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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GCT
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the role of Prasher in the discovery of Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) and whether his contributions merit sharing a Nobel Prize. The scope includes historical context, contributions to scientific discovery, and the implications of collaborative work in science.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Prasher does not deserve a Nobel Prize, emphasizing that the award was for the application of GFP rather than the cloning work, which they believe could have been accomplished by others.
  • Others highlight that Shimomura's earlier work on isolating GFP warrants recognition, suggesting that awarding Prasher would be unnecessary.
  • One participant defends Prasher, stating he was the first to conceptualize GFP as a genetic label and that his contributions were significant in the context of biotechnology, despite his loss of funding hindering further progress.
  • Another participant notes the collaborative nature of scientific discovery, implying that contributions are often interconnected and cannot be attributed to a single individual.
  • A later reply humorously suggests a lesson about data management in research, reflecting on the competitive nature of scientific funding and recognition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on Prasher's contributions and whether they justify a Nobel Prize. There is no consensus on the matter, with competing perspectives on the significance of his role relative to others involved in the discovery of GFP.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying interpretations of contributions to scientific discoveries and the complexities of attributing credit in collaborative environments. There are unresolved aspects regarding the specifics of Prasher's work and its impact on subsequent research.

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?
 
Biology 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
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
Should Bill Wilson have won the Nobel Peace Prize?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Are Nobel Prize Winners Politically Motivated in Criticizing Bush?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K