Devangshu Datta: It's never too late for a Nobel

TECHNO BEAT

Scientific prizes offer underpaid researchers some recognition for their achievements and thus encourage future generations of scientists. Unfortunately, however, awards tend to be made long after the recipients' creative faculties have declined. Hence, they rarely provide a stimulus to the awardees themselves.

Science is a young person's game. Major breakthroughs are usually made by under-40s. Einstein and Newton were in their mid-20s when they did key work, Marie Curie was 31, Chandrasekhar was just 20, Hawking was 33, Crick, Watson and Wilkins were 25.

But the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which hands out the Nobels, believes in rock-solid experimental proof before it makes an award. In physics and chemistry, decades may elapse before such proof is available. The timeline for proof is usually less extended in medicine, but the Academy still takes its time to ensure complete rigour.

So, "Chandra" shared the 1983 award for work he did in 1929 and Fleming and Florey shared the 1946 Nobel for discovering penicillin in 1928. Stephen Hawking is unlikely to win a Nobel because his theories will be very difficult to verify within his lifetime, at the least.

The tradition of leisurely awards was maintained in 2004. The 2004 physics prize was shared by David J Gross, H David Politzer and Frank Wilczek for work done in 1973.

Gross and Wilczek collaborated on a 1973 paper while Politzer was working independently of the other two. The three developed mathematical models explaining the subatomic interaction of the mysterious fundamental particles that are known as quarks.

Quarks are classified according to their "flavours" such as up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom. Their existence is actually inferred from calculating the properties of charge and mass.

Experiments based on these inferences work. Hence, quarks must exist! The above trio filled a key gap in the Standard Model of quantum physics with their models. Experiments at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, (CERN) Geneva, through the 1990s provided key proof.

In chemistry, the 2004 prize was shared by Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Irwin Rose for "the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation". Translation: human cells break up and dispose of unwanted proteins. Proteins marked for disposal are "labelled" by the addition of a molecule called ubiquitin.

The three studied protein degradation, developing an understanding of this at the cellular level. Protein synthesis has been studied since the 1950s (at least five Nobels have been awarded for research in protein synthesis).

But degradation was first investigated by this trio of pioneering chemists between 1977 and 1980. When protein degradation doesn't work, cancer and other diseases can result. Thus, the understanding helped develop many useful drugs.

Richard Axel and Linda Buck shared the 2004 Nobel for medicine for researching the sense of smell. The two did a joint paper in 1991 on "odorant receptors" and followed up later with independent research.

They discovered a large human gene family, comprising over 1,000 different genes, that give rise to equivalent olfactory receptors. These receptors detect inhaled odorant molecules.

Each receptor cell possesses only one type of odorant receptor, and each receptor is highly specialised and recognises a few specific odours.

Therefore, we consciously experience the smell of specific flowers and we can also recall such olfactory memories. Humans have lost some olfactory genes in evolution. Dogs, for example, have 40 times as many receptors.

Smell is obviously critical to identify food and to avoid toxins. A newborn baby uses smell to locate its mother's nipple.

Smell also plays a huge part in sexual reproduction and influences social and emotional behaviour. Mammals exude pheromones, that cause everything from sexual excitement to fight/flight responses.

Rigour and intuition are the twin foundations of science. Without intuition, it's impossible to make the leaps in logic that develop new theories. Without rigour, it's impossible to make watertight verifications.

If the Swedish Academy found a better balance between these two virtues, scientists might receive awards when they were still at the cutting edge.