This year’s Physiology or Medicine Nobel goes to two cancer researchers (and a contest)

October 1, 2018 • 8:15 am

Here’s the video announcing today’s Nobel Prize, awarded to James P. Allison, an American who works at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, and Tasuko Honjo, a Japanese immunologist at Kyoto University, for the discovery of ways to cöopt the human immune system to attack cancer cells.  (See announcement and press release here).

Here are the winners, and the long announcement is below:

James P. Allison
Tasuko Honjo

 

I thought that some CRISPR workers would win the prize this year, but I suppose that a.) it needs to be proven to work in humans given that the prize is for work relevant to our own species, and b.) there are several contenders, more than the three allowed to share a prize.

We’ll also have a contest, which is open until 5 a.m. tomorrow. Please post below your guesses for the winners in these TWO categories for 2018:

  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Literature NOTE: Literature prize not awarded this year.

The science prizes may be shared, but you will be counted as “correct” if you give a single winner in the group. But if you give an incorrect name among several winners, that won’t be counted as a correct answer.  The first person to get a correct answer in all three categories will win an autographed copy of my book (either trade book of your choice), with a Nobel cat drawn inside. Last year, as I recall, there were no winners. The literature category is always hard! However, that category is not being filled in 2018 because of a sexual assault scandal.

 

32 thoughts on “This year’s Physiology or Medicine Nobel goes to two cancer researchers (and a contest)”

  1. Because of a sexual harassment scandal, the Literature prize is not being awarded this year.

      1. Yeah, I was going to give that film a plug, too. Great performances by Glenn Close, in the title role, and Jonathan Pryce, as her Nobel-Prize-winning novelist husband, in the leads. And nice supporting turns by Christian Slater and Elizabeth McGovern (whom I hadn’t seen in a feature film in a while).

      1. It’s a swedish court, so – as I gather is not permissible in UK/US criminal court – witnesses are enough. The first press round claims the case (one of two from the same woman, and many more not considered) is well evidenced and well parsed. So while Arnault’s advocate has said they seek higher court, I guess the verdict will stand.

    2. Ah yes, Aspect and Zeilinger at least have been mentioned, after another series of extensions. (Latest using supernovas across the universe to provide the random numbers that are used to exclude hidden variables.)

  3. There is a lot of discussion now about how poor a method of recognizing scientific achievement the Nobels are. I mean by that, that people say it makes science too competitive, & only acknowledges up to three winners. See Robin McKie in yesterday’s Observer –
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/30/nobel-prize-fails-modern-science

    In the interest of full disclosure, I have a friend who works for the Nobel Foundation!

    Chemistry Jennifer Doudna & at least one other, surely they can do CRISPR for chemistry as well as ‘medicine’? One day she’ll be there…

    1. For a while, a good way to increase one’s chances for a Nobel were to do biochemistry; and a while before that to work on new elements.

      The former got a bunch of physiology or medicine *and* chemistry prizes; the latter got chemistry and physics.

    2. It’s a will, so it is a player on a market rather than a state invented method for something or other.

    3. Nevertheless, it is a way to recognize the contributions of a handful of scientists (quite deserving in most cases) and to popularize science.

  4. Hooray!

    … I heard that when CRISPR wins, the Nobel Prizes will be all over.

    Sorry, couldn’t help it.

  5. If there is any justice in the Universe (and there isn’t), Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier in Chemistry for CRISPR-Cas 9. Alan Guth in Physics for Cosmic Inflation. No Lit Prize this year.

    2. Jennifer Doudna for Chemistry, Michel Mayor for Physics.

      (I don’t think that inflation is firmly enough established for a Nobel.)

    3. I think Cosmic Inflation has not yet been proven as a fact, although it helps explain nicely the way the universe look today. I believe many people are working in this to show that it indeed did happen. If it’s true Guth deserves the prize.

  6. Chemistry: Michael Grätzel and Krzysztof Matyjaszewski

    Physics: Lene Hau and Alain Aspect

  7. Clever money says Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger for physics. They already got the Wolf Prize (for showing that quantum mechanics continues to be weirder than we can suppose) and that’s not a bad predictor.

  8. If John Goodenough never wins one, that’ll be a ridiculous oversight. So he’s my pick for Chemistry for inventing the battery that changed the world. He’s also a very sweet man.

  10. Since politics are a part of the Nobel landscape, I expect a woman to win one or both of the prizes. IMO, the most likely are Jennifer Doudna for chemistry and Lene Hau for physics.

    My picks are:
    Chemistry – Stanley Whittingham and John Goodenough
    Physics – Lene Hau

  11. Dame Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell. To correct a massive injustice. She won’t win though. One of the major flaws of the Nobels is that they won’t correct glaring mistakes.

  12. Looks like no one predicted any of the 3 Physics laureates – “for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics” with one half to Arthur Ashkin and the other half jointly to Gérard Mourou and Donna Strickland.

    https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/status/1047061973966512130

    Only the 3rd female laureate in Physics. Notable, given the CERN kerfuffle just yesterday.

Comments are closed.