5 ms·

I understand the Nobel committee's desire to see results validated many times over before making an award, in order to avoid embarrassment should the findings b

I understand the Nobel committee's desire to see results validated many times over before making an award, in order to avoid embarrassment should the findings be overturned as has happened in the past. I also acknowledge that the research cited here is very significant and important...but...the research being awarded is over 30 years old! To say there's not been any more noteworthy and validated discoveries in Medicine since the mid '80s, well, I just don't buy it. Just for starters, the fact that Venter still does not have a Nobel is a crime and, in my mind at least, an irrefutable indictment that, in Academia, politics and "playing by the rules" is valued far more than actual results.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> but...the research being awarded is over 30 years old! This is not irregular for the Nobel and Nobel-like awards. > To say there's not been any more noteworthy and validated discoveries in Medicine since the mid '80s, well, I just don't buy it. Who said otherwise? > in Academia, politics and "playing by the rules" is valued far more than actual results. The Nobel is an award whose supply is -- by design and definition -- massively and artificially constrained. Politics is just what happens when there are fewer resources than people who by all accounts deserve the resource. So Of course such awards are political. Your observation is just a tautology. Also, you can replace "in Academia" with "in life" and the statement will be just as true. > Just for starters, the fact that Venter still does not have a Nobel is a crime Okay, and what about all of the other names that also could have come after "Just for starters"? Not everyone who deserves a Nobel will get one. That's life.
adenadel 9y ago
I'm not sure that Venter should get a Nobel. He has played a big role in science over the past 2 decades, but I'm not sure that any of his accomplishments are Nobel-worthy. I certainly don't think he will get one for his work on the genome project. The genome project was such a large effort that involed so many people that I can't imagine selecting a few figureheads to recognize with a Nobel.
- jballanc 9y ago
  Venter led the team to sequence the first genome of a free-living organism. Before Venter left NIH to start Celera, the Human Genome Project was entirely focused on making long, pre-aligned reads. It wasn't until Celera started embarrassing the NIH effort that shotgun sequencing was taken up in earnest. Later, his idea of then taking shotgun sequencing and applying it to whatever DNA you could find floating in the Sargasso Sea or any random teaspoon of dirt literally opened a whole new world of evolutionary biology. Finally, his more recent work on creating a fully synthetic organism is continuing to push forward the bleeding edge of biotechnology by laying a foundation all of humanity is sure to build on for decades to come. But that one time he told investors that he'd pay for his research by patenting gene sequences (something he never actually, AFAIK, did do), and all his accomplishments may as well be nothing in the eyes of some.
  - adenadel 9y ago
    I'm very aware of what Venter has accomplished, but I don't think sequencing Haemophilus influenza is more impactful than sequencing PhiX or phage and don't think it deserves a Nobel. I don't think a Nobel should be given out for the sequencing of the human genome. It was a large, systematic effort that didn't require much clever experimentation. I also don't think his post-Celera work deserves a Nobel. These are just my opinions. He's obviously a huge figure in modern science and I love hearing about him and getting to watch him speak.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > It wasn't until Celera started embarrassing the NIH effort that shotgun sequencing was taken up in earnest. Sure. But I disagree with the overall premise and think you're over-simplifying in the extreme. What really made the Human Genome Project possible was the Moore-like curve in sequencing throughput that occurred throughout the lifetime of the Human Genome Project. There were many contributing factors that kept the curve going (including the other Moore curve!) Also, Sangar never got a Nobel in Medicine (just in Chemistry). So even if shotgun sequencing is the idea that deserves the Nobel for Human Genome Project -- which again, isn't exactly an incontestable assertion -- then it's Sangar, not Venter, who was robbed. Awarding Venter with a scientific award for his political work pushing Sangar's science would be an odd choice, not to mention at odds with your apparent overall feelings about the role of politics in Nobel awards. Which... maybe they both deserve a Nobel for their contributions to the Genome Project. Probably so, in my opinion. It's almost like the supply of Nobels is artificially constrained and not everyone who deserves one can get one... > Later, his idea of then taking shotgun sequencing and applying it to whatever DNA you could find floating in the Sargasso Sea or any random teaspoon of dirt literally opened a whole new world of evolutionary biology. Lots of people use shotgun sequencing for all sorts of high-profile and important stuff that is literally opening a whole new world of all sorts of important fields. And there's a lot of stuff going on outside of genetic sequencing that also deserves Nobels. > Finally, his more recent work on creating a fully synthetic organism is continuing to push forward the bleeding edge of biotechnology by laying a foundation all of humanity is sure to build on for decades to come. So maybe a Nobel will be awarded in the decades to come. Nobels are given for impact, not promise, and impact takes decades to accrue even for the most impactful work. I would never say someone like Venter "doesn't deserve a Nobel". But getting all bent out of shape that he doesn't have one is kinda weird, especially since he's not exactly starved of other sources of recognition -- both inside and outside Academia -- for his contributions. Lots of people who played outsized roles in the Human Genome Project exist in relative obscurity relative to Venter. Which isn't to say he doesn't deserve his recognition, but I just don't understand the particular drum you're beating here.
searine 9y ago
Venter is a celebrity, not a basic scientist. Yes, he contributed greatly to the HGP. Yes he spurred on a lagging public project. Yes, he founded multiple scientific institutes. But the HGP would have been completed without him. He offered no new insight or idea that changed the fundamental understanding of biology. He is famous, and deserves that fame, but does his ideas and research deserve a prize? We'll see, but certainly not yet.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> but...the research being awarded is over 30 years old! This is not irregular for the Nobel and Nobel-like awards. > To say there's not been any more noteworthy and validated discoveries in Medicine since the mid '80s, well, I just don't buy it. Who said otherwise? > in Academia, politics and "playing by the rules" is valued far more than actual results. The Nobel is an award whose supply is -- by design and definition -- massively and artificially constrained. Politics is just what happens when there are fewer resources than people who by all accounts deserve the resource. So Of course such awards are political. Your observation is just a tautology. Also, you can replace "in Academia" with "in life" and the statement will be just as true. > Just for starters, the fact that Venter still does not have a Nobel is a crime Okay, and what about all of the other names that also could have come after "Just for starters"? Not everyone who deserves a Nobel will get one. That's life.

adenadel 9y ago

I'm not sure that Venter should get a Nobel. He has played a big role in science over the past 2 decades, but I'm not sure that any of his accomplishments are Nobel-worthy. I certainly don't think he will get one for his work on the genome project. The genome project was such a large effort that involed so many people that I can't imagine selecting a few figureheads to recognize with a Nobel.

jballanc 9y ago
Venter led the team to sequence the first genome of a free-living organism. Before Venter left NIH to start Celera, the Human Genome Project was entirely focused on making long, pre-aligned reads. It wasn't until Celera started embarrassing the NIH effort that shotgun sequencing was taken up in earnest. Later, his idea of then taking shotgun sequencing and applying it to whatever DNA you could find floating in the Sargasso Sea or any random teaspoon of dirt literally opened a whole new world of evolutionary biology. Finally, his more recent work on creating a fully synthetic organism is continuing to push forward the bleeding edge of biotechnology by laying a foundation all of humanity is sure to build on for decades to come. But that one time he told investors that he'd pay for his research by patenting gene sequences (something he never actually, AFAIK, did do), and all his accomplishments may as well be nothing in the eyes of some.
- adenadel 9y ago
  I'm very aware of what Venter has accomplished, but I don't think sequencing Haemophilus influenza is more impactful than sequencing PhiX or phage and don't think it deserves a Nobel. I don't think a Nobel should be given out for the sequencing of the human genome. It was a large, systematic effort that didn't require much clever experimentation. I also don't think his post-Celera work deserves a Nobel. These are just my opinions. He's obviously a huge figure in modern science and I love hearing about him and getting to watch him speak.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > It wasn't until Celera started embarrassing the NIH effort that shotgun sequencing was taken up in earnest. Sure. But I disagree with the overall premise and think you're over-simplifying in the extreme. What really made the Human Genome Project possible was the Moore-like curve in sequencing throughput that occurred throughout the lifetime of the Human Genome Project. There were many contributing factors that kept the curve going (including the other Moore curve!) Also, Sangar never got a Nobel in Medicine (just in Chemistry). So even if shotgun sequencing is the idea that deserves the Nobel for Human Genome Project -- which again, isn't exactly an incontestable assertion -- then it's Sangar, not Venter, who was robbed. Awarding Venter with a scientific award for his political work pushing Sangar's science would be an odd choice, not to mention at odds with your apparent overall feelings about the role of politics in Nobel awards. Which... maybe they both deserve a Nobel for their contributions to the Genome Project. Probably so, in my opinion. It's almost like the supply of Nobels is artificially constrained and not everyone who deserves one can get one... > Later, his idea of then taking shotgun sequencing and applying it to whatever DNA you could find floating in the Sargasso Sea or any random teaspoon of dirt literally opened a whole new world of evolutionary biology. Lots of people use shotgun sequencing for all sorts of high-profile and important stuff that is literally opening a whole new world of all sorts of important fields. And there's a lot of stuff going on outside of genetic sequencing that also deserves Nobels. > Finally, his more recent work on creating a fully synthetic organism is continuing to push forward the bleeding edge of biotechnology by laying a foundation all of humanity is sure to build on for decades to come. So maybe a Nobel will be awarded in the decades to come. Nobels are given for impact, not promise, and impact takes decades to accrue even for the most impactful work. I would never say someone like Venter "doesn't deserve a Nobel". But getting all bent out of shape that he doesn't have one is kinda weird, especially since he's not exactly starved of other sources of recognition -- both inside and outside Academia -- for his contributions. Lots of people who played outsized roles in the Human Genome Project exist in relative obscurity relative to Venter. Which isn't to say he doesn't deserve his recognition, but I just don't understand the particular drum you're beating here.

searine 9y ago

Venter is a celebrity, not a basic scientist. Yes, he contributed greatly to the HGP. Yes he spurred on a lagging public project. Yes, he founded multiple scientific institutes. But the HGP would have been completed without him. He offered no new insight or idea that changed the fundamental understanding of biology. He is famous, and deserves that fame, but does his ideas and research deserve a prize? We'll see, but certainly not yet.