The three are organic chemists, and each independently came up with new ways to make complex organic molecules, in this case, carbon-to-carbon bonds.
The chemical processes are now used worldwide in commercial production of pharmaceuticals, including potential cancer drugs. The molecules are also used to make electronics, LEDs, and extremely thin motors, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Two completely unrelated papers have got us thinking about chemical bonds. When we refer to chemical bonds, we generally mean covalent bonds: Atoms become "wedded," sharing electrons, and breaking them apart takes energy. By comparison, other types of bonds are weak attractions - mere flirtations,…
by Elizabeth Grossman
Far-reaching and ambitious recommendations laid out at a meeting of the United Nations Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management (SAICM) could significantly reduce occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in the electronics industry - and do so at every stage…
Kenneth Chang, guest-blogging at TeirneyLab, laments the use of the word "organic" in both the contexts of organic chemistry and as a term for natural foods:
Organic derives from Greek, organikos. The original meaning was, logically, something related to an organ of the body. The meaning later…
The most memorable remaining landmark from Montreal’s fabulous Expo 67 is the giant geodesic dome designed by architect, engineer and futurist Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) for the U.S. pavilion. The magnificent 62 meter high dome now houses an environmental museum known as the “Biosphere.” Fuller…
These reactions have changed the way in which organic chemists think about synthesis. They are widely used in synthesis, in process and research chemistry. J. K. Stille would likely have replaced Negishi were he still alive. He was famous for using tin in these types of coupling reactions, and such a reaction is known as a Stille coupling. He died in a plane crash in Sioux City, IA.
@Rob
Yes, it's an unfortunate anomaly that the Nobel doesn't allow posthumous awards, especially given the timescales that are involved. (Not that the timescales are necessarily wrong -- it often takes time to judge the true significance of someone's work). Change to the Nobel may not be possible in any case, depending on how Nobel's bequest was worded.
Maybe a parallel prize should be instituted which would give at least the honour of a Nobel-like title to those unfortunate enough to die before they get the Nobel. We could call it the Rosalind Franklin prize.
The Nobel Prize is in part intended to give weight or currency to individuals (This is especially true of the Peace Prize but not exclusively so.) So dead people are not too useful.
But the whole thing should be rethought. The categories are old and to some extent outdated. And, the fact that there is only one major prize that everyone knows about for all of science yet a dozen for entertainment is annoying.
Nonetheless, these three scientists, basic researchers, changed the way we synthetic chemists think about carbon-carbon bond formation.
The problem with Franklin is that she hid her data and refused to publish her hypotheses. That is not useful. Watson, Crick, and Wilkins went way out on a limb and published one of the most remarkable hypotheses in the history of science. Franklin had the same (or more of the) data, and refused to share her knowledge or publish it for others to see and use.
I think that the fact that there's only one major prize gives it more weight.
Oscar winners are ten a penny; a Nobel laureate is somebody.