hypervalent_iodine Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2014/ "Eric Betzig, Stefan W. Hell and William E. Moerner "for the development of super-resolved fluorescence microscopy". I don't know I'd call that chemistry, but congratulations nonetheless! http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2014/advanced-chemistryprize2014.pdf
hypervalent_iodine Posted October 8, 2014 Author Posted October 8, 2014 More like I'm secretly glad it wasn't given to a biologist for the 5th time in the last ten years. 2
timo Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 It's funny that yesterday my though was "if they give the Nobel prize for blue LEDs they could as well have awarded it for STED".
CharonY Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) More like I'm secretly glad it wasn't given to a biologist for the 5th time in the last ten years. To be fair, there is not even a prize for biology. We do have to poach what we can, just as in real life (although were there so many biologists? I thought they were biochemists, the bastard children that no one really loves). Edited October 8, 2014 by CharonY
mississippichem Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 To be fair, there is not even a prize for biology. We do have to poach what we can, just as in real life (although were there so many biologists? I thought they were biochemists, the bastard children that no one really loves). I always thought it strange that there was a prize for medicine and not for biology. Especially when many see physics, chemistry, and biology as "the big three" from which other sciences are derived.
hypervalent_iodine Posted October 9, 2014 Author Posted October 9, 2014 To be fair, there is not even a prize for biology. We do have to poach what we can, just as in real life (although were there so many biologists? I thought they were biochemists, the bastard children that no one really loves).I've always thrown them in the biology basket myself, but that's only because almost all of the biochemists I've ever met have baulked at the very sight of a periodic table. From memory, the last 10 years have been for GFP, metathesis, ribosomes, some kind of cell related thing, quasicrystals, palladium chemistry, another biology one from 2004 that I forget, something about surface chemistry, GPCR's, whatever it was last year (it was for something that was actually chemistry) and now this. So, 4/11 were for actual chemistry and the rest were biology, physics and whatever the heck quasicrystals are.
CharonY Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Well, I throw them in the chemistry bin because they know next to nothing about cellular complexity or physiology or typically the function of more than a handful of molecules outside of a tube. Hence the bastard children comment (though one should add that most biochem groups are part of chemistry departments, so they are all yours. Keep them). Edited October 9, 2014 by CharonY
Fuzzwood Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Inb4 my science field is the best because I work in it-war.
CharonY Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Actually it is the no-one likes biochemists (despite being useful chaps) game. You know, the last kid to choose for dodgeball. I would feel sorry for them, if they did not get all the funding for the molecular biology area. Also, I have earned the right to mock them, as I have worked in Chem&Biochem departments for quite a while. Edited October 9, 2014 by CharonY
Recommended Posts