Nobel Prize in Medicine

[celestial605]

<p>STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Americans Andrew Z. Fire and Craig C. Mello won the Nobel Prize in medicine Monday for discovering a powerful way to turn off the effect of specific genes, opening a potential new avenue for fighting diseases as diverse as cancer and AIDS.</p>

<p>The process, called RNA interference, also is being studied for treating such conditions as hepatitis virus infection and heart disease. It is already widely used in basic science as a method to study the function of genes.</p>

<p>Fire, 47, of Stanford University, and Mello, 45, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, published their seminal work in a 1998 paper.</p>

<p>For more: <a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_sc/nobel_medicine;_ylt=Aoa1CUY0XOvtpF0IzvlHm2es0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_sc/nobel_medicine;_ylt=Aoa1CUY0XOvtpF0IzvlHm2es0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Byerly]

<p>Fire is an MIT grad, and Mello is a Harvard grad.</p>

<p><a href=“Page not found”>Page not found;

[nngmm]

<p>Yes, but he now works at Stanford…</p>

[Byerly]

<p>… and the work that earned them the prize, afer getting PhDs in Cambridge, was done in Baltimore.</p>

[DRab]

<p>People, people, don’t you know Fire came from Berkeley first and foremost?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/10/02_nobel.shtml[/url]”>http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/10/02_nobel.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[XRedcomet]

<p>The point is that he’s affiliated with Stanford University, and that’s something we’re proud of. We’re not contesting his background, which can be difficult to do anyway because so many nobel laureates are at institutions from which they did not receive degrees (or conduct research at). The point is we’ve got another Nobel Laureate here at Stanford.</p>

[SnuggleMonster]

<p>“The point is that he’s affiliated with Stanford University, and that’s something we’re proud of.”</p>

<p>Only 21 more and you’ll be at Berkeley’s level!</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_laureates_by_university_affiliation[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_laureates_by_university_affiliation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[DRab]

<p>

The point is that he’s affiliated with Stanford University, and that’s something we’re proud of. We’re not contesting his background, which can be difficult to do anyway because so many nobel laureates are at institutions from which they did not receive degrees (or conduct research at). The point is we’ve got another Nobel Laureate here at Stanford.

</p>

<p>Indeed. Congratulations. :)</p>

[kingduke]

<p>“Fire is an MIT grad, and Mello is a Harvard grad.”</p>

<p>1) FWIW, one was a Berkeley undergrad and the other was a Brown undergrad. I strongly suspect you know this, despite your failure to point it out. If you feel the need to keep engaging in a pi$$ing contest, one of them was born in Stanford hospital. So there.</p>

<p>2) BTW, Harvard faculty haven’t been doing well compared to “peer institutions” during the past 1-2 decades in the Nobel Prize department … although there are a few Harvard faculty who may be “due” soon. :)</p>

<p>3) FYI, many faculty whom Harvard claims as theirs who have won Nobel Prizes have either (a) left the university already, (b) are so old that they’ve stopped research/teaching long ago, or (c) did the bulk of their research elsewhere before being recruited to the Big-H as senior scientists. But I suspect you know this too…</p>

<p>Fact of the matter is that there’s great science being conducted throughout the country (and world) – at Stanford, Berekely, UCSD, MIT, Columbia, Princeton, and also Harvard.</p>

[Byerly]

<p>Yes. Lets not leave out Harvard. I think they have been doing fairly well in the Nobel department and otherwise when it comes to recognition - both in the case of alumni and in the case of staff.</p>

<p>More National Academy members than any other college or university in America.</p>

<p><a href=“http://thecenter.ufl.edu/AnyFed1990-2000-II/Nat_Acad_Mem_2000-2004.xls[/url]”>http://thecenter.ufl.edu/AnyFed1990-2000-II/Nat_Acad_Mem_2000-2004.xls&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Highest number of citations per paper in scientific journals.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.alnaja7.org/success/Education/times_world_ranking_2005.pdf[/url]”>http://www.alnaja7.org/success/Education/times_world_ranking_2005.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Check the criteria for THIS ranking of the worlds top universities:</p>

<p><a href=“http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006_Top100.htm[/url]”>http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006_Top100.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[t1388]

<p>I am bored. Whenever I look into elite college boards, I always see Byerly’s posts. If Harvard dropped early decision, why your schools do not follow Harvard? If your schools have accomplished anything, they are really nothing without Harvard’s involvements. If you are upset or offended, you know that Byerly means well. He bashes all schools.</p>

<p>Is the spam driving your crazy? Well, I have a fun solution. Let’s me summarize his messages. You will feel better knowing that you are not the only victims in the CC. LOL</p>

<p>October 2, 2006

just announced: Brown alum Craig C. Mello '82 won the 2006 Nobel prize in medicine

Byerly’s

Fortunate enough to get his PhD at Harvard.

</p>

<p>Byerly’s

You will please note that all these schools do is give us vague spin about the “strength” of the early pool; they <em>never</em> provide detailed supporting stats about the quality of those in the early pool vs those in the RD pool - the applicants, the admits and the matriculants - and the admit rate and yield rate for those in each pool with similar qualifications. Most (giving MIT pros here for being honest) never fess up about how many high-yield early applicants are take after deferral, and * none* ever report the yield rate on these deferreds.

Byerly’s

One might argue that the “Tufts Syndrome” approach - ie, giving an admissions tip to applicants who, based on computer analyisis or the application of some formula (ie, counting “contacts”, campus visits, etc) are more likely to enroll should be beneath the stature of a school like MIT which allegedly “doesn’t care about” yield.

Byerly’s

MIT, apparently, acknowledges this consideration in theory, but finds it out-weighed by the institutional advantage provided by the ability to fill half the seats with high-yield early applicants.

</p>

<p>

Berkeley Alumnus Wins Nobel Prize (Class of '78)

Byerly’s

He was an MIT Phd, and his co-winner was a Harvard PhD.

</p>

<p>

Nobel Prize in Medicine
Fire, 47, of Stanford University, and Mello, 45, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, published their seminal work in a 1998 paper.

Byerly’s

Yes. Lets not leave out Harvard. I think they have been doing fairly well in the Nobel department and otherwise when it comes to recognition - both in the case of alumni and in the case of staff. More National Academy members than any other college or university in America.

</p>

<p>It would be fun to compile this data and fact every day.</p>

[f.scottie]

<p>in additional nobel news, stanford prof roger d. kornberg was announced this morning as the 2006 recipient of the nobel prize in chemistry, “for his studies of the molecular basis of eukaryotic transcription” (sounds more like bio than chem to me). amazingly, kornberg’s father also won the nobel, back in 1959. my congrats to the stanford community on its great week. it’s worth noting, however, that because both of its newest laureates operate out of the school of medicine, they probably don’t have much of a hand in its undergraduate education and research.</p>

<p><a href=“http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2006/[/url]”>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2006/&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2006/october/kornberg.html[/url]”>http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2006/october/kornberg.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[DRab]

<p>Psh, that is old news. I knew it hours ago!</p>

<p>The Nobel website incorrectly states “Stanford University” instead of “Stanford University School of Medicine” as it did for Fire. Maybe they’ll get around to fixing it.</p>

<p><a href=“http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2006/[/url]”>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2006/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[f.scottie]

<p>on monday, the nobel site identified umass prof craig c. mello as a prof at <em>harvard</em>. so the foundation could probably benefit from a little better factchecking before going public.</p>

[lucifer]

<p>It seems that his work for prize was not done at stanford. Stanford should be a university producing but not collecting nobel laureates.</p>

[SnuggleMonster]

<p>“It seems that his work for prize was not done at stanford. Stanford should be a university producing but not collecting nobel laureates.”</p>

<p>Both are important, and I’m sure stanford has produced their share of laureates.</p>