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)

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.

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.

[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.

Tributaries of the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and lessons learned.

Almost without exception, scientific breakthroughs are not epistemological orphans. Historians of science have developed a body of scholarship on this, and the cases arising in our era continue to confirm the phenomenon. The work by Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman that proved foundational for the subsequent development of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 had its antecedent roots yet is also a striking example of both serendipity and their persistence. Their receipt of the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was greatly deserved and, as Alfred Nobel likely envisioned the broad impact to be for all the prizes, affirms to the public at large that there is such a thing as the scientific method, and that there are such things as facts. The importance of society recognizing this has always been critically important, perhaps never more so than now.

Ivermectin as a potential therapeutic strategy for glioma.

Ivermectin (IVM), a semi-synthetic macrolide parasiticide, has demonstrated considerable effectiveness in combating internal and external parasites, particularly nematodes and arthropods. Its remarkable ability to control parasites has earned it significant recognition, culminating in Satoshi Omura and William C. Campbell's receipt of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their contributions to the development of IVM. In recent years, investigations have revealed that IVM possesses antitumor properties. It can suppress the growth of various cancer cells, including glioma, through a multitude of mechanisms such as selective targeting of tumor-specific proteins, inducing programmed cell death, and modulation of tumor-related signaling pathways. Hence, IVM holds tremendous potential as a novel anticancer drug. This review seeks to provide an overview of the underlying mechanisms that enable IVM's capacity to suppress glioma. Furthermore, it aims to elucidate the challenges and prospects associated with utilizing IVM as a new anticancer agent.

Muller misled the Pugwash Conference on radiation risks.

The Pugwash Conferences have been a highly visible attempt to create profoundly important discussions on matters related to global safety and security at the highest levels, starting in 1957 at the height of the Cold War. This paper assesses, for the first time, the formal comments offered at this first Pugwash Conference by the Nobel Prize-winning radiation geneticist, Hermann J. Muller, on the effects of ionizing radiation on the human genome. This analysis shows that the presentation by Muller was highly biased and contained scientific errors and misrepresentations of the scientific record that resulted in seriously misleading the attendees. The presentation of Muller at Pugwash served to promote, on a very visible global scale, continued misrepresentations of the state of the science and had a significant impact on policies and practices internationally and both scientific and personal belief systems concerning the effects of low dose radiation on human health. These misrepresentations would come to affect the adoption and use of nuclear technologies and the science of radiological and chemical carcinogen health risk assessment, ultimately having a profound effect on global environmental health.

[Leonid Vasilyevich Sobolev: the first Russian diabetologist, or the History of an unnoticed discovery].

Leonid Vasilyevich Sobolev is an outstanding pathologist, whose name definitely should occupy an honorable place in the galaxy of great scientists of Russia. However, his name was undeservedly forgotten, and the role of his work was underestimated. This Russian scientist made the most important discovery: he proved in an experiment that it is the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas that secrete a humoral regulator, "factor X", the deficiency of which leads to diabetes mellitus. This mysterious islet factor will be isolated from the pancreas of dogs in 1921 by the future Nobel laureate Frederick G. Banting and will become part of the medicine as insulin. However, there is every reason to believe that the discovery of F. G. Banting, who repeated a series of experiments by Leonid Vasilyevich Sobolev, is, in fact, secondary, which is the research subject in this paper.