Who was... Emil von Behring?

Emil von Behring was first in the line of distinguished immunologists to win the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine. His contributions to our knowledge of immunity ignited an impassioned argument between French and German scientists at the end of the 19th century, the first of many scientific debates in the immunological world.     

Julius Wagner-Jauregg and the Legacy of Malarial Therapy for the Treatment of General Paresis of the Insane

Julius Wagner-Jauregg, a preeminent Austrian psychiatrist was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1927 for the development of malaria therapy for the treatment of neurosyphilis, or general paresis of the insane. Despite being only one of three psychiatrists to win a Nobel Prize, he has faded from public consciousness and his name recognition pales in comparison to his contemporary and fellow Austrian, Sigmund Freud. This paper explores his contributions to the field of biological psychiatry and also touches upon reasons, such as the growing bioethics movement, his controversial affiliation with the Nazi Party, and the evolution of neurosyphilis, that explain why Wagner-Jauregg is not more widely celebrated for his contributions to the field of psychiatry, even though his malarial treatment could be considered the earliest triumph of biological psychiatry over psychoanalysis.     

Pavlov and integrative physiology

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov was the first physiologist to win the Nobel Prize. The Prize was given in 1904 for his research on the neural control of salivary, gastric, and pancreatic secretion. A major reason for the success and novelty of his research was the use of unanesthetized dogs surgically prepared with chronic fistulas or gastric pouches that permitted repeated experiments in the same animal for months. Pavlov invented this chronic method because of the limitations he perceived in the use of acute anesthetized animals for investigating physiological systems. By introducing the chronic method and by showing its experimental advantages, Pavlov founded modern integrative physiology. This paper reviews Pavlov's journey from his birthplace in a provincial village in Russia to Stockholm to receive the Prize. It begins with childhood influences, describes his training and mentors, summarizes the major points of his research by reviewing his book Lectures on the Work of the Digestive Glands, and discusses his views on the relationship between physiology and medicine.     

From Basic Research to Molecular Breeding——Chinese Scientists Play A Central Role in Boosting World Rice Production

On November 18, 2018, the Future Science Prize Awarding Ceremony was held in Beijing. In the area of life science, Professors Jiayang Li, Longping Yuan, and Qifa Zhang shared the prize for their pioneering contributions in producing high-yield, superior-quality rice through systematic study of molecular mechanisms associated with speci?c rice features and application of novel approaches in rice breeding. The Future Science Prize is also touted as ‘‘China's Nobel Prize", fully af?rming their achievements in rice basic research and breeding.     

The Nobel Prize as a Reward Mechanism in the Genomics Era: Anonymous Researchers,Visible Managers and the Ethics of Excellence

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is regarded by many as one of the major scientific achievements in recent science history, a large-scale endeavour that is changing the way in which biomedical research is done and expected, moreover, to yield considerable benefit for society. Thus, since the completion of the human genome sequencing effort, a debate has emerged over the question whether this effort merits to be awarded a Nobel Prize and if so, who should be the one(s) to receive it, as (according to current procedures) no more than three individuals can be selected. In this article, the HGP is taken as a case study to consider the ethical question to what extent it is still possible, in an era of big science, of large-scale consortia and global team work, to acknowledge and reward individual contributions to important breakthroughs in biomedical fields. Is it still viable to single out individuals for their decisive contributions in order to reward them in a fair and convincing way? Whereas the concept of the Nobel prize as such seems to reflect an archetypical view of scientists as solitary researchers who, at a certain point in their careers, make their one decisive discovery, this vision has proven to be problematic from the very outset. Already during the first decade of the Nobel era, Ivan Pavlov was denied the Prize several times before finally receiving it, on the basis of the argument that he had been active as a research manager (a designer and supervisor of research projects) rather than as a researcher himself. The question then is whether, in the case of the HGP, a research effort that involved the contributions of hundreds or even thousands of researchers worldwide, it is still possible to “individualise” the Prize? The “HGP Nobel Prize problem” is regarded as an exemplary issue in current research ethics, highlighting a number of quandaries and trends involved in contemporary life science research practices more broadly.     

科学史视角下的“基因工程”课程思政探索与实践

课程思政是新时期高校思想政治教育的重要途径之一。科学史记载了科学知识从产生到持续发展的过程,蕴含着丰富的育人价值,能够为专业课的课程思政教学提供新的视角和思路。本文从科学史丰富的育人价值中选择科学精神、科学思维、科学兴趣和科学伦理4个方面的素材;依托"基因工程"课程内容,对有关诺贝尔奖的科学史进行梳理;然后,以4个方面的素材为育人载体,深挖其中蕴含的思政元素,通过实施课程思政教学,帮助学生达成课程思政目标;最后,综合运用问卷和深度访谈相结合的方式评价教学效果。借此引领学生树立正确的价值观,提高思想政治水平,以期为生物学专业的课程思政体系建设提供参考。     

Women and telomeres

Last year''s Nobel Prizes for Carol Greider and Elizabeth Blackburn should be encouraging for all female scientists with childrenCarol Greider, a molecular biologist at Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD, USA), recalled that when she received a phone call from the Nobel Foundation early in October last year, she was staring down a large pile of laundry. The caller informed her that she had won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with Elizabeth Blackburn, her mentor and co-discoverer of the enzyme telomerase, and Jack Szostak. The Prize was not only the ultimate reward for her own achievements, but it also highlighted a research field in biology that, unlike most others, is renowned for attracting a significant number of women.Indeed, the 2009 awards stood out in particular, as five women received Nobel prizes. In addition to the Prize for Greider and Blackburn, Ada E. Yonath received one in chemistry, Elinor Ostrom became the first female Prize-winner in economics, and Herta Müller won for literature (Fig 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1The 2009 Nobel Laureates assembled for a photo during their visit to the Nobel Foundation on 12 December 2009. Back row, left to right: Nobel Laureates in Chemistry Ada E. Yonath and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine Jack W. Szostak and Carol W. Greider, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Thomas A. Steitz, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine Elizabeth H. Blackburn, and Nobel Laureate in Physics George E. Smith. Front row, left to right: Nobel Laureate in Physics Willard S. Boyle, Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Laureate in Literature Herta Müller, and Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences Oliver E. Williamson. © The Nobel Foundation 2009. Photo: Orasis.Greider, the daughter of scientists, has overcome many obstacles during her career. She had dyslexia that placed her in remedial classes; “I thought I was stupid,” she told The New York Times (Dreifus, 2009). Yet, by far the biggest challenge she has tackled is being a woman with children in a man''s world. When she attended a press conference at Johns Hopkins to announce the Prize, she brought her children Gwendolyn and Charles with her (Fig 2). “How many men have won the Nobel in the last few years, and they have kids the same age as mine, and their kids aren''t in the picture? That''s a big difference, right? And that makes a statement,” she said.The Prize […] highlighted a research field in biology that, unlike most others, is renowned for attracting a significant number of womenOpen in a separate windowFigure 2Mother, scientist and Nobel Prize-winner: Carol Greider is greeted by her lab and her children. © Johns Hopkins Medicine 2009. Photo: Keith Weller.Marie Curie (1867–1934), the Polish–French physicist and chemist, was the first woman to win the Prize in 1903 for physics, together with her husband Pierre, and again for chemistry in 1911—the only woman to twice achieve such recognition. Curie''s daughter Irène Joliot-Curie (1897–1956), a French chemist, also won the Prize with her husband Frédéric in 1935. Since Curie''s 1911 prize, 347 Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine and Chemistry (the fields in which biologists are recognized) have been awarded, but only 14—just 4%—have gone to women, with 9 of these awarded since 1979. That is a far cry from women holding up half the sky.Yet, despite the dominance of men in biology and the other natural sciences, telomere research has a reputation as a field dominated by women. Daniela Rhodes, a structural biologist and senior scientist at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (Cambridge, UK) recalls joining the field in 1993. “When I went to my first meeting, my world changed because I was used to being one of the few female speakers,” she said. “Most of the speakers there were female.” She estimated that 80% of the speakers at meetings at Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory in those early days were women, while the ratio in the audience was more balanced.Since Curie''s 1911 prize, 347 Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine and Chemistry […] have been awarded, but only 14—just 4%—have gone to women…“There''s nothing particularly interesting about telomeres to women,” Rhodes explained. “[The] field covers some people like me who do structural biology, to cell biology, to people interested in cancers […] It could be any other field in biology. I think it''s [a result of] having women start it and [including] other women.” Greider comes to a similar conclusion: “I really see it as a founder effect. It started with Joe Gall [who originally recruited Blackburn to work in his lab].”Gall, a cell biologist, […] welcomed women to his lab at a time when the overall situation for women in science was “reasonably glum”…Gall, a cell biologist, earned a reputation for being gender neutral while working at Yale University in the 1950s and 1960s; he welcomed women to his lab at a time when the overall situation for women in science was “reasonably glum,” as he put it. “It wasn''t that women were not accepted into PhD programs. It''s just that the opportunities for them afterwards were pretty slim,” he explained.“Very early on he was very supportive to a number of women who went on and then had their own labs and […] many of those women [went] out in the world [to] train other women,” Greider commented. “A whole tree that then grows up that in the end there are many more women in that particular field simply because of that historical event.Thomas Cech, who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1989 and who worked in Gall''s lab with Blackburn, agreed: “In biochemistry and metabolism, we talk about positive feedback loops. This was a positive feedback loop. Joe Gall''s lab at Yale was an environment that was free of bias against women, and it was scientifically supportive.”Gall, now 81 and working at the Carnegie Institution of Washington (Baltimore, MD, USA), is somewhat dismissive about his positive role. “It never occurred to me that I was doing anything unusual. It literally, really did not. And it''s only been in the last 10 or 20 years that anyone made much of it,” he said. “If you look back, […] my laboratory [was] very close to [half] men and [half] women.”During the 1970s and 1980s; “[w]hen I entered graduate school,” Greider recalled, “it was a time when the number of graduate students [who] were women was about 50%. And it wasn''t unusual at all.” What has changed, though, is the number of women choosing to pursue a scientific career further. According to the US National Science Foundation (Arlington, VA, USA), women received 51.8% of doctorates in the life sciences in 2006, compared with 43.8% in 1996, 34.6% in 1986, 20.7% in 1976 and 11.9% in 1966 (www.nsf.gov/statistics).In fact, Gall suspects that biology tends to attract more women than the other sciences. “I think if you look in biology departments that you would find a higher percentage [of women] than you would in physics and chemistry,” he said. “I think […] it''s hard to dissociate societal effects from specific effects, but probably fewer women are inclined to go into chemistry [or] physics. Certainly, there is no lack of women going into biology.” However, the representation of women falls off at each level, from postdoc to assistant professor and tenured professor. Cech estimated that only about 20% of the biology faculty in the USA are women.“[It] is a leaky pipeline,” Greider explained. “People exit the system. Women exit at a much higher proportion than do men. I don''t see it as a [supply] pipeline issue at all, getting the trainees in, because for 25 years there have been a great number of women trainees.“We all thought that with civil rights and affirmative action you''d open the doors and women would come in and everything would just follow. And it turned out that was not true.”Nancy Hopkins, a molecular biologist and long-time advocate on issues affecting women faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA, USA), said that the situation in the USA has improved because of civil rights laws and affirmative action. “I was hired—almost every woman of my generation was hired—as a result of affirmative action. Without it, there wouldn''t have been any women on the faculty,” she said, but added that: “We all thought that with civil rights and affirmative action you''d open the doors and women would come in and everything would just follow. And it turned out that was not true.”Indeed, in a speech at an academic conference in 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers said that innate differences between males and females might be one reason why fewer women than men succeeded in science and mathematics. The economist, who served as Secretary of Treasury under President William Clinton, told The Boston Globe that “[r]esearch in behavioural genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren''t [due to socialization after all]” (Bombardieri, 2005).Some attendees of the meeting were angered by Summers''s remarks that women do not have the same ‘innate ability'' as men in some fields. Hopkins said she left the meeting as a protest and in “a state of shock and rage”. “It isn''t a question of political correctness, it''s about making unscientific, unfounded and damaging comments. It''s what discrimination is,” she said, adding that Summers''s views reflect the problems women face in moving up the ladder in academia. “To have the president of Harvard say that the second most important reason for their not being equal was really their intrinsic genetic inferiority is so shocking that no matter how many times I think back to his comments, I''m still shocked. These women were not asking to be considered better or special. They were just asking to have their gender be invisible.”Nonetheless, women are making inroads into academia, despite lingering prejudice and discrimination. One field of biology that counts a relatively high number of successful women among its upper ranks is developmental biology. Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, for example, is Director of the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen, Germany, and won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1995 for her work on the development of Drosophila embryos. She estimated that about 30% of speakers at conferences in her field are women.…for many women, the recent Nobel Prize for Greider […] and Blackburn […] therefore comes as much needed reassurance that it is possible to combine family life and a career in scienceHowever, she also noted that women have never been the majority in her own lab owing to the social constraints of German society. She explained that in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, family issues pose barriers for many women who want to have children and advance professionally because the pressure for women to not use day care is extremely strong. As such, “[w]omen want to stay home because they want to be an ideal mother, and then at the same time they want to go to work and do an ideal job and somehow this is really very difficult,” she said. “I don''t know a single case where the husband stays at home and takes care of the kids and the household. This doesn''t happen. So women are now in an unequal situation because if they want to do the job, they cannot; they don''t have a chance to find someone to do the work for them. […] The wives need wives.” In response to this situation, Nüsslein-Volhard has established the CNV Foundation to financially support young women scientists with children in Germany, to help pay for assistance with household chores and child care.Rhodes, an Italian native who grew up in Sweden, agreed with Nüsslein-Volhard''s assessment of the situation for many European female scientists with children. “Some European countries are very old-fashioned. If you look at the Protestant countries like Holland, women still do not really go out and have a career. It tends to be the man,” she said. “What I find depressing is [that in] a country like Sweden where I grew up, which is a very liberated country, there has been equality between men and women for a couple of generations, and if you look at the percentage of female professors at the universities, it''s still only 10%.” In fact, studies both from Europe and the USA show that academic science is not a welcoming environment for women with children; less so than for childless women and fathers, who are more likely to succeed in academic research (Ledin et al, 2007; Martinez et al, 2007).For Hopkins, her divorce at the age of 30 made a choice between children or a career unavoidable. Offered a position at MIT, she recalled that she very deliberately chose science. She said that she thought to herself: “Okay, I''m going to take the job, not have children and not even get married again because I couldn''t imagine combining that career with any kind of decent family life.” As such, for many women, the recent Nobel Prize for Greider, who raised two children, and Blackburn (Fig 3), who raised one, therefore comes as much needed reassurance that it is possible to combine family life and a career in science. Hopkins said the appearance of Greider and her children at the press conference sent “the message to young women that they can do it, even though very few women in my generation could do it. The ways in which some women are managing to do it are going to become the role models for the women who follow them.”Open in a separate windowFigure 3Elizabeth Blackburn greets colleagues and the media at a reception held in Genentech Hall at UCSF Mission Bay to celebrate her award of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. © University of California, San Francisco 2009. Photo: Susan Merrell.     

Advances in the study of structure and function of G protein-coupled receptors (about awarding the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2012 to Robert Lefkowitz and Brian Kobilka)

The 2012 Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Robert Lefkowitz and Brian Kobilka “for study in G-protein-coupled receptors” (GPCR). In this review there are discussed and analyzed the most important discoveries of these Nobel Laureates dealing with study of structure and functions of GPCR. In the 1980s they were the first in the world to clone GPCR-the β₂-adrenergic receptor. After 20 years the group headed by B. Kobilka first obtained this receptor in the crystallic form and established its three-dimensional structure. In the course of the studies, unique approaches were developed for purifications and crystallization of other receptors. In the 1980s, R. Lefkowitz and his colleagues discovered proteins β-arrestins that regulate the signal transduction realized via GPCR. Subsequently they showed β-arrestins to be the most important participants of signal transduction and to be responsible for transduction of signal from the receptor activated with hormone to intracellular signal cascades regardless of heterotrimeric G-proteins. These and other outstanding discoveries of R. Lefkowitz and B. Kobilka have become the ground of the new field of molecular biology and pharmacology-molecular endocrinology of GPCR.     

Lessons from a great developmental biologist

The announcement that Sir John Gurdon had been awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology was received with great joy by developmental biologists. It was a very special occasion because of his total dedication to science and turning the Golden Rule of western civilization – love your neighbor as yourself – into a reality in our field. This essay attempts to explain how John became such a great scientific benefactor, and to review some of his discoveries that are less well known than the nuclear transplantation experiments. A few personal anecdotes are also included to illustrate the profound goodness of this unique man of science.     

“Enmity Rather Than a Competition”

The sorts of great minds capable of major scientific breakthroughs often come with oversized and confrontational personalities. Both Ivan Pavlov and Vladimir Bekhterev had such personalities. What started as reasoned contention between two talented scholars grew into a heated rivalry that boiled over into science and public life as outright enmity. Using memoirs of their contemporaries, this article examines Pavlov's and Bekhterev's personal and scientific relationships against the backdrop of Russian science of their day. Pavlov's possible role in the decision not to grant the 1912 Nobel Prize for science is also described.     

The first water channel protein (later called aquaporin 1) was first discovered in Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

This invited review briefly outlines the importance of membrane water permeability, highlights the landmarks leading to the discovery of water channels. After a decade of systematic studies on water channels in human RBC Benga's group discovered in 1985 the presence and location of the water channel protein among the polypeptides migrating in the region of 35-60 kDa on the electrophoretogram of RBC membrane proteins. The work was extended and reviewed in several articles. In 1988, Agre and coworkers isolated a new protein from the RBC membrane, nick-named CHIP28 (channel-forming integral membrane protein of 28 kDa). However, in addition to the 28 kDa component, this protein had a 35-60 kDa glycosylated component, the one detected by the Benga's group. Only in 1992 Agre's group suggested that "it is likely that CHIP28 is a functional unit of membrane water channels". Half of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Peter Agre (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA) "for the discovery of water channels", actually the first water channel protein from the human red blood cell (RBC) membrane, known today as aquaporin 1 (AQP1). The seminal contributions from 1986 of the Benga's group were grossly overlooked by Peter Agre and by the Nobel Prize Committee. Thousands of science-related professionals from hundreds of academic and research units, as well as participants in several international scientific events, have signed as supporters of Benga; his priority is also mentioned in several comments on the 2003 Nobel Prize.     

The aging of biomedical research in the United States

In the past 30 years, the average age of biomedical researchers has steadily increased. The average age of an investigator at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) rose from 39 to 51 between 1980 and 2008. The aging of the biomedical workforce was even more apparent when looking at first-time NIH grantees. The average age of a new investigator was 42 in 2008, compared to 36 in 1980. To determine if the rising barriers at NIH for entry in biomedical research might impact innovative ideas and research, we analyzed the research and publications of Nobel Prize winners from 1980 to 2010 to assess the age at which their pioneering research occurred. We established that in the 30-year period, 96 scientists won the Nobel Prize in medicine or chemistry for work related to biomedicine, and that their groundbreaking research was conducted at an average age of 41-one year younger than the average age of a new investigator at NIH. Furthermore, 78% of the Nobel Prize winners conducted their research before the age of 51, the average age of an NIH principal investigator. This suggested that limited access to NIH might inhibit research potential and novel projects, and could impact biomedicine and the next generation scientists in the United States.     

Robert Koch: the grandfather of cloning?

This year marks the centenary of Robert Koch's Nobel Prize for discovering the cause of tuberculosis. Koch was also the first scientist to isolate the anthrax and cholera microbes. Yet perhaps one of his greatest contributions to biology is the least appreciated: his method for propagating individual colonies of bacteria on plates, a technique that came to be called cloning.     

触觉受体NOMPC及听觉受体TMC的发现

人类感觉包括:视觉、听觉、嗅觉、味觉、触觉,还有温觉、痛觉等.生物体是如何感知物理世界的问题一直吸引着人类,虽然在不同感知觉受体的发现及研究过程中不断取得新的突破性进展,但是对这些感知觉基础生物学层面的理解仍然有限.2021年度诺贝尔生理学或医学奖授予感知觉研究领域,以表彰David Julius和Ardem Pata...     

The Nobel Prize laureate - father of anaphylaxis Charles-Robert Richet (1850-1935) and his anticancerous serum

Professor of physiology Charles-Robert Richet, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1913, is best known for his work on anaphylaxis. However, with his collaborator Jules Héricourt studied the effects of antibody treatment and made the very first attempts to fight cancer with serotherapy. Being versatile, Richet contributed in neurology, psychology and was also a poet, playwrighter, pacifist and pioneer in aviation.     

Ion channels go to Stockholm--this time as proteins

The 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to two structural biologists, Roderick Mackinnon of Rockefeller University and Peter Agre of Johns Hopkins University, for their groundbreaking work on the structure and function of ion channels. In recognition of the outstanding impact that MacKinnon's work has had for neuroscience, Chris Miller traces MacKinnon's scientific path to the Nobel Prize.     

The quest for industrial enzymes from microorganisms†

Satoshi ōmura, Professor Emeritus at Kitasato University, was awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery of a substance of tremendous value to mankind from a microorganism. As a researcher who regularly deals with enzymes produced by microorganisms and a person engaged in microorganism-based business, Professor ōmura’s Nobel Prize fills me with great pride and joy. It is perhaps not surprising that this Nobel Prize-winning research would emerge from Asia, specifically Japan, where people live in harmony with nature rather than try to conquer it. At Amano Enzyme Inc., we devote ourselves to searching for novel enzymes from microorganisms. While incorporating my own experiences, I will recount the stories of a few discoveries of valuable enzyme-producing microbes in soil and bacterial strain libraries. I will also briefly introduce microbial strain library construction as a tool for facilitating the identification of the desired producing bacteria.     

An interview with...Patricia Jacobs

The 2011 March of Dimes Prize in Developmental Biology has been jointly awarded to Patricia Jacobs, of Southampton University Medical School and the Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, and to David Page, of the Whitehead Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, for their pioneering research on the X and Y chromosomes. The prize recognizes researchers whose work has contributed to our understanding of the science that underlies birth defects. We talked to the winners about their achievements and the impact these have had on human health. This month's interview is with Patricia Jacobs, who spoke to Louisa Flintoft. The interview with David Page will appear in our July issue.     

2015年中国植物科学若干领域重要研究进展

2015年中国植物科学研究处于飞速发展的态势, 主要表现在中国植物生命科学家在国际顶级学术刊物发表文章的数量呈现出明显的优势。中国科学家在植物学诸多领域取得了骄人的成果, 如高等植物PSI与捕光天线的超分子复合物晶体结构的解析、水稻感知和耐受寒害机制、乙烯信号转导分子机制研究等。2015年中国生命科学领域十大进展中, 植物科学领域有两项成果入选。值得一提的是, 中国本土科学家因青蒿素的发现与抗疟疾药物新疗法的开创首次获得自然科学领域的诺贝尔奖, 标志着中国植物化学和中药学对人类健康事业的巨大贡献受到国际高度关注, 也标志着中国科学家围绕国家重大需求开展科学技术问题研究模式的有效性和影响力。中国植物科学从跟踪、并行, 逐渐迈入领跑学科发展的方阵。该文对2015年中国本土植物科学若干领域取得的重要研究成果进行了概括性评述, 旨在全面追踪当前中国植物科学领域发展的最新前沿和热点事件, 并与国内读者分享我国科学家所取得的杰出成就。