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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GCT
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the debate surrounding whether Prasher deserves a share of the Nobel Prize awarded for the use of Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP). Critics argue that the Nobel was given for the innovative application of GFP rather than for its cloning, which they believe could have been accomplished by any competent scientist. They emphasize that the original discovery of the GFP protein was made by Shimomura, making Prasher's claim for recognition seem excessive. Supporters of Prasher contend that he was the first to conceptualize GFP's use as a genetic label, which is crucial in biotechnology. They argue that his cloning of the gene and subsequent sharing of it with Tsien and Chalfie were pivotal steps that enabled further advancements, despite his loss of funding hindering his own research. The discussion highlights the complexities of scientific collaboration and recognition, underscoring the notion that scientific progress often builds on the contributions of multiple individuals.

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 .
GCT
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
1,745
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
lesson learned, hoard your data
 
Just ONCE, I wanted to see a post titled Status Update that was not a blatant, annoying spam post by a new member. So here it is. Today was a good day here in Northern Wisconsin. Fall colors are here, no mosquitos, no deer flies, and mild temperature, so my morning run was unusually nice. Only two meetings today, and both went well. The deer that was road killed just down the road two weeks ago is now fully decomposed, so no more smell. Somebody has a spike buck skull for their...
Thread 'RIP George F. Smoot III (1945-2025)'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot https://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/george-smoot-iii https://apc.u-paris.fr/fr/memory-george-fitzgerald-smoot-iii https://elements.lbl.gov/news/honoring-the-legacy-of-george-smoot/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2006/smoot/facts/ https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200611/nobel.cfm https://inspirehep.net/authors/988263 Structure in the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometer First-Year Maps (Astrophysical Journal...

Similar threads

Back
Top