Not another chemistry Nobel going to biologists!’ How many times have you heard that complaint? But is there really anything in it?
It’s sometimes said that the number of chemistry prizes awarded to work rooted in the life sciences – at least nine of the prizes since 2000 – simply shows how broad chemistry is: at the molecular scale, biology is chemistry. But does that argument stack up? A historian of chemistry and a mathematical chemist argue in a new paper that, not only have the chemistry Nobels indeed become more biological in recent decades but also the prizes of that nature tend to reward work outside of the chemical mainstream, being much more closely tied to research in the life sciences itself. In effect, they say, the chemistry Nobels are being shared out between genuinely different disciplines.
Recall that the award goes to someone that made a discovery with significant impact. The MRI for medicine, Black Holes for Physics, past organic chemistry discoveries for Chemistry, etc their is now a bit more a blur between physiology/medicine and chemistry. In the past so much was still being discovered in chemistry but now discovery is being made but the award is not for just discovery but for knowledge and impact. So the lines blur for medicine and chemistry. We find discoveries in chemistry that impact medicine and have real world impact. So the cheap answer is that the lines are blurring and utility and impact are becoming felt in society thus making an argument for the justification.
Sadly, a friend and former mentor of mine had made some discoveries in chemistry that I felt were significant enough for recognition but the community has never understood what he was doing and has had no interest to follow his work. If interested see the end of post article that summaries Dr. Gardner's pioneering work. He died in 2018 knowing what he had done but never got much thanks for the discoveries. His work has not yet been accepted by any significant number of persons. His collective work should spark many discoveries and further understanding that has been lost to the world but has potential great impact to further progress an understanding of chemistry. I am right now working on two separate part-time projects that compliment what he started. I think one of Dr. Gardner's biggest problems was that he went it alone for so long. The lack of collaboration and sharing hurt visibility of his work. I met him my freshman year in college and from there I took interest in his work dating back to his first publication (1960) after his PhD was completed in the late 1950s. I still have many questions to answer for myself. Dr. Gardner's work, is significant and has plenty to still resolve. I am starting up some work that I want to continue to work on and still hope that Dr. Gardner's work might someday gain real support. Article Unified Explanation of Catalyzed and Non-Catalyzed Chemical Reactions
Dr. Gardner's obituary and a short link to a partial summary of his life. I spent years listening to his remarkable life. If interest please read about Dr. Gardner is the overview section. Given his work, it's remarkable that he never made Full Professor, but those are other stores he shared.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/How-to-predict-the-catalyst-for-a-reaction
That's right. We're took medicine over long ago. Yamanaka factors hahaha. How many lives did those save last year? Now we need more other fields! Chemistry will suit our hunger just fine.
Well, this is a progression of science. For example before college I took a class in biology my sophomore year, chemistry my junior year, and physics my senior year. It's my opinion that I have heard many other share that this is the wrong order of learning. It should be physics, chemistry, and then biology. As science has been improving understanding biology, which has historically been taught as a class of memorization is becoming more and more quantitative with the explosion of engineering, chemistry, and physics that is applied to the life sciences.
I would not say that biology is replacing chemistry in the awards arena. It is the progression that using the improved understanding in science, genetics, physics, programming, modeling, etc that we are now able to tackle problems in life sciences in a deeper manor. Protein engineering with directed evolution, computation chemistry tools to aid in the modeling and design of chemicals, drugs, etc. How about the deeper understanding in bioinformatics, or the molecular systems within single cell organisms for locomotion, chemotaxis, etc... all this new found growth in the life sciences from advances in science and computational power. I see little conflict. But we are just sharing opinions. I am sure we can find differing opinions.
John Schloendorn Yes sir i do agree with u ....chemistry will suit our hunger ...now the world is mostly moving towards the applicative science not towards basic science like chemistry its quite predictable and ....truly its important to see how many lives are saved by their invention ....
John Reye yes sir truly agree with u biology will not replacing the chemistry area....actually both chemistry biology are working together in the field of science but my confusion wise instead of glorifying this by awarding Nobel prize in medicine or physiology where this biology techniques can be used why the are using basic science for awarding this .....without biology chemistry is zero at the same time without chemistry biology is zero ...even physiology the whole pharmaceutical medicinal products medical field ...so that is my confusion the authority doesn't allow to award them in physiology medicine instead chemistry
Recall that the award goes to someone that made a discovery with significant impact. The MRI for medicine, Black Holes for Physics, past organic chemistry discoveries for Chemistry, etc their is now a bit more a blur between physiology/medicine and chemistry. In the past so much was still being discovered in chemistry but now discovery is being made but the award is not for just discovery but for knowledge and impact. So the lines blur for medicine and chemistry. We find discoveries in chemistry that impact medicine and have real world impact. So the cheap answer is that the lines are blurring and utility and impact are becoming felt in society thus making an argument for the justification.
Sadly, a friend and former mentor of mine had made some discoveries in chemistry that I felt were significant enough for recognition but the community has never understood what he was doing and has had no interest to follow his work. If interested see the end of post article that summaries Dr. Gardner's pioneering work. He died in 2018 knowing what he had done but never got much thanks for the discoveries. His work has not yet been accepted by any significant number of persons. His collective work should spark many discoveries and further understanding that has been lost to the world but has potential great impact to further progress an understanding of chemistry. I am right now working on two separate part-time projects that compliment what he started. I think one of Dr. Gardner's biggest problems was that he went it alone for so long. The lack of collaboration and sharing hurt visibility of his work. I met him my freshman year in college and from there I took interest in his work dating back to his first publication (1960) after his PhD was completed in the late 1950s. I still have many questions to answer for myself. Dr. Gardner's work, is significant and has plenty to still resolve. I am starting up some work that I want to continue to work on and still hope that Dr. Gardner's work might someday gain real support. Article Unified Explanation of Catalyzed and Non-Catalyzed Chemical Reactions
Dr. Gardner's obituary and a short link to a partial summary of his life. I spent years listening to his remarkable life. If interest please read about Dr. Gardner is the overview section. Given his work, it's remarkable that he never made Full Professor, but those are other stores he shared.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/How-to-predict-the-catalyst-for-a-reaction
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry