Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
TWO SCIENTISTS WHO unlocked some of the mysteries linked to obesity or a professor who figured out how to make stem cells without human embryos could be candidates for the medicine award when the first of the 2011 Nobel Prizes are announced tomorrow.
The prize committees don’t give any clues — they even keep nominations secret for 50 years — but winners usually have won many other awards and distinctions before they are considered for a Nobel.
Canadian-born Douglas Coleman and American Jeffrey Friedman have won several prizes for their discovery of leptin, a hormone that regulates food intake and body weight, and could be in the running for the coveted prize worth $1.5 million.
Last year, Coleman, of the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, and Friedman, of Rockefeller University in New York, received the Lasker Award, often seen as a precursor to the Nobel, for having shown that obesity is frequently linked to metabolic disruptions, or the lack of leptin, rather than being a self-induced problem.
Stem cells
Japanese Shinya Yamanaka, another potential Nobel candidate, offered the world of regenerative medicine a breakthrough with experiments showing that stem cells can be made from ordinary skin cells. The discovery led to a leap in stem cell research, reducing the need for using human embryos.
Yamanaka won the Lasker Award in 2009 and this year shared Israel’s Wolf Prize. One out of three Wolf award-winners in chemistry, physics and medicine have also won a Nobel Prize.
Yamanaka, of Kyoto University in Japan and the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease in San Francisco, could share the prize with British cloning pioneer John Gurdon or Canadian stem cell researcher James Till. Till discovered blood stem sells, which have saved the life of many thousands of leukemia patients.
“Gurdon’s cloning technique and Yamanaka’s stem cells are highly interesting in the field of basic science,” wrote science reporter Karin Bojs of Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter, who has stood out as a leading Nobel guesser over the years. “But so far, not a single sick person has been cured with these discoveries. It is therefore possible that Yamanaka and Gurdon get to share the prize with Canadian James Till.”
Bojs said other possible candidates for the prize are the American-French trio Ronald Evans, Elwood Jensen and Pierre Chambon for their research on nuclear hormone receptors, and American David Julius for his discoveries of the molecular mechanisms by which the skin senses pain, heat and cold.
“It will be awarded to fundamental discoveries that leads to an understanding of the human body and, or treatment or prevention of illnesses,” said Nobel Prize Committee Secretary Goran Hansson, declining to give away more details.
He said there are so many Nobel-worthy achievements in medicine that it can be hard to select a winner.
Cloak of secrecy
In an unusual leak last year, a Swedish newspaper revealed the jury’s selection — British test tube baby pioneer Robert Edwards — before the announcement. The committee has since applied even stricter rules on keeping their discussions and documents surrounding potential candidates secret.
But that doesn’t keep people from making predictions.
The scientific department of Thomson Reuters, which analyzes high-impact academic papers to make predictions, suggested U.S. scientists Brian Druker, Nicholas Lydon, and Charles Sawyers, could be awarded for work related to Gleevec and Sprycel, drugs that transformed chronic myelogenous leukemia from a fatal cancer into a manageable chronic condition.
Its predictions also include Robert Langer and Joseph Vacanti “for their pioneering research in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine,” as well as Jacques Miller, Robert Coffman and Timothy Mosmann for their discovery of two types of blood cells and their role in regulating immune responses.
The Nobel Prizes date back to 1901 after a will left behind by Swedish dynamite inventor Alfred Nobel, and medicine winners are typically awarded for a specific breakthrough rather than a body of research.
The other award categories include physics, chemistry, literature and peace. The economics award isn’t technically a Nobel and was established by Sweden’s central bank in 1968.
The prizes are handed out every year on 10 December, on the anniversary of Nobel’s death in 1896.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I prefer mars to snickers. The past history of either is not really that important
A combination of factors Val. 4 billion years ago Mars was a much warmer place than today, as the planet had not cooled sufficiently since its formation. The interior of the planet at that time was similar to Earth’s today, i.e. a thin crust floating on a molten interior giving rise to volcanoes such as at Olympus Mons. The interior, as on Earth, is made primarily of iron, and in such instances where the core is molten, this iron creates a magnetic field (such as can be seen on Earth). The magnetic field protects the planet from solar radiation. This radiation breaks H2O molecules down into their respective parts – Oxygen and Hydrogen. With the cooling of the planet’s interior the magnetic field breaks down allowing the solar radiation in which then breaks down the H2O. The hydrogen is too light to remain on Mars’ surface (bear in mind Mars has only1/3 the gravity of Earth) and floats to the top of the atmosphere where, now that the magnetic field is gone, solar winds are allowed to tear the hydrogen away from the planet and carry it into space and ionising other particles which are also stripped away. As the atmosphere thins the planet cools even further. Any water that remains becomes locked in the rocks, any oxygen which remains ends up bound in CO2. The process is a relatively fast one. See this article from NASA on the process.
great comment
Global warming ;)
Deadly bit of news. Little bit disappointed by the artists image though. Surely Mars then wouldn’t have looked the same as now i.e. red and dusty, if it had an ocean would it? Surely it would have looked a little bit closer to our own planet. Raises serious questions about what happened there for an entire ocean to dry up also.
That would really depend on whether or not the ocean was there long enough for life to evolve. Our planet only looks like it does because of the plant life, if you look at the deserts you get an idea of how it would’ve looked if life didn’t happen. The only difference I’d put into the artists impression is a bit of cloud cover, maybe.
The view of the sky from the surface of Mars is blue, like Earth. NASA admitted that they touch those shots “for effect”.
the sky is only blue at sunrise and sunset
How I wish the human race could solve our problems here and explore inner and outer space together. The trillions spent on war could feed and clothe us all and used to expand our understanding of our home. The universe.
It will never happen, but still.
Who cares we should be looking after our own planet
Alan, we may need a new planet. Mars may become important in the same way as the USA was. Who says we must only live on one planet?
The fact that there was once water on Mars is old news. The mainstream news is only catching on now?
Read the first 2 lines of the article please.
It says that in the article, this is not news of water on the planet, it is news of the remnants of a particular ocean.
Ah crap, apologies folks. I read the article but the first couple of lines must have indeed escaped my attention! Whoops.
have your say