Transcription Wins Chemistry Nobel!

And I think its a nice choice. I was just starting grad school when the structures of the complex came out (2001-02), and I can remember the buzz they created.

Its also nice that the nobel prizes this year went to discoveries that were made not that long ago.......it isn't like you need to make a discovery, and then need to wait a lifetime to be recognized.

I'm absolutely floored that Roeder - who discovered the three RNA Pol enzymes (I/II/III) when he was a grad student (!) and has worked ceaselessly on the problem since then, did not share the Prize. WTF were they thinking? No question that Kornberg deserved it, bu surely not so much more than Kornberg!? Bizarre.

I agree with George Smiley. Yes, Kornberg deserves it. But the sole winner? If it is for biological significance of eukaryotic transcription and its regulation, Roeder definitely, and Chambon possibly, also deserve the credit. If it is for chemistry/enzymology of the polymerase, why single out the "eukaryotic" and "RNA" polymerase? I think Roeder, Kornberg, and Chambon would have been a good choice, with Roeder being the godfather of eukaryotic transcription, Kornberg for the PolII structure and chromatin works, and Chambon for some earlier biochemical works of transcription, plus some considerations to his contributions to nuclear receptor field and chromatin structure.

at least we can be thankful that there's no science equivalent of royalty in that someone is born into a position.

yeah, I went there.

BC -- Please explain your outburst. Are you saying that Kornberg didn't deserve the prize? Or that his research accomplishments are subpar? Or that he should not have followed dad into the family business? That a shoe maker's son should not become a shoe maker? If anything, it seems that the son has surpassed the father's accomplishments. Quite the contrast from U.S. national politics!

Or are you just being a bitch?

Wow, what a tone GS. I think that it would be hard to say that this prize was awarded correctly. Yes, Kornberg deserved it for sure, but alone? I agree with BC that there is a certain je ne sais quoi at play here as the Nobel committee must have really liked the idea of the father/son story. I mean, in the announcement they made as much of an issue about his father having the prize as RK getting it.

All that being said, I like Kornberg. I had him in my office not too long ago and it was a real pleasure. I also think this sets the stage for translation and crystallography as the only thing to give the prize for (although I know RK is more than just a crystallographer).

George, I didn't mean to insult your father. Relax, it's called the internet. The man was awarded a solo Nobel. I think he can take the criticism. But then I was criticising the process, and I'm sorry that distinction wasn't clear enough.

But I won't back down from my statement: there is a scientific royalty in the US just like there's an entertainment royalty and political royalty.

Others have made pretty convincing arguments that Roeder and others deserved a nod as well.

btw, I'm dying that you accuse me of an outburst and then pretty much call me a biatch. Comedy gold. It's ok, though.

/pats the fuming teen on the head and sends him on his merry way.

BTM, a glance upthread will tell you that I was *first* to express disappointment that Kornberg had been awarded the prize solo. (PS, BTM -- you know me. Think of a good seafood dinner, when you were job hunting....) BC, my dad? he's old enough, I suppose, but no; my dad was an electrical engineer (and I definitely am not). I was just irked at your implication that Kornberg's prize was the product of nepotism. The interesting question to me is not why Kornberg got the prize - he deserved it. The question is why some others did not.

Wow, what a heated debate!

Scientific royalty??? (although Tom's Dad was a big guy too) ... Seriously there are lots of sons/daughters of big shots who have done well (Gilbert's son is another one that comes to mind). Perhaps in certain circumstances science parents provide great environments for raising great scientific minds.

(In anycase the Kornbergs do structures, aka non-hypothesis driven research ... ok I'll end it there before BTM or BC calls me a biatch!)

i'm pretty much not going to call anyone that. whatever, it's the net and I've been called much worse by sciencephobe whackjobs in some of Orac's autism and vaccine discussions.

I have no doubt (and no stats to back it up) that a scientist parent will be more inclined to have a scientist child. And there's no doubt that more good scientists are needed. However, there is a limited pot of funds - I'll restrict the comments to taxpayers' money - and it seems that diversity is going to benefit the system. It is my belief that lines get crossed in pushing a scientist's child up the ladder.

Is it fair to have a child get fast-tracked into a top-tier undergraduate school b/c s/he has letters from other big-name scientists? I've seen numerous highschool kids of scientists go into a lab for the summer and come out with a letter of recommendation for pouring a gel or two (hyperbole, but in essense, true).

So I've witnessed the elite in their infancy, but they do grow up.

To get this back on track, Kornberg's work is worthy of a Nobel. But was it worthy enough to have others' work shut out? No. Why? I can think of no reason other than some bootlicker on the committee paying homage to him being part of the scientific elite. If someone has a better answer I'd love to hear it.

On a related note, the idea of a comparison to a shoe salerep is lost on me. I guess I value a scientist and the impact s/he has on society moreso than I do a shoe salesman. Plus the shoe salesman won't be competing for a tight pool of taxpayer dollars in the same way that a scientist does. If a lack of diversity in the people making their way up the shoe sales ranks hampers the field, it sucks but at least it won't be to the detriment of solving cancer. Jeebus, that needs to be on a Hallmark card.

BC, it seems we're talking past each other. It seems that we do in fact, have rather overlapping complaints about this year's prize. To the extent that *I* was being a bitch, it was an overreaction to your first post in this thread which -- I suspect you'd agree -- was rather provocative.

What you are railing against seems to me to be the fact that life itself is not a level playing field, in any society, in any field. I mean, seriously, anyone who thinks that the Nobel is *fair* doesn't know who Seymour Benzer is. As for witnessing the elite in their infancy... a query: how many people can you name -- children of scientists or otherwise -- who had published a single-author paper as good as Science v. 24:868, by age 27? At least one person in the field that I spoke with today argued that Kornberg should have gotten the Nobel Prize for that paper, by itself. I'd certainly be tempted to trade my CV for that single publication...

Re. the vaccine crazies -- I've had experiences similar to yours, although entirely on usenet discussion boards, back before the word "blog" existed....

GS - hmm, I remember a lot of seafood dinners during that process. If I had to make an educated guess I'd say that your knowledge of that early Kornberg paper is appropriate (although I think it is volume 184). I'd also be tempted to ask how the trout in Utah were.

The Nobel prize is given for one single big finding. Kornberg got it for the molecular understanding of RNA polymerase II - his X-ray work. Why do you think Roeder should share the prize? I cannot see that he has contributed with any major findings. He contributed significantly to the identification of the general transcription factors, but so did a number of other scientists. He demonstrated the existence of Pol I, Pol II, and Pol III, but that was as a PhD student (his first paper). Personally, I do not think that finding isoforms of a known enzyme warrants a Nobel prize. The big finding was RNA polymerase itself. Bill Weiss found the polymerase, but he died before he could be awarded a prize.