85 Nobel prizes are coming next month, here are my predictions. I feel strongly that the winner is going to be p-chem/a-chem, but I tossed in my annual favorite – the Palladium trio. Bioshit is still likely to win, but with Roger’s inevitable victory last year, I think the prize committee will focus their attention elsewhere:
- Application of LASERs in single molecule spectroscopy: Zare 5-1
- Contributions of single molecule spectroscopy: Zare/Bard/Moerner 10-1
- Computational chemistry: Karp/Goddard 12-1
- Discovery and development of transition metal cross coupling: Suzuki/Heck/Sonogashira 16-1
- Molecular self assembly, Stoddart/Whitesides/Lehn 73-1
- Development of advanced materials: Matyjaszewski /
Whitesides/Gray/Inokuchi 50-1 - Work on molecular Chaperones: Hartl/Horwich: 60-1
- Electron transfer process in proteins: Gray 145-1
- Contributions to bioinorganic chemistry: Solomon/Gray/Holm 200-1
- Epigenetics: Cedar/Razin: 350-1
- Molecular Machines: Stoddart/Feringa/Leigh: 400-1
- Enzyme mimics,
Westheimer/Breslow: 1000-1
UPDATED: 09.13.09
UPDATED: 09.15.09 — Replaced Whitesides with Matyjaszewski and lowered odds, added Hartl and Horwich for work on Chaperones (on account of this article [though I still don't think bio will win it this year]) and removed Westheimer, on account of him being dead. Enzyme mimics are now a long shot of long shots.
Back to top
Didn’t Lehn already get a Nobel for something similar?
Pd deserves it in my book.
I actually meant Sauvage and not Lehn.
Molecular machines, however… that’s something better.
Damn right about that bioshit! Chemistry FTW!
I don’t see anything Nobel-worthy this year. Better to just save it until next year when one of young’uns makes the breakthrough of the century.
But if I had to put my money on anything it would be: Development of Green Explosives Klapotke/x/x
That would be a shock!
Great before-and-after images of blown-up stuff in this review he wrote for Advanced Functional Materials.
Richard N. Zare, for his wymynist views,
http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com.....chive.html
The man knows how to felch.
How about Karplus? He could fit into the computational chemistry category and he did the first molecular dynamics simulations of proteins. But, perhaps his important contributions were too varied for his work to fit into a nice little story that the Nobel committee seems to like.
Also, if you’re going for a prize on single molecule spectroscopy, why are you excluding Moerner (who won a share of the 2008 Wolf prize for his work on single molecule spectroscopy)?
All good points.
Any one think that inorganic biochemistry/biological inorganic chemistry is far enough along to be worth a shot? I’m thinking Solomon, Lippard, Holm and Gray as names from a fairly deep field.
Me too. I’m personally rooting for the bioinorganikers to get the spotlight this year. We’ll see.
No, it’s not far enough along. I read some of the papers from time to time in the field, and there hasn’t been any great mechanistic insight that has lead to a reproduction of biological activity. The fact that a copper complex can irreversibly functionalize its own ligand, is not prize worthy, however complicated the synthesis and interesting the result (for me). The closest I think, was a Science paper from Christina White on CH activation with iron, but that was pretty far away from the mainstream of biological inorganic chemistry. And White isn’t going to win a Nobel this year.
this year
Is she going to win one in her lifetime? That would be a really interesting bet. I know intrade does some betting…
“M. Christina White or the field” for the Nobel Prize from here until 2050. What kind of odds would you put on her? 100:1? 200:1? 1000:1?
She’s done interesting work in oxidative functionalization of alkanes/enes, but aren’t there enough people there to make giving it to just MCW a problem? (DuBois?)
Christina White may be one of the most brilliant women in chemistry – she certainly is someone I would bet on getting a Nobel in her lifetime.
There are a lot of brilliant women in chemistry — why her? (Don’t get me wrong, I believe it.)
I believe she has a lot of potential ahead of her and I don’t think she’ll flicker out and settle down and just be a hopeless dickhead professor. The other woman that comes to mind, obviously, is Carolyn Bertozzi who has, I think, a very sexy brain.
Why is everyone kissing her ass? Yea, she is putting out amazing work now, but I think there are a slew of extremely talented people in that field. She has the connections, but I think that her getting denied tenure at Harvard kinda shows that her ideas were not innovative enough or the most original in her field, that’s why she’s at UIUC..
and let’s be honest. way too soon for her if it was a possibility
I didn’t know that.
Was White actually denied tenure at Harrrvad or did she just move on before she went for tenure?? She apparently started there in 2002 and was at UIUC by 2005.
Well, going to UIUC was beneficial considering her husband is there also… Christina has an inflated ego. Of course she wasn’t offered tenure at Harvard. Being married to Marty Burke will also help get you a position at UIUC
notice only one of them is really making a reputation for themselves.
Is that so? Correct me if I am wrong but Marty Burke has BOTH an NIH R01 and an NSF CAREER award. Does Christina?
My impression is he finished up school at Harvard and then got a job offer at UIUC. She just left harvard and took a job at UIUC so they could stay in the same location. I dont think there was any issue of her not getting tenure at harvard, i guess she left early because of the other issue.
Perphaps, but when I put 2 and 2 together, the former makes sense. She is not liked by the Harvard elite. Her former boss can’t stand her! Jacobsen walked out of one of her talks a couple months ago because she was saying shit about him
Professors at Harvard don’t always have the habit (or even the ability) of playing nice with one another – so while it’s possible that MCW wasn’t very nice to them, it’s also possible that they weren’t very nice, either. Lack of tenure by Harvard isn’t necessarily a black mark either – they’ve rejected some pretty good people (and also some not as good people).
I don’t know why I should be concerned with MCW getting a Nobel – it seems premature at best. Though I thought that about buckyballs, and, well…
As original as, say, Matthew Shair? Gee. Also, be sure to refer to her by her first name, just to sound extra-patronizing.
extra-patronizing, eh? I think I was being less than patronizing, considering we are discussing a person that makes sure she highlights herself in the most gaudy of ways by having monogramed belt buckles, and multiple ones at that. How is referring to her by first name patronizing in the first place? Is she a fucking god? She’s no Nicolau, Jacobsen, Fukuyama, or Corey. Don’t get that shit twisted, friend.
All of whom you refer to by last name. QED.
Yeah. That’s the point. Nicolau, Corey, Fukuyama, etc. have earned that respect. Christina White isn’t even a full professor at UIUC. I’m guessing you probably work for her. That is the only reasoning I can come up with. Anyway, She’s a fucking joke, most professors think she is. People want to give her husband awards because he has to put up with her on a daily basis. That says something.
Anyway, She’s a fucking joke, most professors think she is. People want to give her husband awards because he has to put up with her on a daily basis. That says something.
Phosgene, what’s the deal? She run over your dog or something? First you said that she’s putting out “amazing work”, now she’s a “fucking joke.” Make up your mind.
If you have something against her from a personal POV, that’s cool — most organic professors are not warm, cuddly people. But what’s your judgment of her science?
I think there are people who have better examples of C-H activation and functionalization. I don’t think she is the best.
Based on future potential, I think it’s safe to bet 300:1. I’m factoring in her being recruited to a top five place after she becomes full professor, and the gigantic group sizes there and larger money. Still, even with all of that, her group would need to make some Nobel prize worthy discovery, and as far as large groups go, the odds are 300:1 for her. From now until 2060.
If we’re putting money on this, I think we should arrange how we’re going to collect the winnings as well. Hopefully the chemblog will still be operational.
What would you say the odds are for the typical R1 professor? I’d say it’s ~5000-1, but I dunno.
Don’t know if I’m taking bets (especially over 51 years). I’m not sure that I would, but depending on the inflation rate, it might be not so bad for me. Hmmmm.
What no Drexler for molecular machines? I am aware of the distain that academics have for him, but it seems like he did plant the seed, no?
Since i am only a novice on the molecular machinery, it would be nice to hear what an insider has to say about this….
Might as well give one to Jules Verne or Isaac Asimov then.
Both of them are dead, dipshit.
Is ‘no experimental results’ a good reason?
as much as i would like to see those three win for molecular machines, they haven’t found any use for them yet.
molecular machines have been found to run just about everything in biology.
Prediction: Nobel for molecular machines to three biochemists you never heard of (or maybe one biologist, one biochemist and feringa)
Well, I give them long odds exactly because no one has dug up a utility for them and, I think by any reasonable prediction, no one will. Nevertheless, it’s a captivating field and each has produced some intellectual work of extraordinary merit.
So, yeah, I toss it out there as something that is worthy of such a distinction but, as these things often times go, may well not get it.
Anyone use their Buckyballs today? No, but they still got the prize.
One can argue about their potential to ever be commercialized but the molecular PV and electronics people use functionalized C60 quite a bit.
I’m going to guess Whitesides and Co.
I don’t think the Pd pu-pu platter will get the nod because of the difficulty of picking only 3 people. However, there is no doubt that the contributions deserve a Nobel going to somebody. . .
What does anyone else think of Michael Grätzel for photochemistry/dye-sensitized solar cells? Too soon?
Ohhhhh good one.
too soon.
After reading this list, I think they might as well give it to me again. These punks today wouldn’t know a brilliant insight if it came up and gnawed the laser pointer out of their hand. I could pound down two bottles of merlot, suck up three packs of Camels, and whip out a fifty-seven step synthesis before the sun came up. Plus, I look like a goddamn scientist, unlike EJ, who was mistaken in Stockholm for a waiter when he put on tails.
Please tell me that EJC anecdote is a joke.
Stupid autofill.
EJC: Your Highness, I am honored to meet you.
King of Sweden: Yes, quite. Vodka martini, my good man. Dry and with a twist.
“Application of LASERs in single molecule spectroscopy”
*All* the early single-molecule spectroscopy experiments were done using lasers (by Moerner, Orrit, etc).
I think Zare’s real contribution was earlier and involved laser-induced fluorescence for studying reaction dynamics and other chemical analyses. Personally, I think Zare deserves a Nobel, but with different wording! Maybe something about ultrasensitive chemical analyses?
Why is epigenetics likely to be a chemistry award? It seems to have enough medical application to be placed in Medicine rather than chemistry, and it’s important enough to displace other biological suggestions if there’s enough results to merit a Nobel. Some of the biology awards that ended up in chemistry seemed close enough to chemistry to say “oh well” but epigenetics seems like a far more hard-core biological mechanism than something involving neat chemistry (or using chemistry as a neat tool).
Kornberg – for his studies of the molecular basis of eukaryotic transcription…
Seriously, what’s the difference?
Westheimer is dead. I also won’t rule out Houk and Allinger.
For medicine I think Akiro Endo who discovered might be a strong contender, and as usual, Robert Langer.
That should be “akiro endo who discovered statins”
Peter Schultz! How can u argue with his credentials?
I don’t feel as though the nobel prize should be a lifetime achievement award. Wasn’t the intended purpose for the best discovery of the year? Obviously that has bit committees in the ass previously…but i still think a brilliant discovery (even if controversial) should win the nobel over a lifetime of good science. There are other awards designed for that purpose.
I don’t think Corey’s or Woodward’s Nobels were for single achievements. Usually there is one core achievement, but it can be sort of a lifetime award. Schultz has a core achievement (adding amino acids to the biosynthetic machinery) but I don’t know if it’s worth a Nobel. The lifetime achievement thing is more problematic for Prof. Whitesides, because I don’t know if he’s got one thing to hang a Nobel on.
I would remove Feringa and Leigh and change it to Stoddart and Sauvage and then call it “molecular topoplogy” or “mechanical bond” or something like that instead “molecular machines.”
Stoddart? Come’n now… talk about lifetime awards
Schultz expanded the amino acid composition of proteins! Seriously!
I would advance that creating a field of chemistry, as Stoddart did, makes one worthy of such an award.
Shuji Nakamura
I think if “bioshit is still likely,” you could add Pierre Chambon, Ronald Evans and Elwood Jensen for the discovery of nuclear receptors. Jensen is quite old, and I wonder if the committee feels compelled to award him while they still can. Of course, it could be in medicine.
How can any of you think Christina White deserves a nobel prize and not mention someone like let’s say oh, Melanie Sanford? Her work is far more impacting. Anyway. No one cares about organocatalysis? I haven’t seen any mention of Terada or Akiyama, or Ben List, or MacMillan…
I’ll bite: publicity. CEN has put White on the front page of their breaking news section at least twice. If I’m not mistaken, that’s not the case for Sanford.
I’ll note that I actually think that Sanford’s work may have wider applicability in industry (e.g. this article, but that doesn’t always garner you Nobel prizes, unfortunately.
I don’t think that is the case. Sanford received a Loy of publicity for her work with palladium transition states and new oxidation states. I think this was covered by C&EN as well.
but does Melanie Sanford wear a monogrammed belt buckle?
She should. apparently that will make her a contender for a nobel prize as associate professor
Indeed.
‘Twas, but so far as I can recall, White’s been featured twice in the front “News of the Week” section*, while Sanford’s had a science concentrate and a feature article from Carmen Drahl.
*Why do I know this, you might ask? Because I’ve now seen the picture of MCW in front of a chalkboard with her student now twice. This week’s (9/7/09) issue has one.
CJ:
You should check out her group’s website. There are some interesting pics on there as I recall.
Some of Sanford’s mechanisms are sort of iffy if you want to be a cruel reviewer, so I guess C&N are not very close article readers. I’m sure I would make the same mistakes if I had to write the article though. The more important point however, is that Pd is really expensive and unless you can come up with a better oxidant to get Pd(IV) than anything in the Sanford papers currently, it will not have widespread applicability. Plus, the TONs are a travesty for a platinum group metal when you think about it (for JACasS communication level). It almost always is in these CH activation articles with Pd. I have no idea how they all (Fagnou, a hundred others, etc…) manage to get away with it… There needs to be a moratorium or something. “Unless you use 1% catalyst loading or your oxidant is air and you’re not using stoichiometric copper salts.” Otherwise, go straight to JOC.
An iron enzyme mimic that is selective for one type of CH bond and is functional group tolerant has a lot more applicability. If you could increase the TONs and make the ligand cheaper, it could mean a number of very important implications. White wins that battle for me on applicability as well. Her Pd work isn’t bad either.
I can definitely see what you are saying here, but I think it is a common misconception that all palladium derivatives are expensive. I mean You can get good amounts of palladium black, tetrakis, and palladium II analogues from STREM for rather cheap.
As far as the applicability, I agree with you, to an extent. The Pd(IV) transition state was something that was dismissed as bullshit by Buchwald and others, until they saw what she had to publish. Anyway, I am not saying Christina White doesn’t do good chemistry. I’m just saying I don’t think she deserves a nobel prize. Also, I’m not saying Melanie Sanford does at this point either. I happen to enjoy Melanie Sanford’s attitude and research aesthetic and focus better than I do of Christina White’s. See the crazy picture someone posted below. It’s obnoxious.
Jesus fuck, I never meant that she deserves a Nobel prize like Scorse deserves more fucking Oscars than Sylvester Stalone, I meant that she’s the kind of ballsy fucking scientist that tend to get them and I wouldn’t be surprised if one day she did.
Some people need to take their Christina White hatred to a psychiatrist.
I wasn’t sure who MCW is, then I saw this…
exactly. If that doesn’t make you want to vomit, I’m not sure if anything will
Your pathological need to denigrate women maybe?
Looks like she took a lesson in photoshop from David Liu. SO WHAT. You can’t stand a little flair in a field where everyone looks more anonymous than an insurance salesman?
How am I denigrating women?I am talking about one specific person. I am not entirely sure Christina White is a woman anyway, so your point is invalid (see above picture.) Anyway, Flair isn’t the problem. It’s the pretentious nature in which she is doing it. Let me ask you, have you ever seen her give a talk? No matter how good her chemistry is that is enough alone to make you die of pretentious interludes and shameless narcissism.
As of today i can testify she’s an excellent speaker: rapid and enthusiastic, with satisfactory thanks to predecessors and students.
And Ben Cravatt is a big wuss.
I can’t stand flair…
She only has 15 pieces of flair….most professors have 37.
Are you counting the Governator and Chuck Norris in this count, as exemplified in that picture??
how about Brus or others for the colloidal synthesis techniques used to make nanoparticles?
Well… “transition metal cross coupling: Suzuki/Heck/Sonogashira” I think Negishi deserves it as much as those three guys. At least.
IF synthetic chemistry wins this year it will be either:
evans/stork/(seebach) “…for contributions to acyclic stereocontrol…”
trost/heck/suzuki “…for their expansion of palladium chemistry…”
very premature to consider white as a nobelist, especially when the erythro synthesis had one noteworthy step that while nice, is not earth shattering