

The 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine - subsystem
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/press.html

======
apl
Worthy choice, especially Suedhof. His work is a seminal contribution to our
understanding of one of the most basic principles governing information
processing in virtually all nervous systems: the chemical transmission of a
signal from one neurone to the other.

His review "The Synaptic Vesicle Cycle"[1] in Annual Reviews offers a somewhat
accessible look at the critical bits.

[1] Use scholar.google.com if you want to find "liberated" PDFs.

------
timr
Note the dates that all of these US scientists started their careers -- all
began their first non-training jobs in the mid-to-late 1970s. This batch of
winners is amongst the last generation of US scientists to have stable
scientific funding.

Starting in the early 1980s, the US began to play political games with
research budgets, and since then it's been feast or famine. Whole generations
of trainees have been doomed to underemployment, faculty positions have
disappeared, and a career in academic science has gone from a feasible choice
for smart college students, to a long-shot on par with becoming a professional
athlete.

This batch of winners is a reminder that in a decade or two, we'll be
wondering why the US doesn't win Nobel prizes anymore.

~~~
GuiA
Who do you think will be winning them?

------
sandipc
The prize for Schekman and Rothman has been a long time coming - well
deserved! For anyone unfamiliar, worth reading their groundbreaking Cell
papers from the early 1980s. (or look at any cell biology textbook!)

------
jermaink
More: [http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/october/sudhof-nobel-
priz...](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/october/sudhof-nobel-
prize-100713.html)

------
X4
Leaves a dull taste to hear that a once prestigious prices has lost all of
it's meaning. When people like Obama [1] win a Nobel Prize and Putin [1] get's
suggested for another.

\--

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize)

[2] [http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-
east/1.550147](http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.550147)

~~~
glormph
Anyone can 'suggest' people for a peace prize. The peace prize != the medicine
prize.

Also, it's just a (prestigious) prize. Keep doing science, don't think about
it. And for god's sake, don't come up with science policies that 'will make
our country win more Nobel prizes'.

~~~
X4
You don't say it, but I guess you mean it. The time politics and policies come
into play things start going the wrong way. See "TED" [1] for example.

[1] [http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-02-29/why-im-fed-
up...](http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-02-29/why-im-fed-up-with-
tedbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice)

~~~
glormph
I think I meant that while the prize is a great appreciation of a scientist's
work, it is not like a gold medal in a sports competition. There is usually no
way of knowing how to get one beforehand, and they don't always go to fields
that have received special attention from governments.

'More Nobel prizes to our country' is therefore hard to accomplish by
politicians (and sounds populistic). Instead of using the Nobel prize as a
rhetorical tool, politicians would probably do better to foster good science
in general. Keep universities healthy, leave the policy making to scientists
instead of pointing out areas that are going to get increased funding. Make
sure scientists can investigate whatever they find interesting based on
scientific quality of a proposal/track record. Maybe do keep a check on
scientific nepotism et al.

Both being a scientist and defining a proper science policy are hard though.

