The 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine | Hacker News Reader

The 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

nobelprize.org

72 pointssubsystem18 comments

Worthy choice, especially Suedhof. His work is a seminal contribution to our understanding of one of the most basic principles governing information processing in virtually all nervous systems: the chemical transmission of a signal from one neurone to the other.

His review "The Synaptic Vesicle Cycle"[1] in Annual Reviews offers a somewhat accessible look at the critical bits.

[1] Use scholar.google.com if you want to find "liberated" PDFs.

Note the dates that all of these US scientists started their careers -- all began their first non-training jobs in the mid-to-late 1970s. This batch of winners is amongst the last generation of US scientists to have stable scientific funding.

Starting in the early 1980s, the US began to play political games with research budgets, and since then it's been feast or famine. Whole generations of trainees have been doomed to underemployment, faculty positions have disappeared, and a career in academic science has gone from a feasible choice for smart college students, to a long-shot on par with becoming a professional athlete.

This batch of winners is a reminder that in a decade or two, we'll be wondering why the US doesn't win Nobel prizes anymore.

Who do you think will be winning them?

The prize for Schekman and Rothman has been a long time coming - well deserved! For anyone unfamiliar, worth reading their groundbreaking Cell papers from the early 1980s. (or look at any cell biology textbook!)

More: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/october/sudhof-nobel-priz...

Leaves a dull taste to hear that a once prestigious prices has lost all of it's meaning. When people like Obama [1] win a Nobel Prize and Putin [1] get's suggested for another.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize

[2] http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.550147

The science prizes still hold their prestige even if the peace prize has often been controversial. The peace prize has always been the most controversial of the set (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Peace for starts).

Anyone can 'suggest' people for a peace prize. The peace prize != the medicine prize.

Also, it's just a (prestigious) prize. Keep doing science, don't think about it. And for god's sake, don't come up with science policies that 'will make our country win more Nobel prizes'.

You don't say it, but I guess you mean it. The time politics and policies come into play things start going the wrong way. See "TED" [1] for example.

[1] http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-02-29/why-im-fed-up...

I think I meant that while the prize is a great appreciation of a scientist's work, it is not like a gold medal in a sports competition. There is usually no way of knowing how to get one beforehand, and they don't always go to fields that have received special attention from governments.

'More Nobel prizes to our country' is therefore hard to accomplish by politicians (and sounds populistic). Instead of using the Nobel prize as a rhetorical tool, politicians would probably do better to foster good science in general. Keep universities healthy, leave the policy making to scientists instead of pointing out areas that are going to get increased funding. Make sure scientists can investigate whatever they find interesting based on scientific quality of a proposal/track record. Maybe do keep a check on scientific nepotism et al.

Both being a scientist and defining a proper science policy are hard though.

The controversy of Nobel prize is proportional ambiguity inherent to the prizes subject.

I guess if you don't know anything about vesicle mechanics, sure, contribute a totally irrelevant political argument instead.

For me Nobel Price in peace is worthless long before Obama won it.

Don't let me get started with the "Nobel memorial price" that banksters created.

But Nobel prices in science had always been and continue being prestigious.

It's a completely different committee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_M...

You're decades late. The Peace prize lost its meaning and prestige long before Obama got it.

The committees presiding over the other awards are completely different from the Peace committee, and the other awards still carry an enormous amount of merit, and if you're a biologist you'll know how important vesicle transport is. However, you probably aren't.

Don't pick at strawmen and use your arguments somewhere else.

"once prestigious prices"? Tell me of a more prestigious price in science, there is none. Maybe the field medal in mathematics comes close.

Peace and Economics Nobels are non-scientific and only share the name with the original prices.

Turing award in computing?

I hope you are consistent and feel the same about the peace prize to Kissinger

Reply on news.ycombinator.com