6 ms·
Nobel Prize in Chemistry Is Awarded to 3 Evolutionary Scientists
- Numberwang 8y agoEvolution? That has not even been proven yet.
- simion314 8y agoSure it was, biology,chemistry,geology and different other sciences found enough evidence for this theory. IF this theory is wrong the correct one still needs to account for the found evidence.
- fifnir 8y agoNeither has gravity, I suggest you exit your office from the window
- wglb 8y agoThis comment is not in line with the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fifnir 8y agoIt's definitely inciting, but so is spewing anti-scientific and ignorant one-liners
- Numberwang 8y agoYou need to behave yourself and love Material Design, or the mods will not be happy with you.
- andrepd 8y agoWhat are you on about? Please, knock it off or remove yourself from this website.
- dang 8y agoIt breaks the site guidelines to reply to egregious comments and continue to feed the resulting low-quality threads. Please don't do that. Instead, flag the egregious comment and move on. For more about comment flagging see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
- euparkeria 8y agoLow quality bait.
- phakding 8y agoYou are not on Fox news, mate.
- sctb 8y agoWe've asked you many times to please follow the guidelines, so we've banned the account.
- Numberwang 8y agook
- qubax 8y agoCould've just linked to the actual source. https://www.nobelprize.org https://www.nobelprize.org https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2018/press-release https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2018/press-relea...
- dannykwells 8y agoVery excited about this Nobel - it recognizes a practical but extremely useful set of tools that are the backbone of modern therapeutic development, on one hand (phage display) and have proven immensely useful to improving protein design and engineering, on the other. It's also great to see improved representation from the Nobels this year: female winners in both chemistry and physics (where there have been respectively, 5 and 4 previous winners, TOTAL, since the prize began) and for both cases, (some) winners without "glamorous" science careers at rich private universities with massive labs, high profiles, TED talks, etc.. Just great scientists, doing their jobs. Hopefully more to come like these in the coming years.
- chrisbrandow 8y agoFWIW, it seems to me that Nobel prize winners are not typically on the TED circuit. Though most do have large labs. That is usually indicative of the fruitful research that leads to the Nobel prize later.
- elbracitosNIR 8y agoUnfortunately one woman was awarded. Seems that feminist pressure is infecting this as well.
- dbcooper 8y agoThey're never going to give it to John Goodenough. :(
- beautifulfreak 8y agoReuters publishes an annual list of its picks for the Nobel prize. Goodenough was listed way back in 2015. I just hope his solid state battery turns out to be viable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarivate_Citation_Laureates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarivate_Citation_Laureates, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13916255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13916255
- radus 8y agoI also hope that his design will be good enough.
- obscurantist 8y agoUnlike my laptop battery, he has a long lifespan and I'm sure he'll stick around for the next few years. Just enough time to finally award the man.
- tzs 8y agoThis has not been a good Nobel year for Wikipedia. First, yesterday, we find that Physics winner Donna Strickland did not have a page. She had one four years ago briefly, but it had been quickly deleted on notability grounds. And now today we get a Chemistry winner, George P. Smith, who also did not have a page--not even an old deleted page. His first page was created this morning after the Prize was announced. This also happened last year, also in Chemistry, with Jacques Dubochet.
- hackinthebochs 8y agoI don't see what the problem is. Should every published scientist have a wikipedia page? It's not obvious that they should, not every scientist is notable to the general public. The fact that they received a Nobel doesn't mean they were notable before they received the Nobel.
- pyb 8y ago> "The fact that they received a Nobel doesn't mean they were notable before they received the Nobel." It does, pretty much by definition of a Nobel prize.
- soundwave106 8y agoWhat I can see happening sometimes is that the author doesn't have a page, but the page on the science clearly cites the person that ended up winning the Nobel. In this case, the Wikipedia article on chirped pulse amplification has cited Donna Strickland as a co-inventor since 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chirped_pulse_amplification&oldid=188731900 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chirped_pulse_amp...). For phage displays, George P. Smith is not mentioned but at least cited as far back as 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phage_display&oldid=223341522 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phage_display&old...). By 2012, George P. Smith is directly mentioned. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phage_display&oldid=499900124 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phage_display&old...)
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
- danggg 8y agoImportant bit: a woman won it. You can imagine how many cocks she had to take to get there. You can see how little merits she has, jeez.
- nabla9 8y agoFrances Arnold received Millennium Technology Prize in 2016 (€1 million) and Draper Prize in 2011 ($500,000). Both can be considered as "Nobel's for Engineering".