tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5312605324026542659..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or MedicineLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44098818260314132302008-10-12T10:38:00.000-04:002008-10-12T10:38:00.000-04:00zur Hausen's giving a lecture at UofT on Oct. 21st...zur Hausen's giving a lecture at UofT on Oct. 21st, I just saw a poster. The weird thing is that I saw the poster before the Nobel announcement.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590604089043425452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3256677387821778262008-10-06T23:04:00.000-04:002008-10-06T23:04:00.000-04:00For reasons in the above two posts, if I ever stri...For reasons in the above two posts, if I ever strike it rich, I'm leaving most of my fortune to HHMI.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81460803817762151022008-10-06T14:11:00.000-04:002008-10-06T14:11:00.000-04:00It really makes me cry to think that there is no p...<I>It really makes me cry to think that there is no possible way this kind of work could ever be funded by the NIH today.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, where's the preliminary data to support the hypothesis? Are we supposed to accept your "guess", Dr. zur Hausen? Pshaw!Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09297263039516044615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10783979464816952462008-10-06T13:20:00.000-04:002008-10-06T13:20:00.000-04:00Harald zur Hausen and HPV: He assumed that the tu...Harald zur Hausen and HPV: <I>He assumed that the tumour cells, if they contained an oncogenic virus, should harbour viral DNA integrated into their genomes. The HPV genes promoting cell proliferation should therefore be detectable by specifically searching tumour cells for such viral DNA. Harald zur Hausen pursued this idea for over 10 years by searching for different HPV types, a search made difficult by the fact that only parts of the viral DNA were integrated into the host genome.</I><BR/><BR/>It really makes me cry to think that there is no possible way this kind of work could ever be funded by the NIH today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69819760551568233812008-10-06T11:12:00.000-04:002008-10-06T11:12:00.000-04:00The Montagnier/Barre-Sinoussi surprises me a bit, ...The Montagnier/Barre-Sinoussi surprises me a bit, though I think it's well-deserved. Conventional wisdom back in the 1990s, at least with the people I hung out with, was that Montagnier wasn't going to get a Nobel. The reasoning was that the Committee would feel the need to share any Prize with Gallo, but that Gallo had eliminated himself with his behaviour. (I'm not making judgements here, just passing on the general feeling at the time.) <BR/><BR/>Now it seems that the committee is OK with rewarding Montagnier and Barre-Sinoussi without even a mention of Gallo. I think that would have been unthinkable back in the mid-1990s, and shows how much times have changed.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I think the Committee was aware of the question. The reason I think this is that they rewarded three people (the maximum) even though HIV and HPV are at best an awkward marriage. The research leading to each discovery is completely distinct. Without going through the list of past winners, I can't think of a single Prize going to such disparate lines of work -- usually it's to three people who worked on overlapping or closely-related work. Here the only relationship is "viral disease", which is a pretty broad catch-all. <BR/><BR/>Since there's not going to be much argument over zur Hausen's merits, that makes it harder to argue for Gallo -- they end up having to argue that zur Hausen would have to be removed from the Prize, which isn't going to happen.<BR/><BR/>Sneaky people on the Nobel committee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3314044671194602212008-10-06T11:01:00.000-04:002008-10-06T11:01:00.000-04:00A prize well-deservedA prize well-deservedWavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52788695590662883002008-10-06T10:37:00.000-04:002008-10-06T10:37:00.000-04:00I'm now predicting a biochemist as having high lik...I'm now predicting a biochemist as having high likelihood winning the chemistry prize, probably Noller or Tsien. <BR/><BR/>It is now the last 4 nobel prizes in medicine that are very much events of singular discovery and not contributions to a field made over years in many papers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71490448395382978172008-10-06T10:26:00.000-04:002008-10-06T10:26:00.000-04:00Not entirely surprising. As was mentioned elsewhe...Not entirely surprising. As was mentioned elsewhere, the last few years have been heavy on the basic science, so was likely going to be a clinical focus this year.<BR/><BR/>I knew the HPV story was going to generate some interest, but it was going to be difficult to decide on who to give it to. zur Hausen was a given, but I think some additional recognition of the clinical epidemiology might have been nice. Nubia Munoz from IARC, perhaps.<BR/><BR/>The HIV story was long overdue for recognition.<BR/><BR/>I picked Collins/Venter, so I was way off. Maybe next year.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09297263039516044615noreply@blogger.com