Is Prasher's Role in the Discovery of GFP Enough to Deserve a Nobel Prize?

  • Thread starter GCT
  • Start date
In summary, there is controversy surrounding the Nobel Prize for the discovery of GFP, with some arguing that Prasher did not deserve to be included. However, others argue that Prasher's contribution of first conceptualizing the use of GFP as a genetic label was significant and worthy of recognition. The Nobel Prize board likely considered all aspects before making their decision.

Does Prasher Deserve a Nobel Prize?

  • Yes , Tsien may have not found out about GFP without Prasher.

    Votes: 2 100.0%

  • No , he did common genetic work and not the creative work for which the Nobel was awarded.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes , Tsien needs to give some of his money to Prasher since he had expedited Tsien's success.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No , Shimomura was awarded for the discovery and isolation of GFP , awarding Prasher is reduntant.

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Total voters
    2
  • Poll closed .
  • #1
GCT
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,748
0
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/14/scientist-who-did-gr.html

On the front page of Yahoo

With all of this controversy surrounding the prevalent opinions that Prasher deserved a Nobel , I'm going to make a few pointers here on why he does NOT deserve a Nobel. And yes , this is one of those polls where the original post is actually biased , however , I am certain that there are people out there who are going to fervently disagree.

- The Nobel was awarded for the ingenious and creative use of GFP. Not for the genetic work of cloning it , which could have been done by any decently talented scientist.

- The discovery of the GFP protein was rewarded to Shimomura who isolated it and worked on it way before Prasher. Awarding Prasher a Nobel is superfluous.

- Prasher gave Tsien his lead to investigate the usefullness of GFP , Tsien being the genius that he is utilized it for greater purposes. He was going to find out about it eventually. Does Tsien need to give some of his Nobel earnings to Prasher for expediting this process? Has he vindicated Prasher's unfortunate case by acknowledging him in speeches?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't know about the specifics of the discipline involved, but I think the most important thing is that the discoveries have been made. Especially not in science, you can never say "I did all the work." We stand on the shoulders of giants. The Nobel Prize board most likely thought carefully about their decisions in the field of Chemistry.

It is between Shimomura and Prasher as to what happens to the money.
 
  • #3
He DID deserve to share in the Nobel. He was *the* one to first conceptualize the use of GFP as a genetic label, which is the primary significance of the protein in biotechnology today. He didn't simply seek to clone its gene, as you suggest. He DID clone the gene and was trying to establish its usefulness as a label in bacteria. His loss of research funding kept him from overcoming some relatively minor technical hurdles involving his expression construct and doing just that. Tsien and Chalfie later did accomplish that task - *with* the gene that he cloned, gave to them, and of which originally pointed out the potential usefulness.

It's simple - he was seriously shortchanged.
 
  • #4
lesson learned, hoard your data
 

1. What is the Nobel Prize and why is it important?

The Nobel Prize is an international award given to individuals or organizations for their outstanding contributions to the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, economics, and peace. It is considered one of the highest honors in the world, and recipients are recognized for their groundbreaking achievements and advancements in their respective fields.

2. Who is Prasher and what did he contribute to science?

Prasher, also known as Douglas Prasher, is an American biochemist who made significant contributions to the field of green fluorescent protein (GFP). He was the first scientist to clone the gene for GFP and discover its uses in biological imaging. His work paved the way for further research and developments in this area.

3. Why is there a debate about whether Prasher deserves a Nobel Prize?

There is a debate about whether Prasher should be considered for a Nobel Prize because he was not included in the group of researchers who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2008 for their work on GFP. Some argue that without Prasher's contributions, the work of the other researchers would not have been possible, while others believe that his role was not significant enough to warrant a Nobel Prize.

4. What factors are considered in awarding a Nobel Prize?

The Nobel Prize is awarded based on the significance and impact of an individual's or organization's work, as well as their originality, creativity, and potential for future advancements. The Nobel Committee also takes into consideration any ethical concerns and the potential benefit to humanity.

5. Will Prasher ever receive a Nobel Prize?

It is difficult to predict if Prasher will ever receive a Nobel Prize. The Nobel Committee has strict criteria for awarding the prize and can only be given to a maximum of three individuals per category. However, Prasher's contributions to science have been recognized by other prestigious awards, and his work continues to have a significant impact in the field of biological imaging.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top