tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post4489027015280516722..comments2024-03-25T09:11:17.877-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: 2011 Nobel PrizesWavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-21921130346349532672011-09-25T18:35:42.950-07:002011-09-25T18:35:42.950-07:00I don't know...I think Wolynes's idea of t...I don't know...I think Wolynes's idea of the folding funnel has been very productive but it is one of several useful models (admittedly one of the most influential ones though). I have always thought of a "lifetime achievement" kind of award for Karplus as one of the true guiding lights of the whole field of biomolecular simulation.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-60404825505868214212011-09-23T08:02:12.618-07:002011-09-23T08:02:12.618-07:00To be honest, the MD was already there and all Kar...To be honest, the MD was already there and all Karplus did is take Shneior Lifson's force field(adviser of Warshel and Levitt, who btw contributed equally along with Martin) and extend it for treating the proteins. Especially, if you take the model of 1999 prize, then only Alder and Wainwright could be considered for the prize, since they were the ones who truly uncovered the power of MD simulations as exploratory tool for complex condensed matter problems. Instead, I would award the prize for people who devised physical theories to describe the protein folding phenomena, effectively putting an end to Levinthal's paradox. Those deserving the credit for solving the "protein folding" problem are: Peter Wolynes and Eugene Shakhnovich.potoyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03473921744750537282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-79786707043140717012011-09-19T13:10:32.869-07:002011-09-19T13:10:32.869-07:00Could I appreciate Gray, for the whole of his &quo...Could I appreciate Gray, for the whole of his "colourful" career? a wide-spectrum scientist (and always on high levels) would be a better ensign for 2011IYC than a good specialist of a narrow sector.Sergio Palazzihttp://www.kemia.itnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-685519389417059952011-09-18T06:05:04.758-07:002011-09-18T06:05:04.758-07:00I don't think it will happen until the increas...I don't think it will happen until the increasing confusion about the precise role of amyloid is sorted out.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-80474979502012993682011-09-17T09:42:29.031-07:002011-09-17T09:42:29.031-07:00What about a prize on amyloids and protein aggrega...What about a prize on amyloids and protein aggregation? Maybe too early stll?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-72993645863121000912011-09-11T09:57:58.324-07:002011-09-11T09:57:58.324-07:00Yes, I remember remarking when the recent GPCR-G p...Yes, I remember remarking when the recent GPCR-G protein structure came out that there is probably a prize in the wings for Kobilka, Stevens and Palczewski. But I agree that's probably a little too soon. Scheckman and Rodman followed by the nuclear receptor people (and Roeder seems to be an apt choice too) would be my top contenders for Medicine.<br /><br />Another possible choice is Langer from MIT, although his would be more of a "lifetime achievement" award which is rare.<br /><br />I was not aware of the physicists mentioned by MJ, seem like worthy contenders. Would dark matter or energy deserve a prize? Probably not until we actually know what they are. Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger have been top of my list for a while.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-53828808732212801242011-09-09T20:02:13.132-07:002011-09-09T20:02:13.132-07:00What is so controversial about the discovery of he...What is so controversial about the discovery of hematopoietic stem cells by McCulloch and Till? I think it is the <i>embryonic</i> stem cells that are politically controversial. And, as you noted, Martin Evans, who first derived embryonic stem cells from mice, won the Nobel Prize in 2007. But Till is not likely to win, now that McCulloch is dead.<br /><br />I don't question the importance of nuclear receptors. But since nuclear receptors are regulators of transcription after all, I still feel Robert Roeder (mentioned by MJ) deserves a credit. Of course the complicating matter is that they have awarded the Chemistry Prize to Roger Kornberg for eukaryotic transcription in 2006. My compromise would be to give the Physiology/Medicine Prize to Roeder and Chambon. Come to think of it, Chambon has had a remarkable career. Like Roeder, he showed the existence of multiple RNA polymerases. Like Kornberg, he contributed to elucidation of chromatin structure. He is among the early discoverers of introns. He also discovered transcription enhancers.<br /><br />I think the easy predictions for the Physiology/Medicine Prize would be Rothman and Scheckman (membrane vesicle trafficking) or Gurdon and Yamanaka (reprogramming) based on other awards they have won. GPCR structure mentioned by JMB is also likely, but perhaps a little too soon. The discovery of small RNAs (Ambros, Ruvkun, and Baulcombe) is also a possibility, although it could be considered too close to RNAi.<br /><br />As for the Physics Prize, I agree with you that the time is ripe for the trio of Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger to win. For years, I thought neutrino oscillation would win. But Yoji Totsuka died in 2008. (Is it a coincidence that three other Japanese particle physicists shared the Physics Prize in 2008?) They could still give the prize for neutrino oscillation, but question is, to whom. (Arthur McDonald and ?) As MJ mentioned, Berry and Aharonov (and possibly Tonomura) may win. If Berry wins, it will be two Ig Nobel Prize winners winning the Physics Prize in a row.HInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-51242699323976662982011-09-09T11:14:09.818-07:002011-09-09T11:14:09.818-07:00Probably too early for this year, but the explosio...Probably too early for this year, but the explosion of GPCR structures in the last 4 years is deserving, most likely in Medicine. The 1st "active" conformation structures were published this year. Brian Kobilka & Ray Stevens would be at the top of the list.JMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-18345880595451959322011-09-08T16:03:24.860-07:002011-09-08T16:03:24.860-07:00The first paper by Moerner was in 1989 on single m...The first paper by Moerner was in 1989 on single molecule spectroscopy in condensed phases, and Orrit was the following year. So 21/22 years later seems pretty reasonable to me, given how long it’s taken other work to be recognized. Although who knows – maybe this one might end up as a Physics prize?<br /><br />I can’t strictly disagree with your picks for computational chemistry/biochemistry, but no matter how these play out, we’re going to miss someone. From the MD point of view, Karplus is fine but we'd be missing out on the other heavyweights in MD: Car & Parrinello for sure, and maybe some of the pioneers of MD as applied to chemically relevant systems (Chandler, Berne, among others). I know Rahman passed back in the 1980s, but Alder is still alive and kicking last I heard. Can't recall about Wainwright, though. This might end up in Physics as well. <br /><br />Some experimentally oriented choices for physics – <br /><br />1.) Deborah Jin for fermionic condensates; <br />2.) Ferenc Mezei for neutron spin echo (which would still be faster than it took for Shull and Brockhouse to be recognized for neutron diffraction & scattering as memory serves);<br />3.) Steve Harris for EIT and Lene Hau for her subsequent work on optical physics (the “slow light” research). <br /><br />It would also be neat to see Aharonov and Berry pick up a Nobel for their work in topological and geometric phases (and it’d be an excuse to share my favorite classical example of a geometric phase with everyone I run into that day). <br /><br />Can’t really argue with the nuclear receptor choice, and I’d still like to think that Robert Roeder (+ Tijan to boot?) will pick one up for his work on eukaryotic transcription. Roeder and Tijan in Physiology/Medicine, we wouldn't want to offend the chemical purists. ;)<br /><br />And an idiosyncratic and perhaps an admittedly premature choice for the fluctuation theorem and related work in nonequilibrium thermo/stat mech. Here, I'd say it's a tossup between Searles, Evans, Jarzynski, Crooks, Cohen, and others I'm forgetting.MJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02796378432680640144noreply@blogger.com