Controlling systems and controlling legacies: Barbara McClintock's 1961 conversation with two bacterial geneticists.

Barbara McClintock (1902-1992), the renowned American maize geneticist, received the 1983 Nobel Prize "for her discovery of mobile genetic elements," becoming the seventh woman scientist to receive a Nobel Prize. However, Nathaniel Comfort points out that McClintock viewed her primary contribution as the elucidation of control systems, rather than the discovery of mobile elements. McClintock's interest in control systems dates back to the 1940s, and this paper investigates her 1961 conversation with François Jacob and Jacques Monod, where she sought to shape the interpretation of her work by drawing parallels between maize control systems and a bacterial system they had recently discovered. Despite McClintock's efforts, Jacob and Monod rejected her parallels and suggested that her contribution was limited to mobile elements. Through an examination of their published papers, I argue that Jacob and Monod's rejection stemmed from their failure to fully comprehend maize control systems. Disciplinary discrepancy helps explain Jacob and Monod's lack of comprehension: they were molecular geneticists working on bacteria, while McClintock was a classical geneticist studying maize. I further argue that gender played a role, as McClintock experienced the Matilda effect-the under-recognition of her contribution, reinforced by the reactions of two male geneticists, and ironically, by the award of the Nobel Prize. Control systems, stemming from McClintock's reverence for organisms, embodied what Evelyn Fox Keller defines as "gender-neutral science." This divergent view of science provides insight into why Jacob and Monod failed to grasp McClintock's work in 1961.

Dr. Upendranath Brahmachari: The Unsung Hero of Indian Medical Research.

Upendranath Brahmachari (1873-1946) was a prominent Indian scientist and physician renowned for his groundbreaking work in tropical medicine. He is most famous for discovering urea stibamine, a highly effective treatment for kala-azar (visceral leishmaniasis), a deadly parasitic disease. This discovery had a significant impact on public health, saving countless lives in India and beyond. Born in Jamalpur, Bihar, Brahmachari pursued medical education at the University of Calcutta, where he later became a professor. His dedication to medical science earned him numerous accolades, including a knighthood in 1934. In 1929, Brahmachari was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in recognition of his work on urea stibamine. Although he did not win, the nomination underscored the global significance of his contributions. In addition to his scientific achievements, Brahmachari was active in public service, advocating for improved healthcare and medical education in India. His legacy continues to inspire medical professionals and researchers worldwide.

Three Dermatologists Who Were Nominated for a Nobel Prize: Albert Neisser, Erich Hoffmann, and Aaron B. Lerner.

During the past 125 years, three dermatologists have been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: Albert Neisser (1855-1916), Erich Hoffmann (1868-1959), and Aaron B. Lerner (1920-2007). Neisser was nominated 22 times for his discovery of the gonococcus and for his work on the serologic testing for syphilis through complement fixation. Hoffman was nominated three times for his role in the discovery of Treponema pallidum. Lerner was nominated twice, once for his work on melanocyte-stimulating hormone and a second time for his work on melatonin. Although neither Neisser, Hoffmann, nor Lerner won the Nobel Prize, it is still a notable accomplishment that each of them was nominated multiple times for this prestigiousaward. This contribution highlights the lives and careers of these three distinguished dermatologists, including the landmark discoveries they made that led to their being nominated for a Nobel Prize.

Allvar Gullstrand: The Only Ophthalmologist Who Won the Nobel Prize.

Allvar Gullstrand, the Swedish ophthalmologist and Nobel laureate, was a self-taught mathematician who applied mathematics and higher-order equations to understand the optic system. His inventions, the slit lamp, and the ophthalmoscope are used in clinical practice for the diagnosis of eye diseases. With his efforts, he explained the accommodation, the process of changing the shape of the lens to focus on near or distant objects. In 1911, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. In 1913, he was elected as the first president of the Swedish Ophthalmological Society. In 1927, he was awarded the Graefe Medal of the Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft.

Kazimierz Funk: Polish vitamins' discoverer. / Kazimierz Funk - polski odkrywca witamin.

Kazimierz Funk, born on February 23, 1884, in Warsaw, demonstrated an early inclination toward the field of human physiology. He charted his scientific trajectory within esteemed European scientific institutions, commencing at the age of 16 in Geneva, where he pursued studies in natural sciences. Subsequently, he continued his academic endeavors in Bern, culminating in the attainment of his doctorate in 1904. Following this, Funk relocated to Paris and secured a position at the Pasteur Institute. In France, his research concentrated on elucidating the role of trace elements in the human body. In 1906 he transitioned to Berlin, collaborating with Hermann Fisher (1852-1919) to investigate proteins and cancer processes. In 1910, Funk ventured to London, joining the Lister Institute, where he initiated research on beriberi disease. His investigations led to the isolation of a substance pivotal in treating the ailment, which he termed "vitamin" (derived from 'vita' meaning life and 'amine' indicating a nitrogen-containing compound). Despite four nominations for the Nobel Prize (in 1914, 1925, 1926, and 1946), Kazimierz Funk didn't receive the prestigious accolade. In 1925, at the urging of Dr. Ludwik Rajchman (1881-1965), the director of the National Institute of Hygiene, Funk assumed the directorship of the Biochemistry and Hygiene of Nutrition Branch at the National School of Hygiene. Under Funk's guidance, Poland became the third European country to produce insulin. Kazimierz Funk passed away on November 19, 1967, in New York City, at the age of 83. His significant contributions to the fields of biochemistry and nutrition endure as a testament to his enduring impact on scientific understanding. This proposal aims to condense and emphasise Kazimierz Funk's diverse scientific interests and the various scientific teams and sites he collaborated with, which ultimately led to his groundbreaking discover.

Unraveling the Genetic Code: The Legacy of Har Gobind Khorana (January 9, 1922, to November 9, 2011).

Dr. Har Gobind Khorana was an innovative chemist and Nobel laureate whose groundbreaking research laid the foundation for our understanding of the genetic code and revolutionized the field of molecular biology. Born in 1922 in Punjab, India, his journey from a small village to academic greatness showcases his intellect and determination. Despite economic challenges, Khorana pursued education, earning scholarships for studies abroad. His scientific journey began with a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the University of Liverpool, leading to postdoctoral research in Switzerland and the UK. Notably, Khorana's work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison earned him the Nobel Prize in 1968 for deciphering the genetic code. His legacy includes synthesizing coenzyme A, deciphering the genetic code, and creating artificial genes. Honored globally, he received accolades such as the Padma Vibhushan and was commemorated on a stamp. Beyond science, Khorana's humility and mentorship left a lasting impact. His life inspires others to keep learning and discovering new things about the world, motivating them to ask questions and unravel the mysteries of the universe.

Decoding trends in mRNA vaccine research: A comprehensive bibliometric study.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, infectious diseases like COVID-19 have had profound global socio-economic impacts. mRNA vaccines have gained prominence due to their rapid development, industrial adaptability, simplicity, and responsiveness to new variants. Notably, the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine recognized significant contributions to mRNA vaccine research. METHODS: Our study employed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database, encompassing 5,512 papers on mRNA vaccines from 2003 to 2023. We generated cooperation maps, co-citation analyses, and keyword clustering to evaluate the field's developmental history and achievements. RESULTS: The analysis yielded knowledge maps highlighting countries/institutions, influential authors, frequently published and highly cited journals, and seminal references. Ongoing research hotspots encompass immune responses, stability enhancement, applications in cancer prevention and treatment, and combating infectious diseases using mRNA technology. CONCLUSIONS: mRNA vaccines represent a transformative development in infectious disease prevention. This study provides insights into the field's growth and identifies key research priorities, facilitating advancements in vaccine technology and addressing future challenges.

La paradoja del Premio Nobel: premios Nobel, no premios nobles / Nobel Prize paradox: Nobel Prize, not a noble prize

El Premio Nobel es uno de los premios más deseados en ciencia y más conocidos en la sociedad. Sin embargo, su reputación no está exenta de complejidades, incluidas las limitaciones para los galardonados y los prejuicios en las nominaciones. Navegar por el delicado equilibrio entre el reconocimiento y los impactos concretos de las contribuciones premiadas debería ofrecer una idea de la importancia del premio más allá del mero prestigio y su valor monetario. Si bien otros premios pueden presumir de mayores recompensas financieras, a menudo carecen del mismo nivel de prestigio. La inclusión de figuras públicas como galardonadas y la amplia cobertura mediática en torno al Premio Nobel elevan aún más su importancia percibida, aunque esto podría ocultar una realidad más matizada. Asimismo, las asociaciones positivas vinculadas al nombre «Nobel» que se asemejan al adjetivo «noble» pueden realzar el prestigio del premio. Esta sutil conexión con la «nobleza» añade una capa de honor y distinción al premio, contribuyendo a su importancia y prestigio percibidos. Además, la sobrerrepresentación de premios Nobel de países específicos provoca un escrutinio sobre el cumplimiento del testamento del Nobel, que prioriza las contribuciones al bienestar global. Esta discrepancia plantea dudas sobre la inclusión y el impacto global del premio.(AU)

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.(AU)

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine and chemistry.

The Nobel Prize is an annual honor awarded to the researchers who have made the greatest contribution to humanity with their work in the year in question. Nobel Prizes for physiology or medicine and chemistry most often have direct or indirect pharmacological relevance. In this study, we performed a bibliometric analysis of Nobel Prize laureates from 2006 to 2022. The parameters include the nationalities and age of the laureates, age at their productivity peaks, the research locations, the H-index, the age-adjusted H-index, and the number of citations and publications, and, for each parameter, a comparison of female and male award laureates. Men were much more often awarded the Nobel Prize than women. Surprisingly, women were younger than their male colleagues at the time of the award although the productivity peak was similar. There was a correlation between all publications and the H-index, which was slightly stronger for women than for men. The age-adjusted H-index showed no difference among genders. The USA were the country with the highest number of Nobel Prize laureates, both male and female. Overall, the bibliometric characteristics of male and female Nobel Prize laureates are similar, indicating that among the group of Nobel Prize laureates, there is no bias against women. Rather, the achievements of women are recognized earlier than those of men. The major difference is that the number of women becoming Nobel Prize laureates is much smaller than the number of men. This study provides a starting for future studies with larger populations of scientists to analyze disparities.

Life Science 2.0: reframing the life science sector for 'the benefit on mankind'.

The COVID-19 pandemic put the life science sector to the test. Vaccines were developed at unprecedented speed, benefiting from decades of fundamental research and now honoured by a Nobel Prize. However, we saw that the fruits of science were inequitably distributed. Most low- and middle-income countries were left behind, deepening the inequalities that the Sustainable Development Goals were set to reduce. We argue that the life science sector must reinvent itself to be better and more equitably prepared for the next health crisis and to ensure fair access to health across current and future generations. Our recommendations include global governance, national strategies and the role of universities and corporations. Improved and more equitable health care should be centre stage for global health action and a core mission of a reframed Life Science sector - what we call Life Science 2.0.Paper ContextMain findings: During the COVID-19 pandemic the Life Science sector stepped up to the challenge, but vaccines and medicines were not equitably distributed.Added knowledge: Obstacles were identified that hindered global access to medical innovations.Global health impact for policy and action: Global and national governance, universities and the private sector should join forces to create a Life Science sector (Life Science 2.0) that affords equitable access to medical advances across geographical and generational boundaries and socio-economic strata.

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)

[Unconventional Laveran]. / Laveran décalé.

Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran - 18 June 1845 - 18 May 1922: first French Nobel Prize in Medicine, "in recognition of his work on the role played by protozoa in causing diseases". One hundred years after his death, only written records remain of his work and life. The witnesses to this period are no more. Alphonse Laveran has become an "object" of history.He was deeply involved in a turbulent historical period, marked by crises of regime change (Monarchy/Empire/Republic), military events (French colonial expansion in North Africa from 1830, the wars of 1870 and 1914-1918) and their consequences (the medical impact of infections in the colonial empire and during armed conflicts, the Dreyfus affair, among others), the advent of Pasteurian "microbiology" and the deciphering of the causes and modes of transmission of infectious diseases. A player on the edge of the military and civilian worlds, with their own, sometimes incompatible, visions of the aims and objectives to be pursued, Alphonse Laveran lived through these upheavals in a society in the throes of change, in his family and scientific environment.Paradoxically, the primary sources available to us for learning about this scientist and man are both abundant and "scarce" for us in the 21st century. His scientific publications and many of his speeches at various academies, committees and meetings are for the most part public and accessible, giving us a vision of a professional in scientific and medical research in action, presenting and convincing people of his ideas and theoretical and practical insights. The writings of his contemporaries, both public and private, shed light on - distort? - the man's many facets. On the other hand, there are few surviving sources on the man and his vision of life, his life and that of his family and friends.We will rely on the archives that have been preserved, in particular by the organisations that welcomed him during his military and civilian career, as well as by his wife Marie Laveran and his colleague Marie Phisalix, one of the first doctors of medicine in France and a renowned herpetologist. These two female figures have preserved and contributed to his memory. Let's take a closer look at the man behind the scientist, as we can imagine him through the traces that remain.

Premios Nobel y cáncer / Nobel laureates and cancer

Los premios Nobel surgen en 1895 cuando Alfred Nobel firma su testamento dejando una gran parte de su riqueza a la creación de la Fundación Nobel y para el establecimiento de premios, a personas capaces de ayudar a mejorar la humanidad a través del conocimiento, la ciencia y el humanismo. Este premio se otorga en áreas, como la física, fisiología o medicina, química, literatura, paz y economía. Inició en 1901 y se mantiene hasta la actualidad, donde se han galardonado a 943 personas y 25 organizaciones. La historia y conocimientos conmemorados en los premios Nobel ha permitido un desarrollo íntegro en la comprensión, diagnóstico, terapia y progresos científicos en los diversos tipos de cáncer, sentando las bases y siendo la inspiración de miles de científicos a nivel mundial que trabajan arduamente en el área de la oncología. Estimaciones de la web GLOBOCAN indican que a nivel mundial se produjeron aproximadamente 19 millones de nuevos casos de cáncer y casi 10 millones de muertes por cáncer solo en el 2020. Este estudio tiene como objetivo revisar y reunir los principales descubrimientos científicos premiados con el Nobel en el área de la fisiología o medicina y química, que contribuyeron al conocimiento, diagnóstico y/o tratamiento oncológico desde 1901 a 2021.

The Nobel Prize originated in 1895 when Alfred Nobel signed his will, leaving a large part of his wealth to the creation of the Nobel Foundation and the establishment of this prize, with the vision that people could help improve humanity through knowledge, science, and humanism. The Nobel Prize has been awarded in areas such as physics, physiology or medicine, chemistry, literature, peace, and economics. 943 people and 25 organizations have been awarded since 1901 to this day. The history and knowledge commemorated in the Nobel Prize have allowed an integral development in the understanding, diagnosis, therapy, and scientific progress in different types of cancer, laying the foundations and being the inspiration for thousands of scientists worldwide who work hard in the area of oncology. GLOBOCAN estimates indicated that there were approximately 19 million new cancer cases globally and almost 10 million cancer deaths in 2020 alone; hence, this study reviews and brings together the main scientific discoveries awarded with the Nobel Prize in the area of physiology or medicine and chemistry, which contributed to the knowledge, diagnosis and/or treatment of cancer from 1901 to 2021.

Confirmation that Hermann Muller was dishonest in his Nobel Prize Lecture.

In his Nobel Prize Lecture of December 12, 1946, Hermann J. Muller argued that the dose-response for ionizing radiation-induced germ cell mutations was linear and that there was ''no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold''. However, a newly discovered commentary by the Robert L. Brent (2015) indicated that Curt Stern, after reading a draft of part of Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture, called Muller, strongly advising him to remove reference to the flawed linear non-threshold (LNT)-supportive Ray-Chaudhuri findings and strongly encouraged him to be guided by the threshold supportive data of Ernst Caspari. Brent indicated that Stern recounted this experience during a genetics class at the University of Rochester. Brent wrote that Muller refused to follow Stern's advice, thereby proclaiming support for the LNT dose-response while withholding evidence that was contrary during his Nobel Prize Lecture. This finding is of historical importance since Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture gained considerable international attention and was a turning point in the acceptance of the linearity model for radiation and chemical hereditary and carcinogen risk assessment.

The Enigma of the Impervious Nobel Prize for Neurosurgeons.

The Nobel Prize, which has been highly esteemed since its establishment in 1901, carries significant status within the scientific community. The Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, and Economics has long been recognized for its recognition of significant scientific contributions. However, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine holds a distinct significance due to its direct association with advancements in human health. The subject of neurosurgery, which encompasses both clinical and academic domains, has witnessed remarkable developments; nonetheless, it has not yet been awarded a Nobel Prize. The objective of this investigation is to elucidate the factors contributing to the enigmatic nature of this recognition and propose feasible techniques that can be implemented to achieve it.

[Laveran, the military doctor]. / Laveran, le médecin militaire.

Son of Louis-Theodore Laveran, holder of the Chair of Diseases and Epidemics in the Armies at the Val-de-Grâce and grandson of an artillery commander through his mother, Alphonse, born in Paris on June 18, 1845, follows in his father's footsteps by entering the Imperial School of Military Health in Strasbourg at the age of 18.After his thesis, he participated in 1870 in the war against Prussia. He was taken prisoner in Metz. He then prepared for the competitive examination to become a professor, which he passed in 1874. He was appointed to the Chair of the Val-de-Grâce, which his father had created. He then went to Algeria. It was at the military hospital in Constantine on November 6, 1880 that he indisputably discovered the haematozoa responsible for malaria in the blood of a soldier in the crew train.In 1884, he was appointed to the Chair of Military Hygiene and Legal Medicine at Val-de-Grâce. At the end of his professorship in 1894, after being refused a posting to Paris to continue his research and not being consulted for the preparation of the Madagascar expedition, which turned into a health disaster in 1895, he retired prematurely in 1897. Hosted by Émile Duclaux and Émile Roux at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, he continued his research mainly on protozoa as agents of human and animal diseases until his death. His work in medical protozoology earned him the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1907. During the Great War, with the benefit of his experience, he warned the Minister of War in January 1916 about the risk of malaria incurred by the army of the East in the delta of the Vardar River in Salonika. The spring would prove him right.An illustrious military doctor and scientist of international renown, Laveran died on May 18, 1922 in Paris.