Pavlov and the Nobel Prize Award

When Pavlov was first nominated for the Nobel Prize, he was well recognized by physiologists, especially those concerned with digestion. It appears unlikely that psychological interpretations of his conditional reflex findings had begun to penetrate deeply into the discipline of psychology. The selection in 1904 of Pavlov for the award in physiology or medicine attracted the attention of a broader range of scientists. American psychologists, in particular, probably became more aware of the advantages of incorporating his "objective" conditional reflex method into their investigations. General biographical aspects relating to the award and the effect of the award upon the acceptance of the conditional reflex method by American psychologists are developed in this presentation.     

I. P. Pavlov's teacher of physiology I. F. Tsion (1842-1912)]

In 1866, at the C. Ludwig's laboratory, E. F. Cyon discovered n. depressor, and after C. Bernard's presentation he was awarded with the Montion Prize of the Paris Academy of Sciences. In 1867, together with his brother M. Cyon, he discovered nn. accelerantes of heart, which increase the heart rate when being stimulated. From 1868 to 1874 he was a privatdocent an professor of physiology at Saint-Petersburg University, where under his guidance I.P. Pavlov mastered the brilliant technique of vivisection experiment and accomplished his first works on the physiology of circulation and digestion. From 1872 to 1874 E. F. Cyon was physiology professor at Saint-Petersburg Medical-Surgical Academy. He published "Course of Physiology" in 2 volumes, the official speech "Heart and Brain" and others, proposed an original theory of inhibition, improved the reflex theory. He published 197 works, including 151 in German and French. I. P. Pavlov paid a worthy tribute to his teacher and continued the main direction of his investigations.     

I. P. Pavlov--a Full Member (Academician) of Russian Academy of Sciences (100-years anniversary)

I. P. Pavlov, the great Russian physiologist, the founder of a leading scientific school of physiology, first Russian scientist to be awarded the Nobel Prize. Pavlov's work received wide international recognition. He was elected full or honorary member of more than 120 academies, scientific societies and universities. In 1907 he was elected a Full Member (Academician) of Russian Academy of Sciences and headed the Physiological Laboratory of the Academy. In 1925, at his petition, the Laboratory was transformed into the Physiological Institute, remaining his head until 1936, when he had died. Since 1950 this is the Pavlov Institute of Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.     

I. P. Pavlov and the development of neuroscience

Ivan Petrovitch Pavlov significantly changed and developed our knowledge of the brain functions and of the behaviour by his fundamental experimental and theoretical work on the physiology and pathophysiology of the higher nervous activity. He was one of the scientists who prepared the development of neuroscience in our century. During the Pavlovian Conference, 1950 in Moscow Stalin and the Communist Party tried to dogmatize his and his pupil's fundamental theories. But his pupils continued to develop Pavlovian ideas in open discussions with representatives of other schools in a very creative way, opening the doors for a system approach to understand the integrative functional systems of brain and behavior. Pavlov emphasized the high plasticity of the central nervous system. He investigated the complex functional systems within the brain and between the organism and its environment, and the designed models for pathology of the higher nervous activity. During his last years, Pavlov freed himself from the strong deterministic view and characterized the organism and its environment as a self-organizing system.     

Pavlov and the concept of association

I. P. Pavlov was profoundly influenced during his youth by the writings of D. I. Pisarev and I. M. Sechenov. Sechenov explained the voluntary act in terms of the formation of associations among sensory impressions and motor responses. Apparently under Pisarev's influence, Pavlov studied the physiology of the circulatory and digestive systems. In explaining the formation of the conditional reflex (CR), Pavlov rejected the Wundtian, anthropomorphic conceptualization of CR as suggested by A. T. Snarski?. However, using the objective CR method, the Pavlovians experimentally investigated the formation in the cortex of neural connections, which were equated with associations.     

Pavlov and the Rockefeller Foundation

Despite the tension between the United States and the Soviet Union in the early 1920's, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research found ways to assist I.P. Pavlov. In addition to providing scientific literature and financial aid, these institutions and their officers rendered important moral support to the scientific career of Pavlov during his later years. In 1923, as a guest of the Rockefeller Institute, Pavlov visited American scientific laboratories. In 1924, he requested and received a number of books on physiology, and during the 1930's the Foundation helped him to acquire equipment for his Leningrad laboratory.     

An historical-physiological analysis of the discussion between I. P. Pavlov and V. M. Bekhterev on the problems of localizing functions in the cerebral cortex

This article is the first of the domestic publications on physiology and medical history, which highlights the discussion between I. P. Pavlov and V. M. Bekhterev on the issue of localization of functions in human cerebral cortex: it provides information of the visit by I. P. Pavlov to the clinic of V. M. Bekhterev; it discusses the role of V. M. Bekhrerev's students who described the cortex zones of tonotopics, gustation, regulation of salivation and stomach secretion, which I. P. Pavlov denied. Unlike articles on factography and history of physiology, which in various ways praise the scientists, this article is based of the modern approaches of medical history and scientific knowledge, in particular, it provides a retrospective of the major facts of the discussion.     

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.     

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.     

人类辅助生殖技术研究的里程碑——2010年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖解读

试管婴儿技术是现代医学治疗不育症的人类辅助生殖技术之一．试管婴儿技术的发展,打破了人类繁衍的自然方式和过程,是生殖医学领域的一场革命,对生命医学的发展产生了重大影响．为此,在试管婴儿技术研究中做出开创性贡献的英国科学家罗伯特·爱德华兹,荣获2010年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖．     

The Nobel trail of Vincent du Vigneaud.

The Nobel Prize for chemistry of 1955 was awarded to Vincent du Vigneaud. After a brief outline of his career and accomplishments, some archive material related to this decision of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is presented. Other archive studies have shown that du Vigneaud was also considered for the corresponding prize in physiology or medicine.     

“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.     

I. P. Pavlov and K. Lorenz

In the thirtieth, the founder of ethology Austrian zoologist Konrad Lorenz put forward the new theory of behavior, which was met with considerable resistance of the dominant views on the mechanisms of behavior, including Pavlov's concept. From his first theoretical works and later on Lorenz debated with Pavlov. However, these debates were not reduced to a disagreement. He appreciated greatly the scientific contribution of Pavlov, and the ideas of the Russian physiologist were often the starting point of his own speculations. His polemics with Pavlov differed very much from his uncompromising controversies with behaviorists. When Lorenz compared Pavlov's views with behaviorism, he often preferred Pavlov's ideas. Lorenz also draw some parallels between the Pavlov's understanding of behavior and the ethological approach. Lorenz's discussion with Pavlov about the nature of conditioned reflex is of particular interest, since it stimulated Lorenz to develop the theory of this phenomenon.     

Physiology in Russia: state, problems

The issue of the content of physiology as science, its methods, directions of modern physiology, and its place in the system of life sciences is discussed. Structure of the system of regulations, the role of endocrine system and autacoids in particular, and physiological significance of homeostasis are analyzed in detail. Problems are considered concerning the applied significance of physiology, interaction of universities and research institutions, organization ofphysiological studies in Russia. Data on members in the regional divisions of Pavlov Physiological Society are presented.     

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 Patapoutian 在感知温度与触觉受体的发现上做出的深远而广泛的贡献. 对于听觉研究而言,虽然早在1961年就获得诺贝尔奖,但是听觉受体的研究仍然不足. 本文着重对无脊椎动物触觉及听觉受体NOMPC、哺乳动物听觉受体TMC的发现及研究进程进行详细介绍,并对未来感知觉领域的发展提供建议.     

Are Statistical Contributions to Medicine Undervalued?

Econometricians Daniel McFadden and James Heckman won the 2000 Nobel Prize in economics for their work on discrete choice models and selection bias. Statisticians and epidemiologists have made similar contributions to medicine with their work on case-control studies, analysis of incomplete data, and causal inference. In spite of repeated nominations of such eminent figures as Bradford Hill and Richard Doll, however, the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine has never been awarded for work in biostatistics or epidemiology. (The "exception who proves the rule" is Ronald Ross, who, in 1902, won the second medical Nobel for his discovery that the mosquito was the vector for malaria. Ross then went on to develop the mathematics of epidemic theory--which he considered his most important scientific contribution-and applied his insights to malaria control programs.) The low esteem accorded epidemiology and biostatistics in some medical circles, and increasingly among the public, correlates highly with the contradictory results from observational studies that are displayed so prominently in the lay press. In spite of its demonstrated efficacy in saving lives, the "black box" approach of risk factor epidemiology is not well respected. To correct these unfortunate perceptions, statisticians would do well to follow more closely their own teachings: conduct larger, fewer studies designed to test specific hypotheses, follow strict protocols for study design and analysis, better integrate statistical findings with those from the laboratory, and exercise greater caution in promoting apparently positive results.     

A Report of the James Watson Lecture at Yale University

In March 2012, Nobel Prize winner James Watson gave a seminar at Yale University entitled “Driven by Ideas.” In his lecture, Watson discussed his personal vision for the future of science, specifically addressing how the scientific community should approach developing anticancer agents. He discussed the use of glycolytic inhibitors as anticancer agents due to the Warburg effect, as well as the benefits of metformin and anti-inflammatory drugs to help prevent cancer. He also compared drugs that target cell proliferation instead of targeting cell growth. Additionally, Watson commented on the mechanisms for how research should be conducted in the laboratory.     

To err and win a nobel prize: Paul Boyer,ATP synthase and the emergence of bioenergetics

Paul Boyer shared a Nobel Prize in1997 for his work on the mechanism of ATPsynthase. His earlier work, though (whichcontributed indirectly to his triumph),included major errors, both experimental andtheoretical. Two benchmark cases offer insightinto how scientists err and how they deal witherror. Boyer's work also parallels andillustrates the emergence of bioenergetics inthe second half of the twentieth century,rivaling achievements in evolution andmolecular biology. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The Claude Bernard Distinguished Lecture. In pursuit of meaningful learning

The Bernard Distinguished Lecturers are individuals who have a history of experience and expertise in teaching that impacts multiple levels of health science education. Dr. Joel Michael more than meets these criteria. Joel earned a BS in biology from CalTech and a PhD in physiology from MIT following which he vigorously pursued his fascination with the mammalian central nervous system under continuous National Institutes of Health funding for a 15-yr period. At the same time, he became increasingly involved in teaching physiology, with the computer being his bridge between laboratory science and classroom teaching. Soon after incorporating computers into his laboratory, he began developing computer-based learning resources for his students. Observing students using these resources to solve problems led to an interest in the learning process itself. This in turn led to a research and development program, funded by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), that applied artificial intelligence to develop smart computer tutors. The impact of problem solving on student learning became the defining theme of National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported research in health science education that gradually moved all of Dr. Michael's academic efforts from neurophysiology to physiology education by the early 1980's. More recently, Joel has been instrumental in developing and maintaining the Physiology Education Research Consortium, a group of physiology teachers from around the nation who collaborate on diverse projects designed to enhance learning of the life sciences. In addition to research in education and learning science, Dr. Michael has devoted much of his time to helping physiology teachers adopt modern approaches to helping students learn. He has organized and presented faculty development workshops at many national and international venues. The topics for these workshops have included computer-based education, active learning, problem-based learning, and the use of general models in teaching physiology.     

Pavlov, psychoanalysis, and neuroses

Pavlov's discovery of experiment neurosis was serendipitous, yet it was made under the influence of Breuer and Freud's case of Anna O. In 1914, Pavlov's disciple N. R. Shenger-Krestovnikova, exploring the limits of visual discrimination in dogs, noticed that when the discrimination was difficult, the dogs' behavior became disorganized. Pavlov drew an analogy between the condition of Shenger-Krestovnikova's dogs and their disorganized behavior with Anna O.'s situation and her neurotic reaction. Pavlov concluded that he had demonstrated in the laboratory the elements of neurosis in animals and human alike. Schilder's criticism of his position, his later study of human neuroses in clinical settings, and the views of Janet may have induced Pavlov to differentiate between animal and human neuroses.