
Nobel Prize in Chemistry Is Awarded to 3 Evolutionary Scientists - pg_bot
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/science/chemistry-nobel-prize.html
======
dannykwells
Very excited about this Nobel - it recognizes a practical but extremely useful
set of tools that are the backbone of modern therapeutic development, on one
hand (phage display) and have proven immensely useful to improving protein
design and engineering, on the other.

It's also great to see improved representation from the Nobels this year:
female winners in both chemistry and physics (where there have been
respectively, 5 and 4 previous winners, TOTAL, since the prize began) and for
both cases, (some) winners without "glamorous" science careers at rich private
universities with massive labs, high profiles, TED talks, etc.. Just great
scientists, doing their jobs. Hopefully more to come like these in the coming
years.

~~~
chrisbrandow
FWIW, it seems to me that Nobel prize winners are not typically on the TED
circuit. Though most do have large labs. That is usually indicative of the
fruitful research that leads to the Nobel prize later.

------
qubax
Could've just linked to the actual source.

[https://www.nobelprize.org](https://www.nobelprize.org)

[https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2018/press-
relea...](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2018/press-release)

------
tzs
This has not been a good Nobel year for Wikipedia.

First, yesterday, we find that Physics winner Donna Strickland did not have a
page. She had one four years ago briefly, but it had been quickly deleted on
notability grounds.

And now today we get a Chemistry winner, George P. Smith, who also did not
have a page--not even an old deleted page. His first page was created this
morning after the Prize was announced.

This also happened last year, also in Chemistry, with Jacques Dubochet.

~~~
hackinthebochs
I don't see what the problem is. Should every published scientist have a
wikipedia page? It's not obvious that they should, not every scientist is
notable to the general public. The fact that they received a Nobel doesn't
mean they were notable _before_ they received the Nobel.

~~~
pyb
> "The fact that they received a Nobel doesn't mean they were notable before
> they received the Nobel."

It does, pretty much by definition of a Nobel prize.

~~~
hackinthebochs
Notable in this context meaning notable to the general public. But wikipedia
isn't for original research, and so it needs some external institution to
validate notability to the general public. A Nobel prize is one such
mechanism.

~~~
twanvl
Wikipedia is not just for the general public, many pages go into a lot of
detail, and to people who understand the details of certain subfields of
chemistry, these people might be well-known. I'm not a chemist, so I wouldn't
know in this case.

------
nabla9
Frances Arnold received Millennium Technology Prize in 2016 (€1 million) and
Draper Prize in 2011 ($500,000). Both can be considered as "Nobel's for
Engineering".

------
dbcooper
They're never going to give it to John Goodenough. :(

~~~
beautifulfreak
Reuters publishes an annual list of its picks for the Nobel prize. Goodenough
was listed way back in 2015. I just hope his solid state battery turns out to
be viable.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarivate_Citation_Laureates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarivate_Citation_Laureates),
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13916255](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13916255)

~~~
radus
I also hope that his design will be good enough.

