

DNA genius and double Nobel Prize winner Fred Sanger dies aged 95 - yread
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/DNA-genius-and-double-Nobel-Prize-winner-Fred-Sanger-of-Cambridge-dies-aged-95-20131120113300.htm

======
arethuza
Some great stuff on his Wikipedia page:

\- "struggled with physics and mathematics" :-)

\- "He agreed to having the Centre named after him when asked by John Sulston,
the founding director, but warned, 'It had better be good.'"

\- "My father was a committed Quaker and I was brought up as a Quaker, and for
them truth is very important. I drifted away from those beliefs - one is
obviously looking for truth but one needs some evidence for it. Even if I
wanted to believe in God I would find it very difficult. I would need to see
proof."

\- 'He declined the offer of a knighthood as he did not wish to be addressed
as "Sir"'

\- "the most self-effacing person you could hope to meet"

I hope someone writes a good biography of him - I wonder if Andrew Hodges (who
wrote 'Alan Turing: The Enigma') could be persuaded....

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Sanger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Sanger)

------
jballanc
The early pioneers in genetics were all consummate hackers in the truest
sense. For much of the work they were doing, the had very little information
about the underlying processes to go on. The were, in effect, reverse
engineering life.

It's also worth noting that Sanger's sequencing method, or variations on it,
were still used decades later to produce the bulk of the human genome
sequence. Only very recently have newer, faster, alternative methods been
developed. Even so, Sanger sequencing is still used for smaller scale studies,
and is simple enough that almost any modern biology lab can do it on their own
(all you need is a thermocycler, some eppindorfs, a sequencing gel apparatus,
some photographic film, and all the raw chemicals).

~~~
bionerd
> The early pioneers in genetics were all consummate hackers in the truest
> sense. For much of the work they were doing, the had very little information
> about the underlying processes to go on.

Exactly! They only had the most basic tools (even primitive by today's
standards!) at their disposal and were still able to discover the most
profound and fascinating things about life at the molecular level. All that
using only a few simple techniques and a pure deductive logic.

It never ceases to amaze me how much hacker spirit these people had.

~~~
dekhn
When I first learned about molecular biology (late 80s, while in high school),
I immediately shifted my interest from just computers to computers and
biology. I specifically told people at the time: "studying molecular biology
is like being put in front of the world's largest and most complicated
computer and being told 'we have no manual, and do not know how it even works,
could you figure out by playing with it?'

It took many years for me to reconcile my hacker approach to life with the
reality of scientific funding and the rate of progress in human diseases.

~~~
bionerd
My story is very similar. After high school I went to study computer science
in college. Then, just before I got my bachelor's degree, I decided to apply
to a programme in molecular biology instead of further pursuing master's
degree in computer science.

Switching gears was the best decision of my life. I've never had so much fun
as I had while attending the introductory lectures in cell or molecular
biology. So many mind-blowing things I never would've imagine...

Now I'm hoping to get into a PhD programme in genetics. Can't wait to learn
about other amazing stuff waiting out there. :)

~~~
dnautics
I'm on the other side. I have a PhD in chemistry, can do molecular biology,
biochemistry - the wet parts, and I am on my last breath with science. Since I
can write computer software, (not too terribly disciplined, industrial-wise,
at this point, but I can learn), if my attempt to launch a nonprofit research
institute fails, I'm going to quit and go into the digital world.

Perhaps the grass is always greener, but I have strong words about what is
wrong with science, and if you want to know, feel free to contact me.

~~~
dnautics
here is a good start:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxZp5Peg8mg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxZp5Peg8mg)

~~~
bionerd
I'll watch this, thanks.

Well, I have to admit that, after spending the last three years as a basically
full-time intern in our lab, I have a bit of an idea how science is quite
broken. I've witnessed some of its problems first hand.

But I still want to do this, nevertheless. The area that I'd like to focus on
during my PhD (genomics/computational biology) is something I really believe
I'll have fun doing. On the other hand, it should still allow me to use much
of the stuff I'll learn there outside science (if it ever comes to this).

I'll definitely drop you a line later, I'd like to hear your thoughts about
this.

------
w1ntermute
For everyone reading this: if you are tired of making websites and iPhone apps
for people to share their cat photos, and want to do something more
consequential, consider going into computational genomics. Although Sanger
sequencing was/still is used sometimes, the "next-gen" sequencing methods that
have become centrally important over the last decade generate massive amounts
of data that require a lot of computational analysis, something that most
scientists in the field could use assistance with.

~~~
thearn4
It is kind of a sad commentary on the state of things when so many of the
brightest and creative minds of a generation are squandering the most
productive years of their life writing software to enhance marketing and
targeted advertising. And that these are efforts valued on the order of
hundreds of billions of dollars.

~~~
dnautics
the false assumption is that all effort in the sciences is not similarly
squandered. I assure you, most of it is. At least when you're making a better
platform for cat pictures, you are presumably giving someone what they want
and making their life marignally lighter. So much science is basically just
politically connected higher ups getting money thrown at them for pursuits
that if you stopped and thought about you would realize they were
not.even.worth.it, or, being chased after by the wrong researcher. And in the
process, the poor grad student (or postdoc) is having the best years of their
life ground down. In 97% of cases, I'd say the cat pictures are of better
social benefit.

------
amiramir
Many years after he'd left, I went to the same "high school" as Fred Sanger.
Our biology/science building was named after him. He visited the school every
so often and was a very modest and entertaining man. You can get a tiny sense
of him from this short video:
[https://www.bryanston.co.uk/podium/default.aspx?t=52562&a=47...](https://www.bryanston.co.uk/podium/default.aspx?t=52562&a=47671&play=1&rc=1)

------
spodek
According to Wikipedia, 835 Nobel Prizes have been awarded. Four people have
won two awards.

Winning a first prize is huge. Something like one in ten million people get
one.

But apparently winning a second one is easy -- better than one in a thousand
get them. The Curie family has six!

(I hope that came out slightly funny and informative)

~~~
gilgoomesh
Here's a tip: win the second one first, then work your way backwards to the
first one.

~~~
verandaguy
Computer scientists - who, of course, have a more thorough understanding of
recursion - should have little trouble with this.

~~~
nmc
Sadly, no Nobel Prize rewards computer scientists. You could check if the same
statistical fact can be established for the Turing medal.

------
oleganza
How come he is a DNA genius if he couldn't find an anti-age solution?

