The discovery is beyond doubt deserving of the award. It was also awarded only 8 years after the publication.
It's a bit sad though that Virginijus Šikšnys didn't get any credit for the discovery, because his paper sent over a month earlier was rejected by Cell.
> Similar findings were also published in another report using the related CRISPR-Cas system in Streptococcus. As in Charpentier and Doudna’s work, this report also demonstrated that Cas9 cleaves within the protospacer, that cleavage specificity is directed by the crRNA sequence, and that the two nuclease domains within Cas9, each cleave one strand. However, the researchers did not notice the crucial importance of tracrRNA for sequence-specific cleavage of target DNA [29].
So I guess it's a bit more complicated than just having missed the publication.
Why is academia (at least in the physical sciences) so competitive? My partner is a molecular biologist and she can't collaborate with anyone outside of her lab because of the fear that they collaborators will take their research before they get a chance to publish it.
It seems this method of performing groundbreaking research and science is horrifically detrimental to our collective progress. There's no reason for these groups to compete when they could collaborate.
Isn't it because right now research is basically a zero sum game? A government sets a budget for research, so the more and the better papers the other lab publishes, the more funding they get and less funding YOUR lab gets.
It's not just the research though, it's the credit. Here we are discussing a Nobel Prize awarded to what seems to be consensually agreed is a subset of deserving contributors, in part because of flaws in the review process?
Discussion of credit for CRISPR goes back years. The first controversy began with patents. It's been obvious to anyone following this that credit for it is difficult to attribute. Everyone agrees CRISPR is in need of recognition, and yet the major systems for doing so are still based on an erroneous "lone genius" paradigm (with modifications).
You would either need to be able to measure discipline-wide or sub-disclipline-wide performance, or measure unpublished collaborations between researchers.
For the first case, if molecular biologists make a lot of progress, then the molecular biology budget gets increased. Likewise if a discipline stagnates, its budget would be cut. This is probably how it already works to an extent. You still have the problem of a finite budget being shared between disciplines.
I think it's better to measure, and reward, collaboration directly rather than turn the gross knob of aggregate funding. First steps towards this would include publishing negative results, just so there's a data point. Then we reward such results insofar as they contribute to positive results (measured via citations maybe). Obviously positive results would be rewarded much more than negative results, but we shouldn't discount the efforts of the many researchers who diligently find dead ends and tell others to avoid them.
People have been trying for well over a century now to form alternative institutions (including governments) based entirely on human cooperation rather than competition. The results have typically been less than impressive so far. Keep in mind that part of the reason our modern concept of "intellectual property" exists is to encourage people to share their discoveries instead of keeping them secret - that's how deeply ingrained in human nature this behavior is.
It actually relates to many things, but mostly it's because all the matters is getting credit for an idea. Realize that the process is basically to create something and then write about it to advance knowledge, thus sharing it with all. What's left at the end of that process is to recognize those who have done a lot of positive sharing. Those who are so recognized get the best jobs, the most funding, the best students, etc. As such, if an idea slips out of your lab and into some other lab, you might not get credit, and hence, all the craziness. It's one of those cases where it's not a great system, but it's also hard to figure out a better one.
On the other hand, physics seems to not have this issue. Experimentalists working on topics related to CERN publish jointly (with like 500 co-authors) and theoreticians regularly post pre-prints under review on arXiv. They are a much smaller community though.
This is a consequence of the required resources for the experiments. If it takes a ten billion dollar piece of equipment to produce your results then chances are you are going to be one little cog in a very big machine. There are not papers with 500 co-authors in any other field or even in sub-fields of particle physics that do not require massive accelerators to achieve results.
There are many large-scale projects in biology that benefit from open collaboration. In general, these require lots of work and produce useful resources used by a whole field. Insights that could revolutionize a field can sometimes be described in a sentence or two, and reproduced in a few days or weeks, so scientists are more uneasy sharing them.
This is a phenomenon that I've only just come to know since tiptoeing into the biotech space only half a year ago. Coming to recognise how poorly academics collaborate and the incentives underlying that has been one of my most saddening and de-motivating realisations since entering the space.
1) Because human beings aggressively pursue their self-interest, which extends to getting new credit for scientific discoveries.
2) Because scientific discovery often requires multiple competing approaches (because you don't know which one will work in advance), and top-down control tends to discourage that.
3) Because biomedical discovery is not an inherently directed process most of the time, and top-down control would risk missing out on important discoveries that only happened because we gave individual scientists the freedom to work on whatever they wanted (like bacterial immune systems).
Complaining about this state of affairs is like complaining that housecats aren't vegetarians yet. We have a new genetic manipulation technology that has already revolutionized molecular biology just a few years after it was discovered, and is already being investigated in clinical trials. Anyone who looks at this and says "you're doing it wrong" has a vastly distorted idea of what is actually possible in biomedical science, or any other line of work that requires actual humans to carry it out.
No, while those things are factors, the core problem arises from the structure of the funding and career advancement system. These are systems we've constructed, not aspects of human nature. It's sink-or-swim, and even those swimming are only barely doing so.
You are assuming that the construction of the system has nothing to do with human nature in the first place. I think there are a lot of godawful perverse incentives embedded in our current system, and I suspect we could come up with a much better system if we started over from scratch, but I am extremely skeptical that an ideal system would be any less dependent on competition. And in the current context, the burden is on those who say we should redesign the system to prove that their hypothetical ideal system will perform better in practice than the one that turns out all of these CRISPR-related discoveries at a furious pace.
I'm not sure which assumptions I've genuinely revealed, but I certainly would agree that the ideal systems are those that manage the good and the bad in human nature.
It's a straw man to say that a better system must be competition-free. Simply ameliorating the level of intensity and competition would go a long way. We need a more incremental seniority and funding system, where the difference between being able to do academic science and not to do so isn't defined by dramatic forks in the road. We have a vast separation-of-wealth in science funding and institutional power that must be addressed to get back to a healthier place.
I take it you haven't met very many university research professors. (But I probably should have used the term "central planning" instead since that is much closer to what I meant - the problem of over-coordination when a more distributed approach would have ultimately worked better.)
Maybe it's field specific. In my subfield of physics, I've collaborated with three other groups across the US without any fear of people running off with our work.
> paper sent over a month earlier was rejected by Cell
Cell rejected an almost-nobel-worthy paper? Is this business as usual? Would they maybe have got the nobel price, if they had submitted to a lesser journal instead of Cell?
Can we make a rule of thumb, that in general you should submit your groundbreaking work to the most prestigious journal possible, but if you feel your work is of nobel caliber, then play it safe and submit to a mediocre journal to avoid the high publication threshold of the top level journals?
Reading "Heroes of CRISPR" [1] it sounds like that, after Cell rejected the paper, they shortened the claim but it was still very much known to them:
> Finally, Siksnys showed that the system could also be reconstituted in a second way—by combining purified His-tagged Cas9, in-vitro-transcribed tracrRNA and crRNA, and RNase III—and that both RNAs were essential for Cas9 to cut DNA. (They would ultimately drop the second reconstitution from their revised paper, but they reported all of the work in their published U.S. patent application filed in March 2012 [Siksnys et al., 2012]).
> Siksnys submitted his paper to Cell on April 6, 2012. Six days later, the journal rejected the paper without external review. (In hindsight, Cell’s editor agrees the paper turned out to be very important.) Siksnys condensed the manuscript and sent it on May 21 to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which published it online on September 4. Charpentier and Doudna’s paper fared better. Submitted to Science 2 months after Siksnys’s on June 8, it sailed through review and appeared online on June 28.
While "Heroes of CRISPR" is a fairly detailed history of the whole affair, it's always worth noting that it was written by Eric Lander, the director of an institute with a strong vested financial interest in having the story interpreted in a particular way.
There is something mesmerizing about an evil genius at the height of their craft, and Eric Lander is an evil genius at the height of his craft.
Lander’s recent essay in Cell entitled “The Heroes of CRISPR” is his masterwork, at once so evil and yet so brilliant that I find it hard not to stand in awe even as I picture him cackling loudly in his Kendall Square lair, giant laser weapon behind him poised to destroy Berkeley if we don’t hand over our patents.
This paper is the latest entry in Lander’s decades long assault on the truth...
This is a complex issue. The good news: Dr. S. has certainly received plenty of recognition (e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05308-5). Would love to hear an interview with him and his thoughts on who should be recognized.
Yeah, the good news is that everyone involved in the CRISPR discoveries has done extremely well both financially and scientifically, even if they're not getting a trip to Stockholm. It definitely shows the limits of the three-person-max approach, however.
It's a bit sad though that Virginijus Šikšnys didn't get any credit for the discovery, because his paper sent over a month earlier was rejected by Cell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginijus_%C5%A0ik%C5%A1nys#P...
Edit: The Nobel award paper writes this on his findings: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2020/10/advanced-chemistr...
> Similar findings were also published in another report using the related CRISPR-Cas system in Streptococcus. As in Charpentier and Doudna’s work, this report also demonstrated that Cas9 cleaves within the protospacer, that cleavage specificity is directed by the crRNA sequence, and that the two nuclease domains within Cas9, each cleave one strand. However, the researchers did not notice the crucial importance of tracrRNA for sequence-specific cleavage of target DNA [29].
So I guess it's a bit more complicated than just having missed the publication.