brain drain.
Congratulations to all the winner and their families again..
Congratulations to the winners. They have done some remarkable work.
It does disappoint me that the best minds of the world continue to migrate to the US...where more than 80% of cutting research, state of the art research and very daring research are being conducted.
The world is not globalizing in talent. In many countries the best or brilliant minds can only dream about going to the US or escaping to the US for basic opportunities.
This speaks highly of the US, but poorly of the world. If Dr. Sarcar and Dr. Lindhal could have found better support in their native countries they would have succeeded in their home countries, contributing to their countries' research and their higher education.
This is not only greatness of the US but also privilege that America should never take for granted. Treat your educated people, including your amazingly bright or brilliant legal immigrants, with respect and honor. For your nation has benefited from them. And give back to the world for you took their best through brain drain.
Congratulations to all the winner and their families again..
1
I couldn't agree anymore with is sentence, "Treat your educated people, including your amazingly bright or brilliant legal immigrants, with respect and honor. "I am a 75 year old chemist with my undergraduate education from the University of Madras which is honored by the Nobel Laureate C V Raman for his work in Phycics . Yet, when I attended not so well known or reputed universities in the US during the late 60s , I was shocked to find the ignorance blended with arrogance of some American professors in Southern States of America.i hate to say some of them deplorably prejudiced in those days when America was showing off its power ( whatever they had) in Vietnam.
I suppose the professors in Northeast and other parts of America know the worth of these international students who help them to churn out all the publications. I had the opportunity to work under Prof Edward Lewis , son of Gilbert Lewis , father of modern American chemistry. I realized that there are such wonderful scientists who have a true understanding of the globalization of scientific research.
I suppose the professors in Northeast and other parts of America know the worth of these international students who help them to churn out all the publications. I had the opportunity to work under Prof Edward Lewis , son of Gilbert Lewis , father of modern American chemistry. I realized that there are such wonderful scientists who have a true understanding of the globalization of scientific research.
1
The work of Dr. Modrich showed how cellular machinery reduces the error-rate by a thousand-fold, not by "a thousand".
Science at the level of the Nobel Prize has always been globalized. Indeed, academic science knows no national boundaries at all. Albert Einstein, after all, was born German, became a Swiss citizen in his 20's and did his seminal work there in 1905, and his later work in the United States. James Watson, of DNA double helix fame, is American, but did his work in Britain, with a Briton, Francis Crick in the 1950s. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, an Indian, studied in India and Britain, and spent his post-doctoral career mostly in America.
However, for the last eight decades, numerous American universities have indeed been well funded, and many of the world's best scientists do migrate here at some point in their careers-some do their seminal work overseas and then are lured here by research funds, and others, the best in the world, find their way here to well paying careers and well funded research programs.
But the Nobel Prizes in science are awarded to individuals, not nations, and tub-thumping jingoism and tallies of national medal counts are meaningless. These are not the Olympics.
However, for the last eight decades, numerous American universities have indeed been well funded, and many of the world's best scientists do migrate here at some point in their careers-some do their seminal work overseas and then are lured here by research funds, and others, the best in the world, find their way here to well paying careers and well funded research programs.
But the Nobel Prizes in science are awarded to individuals, not nations, and tub-thumping jingoism and tallies of national medal counts are meaningless. These are not the Olympics.
3
I am very delighted with reading at URL http://www.kva.se/en/pressroom/2015/the-nobel-prize-in-chemistry-2015/ that The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 is awarded to Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar for having mapped, at a molecular level, how cells repair damaged DNA (n-DNA only? What about mit-DNA?) and safeguard the genetic information.
As a matter of fact, in Italy, for the first time, Five Years ago, a retired octogenarian General Practitioner "wrote" the story of Manuel, first newborn with negative Oncological Terrain, from parents both with positive OT: http://www.sisbq.org/qbs-magazine.html. According to Andras Pellionisz's Fractal Genome Function Recursive Principle, the above mentioned GP first normalized mit-DNA and than n-DNA genetic mutations of the mother, Silvia, so that he generated, in Riva Trigoso - Genoa - Italy, the beautiful Manuel, now 5-year-old, negative for Oncological Terrain. For the sake of truth, I honestly admit that I did not know, till now, the genetic molecular map that, once repaired in someway by inexpensive Quantum Therapy, accounts for the flurry of individuals, born without Oncological Terrain during the last five years.
As a matter of fact, in Italy, for the first time, Five Years ago, a retired octogenarian General Practitioner "wrote" the story of Manuel, first newborn with negative Oncological Terrain, from parents both with positive OT: http://www.sisbq.org/qbs-magazine.html. According to Andras Pellionisz's Fractal Genome Function Recursive Principle, the above mentioned GP first normalized mit-DNA and than n-DNA genetic mutations of the mother, Silvia, so that he generated, in Riva Trigoso - Genoa - Italy, the beautiful Manuel, now 5-year-old, negative for Oncological Terrain. For the sake of truth, I honestly admit that I did not know, till now, the genetic molecular map that, once repaired in someway by inexpensive Quantum Therapy, accounts for the flurry of individuals, born without Oncological Terrain during the last five years.
1
Whaaat? Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics? Fractal genomes? Are you kidding me???
I'm looking forward to the Nobel Prize for Apps.
All my congratulations Neobelistas
1
Too bad the Times didn't get into the details of "one of life’s central mysteries: how the delicate threads of DNA inside every living cell manage to maintain their integrity despite waves of random mutations and environmental assaults." It seems we educated humans are so enamored of our own intelligence, we refuse to recognize the genius of our own physiology on a molecular level. How do molecules "know" what to do? No one ever seems to want to get to the bottom of that, perhaps because it threatens our anthropocentrism and insinuates a greater intelligence than ourselves in the universe.
4
Scientists don't generally put much effort into the sorts of questions you are posing because they prefer to ask questions that can be /answered/.
And how do we "know" what to do? How do we "know"? And how do we "know" what is "right"? These questions have answers in principle at least.
One would have thought that even the NYT would have learned not to play the multi-culti card given all the fallout from the absurdity of Obama getting the peace prize before taking office. It seems not.
The world will get back to progress if and when science leads the way and political activists learn to follow. If pols can call the tune we might well be on a long slow march back to Stalinism.
Oh, and by the way, congratulations to brilliant and hard working individuals whose work whose work was reviewed by their peers.
The world will get back to progress if and when science leads the way and political activists learn to follow. If pols can call the tune we might well be on a long slow march back to Stalinism.
Oh, and by the way, congratulations to brilliant and hard working individuals whose work whose work was reviewed by their peers.
3
And the third recipient of this year's medicine prize, while a US citizen, was born and trained in Ireland. Not sure why the author pitches science as becoming more globalized, it has always been so, and the US continues to be a major force, but not the only one, in all areas of science.
2
Why why all the xenophobia and politics about an international prize intended to recognize individuals who made a major contribution to science but did so while standing on the shoulders of others who labor and labored in the same vineyards? The award honors the named individuals and the significance of the scientific discoveries that in most cases were based on the work of many others who went before those honored.
Anyone who is tempted to engage in xenophobic chest thumping should reflect on the fact that on a per capita basis, it is unlikely that any nation will surpass the Faroe Islands with a population of about 20,000 and one Nobel prize.
Anyone who is tempted to engage in xenophobic chest thumping should reflect on the fact that on a per capita basis, it is unlikely that any nation will surpass the Faroe Islands with a population of about 20,000 and one Nobel prize.
14
Attn: William Turnier,
Please spend your day, at least today, admiring Dr. Aziz Sancar who made Chapel Hill, North Carolina as his home, and brought fame to your town with his Nobel. I don't have the slightest idea where Faroe Island is and who won Nobel Prize from there. But today belongs Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Durham, NC, USA, and Hertfordshire, UK.
Please spend your day, at least today, admiring Dr. Aziz Sancar who made Chapel Hill, North Carolina as his home, and brought fame to your town with his Nobel. I don't have the slightest idea where Faroe Island is and who won Nobel Prize from there. But today belongs Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Durham, NC, USA, and Hertfordshire, UK.
4
And Turkey!
1
Paul Modrich made his major Nobel-winning discovery before he moved to Duke in '94. Does anyone know where that work was actually done?
This is undoubtedly work that deserves many accolades...but this is the Nobel Prize for Chemistry given to work that is not chemistry. In fact, this qualifies more for the Medicine prize.
5
It is biochemistry, complete with atoms, bonds, and transitions states.
3
There is no Biology prize, as advances in Biology were few in Nobel's day, so biological breakthroughs are categorized either as medicine or chemistry.
3
The prize in Medicine *or* Physiology covers most of biology.
1
These well-deserved awards show that chemistry is the Central Science, involved in every other science. Congratulations Nobelists.
4
Chemistry is the Physics of atoms and molecules.
2
Chemistry is the Organization of atoms and molecules. Physics is a reductive enterprise that too easily devolves into untestable mathematical schemes.
Science has always been global. The NYT just needs to catch up so as to better comprehend that truism.
9
What globalization? Both Murdoch and Sancar are American citizens and every American Should proud be of their achievements. Both have remarkable CVs.You may look them up at Wikipedia. It is true that Sancar was born in Turkey to an Arabic speaking low middle class family but he was able to make to the very top irrespective of his humble beginning. This is remarkable. He had his MD from one of the Turkish Universities, but all his postgraduate education and research were in the US. He married an American born Woman and currently both are professors at the University of North Carolina. His name is a muslim name, so he has an Islamic background. So next time you hear Ben Carson putting down Muslims and other immigrants would somebody please remind him that Aziz Sancar is one of them!
27
Science is indeed becoming globalized and the predominant language of communication and publication is English. Also note that whenever the Nobel Committee deems it feasible, a Scandinavian will be one of the winners.
2
Instead of fretting about American decline and the globalization of medicine - the NY Times and its readers (see comments) should celebrate the achievements of all the Nobel laureates, regardless of their nationality. Exceptional work is exceptional work, irrespective of race, creed, nationality, or gender. Their breakthroughs and discoveries advance humanity and our understanding of the world collectively. That is the purpose of the prize.
29
I agree. This is not a football game!
3
The fact that two of the Nobel Laureates who teach at American universities were born elsewhere is not at all surprising. My son is studying theoretical physics and math at a very prestigious American university. This semester, for example, All of his esteemed professors in these fields are from elsewhere: China, Russia, Italy and Ukraine. My son could care less; they are, he says, highly respected and extraordinarily good teachers.
There isn't, nor should there be, an American claim on scientific research. It is truly a global undertaking and always has been.
There isn't, nor should there be, an American claim on scientific research. It is truly a global undertaking and always has been.
16
Someday, maybe in several generations, we will all be united as one human country, achieving for all!
2
Modrich was born in New Mexico. I'm pretty sure that means he is American, not 'born elsewhere'
1
What bothers me is that too many of our "brightest and smartest"
are too busy getting MBA's and spending their time screwing up
our economy to bother with the likes of Physics, Chemistry and Medicine.
are too busy getting MBA's and spending their time screwing up
our economy to bother with the likes of Physics, Chemistry and Medicine.
1
The awarding of the Nobel prize is truly a testament to the lifelong commitment that Dr. Lindahl, Dr. Modrich, and Dr. Sancar have invested in their respective research careers. While these three winners undoubtedly did not enter their field of work for a prize as heralded as the Nobel, their contributions to the field of chemistry and consequently to the broader scientific and medical communities cannot be understated.
To me, the Nobel prize is a wonderful way to show our appreciation to the tireless and compassionately devoted individuals who have committed their life to scientific discovery. Most of the time, research does not lead to that "aha!" moment. Rather, it often leads to more questions than it answers. As a result, a massive amount of time is put into analyzing data, reading literature from other members in the field, and redesigning future protocols. The dedication to their craft that these individuals exemplify is truly remarkable.
Scientific researchers do not choose their professions for social spotlight or for massive economic gain; rather, they choose them to carry the torch of one of the most fundamental human drives: to learn more and discover more through reason and experimentation.
To all the individuals who spend countless hours in laboratories rerunning and revamping experiments, I hope you too have your "aha!" moments. And I hope that in those moments, you realize just how proud and thankful we all are of you!
To me, the Nobel prize is a wonderful way to show our appreciation to the tireless and compassionately devoted individuals who have committed their life to scientific discovery. Most of the time, research does not lead to that "aha!" moment. Rather, it often leads to more questions than it answers. As a result, a massive amount of time is put into analyzing data, reading literature from other members in the field, and redesigning future protocols. The dedication to their craft that these individuals exemplify is truly remarkable.
Scientific researchers do not choose their professions for social spotlight or for massive economic gain; rather, they choose them to carry the torch of one of the most fundamental human drives: to learn more and discover more through reason and experimentation.
To all the individuals who spend countless hours in laboratories rerunning and revamping experiments, I hope you too have your "aha!" moments. And I hope that in those moments, you realize just how proud and thankful we all are of you!
31
Even though all three of the chemistry prizes went to individuals not born in America, two of the three prizes were given to individuals who work at US academic institutions and are the beneficiaries of the US governments continued, if not growing, commitment to basic research. I would like to see the NIH's budget grow, and not continue to shrink as it has in recent years.
11
Is this a typo or a joke, "...US governments continued, if not growing, commitment to basic research."? The US is across the board failing to support basic research and cutting back funding at a historic rate.
8
Nobel Prize for Peace given to Yasir Arafat and Barack Obama are a travesty. Let's hope the science awards don't become politicized!
2
OK, the politicization stops with you.
3
Are you kidding? They certainly are. They always go to the USA or Euros. Barbara McClintock didn't get one till she was almost dead: same for Tu Youyou. As for Henrietta Swann, Rosalind Franklin or Lise Meitner, they never got one at all. Then there are all the Chinese, Cubans and Russians who are left out because it might make it look they received a good education under "communism."
9
Tu Youyou is from China. Rosalind Franklin died before the prize was awarded. And yes, she might have gotten one if she was alive if Watson and Crick were awarded for the prize in Medicine and Wilkins and Franklin a prize in Chemistry. Yes, the structure of DNA was that important.
It's true that the competition in science is global now, while US used to be one of the few countries to fund basic research and support the young scientists who often make the grey breakthroughs.
But is it possible that the US is falling behind in Nobel prizes by putting so much emphasis on BIG science and TRANSLATIONAL science at the expense of fundamental(often small) science?
The human genome project, for example, produced stunningly little of basic interest - or even (so far) translational use. Big hype, big money, but surprisingly small amount of science coming out of it.
Hard to know if there is a problem because the number of Nobel prizes is so small, but it is something to ponder, and maybe to worry about. Certainly the science I participated in during my lifetime went from being highly intellectual to being very much about money. And NIH is a very different organization than it was when I started out in research 30 years ago.
But is it possible that the US is falling behind in Nobel prizes by putting so much emphasis on BIG science and TRANSLATIONAL science at the expense of fundamental(often small) science?
The human genome project, for example, produced stunningly little of basic interest - or even (so far) translational use. Big hype, big money, but surprisingly small amount of science coming out of it.
Hard to know if there is a problem because the number of Nobel prizes is so small, but it is something to ponder, and maybe to worry about. Certainly the science I participated in during my lifetime went from being highly intellectual to being very much about money. And NIH is a very different organization than it was when I started out in research 30 years ago.
23
The earth is only 5000 years old and was created in 7 days, so no reason to fund science or anything.
11
Au contraire, the human genome project has yielded much valuable and applicable information and will continue to do so.
2
Ha ha I hope your joking Blue State
Nice to see these bona fide giants in the DNA repair field honored for their work. Speaking from experience (as a recent co-author with one of the laureates), don't worry about all the others who contributed to these advances and aren't in the limelight today. We know our worth and are basking in the glow as well.
50
I am so proud of you Paul Modrich! I know 4 people in heaven that are going WAY to GO.
2
Add my Dad to that list. Ron Greene spent some time working in Modrich's lab after he closed his own down. I wish he had lived to hear this news.
1
This award is interesting in that many of Nobel aficionados thought that DNA editing ("CRISPR-Cas9") work, especially by Jennifer Doudna, would win the prize for chemistry. But it looks like committee thought that had to recognize this older (and significant) work first.
7
It's not only older. It's vastly more fundamental. DNA repair is essential to all life on earth; CRISPR/Cas9 is a toy by comparison, albeit a useful toy.
Over 50 years ago the structure of DNA was determined and for which the Nobel prize was awarded to Watson and Crick. The DNA synthesis is prone to errors during a persons life time due to various factors like UV rays from the sun and to repair the DNA to correct those errors is a significant feature of the cell that keep the mutations from building in the DNA. To have elucidated the mechanism by which the repair occurs is a well deserved Nobel prize by the 3 scientists Lindahl, Modrich and Sancar who dedicated their lives to doing that doing that. Congratulations to the 3 for winning the 2015 Nobel prize for Chemistry and to the Nobel Committee for selection of scientists of diverse national origins. Science is global and a brilliant mind has no geographic boundaries.
17
Great news, although too bad others who made seminal discoveries in DNA repair (e.g. Phil Hanawalt of Stanford, etc.) could not be included.
4
Agreed. To say nothing of Evelyn Witkin, who literally founded the field and shared with S.J. Elledge this year's Lasker Prize. I'd have swapped out Lindahl for Witkin.
http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/2015_b_description.htm
http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/2015_b_description.htm
As if America should celebrate the 'globalization' of the awards. I would be quite happy having Americans win them all. Our ceding these awards to others is simply another sign of our ongoing decline.
1
I think you - and the author of this article - should take a look at the history of the awards before you make any comments about either globalization or "decline". More than a quarter of all the "Americans" who have one them were actually born elsewhere. It was already globalized, and if you want to win them all, maybe you should chillax about immigrants.
32
What a bizarre comment. The Nobel Prize has never been a prize set aside for Americans, so we are not "ceding" anything.
15
Agreed. Unwarranted negativity.
4
This prize for DNA mechanistic studies represents a monumental leap in the knowledge for the betterment of humankind. Despite all the heavy and negative news in the world, these researchers are bringing us to the edge of new medical knowledge and procedures we cannot yet begin to fathom; but we know it signals tremendous hope for the human condition. Congratulations to the three very deserving recipients.
This will be the best news all day.
This will be the best news all day.
6
Paul Modrich elucidated mismatch repair, the final step in ensuring accurate DNA replication. Recently we have come to recognize (almost) miraculous replication accuracy as the driver of evolution, rather than inevitable mistakes (i.e. mutation). The main step underlying accuracy is however "proofreading", a concept proposed independently and simultaneously by John Hopfield and the almost unknown Jacques Ninio.
Similar extreme accuracy in the strengthening of synapses could underlie learning, especially in the neocortex, where a type of neural proofreading might occur, generating what we loosely call "mind" (see syndar.org). Congratulations to all 3 winners.
Similar extreme accuracy in the strengthening of synapses could underlie learning, especially in the neocortex, where a type of neural proofreading might occur, generating what we loosely call "mind" (see syndar.org). Congratulations to all 3 winners.
7
Strange to talk about a US domination. Per capita, Sweden, Germany, Israel, Norway and even Ireland has more Nobel leatures than the US. Many of the prizes awarded to Ivy League unis goes to foreign scientists who got a scholarship to Harvard or Yale in 1972 and then became citizens. Or maybe we should compare west Europe against US? 300 million vs 300 million? Well, its rather obviuos who has the smartest brains...
3
See my other posts. Swedes and other Scandinavians tend to be favored.
1
This award makes me think a bit more positively on the committee. I have paid little attention to winners/announcements since they gave, in my opinion an unwarranted Prize to Obama.
8
Er, there are actually different committees for each prize. So the prize to Obama, warranted or not, never had anything to do with the prizes for physics, chemistry, literature, physiology/medicine - or the economics prize for that matter.
9
Once more: the "Nobel Peace Prize" is awarded by a completely different committee in a completely different country.
8
The Stockholm selection committee does not select the peace prize winners. That is done by the Norwegian Parliament in Oslo.
6
These researchers will continue to save lives currently, and long into the future. God bless these people.
6
Historically the biggest names have been mostly European, not American. Germany has many heavyweights, but it's true, the prize has gone global; and I wonder how accurate these awards are, and do they really reflect the highest achievements of man in these fields?
3
No system is perfect. I am sure that the committee does its best just as I am sure there are always people left off and work ignored. Maybe if other societies ponied up their own endowed $10M prize people would pay attention.
Of course every scientist has their own list of candidates but the winners list is usually quite good. Check out how much the winners' work has been cited and for what reasons.
c v raman an indian had won the nobel prize for his discovery of the scattering of light in 1931 and his laboratory consisted of instruments worth 20 dollars
11
Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the photoelectric effect "and other contributions to physics." He certainly deserved a completely separate prize for General Relativity, rather than incorporating GR in those other contributions. His laboratory was his brain. But, other experimental physicists and astrophysicists provided the experimental backing. Other contributions? Read those 1905 papers and the 1915 paper on GR that lay the foundations of 4 of the main branches of physics. One prize for Einstein was a slap in the face. And, he gave all of the money to his ex, which he had promised her, BEFORE the award. Too bad he didn't let the docs try to fix that descending aortic aneurysm, as they probably could have pulled it off. Dacron had been invented before 1955, when he passed away. And, surgeons offered to give it a try.
2
See the Sept. issue of Scientific American dedicated to Einstein and his research including additional research by others.
WHILE we congratulate the winners, a reading of the list of countries from which the winners have been chosen leaves one with the impression that these are the only people with ability and research skills.
Invariably the prize goes to the MOST HEAVILY funded nominees and those with access to exquisite laboratory resources and FEW IF ANY DISTRACTIONS.
Clive Ocnacuwenga
Invariably the prize goes to the MOST HEAVILY funded nominees and those with access to exquisite laboratory resources and FEW IF ANY DISTRACTIONS.
Clive Ocnacuwenga
13
Yes indeed. Modern science often requires more resources than watching an apple fall from a tree.
4
That's pure speculation. How about this year's winner in medicine from China? She did her research in the 1970s under austere conditions during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
13
A fair point, as far as it goes, but your comment is sort of the Nobel Prize version of Kanye West's "Imma let you finish, but..." debacle. The winners are who they are and they're from where they're from. Pointing out that other talented people might have made similar or greater discoveries if they were operating under different circumstances is a bit of a distraction in the context of this particular article. ANYONE who's ever received an award of any kind knows that things might have gone differently... if things had been different, that is. It's a conversation to be had BETWEEN award ceremonies, not during their celebration.
6
In a world of amazing scientific achievement work like this stands out as something truly useful and beneficially disruptive to at the way we live, how well we live. In an overpopulated and ecologically collapsing planet that is no sense at all reaching for far longer lives but if we could modify and repair code we could lead much healthier and more productive lives while here. Less overeating is less food wasted and less climate warming from wasted agriculture, less inflammation and calcification is happier and more helpful elders, and healthier people can be more autonomous and do the things that make themselves and others happier for far longer. The list of qualitative possibilities is huge.
18
There have been at least three other people who won two nobel Prizes:
Marie Curie Physics 1903 Chemistry 1911
John Bardeen Physics 1956 (transistor) Physics 1972 (superconductivity)
Linus Pauling Chemistry 1954 Peace 1962
Marie Curie Physics 1903 Chemistry 1911
John Bardeen Physics 1956 (transistor) Physics 1972 (superconductivity)
Linus Pauling Chemistry 1954 Peace 1962
27
Fred Sanger for chemistry twice.
2
I think the author meant that Sanger won the Chemistry prize twice.
3
The article mentions that already. I was talking about the *other* three two-time winners.