…and this is a 
And the Nobel goes to...
Category: Molecular Biology • Science
Posted on: October 2, 2006 11:58 AM, by PZ Myers
Andrew Fire and Craig Mello, for the discovery of RNAi. Read Pure Pedantry for an explanation for why this is important.
I'll also mention that Carl Zimmer presents his take on this award…and wouldn't you know it, evolution has its greasy fingerprints all over it.
I must also promote an excellent comment from Andy Groves:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again for the benefit of ID supporters out there - this is what a real scientific revolution looks like. Fire and Mello published their paper in 1998 (two years after "Darwin's Black Box" came out, for those who are interested). Since then, the number of primary research papers on RNAi, siRNAs and miRNAs stands at 12399, using the search terms
(RNAi OR siRNA OR miRNA) NOT review
12400 papers in eight years. That's 1550 a year, or just over four papers a day. Would Bill Dembski, the Isaac Newton of information theory, care to comment?
Hmmm?
Every science paper, every bit of recognition given to working scientists, seems to be a rather nasty rebuke to the promulgators of creationism.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Seems like it's pretty rare for such a recent discovery to get the nod. A very astute pick by the Swedes.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 2, 2006 1:31 PM
I love it. It's been a revolutionary tool in biology and an amazing mechanism demonstarting the diveristy of life on earth and how awe-inspiring natural selection is! I've been working with colleagues on a shRNA construct for some knock-down experiments. Before, to knock down one needed dominant negative mutants or cells derived from knock-outs, now, clone a shRNA for your favourite gene, and you're off to the races.
Well deserved award...its the biggest thing since PCR.
Posted by: Krakus | October 2, 2006 1:37 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again for the benefit of ID supporters out there - this is what a real scientific revolution looks like. Fire and Mello published their paper in 1998 (two years after "Darwin's Black Box" came out, for those who are interested). Since then, the number of primary research papers on RNAi, siRNAs and miRNAs stands at 12399, using the search terms
(RNAi OR siRNA OR miRNA) NOT review
12400 papers in eight years. That's 1550 a year, or just over four papers a day. Would Bill Dembski, the Isaac Newton of information theory, care to comment?
Hmmm?
Posted by: Andy Groves | October 2, 2006 2:51 PM
"Our research is in the pipeline. We have a Lab. Just wait 'til your crumbling edifice collapses under our Mighty Blows."
[/igNobelLaurate2015WilliamDembski]
Posted by: Foggg | October 2, 2006 2:58 PM
So, RNA interference molecules are, for the most part, globs of RNA that destroy specific pieces of RNA, like a combination guard dog/vacuum/paper shredder?
Posted by: Stanton | October 2, 2006 4:32 PM
They use specialised proteins to destroy these specific RNAs. "Globs" is not a good word for them - they are chains and for most part have to be this way to work, to hybridise with their targets.
Posted by: Peter Z. | October 2, 2006 4:44 PM
The DI is going to take credit for this! After all, wasn't "Finding the *Real* Purpose of Junk DNA" one of the hallmarks of the ID 2020 paper, or whatever that was?
Posted by: KeithB | October 2, 2006 5:15 PM
No, I think the DI's tack will be that this is yet another finding that was not predicted by "Darwinism". You heard it here first.
Posted by: Andy Groves | October 2, 2006 5:51 PM
ID proponents crow about the "heuristic value" of ID, pointing to the efforts of people like Wells, who have made limp "predictions" that are refuted pretty much as soon as the ink is dry.
But ID proponents don't really believe in "heuristic value" as a way to judge the truth of a proposition. If they did, they would be shouting their support for the RNA World - in all its manifestations, including its central position at the dawn of life. This prize owes no small debt to the concept of the RNA World - the hypothesis that small RNAs might exist and have function was reasonable in part because of the precedent for functional RNAs that was set by those who work with ribozymes, ribosomes, spliceosomes, viroids, satellites, guide RNAs, editing, stable RNAs and their modifications, etc. etc.
Indeed, the small RNA literature is peppered with mention of the RNA World.
As for "Darwinism", while Darwin may not have predicted siRNAs (an argument only the truly clueless would make..), siRNAs and their cousins participate in, and choreograph, a fascinating Darwinian ballet that takes place at the molecular level.
Posted by: Art | October 2, 2006 10:28 PM
Krakus:
You really shocked me because scrolling through the comments I thought J.A. Davison shows up here.
Art:
I guess it is just a question of time until they will quote mine or pub-jack some paper on RNA interference
Posted by: sparc | October 3, 2006 5:56 AM
what a surprise, another year goes by where the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is NOT awarded to a homeopath, chiropractor, ear candler, reflexologist, applied kinesiologist, naturopath or faith healer. Instead, it's awarded to real scientists doing actual research and publishing in respected journals, instead of creating woowoo 'cures' in their back yard.
And as Peter Bowditch of the Millenium Project correctly predicted, neither of the laureates has a website where you can purchase, for a reasonable fee, products based on their discovery.
Posted by: moonflake | October 3, 2006 8:15 AM
"I love it" referred to the RNAi technique, which has made the life of the molecular biologist easier.
But exceuse my ignorance, who is J.A. Davison?
Posted by: Krakus | October 3, 2006 9:08 AM
I know that this is off topic, and people here tend to go to uncommondescent.com only to laugh at it but, does anyone know why its account got suspended? I just tried to go to it. Got an error screen.
Given their earlier technical troubles with Google I'm wondering.
Posted by: Brian | October 3, 2006 10:24 AM
Pardon me for not knowing, but what happened to UD with Google? Did they get de-listed completely?
And I get an error screen on UD also.
Posted by: Calladus | October 3, 2006 12:25 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/even_their_engineers_dont_get.php
the Uncommon Descent blog issue was discussed here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/even_their_engineers_dont_get.php
Posted by: Steve_C | October 3, 2006 12:28 PM
oops. It's back online.
Unfortunately, the content didn't improve during it's absence.
Posted by: Calladus | October 3, 2006 12:40 PM
And today's Physics prize is for exploring the very early universe, another thing that the ID crowd have trouble with.
Posted by: frank schmidt | October 3, 2006 4:09 PM
I heard that on NPR this morning. It made me smile. Proof of the big bang.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 3, 2006 4:18 PM