Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize-winning discoveries.

Significant advancements in public health come from scientific discoveries, but more are needed to meet the ever-growing societal needs. Examining the best practices of outstanding scientists may help develop future researchers and lead to more discoveries. This study compared the comprehensive work of 49 Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine from 2000 to 2019 to a matched control of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded biomedical investigators. Our unique data set, comprising 11,737 publications, 571 US patents, and 1693 NIH research awards produced by pre-Nobel laureates, was compared to a similar data set of control researchers. Compared to control researchers, pre-Nobel laureates produce significantly more publications annually (median = 5.66; interquartile range [IQR] = 5.16); significantly fewer coauthors per publication (median = 3.32; IQR = 1.95); consistently higher Journal Impact Factor publications (median = 12.04; IQR = 6.83); and substantially more patents per researcher (median = 5; IQR = 14). Such differences arose from nearly identical cumulative NIH award budgets of pre-Nobel laureates (median $25.3 M) and control researchers. Nobel laureates are neither hyper-prolific (>72 papers per year) nor hyper-funded (>$100 M cumulative). An academic age-specific trajectory graph allows aspiring researchers to compare their productivity and collaboration patterns to those of pre-Nobel laureates.

Muller and mutations: mouse study of George Snell (a postdoc of Muller) fails to confirm Muller's fruit fly findings, and Muller fails to cite Snell's findings.

In 1931, Hermann J. Muller's postdoctoral student, George D. Snell (Nobel Prize recipient--1980) initiated research to replicate with mice Muller's X-ray-induced mutational findings with fruit flies. Snell failed to induce the two types of mutations of interest, based on fly data (sex-linked lethals/recessive visible mutations) even though the study was well designed, used large doses of X-rays, and was published in Genetics. These findings were never cited by Muller, and the Snell paper (Snell, Genetics 20:545-567, 1935) did not cite the 1927 Muller paper (Muller, Science 66:84, 1927). This situation raises questions concerning how Snell wrote the paper (e.g., ignoring the significance of not providing support for Muller's findings in a mammal). The question may be raised whether professional pressures were placed upon Snell to downplay the significance of his findings, which could have negatively impacted the career of Muller and the LNT theory. While Muller would receive worldwide attention, and receive the Nobel Prize in 1946 "for the discovery that mutations can be induced by X-rays," Snell's negative mutation data were almost entirely ignored by his contemporary and subsequent radiation genetics/mutation researchers. This raises questions concerning how the apparent lack of interest in Snell's negative findings helped Muller professionally, including his success in using his fruit fly data to influence hereditary and cancer risk assessment and to obtain the Nobel Prize.

Paul Berg and the origins of recombinant DNA.

In fall 1972, Paul Berg's laboratory published articles in PNAS describing two methods for constructing recombinant DNAs in vitro. He received half of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this landmark accomplishment. Here, we describe how this discovery came about, revolutionizing both biological research and the pharmaceutical industry.

Voices: Challenges and opportunities for bioorthogonal chemistry.

Bioorthogonal chemistry was deservedly recognized with the 2022 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, having transformed the way chemists and biologists interrogate biological systems in the past twenty years. This Voices piece asks researchers from a range of backgrounds: what are some major challenges and opportunities facing the field in coming years?

Nobel Prize paradox: Nobel Prize, not a noble prize.

The Nobel Prize is one of the most sought-after awards in science and society. However, its reputation is not without complexities, including constraints on laureates and biases in nominations. Navigating the delicate balance between recognition and the tangible impacts of awarded contributions should offer insight into the Prize's significance beyond mere prestige and monetary value. While other awards may boast higher financial rewards, they often lack the same level of prestige. The inclusion of public figures as laureates and the extensive media coverage surrounding the Nobel Prize may further elevate its perceived importance, though this may hide a more nuanced reality. Additionally, the positive associations linked to the name "Nobel" resembling the adjective "noble" can enhance the award's prestige. This subtle connection to "nobility" adds a layer of honor and distinction to the Prize, contributing to its perceived significance and prestige. Moreover, the overrepresentation of Nobel laureates from specific countries prompts scrutiny over the fulfillment of Nobel's testament, which prioritizes contributions to global well-being. This discrepancy raises questions about the inclusivity and global impact of the Prize.

Aspectos de la vida y obra del Dr. Bernardo Alberto Houssay / Aspects of the life and work of Dr. Bernardo Alberto Houssay

Con motivo del Día Mundial de la Ciencia y la Tecnología, se realizó en la Casa Museo Bernardo Houssay un conversatorio en el que expertos biógrafos resaltaron algunos aspectos de la trayectoria profesional del Premio Nobel de Medicina de 1947, destacando su actividad como investigador en fisiología y sus cualidades humanas. Estos importantes estudiosos del tema compartieron sus conocimientos en un selecto auditorio. (AU)

On the occasion of World Science and Technology Day, a discussion was held at the Bernardo Houssay House Museum in which expert biographers highlighted some aspects of the professional career of the 1947 Nobel Prize in Medicine, highlighting his activity as a researcher in physiology and his human qualities. These important scholars of the subject shared their knowledge in a select audience. (AU)

[The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2023: Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman - A vaccine revolution driven by fundamental research in immunology and molecular biology]. / Prix Nobel de physiologie ou médecine 2023 : Katalin Karikó et Drew Weissman - Une révolution vaccinale portée par la recherche fondamentale en immunologie et en biologie moléculaire.

Title: Prix Nobel de physiologie ou médecine 2023 : Katalin Karikó et Drew Weissman - Une révolution vaccinale portée par la recherche fondamentale en immunologie et en biologie moléculaire. Abstract: Le 2 octobre 2023, le prix Nobel de physiologie ou médecine a été décerné à Katalin Karikó et Drew Weissman, tous deux professeurs à l'université de Pennsylvanie, pour leur « découverte concernant les modifications des nucléosides qui ont permis le développement de vaccins ARN efficaces contre le COVID-19 ¼. Le communiqué du comité Nobel indique que « grâce à leurs découvertes exceptionnelles qui ont changé radicalement notre compréhension des mécanismes par lesquels l'ARN messager interagit avec notre système immunitaire, ces deux lauréats ont contribué au développement, avec une rapidité sans précédent, d'un vaccin contre l'une des plus grandes menaces des temps modernes affectant la santé humaine ¼.

Lydia Marie DeWitt and Mary Butler Kirkbride: Prototypical Circa-Early-1900s Women of Pathology and an Analysis of Their Contributions to the Discovery of Insulin.

CONTEXT.­: The year 2023 marks the centenary of the Nobel Prize honoring the discovery of insulin. Little-known experimental pathologists Lydia DeWitt, MD, at the University of Michigan and Mary Kirkbride, DSc [Hon], at Columbia University, both just beginning their academic careers, made independent contributions to the discovery that have never been critically examined. This happened at a time when it was exceedingly rare for women to work in pathology. OBJECTIVE.­: To explore the facilitative roles of DeWitt and Kirkbride in the discovery of insulin and to examine their trail-breaking careers in academic pathology. DESIGN.­: Available primary and secondary historical resources were reviewed. RESULTS.­: DeWitt made and tested pancreatic extracts from duct-ligated atrophic pancreas (ie, Frederick Banting's great idea to prevent digestion of its hypothetical internal secretion) 15 years before Banting; Banting was unaware of her work. His idea came from reading a paper by pathologist Moses Barron. Prior duct-ligation studies had sometimes been viewed with skepticism because histologic identification of islets in atrophic duct-ligated pancreata was imperfect; Kirkbride addressed this with histochemical staining, convincing Barron and, therefore, indirectly influencing and motivating Banting. The lives and convoluted careers of these 2 early-20th-century women are explored and compared with those of other contemporary women in pathology. A unifying pattern becomes clear: careers in experimental pathology and bacteriology were accepted but performing clinical work in anatomic pathology was not. CONCLUSIONS.­: Both DeWitt and Kirkbride are prototypical early-20th-century women in academic pathology whose careers were constrained by gender. However, Kirkbride made a unique and unrecognized contribution to the discovery of insulin.