4 ms·

From the release: "In the late 1980s, Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun were postdoctoral fellows in the laboratory of Robert Horvitz, who was awarded the Nobel Pr

From the release: "In the late 1980s, Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun were postdoctoral fellows in the laboratory of Robert Horvitz, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2002." So a single MIT lab produced 3 Nobel laureates; I'd say that's impressive. (Noting that the 2 current laureates had moved on to Harvard and Mass Gen when they did the relevant work.)

goethes_kind 2y ago
If this was politics, "impressive" wouldn't be the adjective used.
- benrapscallion 2y ago
  Especially when one factors in how Nobels are nominated and voted - previous laureates have a strong say. This is why the same themes keep getting rewarded over and over again: GPCRs, sensory systems, Drosophila, microscopy, regulation of gene expression - while others go repeatedly unrecognized: sequencing, evolutionary biology, etc.
  - dahinds 2y ago
    umm Svante Paabo?
    - benrapscallion 2y ago
      Paabo’s dad was a Nobel laureate. He was born through an extramarital affair of his father, Swedish biochemist Sune Bergström (1916–2004), who, like his son, became a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (in 1982). Pääbo is his mother's only child; he has via his father's marriage a half-brother (also born in 1955).
      - dahinds 2y ago
        I'm not sure where you're going with that, but Svante is an outstanding scientist and won the prize for his work in DNA sequencing + evolutionary biology.
        benrapscallion 2y ago
        Referring to an ancient genomics prize which is mostly about high-quality sample prep that Svaante Paabo no doubt pioneered as DNA seq + evol bio is quite the stretch when a prize wasn’t awarded for the human genome project, GWAS, 454/Solexa, microarrays etc.
- sn9 2y ago
  Science uses an apprenticeship model so it's not surprising that you would see a sort of lineage or connected network of outstanding work. Anyone who's had a great mentor knows how impactful they can be on the trajectory of your career just in terms of how much more effective you can be.
light_hue_1 2y ago
In many fields, but not all, essentially only a few small number of people can win. You must have trained with someone who won or was part of a group who won. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-04936-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-04936-1 This isn't impressive. It's a sign of concentration of power, of nepotism, and of exclusionary policies. It's the usual dirty politics we see all over the place.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  It's not power when it's a voluntary prize. My kids' school only awards raffle tickets to kids that go to the school. What an awful concentration of power, because power is the only lens through which to view anything.
  - light_hue_1 2y ago
    This would be a valid analogy if there was a secret group at your school only handing out tickets to kids from the same extended families and no one else. How you don't see that as an abuse of power is beyond me. Sometimes HN feels eerily like talking to Trump supporters that rationalize any abuse.
    - gwerbret 2y ago
      I think your concern might apply when there's a question about whether the discovery actually has significant merit. Context is important. In this case, the discovery of microRNAs ushered in a whole new area of biology and medicine, and led to techniques (easy methods to selectively target and suppress gene expression) that facilitated discoveries in many other areas.
      - light_hue_1 2y ago
        No. It has nothing to do with the discovery being of significant merit. There are countless discoveries of significant merit that aren't rewarded by the Committee. They have many choices at their disposal. And they intentionally choose from only a small narrow pool of potential winners to keep it in the family. That's corruption.

goethes_kind 2y ago

If this was politics, "impressive" wouldn't be the adjective used.

benrapscallion 2y ago
Especially when one factors in how Nobels are nominated and voted - previous laureates have a strong say. This is why the same themes keep getting rewarded over and over again: GPCRs, sensory systems, Drosophila, microscopy, regulation of gene expression - while others go repeatedly unrecognized: sequencing, evolutionary biology, etc.
- dahinds 2y ago
  umm Svante Paabo?
  - benrapscallion 2y ago
    Paabo’s dad was a Nobel laureate. He was born through an extramarital affair of his father, Swedish biochemist Sune Bergström (1916–2004), who, like his son, became a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (in 1982). Pääbo is his mother's only child; he has via his father's marriage a half-brother (also born in 1955).
    - dahinds 2y ago
      I'm not sure where you're going with that, but Svante is an outstanding scientist and won the prize for his work in DNA sequencing + evolutionary biology.
      - benrapscallion 2y ago
        Referring to an ancient genomics prize which is mostly about high-quality sample prep that Svaante Paabo no doubt pioneered as DNA seq + evol bio is quite the stretch when a prize wasn’t awarded for the human genome project, GWAS, 454/Solexa, microarrays etc.
sn9 2y ago
Science uses an apprenticeship model so it's not surprising that you would see a sort of lineage or connected network of outstanding work. Anyone who's had a great mentor knows how impactful they can be on the trajectory of your career just in terms of how much more effective you can be.

light_hue_1 2y ago

In many fields, but not all, essentially only a few small number of people can win. You must have trained with someone who won or was part of a group who won. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-04936-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-04936-1 This isn't impressive. It's a sign of concentration of power, of nepotism, and of exclusionary policies. It's the usual dirty politics we see all over the place.

robertlagrant 2y ago
It's not power when it's a voluntary prize. My kids' school only awards raffle tickets to kids that go to the school. What an awful concentration of power, because power is the only lens through which to view anything.
- light_hue_1 2y ago
  This would be a valid analogy if there was a secret group at your school only handing out tickets to kids from the same extended families and no one else. How you don't see that as an abuse of power is beyond me. Sometimes HN feels eerily like talking to Trump supporters that rationalize any abuse.
  - gwerbret 2y ago
    I think your concern might apply when there's a question about whether the discovery actually has significant merit. Context is important. In this case, the discovery of microRNAs ushered in a whole new area of biology and medicine, and led to techniques (easy methods to selectively target and suppress gene expression) that facilitated discoveries in many other areas.
    - light_hue_1 2y ago
      No. It has nothing to do with the discovery being of significant merit. There are countless discoveries of significant merit that aren't rewarded by the Committee. They have many choices at their disposal. And they intentionally choose from only a small narrow pool of potential winners to keep it in the family. That's corruption.