I'M ALLEN SCHECTER, AND I'M HERE
TO WELCOME YOU TO THIS LECTURE
IN THE NIH HISTORY OF
BIOMEDICINE SERIES BY PROFESSOR
ERLING NORRBY OF THE WORLD
SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.
THE LECTURE IS BEING SPONSORED
BY THE OFFICE OF NIH HISTORY AND
THE STETMAN MUSEUM OF MEDICAL
RESEARCH.
AND WE ARE PLEASED THAT DR. KIM
PELLAS HAS BEEN JUST BEEN
APPOINTED THE NIH HISTORIAN AND
SHE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
STAFF OF THE OFFICE OF NIH
HISTORY ARE DELIGHTED THAT THE
BIOMEDICAL HISTORY LECTURE
SERIES WILL CONTINUE WITH NEW
SPEAKERS STARTING LATER IN THE
SPRING.
BUT RIGHT NOW, I'D LIKE TO
INTRODUCE STEVE CHANIK THE
DIRECTOR OF THE CANCER
EPIDEMIOLOGY GENETICS TO
INTRODUCE OUR SPEAKER, DR.
NORRBY.
STEVE.
>> THANK YOU.
INDEED, IT'S A GREAT PLEASURE TO
BE HERE AND TO BE WELCOMING A
DEAR FRIEND, ERLING NORRBY.
I'VE KNOWN ERLING NORRBY FOR
MANY YEARS.
GOING BACK TO THE 1960S HERE AT
NIH, WHERE I'VE BEEN SINCE 1958,
IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.
BUT ONLY SINCE 1991 IN ANY
SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC CAPACITY.
BUT ERLING HAS BEEN A DEAR
FRIEND OF THE NIH AND
PARTICULARLY MY FAMILY AND OUR
FAMILIES HAVE VISITED EACH OTHER
AND HAD WONDERFUL TIMES OVER THE
MANY YEARS.
SO IT'S REALLY A PERSONAL AS
WELL PROFESSIONAL PLEASURE TO
WELCOME SUCH A DISTINGUISHED
SPEAKER.
ERLING HAS AN MD PH.D. AND HE'S
A PROFESSOR OF VIROLOGY CHAIRMAN
AT THE INSTITUTE FOR SOME
25 YEARS AT THE KAROLINSKA
INSTITUTES.
AND HE'S AN EXPERT IN ADDENO
VIRUS AND ASPECTS OF VIROLOGY
WHICH BROUGHT HIM TO MY PARENTS'
LIVING ROOM.
HE SERVES AS THE DEAN OF FACULTY
AT THE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE FOR
SIX YEARS, AND HE'S BEEN VERY
INVOLVED IN THE WORK ON THE
NOBEL PRIZES IN PHYSIOLOGY AND
MEDICINE FOR 20 YEARS.
HE BECAME THE PERMANENT
SECRETARY OF THE ROYAL SWEDISH
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES FOR A NUMBER
OF YEARS, AND AT THAT TIME HIS
OVERRIDING RESPONSIBILITY WAS
FOR OVERSEEING THE PRIZES IN
PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY.
AND FROM THERE, HE'S REALLY BEEN
AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE NOBEL
FOUNDATION, AND HE'S AT THE
CENTER FOR THE HISTORY OF
SCIENCE AT THE ACADEMY.
WHAT HE DOES IS REALLY QUITE
REMARKABLE.
50 YEARS, ALMOST TO THE DAY,
SINCE THE AWARDING OF THE
PRIZES, HE'S ABLE TO GO INTO THE
VAULT OF THE NOBEL SYSTEM AND
LOOK AT THE CORRESPONDENCE AND
THE DISCUSSIONS AS TO HOW AND
WHY PRIZES WERE AWARDED OR NOT
AWARDED TO INDIVIDUALS.
SO HE HAS A REMARKABLE SENSE OF
THE HISTORY OF THE HIGH, SORT OF
THE HIGH MARKS OF BIOMEDICAL
RESEARCH.
AND SO HE'S WRITTEN SOME SIX
BOOKS.
HIS MOST RECENT ONE WILL SHOW
PICTURES IN A LITTLE BIT, I'M
SURE, AND I BELIEVE ALL SIX ARE
IN THE FAS BOOKSTORE.
AND THEY ARE EXTRAORDINARILY
WELL-WRITTEN, SCIENTIFICALLY
VERY INSIGHTFUL, BUT FILLED WITH
AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE
PERSONALITIES AND THE INSIGHTS
INTO THE PEOPLE.
NOT ONLY WHO WON THE AWARDS, BUT
WHO ALSO WERE COLLABORATORS OR
COMPETITORS IN UNDERSTANDING HOW
SCIENCE REALLY EVOLVES.
SO, I THINK IF THERE'S SOMETHING
AMONG THE MANY EXPERTISES THAT
ERLING HAS IS REALLY
UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIOLOGY AND
PSYCHOLOGY OF HOW WHAT WAY GREAT
SCIENCE ADVANCES AND WHAT
METASTASIS AND THE INTERACTIONS
AND THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS.
SO IT'S REALLY A GREAT PLEASURE
TO WELCOME HIM.
HE IS THE ROYAL SWEDISH COURT
HE'S THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN IN
WAITING, WHICH IS A REMARKABLE
TITLE.
MY KIDS AND GRANDKIDS THINK
THAT'S THE COOLEST THING THEY'VE
EVER SEEN WHEN THEY CAME OVER
THIS WEEKEND.
THEY WERE JUST THRILLED TO MEET
A LORD CHAMBERLAIN IN WAITING.
AND ON A PERSONAL NOTE, IT'S
SUCH A PLEASURE TO SEE YOU,
ERLING, AND TO WELCOME YOU TO
THE NIH COMMUNITY ONCE AGAIN.
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
LECTURE.
SO, PLEASE, COME TO THE PODIUM
AND IT WILL BE A PLEASURE TO
HEAR YOU SPEAK.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, STEVE,
FOR THAT INTRODUCTION.
AND IT'S A GREAT PLEASURE TO BE
BACK AND TO LECTURE HERE AT NIH.
AFTER A NUMBER OF YEARS.
WHEN IN FACT I HAVEN'T BEEN ON
SITE VISITOR HERE AT THE NIH.
BUT AS WAS MENTIONED BY STEVE, I
STARTED TO INTERACT WITH NIH IN
THE 1960S.
SO IT'S BEEN A LONG JOURNEY.
AND ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT OF A
NUMBER OF FRIENDSHIPS AND A
UNIQUE ONE WITH STEVE'S FATHER,
BOB CHANNOC, ONE OF THE
LEGENDARY FIGURES IN VIROLOGY.
AND WE'VE HAD SOME REMARKABLE,
NOT ONLY PROFESSIONAL, BUT ALSO
THE PRIVATE INTERACTION.
AND WHATEVER I PASSED BY
BETHESDA I WAS CHANGING --
STAYING IN THE HOME AND IT WAS
INTENSE ACTIVITIES NOT ONLY
TALKING SCIENCE BUT A LOT ABOUT
MUSIC AND SO FORTH.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M GOING TO
TALK TO YOU ABOUT TODAY, BUT
ABOUT THE MORE RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS.
SO I'VE HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY
WHEN I TURNED 60 TO CHANGE MY
PROFESSION AND LEAVE THE CHAIR
AT THE KAROLINSKA INSTITUTES
AFTER 25 YEARS AND TO BECOME THE
PERMANENT SECRETARY, WHICH
ACTUALLY IS QUITE A NICE TITLE
BECAUSE IF I INTRODUCE YOU
TODAY, I AM A FORMER PERMANENT
SECRETARY.
KIND OF BUILT IN CONTRADICTION.
SO WHAT DO YOU DO AS A FORMER
PERMANENT SECRETARY?
WELL, THERE'S A TENDENCY OF
COMING TO MATURITY TO LOOK AT
HISTORY AND TO SEE WHAT YOU CAN
LEARN AND USING THAT
PERSPECTIVE.
AND AS WAS MENTIONED, I'VE BEEN
HEAVILY INVOLVED IN WORKING ON
NOBEL PRIZES.
AND I KNEW WHAT A TREASURED
MATERIAL WE HAVE IN OUR
ARCHIVES.
AND THEREFORE IT TURNED OUT I
GOT INVOLVED IN WRITING ABOUT
NOBEL PRIZES WITH CONSIDERATION
TAKEN TO THE 50-YEAR SECRECY.
AGAIN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHOOSE
A CHALLENGE WHEN YOU CAME INTO
THE AGE OF RETIREMENT, NOTHING
COULD BE BETTER BECAUSE EACH
YEAR NEW ARCHIVES ARE BEING
EXPOSED AND NEW ARCHIVES.
SO YOU CAN KEEP GOING UNTIL YOU
HIT THAT WALL.
AND IT'S BEEN A GREAT LEARNING
EXPERIENCE.
THE FIRST BOOK I WROTE, AND I'LL
SHOW THAT BRIEFLY TO YOU, WAS IN
2010.
AND THAT'S MORE OF A GENERAL
BOOK ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.
BUT ALSO SOME SELECTED NOBEL
PRIZES THAT INVOLVED THEMES THAT
I WAS WELL FAMILIARIZED, THE
YELLOW FEVER VACCINE OR THE
PROPAGATION OF POLIO VIRUS IN
TISSUE CULTURES AND SO FORTH.
BUT ALSO EARLY ON I WAS
INTERESTED IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY.
AND I WROTE A CHAPTER IN THAT
BOOK ONLY PARTLY UTILIZING
ARCHIVES ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT
OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY,
DRAMAMIN5X.
AND THE THEME IS NOBEL PRIZE AND
THE EMERGING GENE CONCEPT.
THERE ARE MANY STEPS ALONG THIS
ROAD.
AND IT ALL STARTS WAY BACK IN
BERNOL, IN THE EAST PART OF
CZECH TODAY AND BURMA.
AND HERE'S MENDEL AND YOU CAN
SEE HE'S BORN IN 1822.
SO LAST YEAR THERE WAS A 200
CELEBRATION OF HIS BIRTH, AND I
HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF
VISITING BURNEA AND GO TO THE
PLACE AND GO TO SEE THE EARLY
EXPERIMENT TO MODERN DAY DNA
SEQUENCING MACHINES IN ONE OF
THE SAME PLACES, HIGHLIGHTING
WHAT A DYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT.
ONE CAN SAY A LOT ABOUT HIS
LIFE, BUT THAT WAS A BIT OF A
LONER, WANTED TO BE A TEACHER,
WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL IN THAT,
THEN ENROLLED IN AUGUSTINIAN
ORDERS OF MONKS AND MADE A
CAREER THERE AND THAT WAS A
RATHER AUSTERE AND SIMPLIFIED
LIFE, BUT IT ALSO HAD
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTELLECTUAL
ENDEAVORS.
FANTASTIC LIBRARIES I'VE SEEN
THAT ON MY OWN AND HE HAD HIS
GARDENS WHERE HE COULD START TO
STUDY WHAT LATER ON BECAME
GENETICS.
HE WAS INTERESTED IN CROSSING
PLANTS OF PEAS AND OTHER PLANTS
AND SOME REASON HE SAW THERE WAS
A PATTERN BY WHICH THINGS ARE
INHERITED FROM ONE GENERATION TO
ANOTHER.
THINGS THAT WERE SO DOMINANT AND
OTHERS THAT WERE MORE RECESSSIVE
ALTHOUGH THOSE TERMS WEREN'T
USED IN THOSE DAYS.
SO HE WROTE JUST A FEW PAPERS ON
THIS AND HE GOT INVOLVED IN
OTHER NATURAL SCIENCE WORK.
HE WAS INTERESTED IN BEES AND
ASTRONOMY.
AND SO ALL THIS HAPPENED BETWEEN
1855 AND '65.
AND THEN HE BECAME THE ABBOTT OF
THE AUGUSTINIAN ORDER AND MADE
HIM FULL TIME ADMINISTRATOR.
HE LEFT SCIENCE.
SO IT WAS A SHORT TIME HE WAS
INVOLVED IN THIS.
BUT HE DID PUBLISH A FEW PAPERS
ON THAT.
BUT NO ONE PICKED UP ON THAT AND
OTHER PEOPLE LIKE DARWIN THINK
ABOUT THIS, DARWIN HAD THIS IDEA
THAT IN THE GERM CELLS THEY WERE
FED BY INFORMATION FROM THE
DIFFERENT ORGANS IN THIS CAMUL
THAT HE WAS PICKING UP.
BUT MENDEL TOOK A MORE
SIMPLIFIED APPROACH AND SEE
THERE'S A PATTERN IT TOOK A LONG
TIME BEFORE IT WAS APPRECIATED
SOMETHING IMPORTANTLY HAPPENED.
IT WAS THE TURN OF CENTURY.
THERE WERE THREE AN AUSTRIAN AND
GERMAN, HUGO DEREEVES HAD THIS
PATTERN.
AND HE COINED THE WORD MUTATION.
BUT THE WORD GENE CAME A LITTLE
LATER IT WAS BY WILLIAM BATESON
WHO TERMED THE TERM PANOGENE
OFFSPRING.
THAT'S THE WAY THEY STARTED
USING THE TERM GENE.
IN ORDER TO GIVE BACKGROUND, WE
NEED TO REFLECT ON THE DISCOVERY
OF THE PRIMARY MOLECULES
INVOLVED IN THIS IN THE MEASURE
WAS SWISS, SCIENTIST IN BEING
WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE FELIX
LABORATORY IN TUBING, IN
GERMANY.
THERE HE MADE SOME INTERESTING
FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERY.
WORKING WITH PUSS FROM BEING
INFLAMMATION AND EXTRACTING IT
FROM PROTEIN WHICH WAS KNOWN AT
THE TIME.
AND WHERE THE PROTEIN CONTAINED
SULFUR AND THE SUBSTANCE THAT
MISER FOUND DID NOT CONTAIN
SULFUR BUT IT CONTAINED PHOSPHOR
WHICH PROTEIN DID NOT CONTAIN.
IT WAS SOMETHING NEW WAS
EXTRACTED FROM THE NUCLEIC AND
REFERRED TO AS NUCLEAN BUT THE
NAME NUCLEIC ACID DIDN'T COME
UNTIL 1889, RICHARD ALTMAN
COINED THAT PHRASE.
SO NUCLEIC ACID WAS AN IMPORTANT
SUBSTANCE.
AND IT WAS IN FACT APPRECIATED
TO QUITE SOME EXTENT IN THE
EARLY 1900S.
SO THERE'S THE NOBLE PRIZE IN
PHYSIOLOGY MEDICINE IN 1910 TO
ALBRECHT KOHLEL IN RECOGNITION
TO THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CELL CHEMISTRY
AND IT WORKS ON PROTEIN AND
INCLUDING THE NUCLEIC
SUBSTANCES.
SO AT THIS TIME, 1910, THERE'S
STILL SOME RESPECT FOR THAT
NUCLEIC ACID COULD BE SOMETHING
IMPORTANT.
AND THEN LEVINE DID AN IMPORTANT
CONTRIBUTION DEFINING THE
CHEMICAL NATURE OF NUCLEIC
ACIDS.
ONE HAD THE TERMINOLOGY THAT WAS
SOMETHING CALLED THYMUS NUCLEIC
ACID AND GENE NUCLEIC ACID.
SO LEVINE, HE DID IMPORTANT
STUDIES SHOWING THAT IF YOU
COMPARE THIS TWO NUCLEIC ACID
CALLED DNA AND RNA, THEY HAD
DIFFERENT SUGARS AND THEY HAVE
ALSO DIFFERENT NUCLEOTIDE
COMPOSITION.
THIS WAS VERY IMPORTANT
FUNDAMENTAL WORK DEFINING THE
NATURE OF TWO CATEGORIES CALLED
DNA, RNA.
BUT WHAT LEVINE ALSO DID HE
COINED A HYPOTHESIS SAYING THAT
THE FOUR NUCLEOTIDES THEY ALWAYS
APPEARED IN ABOUT THE SAME
PROPORTION.
OF COURSE DIDN'T MAKE NUCLEIC
ACID AN EXCITING SUBSTANCE.
HE GAVE THE IDEA IT WAS MORE
LIKE A SUPPORT SUBSTANCE AND
THIS TOOK THE FOCUS OUT OF
NUCLEIC ACID AS BEING SOMETHING
IMPORTANT.
WHAT ABOUT FURTHER IN THE FIELD.
THIS SHOULD BE A NOBEL PRIZE
PHYSIOLOGY ON MEDICINE IN 1933
WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THOMAS H
MORGAN CAN WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT
THE FIGURES?
HE INTRODUCED THE SYSTEM OF THE
DROSOPHILA FLY.
IT STIMULATED DEVELOPMENT IN THE
FIELD BECAUSE YOU COULD DO
IMPRESSIVE GENETICS WITH THAT.
AND IT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE
NOBEL PRIZE IN 1933.
LATER HIS STUDENT THAT WE COME
TO IN A MINUTE ALSO RECEIVED A
NOBEL PRIZE AND FURTHER ON WE
HAD A NOBEL PRIZE IN INTRODUCED
THE FRUIT FLY IN DEVELOPING THE
OF THE PHENOMENON.
IT WAS CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND
ABOUT HEREDITY.
ALSO MENTIONED OUR WORLD OF
THINKING AT THE TIME DID CHANGE.
IN PHYSICS THERE WERE A LOT OF
THINGS HAPPENING AND THERE WERE
NEW LET'S SAY WAYS OF THINKING
ALL THE WAY FROM EINSTEIN ENERGY
AND MATERIAL INTERCHANGEABLE THE
ROLE OF LIGHT AND SO FORTH.
SO STARTED TO OPEN UP THE
INTELLECTUAL AGENDA.
AND SECOND NOBEL LAUREATE IN
CHEMISTRY IS HERMAN MILLER WHO
IDENTIFIED THAT MUTATIONS COULD
BE INDUCED BY EXTRA RADIATION.
THAT BECAME AN IMPORTANT TOOL IN
FURTHERING THE STATUS OF
GENETICS.
FOUND AN INTERESTING STATEMENT
BY MILLER IN 1940 WHICH WAS A
FEELING FOR WHAT THE
DEVELOPMENTS OF THAT AND HE MADE
THE STATEMENT IN 1920.
SO IT WOULD GIVE US AN UTTERLY
NEW ANGLE FROM WHICH TO ATTACK
THE GENE PROBLEM.
THE VIRUS MY REMARK ARE
FILTERABLE TO SOME EXTENT IS
DELIGHTABLE AND CAN BE HANDLED
IN TEST TUESDAY.
AND COULD BE USED IN GENES.
AND AT PRESENT WE MUST CONFESS
THERE'S NO DISTINCTION KNOWN
BETWEEN THE GENE AND THEM.
HENCE WE CANNOT CATEGORICALLY
DENY THAT PERHAPS WE MAY BE ABLE
TO FIND GENES IN THE MORTAR AND
COOK THEM IN A TOOL.
GENETICS COULD BE AN
EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE AND IT
COULD BE STARTED IN A
LABORATORY.
AND THIS WAS CERTAINLY VERY
FORESIGHT STATEMENT IN 1920
BECAUSE OF COURSE 20 YEARS LATER
IT TURNED OUT THIS WAS THE CASE.
ONE COULD STUDY GENES IN THE
TEST TUBE.
SKIP THAT ONE WE'LL COME TO A
CENTRAL FIGURE IN THIS LECTURE
AND THAT'S MAX DELLBROOKE.
MAX DELBROOKE WAS A PHYSICIST
COMING FROM A HIGHLY
INTELLECTUAL GERMAN FAMILY WITH
LONG TRADITIONS AND HE GOT A LOT
OF WORK ON STIMULUS WORK,
DISEASES, ASTRONOMY VISITS BY
NELS BOOR FAMOUS PLACE IN
COPENHAGEN.
GOT BROAD EXPOSURE TO PHYSICS
AND ALSO SOME OTHER NEW THINKING
BECAUSE HOW ARE WE DOING,
NOTHING -- ANY HOW NEILS BOAR HE
HAD BROAD IS THERE HE WANTED TO
APPLY THINKING IN PHYSICS INTO
BIOLOGY AND THIS THINKING THEN
INCLUDED HE MADE SPECULATIVE
ARTICLE IN NATURE IN 1933 ABOUT
LIFE AND THINKING.
AND IT STIMULATED MAX DELBROOK
AND OTHER PEOPLE HE MET IN THE
LABORATORY HE WANTED TO STUDY
BIOLOGY BUT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT
THAT WOULD IMPLY.
BUT WHEN HE CAME BACK TO BERLIN
WHERE HE LIVED AND IN FACT HIS
MOTHER AT THE TIME, HE FORMED A
NEW GROUP TOGETHER WITH
GENETI
GENETICIST OF RUSSIAN ORIGIN AND
A LOT COULD BE SAID ABOUT THIS
GENETICIST BUT HE WAS WELL
INFORMED AND HE WORKED AT THE
NEUROSCIENTIST FAMILY. BERLIN WAS HIS
HOMETOWN STAYING WITH HIS FAMILY
IN 1935.
AND IS HE WANTED TO ATTACK THE
PROBLEM OF BIOLOGY BY USE OF THE
THINKING OF A PHYSICIST.
AND TOGETHER WITH A GENETICIST
BY THE NAME OF NIKOLAY RESSOVSKY
HE HAD A DEBATE A THIRD PERSON
BY THE NAME OF ZIMMER RADIO
BIOLOGIST.
THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
COULD ONE FIGURE OUT THE GENE BY
EX-IRRADIATION.
THIS IS THE APPROACH THEY TOOK
AND THEY WROTE QUITE AN
LABORATORY PAPER ON THIS IT'S
SOMETHING CALLED THE GREENBLAT.
AND IT WAS A JOURNAL THAT DIDN'T
SURVIVE VERY LONG.
BUT ANYHOW, IT'S OVER THE NATURE
OF GENE MUTATION, AND THE GENE
STRUCTURE.
VERY AMBITIOUS.
SOME 60, 70 PAGES.
AND THEY SPECULATED THAT, YES,
WHEN THEY HAD SOME IDEA ABOUT
THE SIZE AS DETERMINED BY
EX-IRRADIATION.
AND THIS PUT THE INTEREST BACK
IN NUCLEIC ACID.
AND I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT TWO
SWEDISH SCIENTISTS THAT PLAYED A
MAJOR ROLE IN THIS WORK.
O
ONE IS HAMMARSTEN.
FROM THE INSTITUTE.
HE HAD AN UNCLE A BIOCHEMIST.
THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE STUDY
OF NUCLEIC ACIDS, AND HE SPENT
HIS WHOLE LIFE RESEARCHING
NUCLEIC ACID.
AND ANOTHER WAS
TORBJORNCASPERSSON.
THEY DID SOME EXPERIMENTS IN THE
1930S USING THE NEWLY DEVELOPED
ULTRA CENTRIFUGE USING THAT
NUCLEIC ACID HAD REMARKABLY HIGH
MOLECULAR WEIGHTS.
ALTHOUGH THEY COULDN'T DRAW ANY
CONCLUSIONS OF THAT.
LATER ON, NCASPERSSON WAS
INVOLVED IN STUDIES OF WHAT
HAPPENS IN CELLS DURING THEIR
REPLICATION.
AND HE AND BRACERE DID SOME
IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS IN 1940S.
THEY WERE MEASURING THE AMOUNT
OF PROTEIN SENSORS BY LOOKING AT
THE EXTENSION 218, THEY WERE
LOOKING AT NUCLEIC, ACIDS IN THE
EXTENSION OF 260.
THEY SAW AMAZING THINGS THEY
COULDN'T INTERPRET NAMELY THAT
SYNTHESIS OF NUCLEIC ACID SEEMED
TO PRECEDE THE SYNTHESIS OF
PROTEIN SYNTHESIS.
BUT IT WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD IN
1940S HOW MUCH THIS MEANS.
HAMMARSTEN LATER ON HE WAS THE
INVOLVED OF THE EVALUATION OF
AVERY, WHO WE WILL COME BACK TO
IN A MOMENT.
THE GREENBLAT THAT THE
COLLEAGUES WROTE INSPIRED THE
PHYSICIST IRVING SCHROEDER TO
WRITE THE FAMOUS BOOK WHAT IS
LI"WHAT IS
LIF
LIFE".
THIS BOOK IN TURN INSPIRED A
NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS INCLUDING
WHAT'S IN THE NATURE OF THE
GENETIC MATERIAL.
SO IN 1938, DELBROOK MOVED TO
THE UNITED STATES, MOVED TO THE
UNITED STATES AND HE HAD A
SCHOLARSHIP FROM ROCKEFELLER AND
THE IDEA WAS TO TRY TO SEARCH
FOR NATURE OF GENES.
HE VERY SOON LEARNED THAT
DROSOPHILA TECHNIQUE DID NOT
ALLOW THE DETAIL OF STATUS OF
GENES.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS
ANOTHER PERSON BY THE NAME OF
GEORGE ELLIS IN THE LABORATORY.
AND HE WAS INTRODUCED IN THE
KIND OF VIRUSES THAT HAVE BEEN
IN A FOCUS A LOT OF THE TIME
NAMELY BACTERIOPHAGES AND THEY
FOUND OUT THIS IS AN ATTRACTIVE
SYSTEM TO STUDY GENES.
AND THAT'S HOW IT ALL GOT
STARTED.
BEFORE THAT I SHOULD MENTION
THAT DURING THE 1930S STANLEY
WAS STUDYING THE MOSFIC VIRUS
AND HIS READING THIS CONTAINED
ESSENTIALLY ONLY PROTEIN AND HE
GOT THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR
PREPARATION OF ENZYME PROTEIN
ENZYMES IN 1946.
BUT IT COULD BE CRYSTALLIZED AND
LOOKED LIKE THIS.
IT TURNED OUT LATER ON THAT IT
WASN'T ONLY PROTEIN.
IT ALSO CONTAINED 5% NUCLEIC
ACID BUT THAT WAS DISREGARDED AT
THE TIME.
BUT YOU CAN IMAGINE THE WAY THE
PRESS WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS,
THAT HERE YOU COULD TAKE A
VIRUS, YOU COULD FORM CRYSTALS,
AND THESE CRYSTALS COULD THEN BE
DISSOLVED AND THEY COULD
REPLICATE, AND HOW DO YOU
CORRELATE THAT WITH THE NATURE
OF LIFE AND NATURE OF JEEPS AND
SO FORTH.
AND HE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS
PRIMARILY THE PROTEIN THAT WAS
IMPORTANT BUT OVERLOOKING THAT
SOME BRITISH VIROLOGISTS THAT
THE IT CONTAINS 5% RNA.
BUT IN THE LECTURE, YOU CAN SEE
HERE THAT ON THE FIFTH LINE FROM
THE BOTTOM MILLER HAS INTRODUCED
A SIZE OF A GENE.
VERY SPECULATIVE FASHION.
125 TIMES AND WHAT WAS THE BASIS
FOR THIS WAS VERY SPECULATIVE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THOSE DAYS
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ELECTRON
MICROSCOPE HAS ALLOWED THE
IDENTIFICATION IN THE EARLY
1940S OF THE SIZE OF VIRUSES,
WHICH WAS A MAJOR TURNING POINT
IN VIROLOGY, OF COURSE WHEN YOU
COULD SEE THE PARTICLE STUDIED.
BUT HERE'S A LOOSE SPECULATION
OF THE SIZE OF A GENE.
NOT VERY WELL FOUNDED I THINK
ONE SHOULD ADMIT.
NOW, AS I MENTIONED MY
INVOLVEMENT IN WRITING ABOUT
NOBEL PRIZES, AND THIS IS A
SERIES OF FOUR BOOKS THAT I
PUBLISHED BEFORE MOST RECENT ONE
THAT CAME LAST AUTUMN AND THE
FIRST ONE WAS A BOOK AS I SAID
IN GENERAL SCIENCES.
AND THEN THEY TAKE OFF OVER
TIME.
SO THE 19 -- THE SECOND BOOK
WHICH ON THE TOP RIGHT COVERS
THE NOBEL PRIZE OF 60, 61, 62.
AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THE 62
PRIZE TO WATSON AND CREEK
BECAUSE THAT'S FUNDAMENTAL IN
ALL THE DEVELOPMENT.
THEN THE FOLLOWING BOOKS WAS
ONE, 63, 64, 65.
AND THEN 66, 67, 68 AND 68 IS OF
COURSE THE IDENTIFICATION AND
NATURE OF THE GENETIC CODE BUT
BEFORE WE GET THERE WE NEED TO
GO BACK TO THE WHAT CLAIMED TO
PLAY QUITE A ROLE IN STUDIES OF
GENES AND THAT WAS THE BACTE
BACTERIAPHAGES, IT WAS DEVELOPED
BY FEEL ELECTION AT THE PASTEUR
INSTITUTE.
YOU CAN SEE THE IDENTIFICATION
OF THE VARIOUS PLAQUES THEY
COULD FORM IN A BACTERIA
MONOLAYER.
AND IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT
DHERELLE WAS NOMINATED FOR A
NOBEL PRIZE.
NEVER RECEIVED IT BUT AN ENGLISH
MAN BY THE NAME OF WARD WHO HAD
ALSO DISCOVERED BACTERIOPHAGE
SOMEWHAT EARLIER, AND I'VE
WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY BY WHY
DHERELLE DIDN'T RECEIVE IT.
HE WANTED TO TREAT BACTERIA
INFECTIONS.
HE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE AN
EXCELLENT REMEDY.
AND I THOUGHT HE HAD PROVIDED
EVIDENCE FOR THE FACT THAT IT
WAS HELPFUL TO TRY TO TREAT
VARIOUS BACTERIAL DISEASES WITH
BACTERIOPHAGE.
AND HE FOLLOWED IT UP THROUGHOUT
HIS LIFE.
BUT THEN MAX DELLBROOK AND
DHERELLE THEY REALIZED MAYBE YOU
COULD USE BACTERIOPHAGE TO STUDY
GENES.
YOU SHOULD KEEP IN MIND IN THE
EARLY 1940S IT WASN'T CLEAR IF
DO VIRUSES CONTAIN GENES, DO
BACTERIA CONTAIN GENES?
THESE SIMPLE STRUCTURES.
SO A LOT OF PIONEERING THINKING.
BUT IT TURNED OUT TO BE VERY
CONVENIENT SYSTEM.
YOU COULD IDENTIFY A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT PROPERTIES OF THE
BACTERIOPHAGES.
YOU COULD CROSS THEM.
YOU COULD SEE THAT THIS WAS A
WAY OF STUDYING GENETICS.
AND THEREFORE THEY OPENED UP A
COMPLETELY NEW FIELD.
I'LL SKIP THAT.
AND THEY STARTED TO GIVE COURSES
AT COLD SPRING HARBOR.
AND THESE WERE FAMOUS COURSES
THAT WERE ACTUALLY ONGOING FOR
25 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE
1940S ONWARD.
TEACHING COLLEAGUES HOW YOU WORK
WITH BACTERIOPHAGES, HOW YOU DO
GENETIC STUDIES AND SO FORTH.
AND THE PROGRESSIVELY THIS
OPENED UP THE FIELD WHEN IT WAS
CLEAR THAT, YES, BACTERIA
VIRUSES, BACTERIOPHAGES DO
CONTAIN GENES AND GENETICS CAN
BE STARTED IN THIS VERY SIMPLE
SYSTEM.
WHICH ALSO GAVE VERY QUICK
RESULTS BECAUSE OF THE WAY
PHAGES CAN REPLICATE IN HALF AN
HOUR.
YOU WILL SEE THE OUTCOME OF
THIS.
BUT THEN WE NEED TO COME BACK TO
OSWALD AVERY, THIS FAMOUS PAPER
FROM 1943 IS A VERY SOLID
SCIENTIFIC PAPER SHOWING THAT IF
YOU HAVE PNEUMOCOCCI WITH
DIFFERENT PROPERTIES YOU COULD
EXTRACT OUR DNA AND THIS WAS
HIGHLY PURIFIED MATERIAL.
BUT OF COURSE YOU CAN ALWAYS
ARGUE, NO, THERE MUST BE SOME
PROTEIN IN THERE.
AND THAT I THINK THE
CONTAMINATION HERE IN THE
PREPARATION PRODUCED IN THIS
PAPER 1%.
BUT ONE COULD ARGUE, LIKE HIS
COLLEAGUES MAERSK AT ROCKEFELLER
COULD BE INTRODUCED BUT IT'S A
SMALL AMOUNT OF PROTEIN THAT'S
THERE.
AND CONCEPTUALLY THERE WAS AN
ENORMOUS BARRIER TO ACCEPT THAT
NUCLEIC ACID COULD BE A MOLECULE
OF INTEREST BECAUSE THERE WAS
SUCH A PRETTY BORING MOLECULE.
PROBABLY A SUPPORT SUBSTANCE AS
HAD BEEN EMPHASIZED BY EARLIER
CHEMISTS.
AND SO THROUGHOUT THE 1940S,
EVEN THOUGH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
WAS ACCUMULATING, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT IN SEMINAL CELLS, LIKE IN
SPERMMATSOA AND EGGS THEY HAD
THE CELLS IT STILL WASN'T RIGHT.
AND IT'S SURPRISING BECAUSE
HENRY DALE WAS THE PRESIDENT AT
THE ROYAL SOCIETY HE ARRANGED
THAT A PRIZE WAS GIVEN TO AVERY
AT THE TIME IN THE MID-1940S,
AND THIS IS FROM HIS SPEECH IN
1944.
"HERE IS A CHANGE TO WHICH, IF
WE ARE DEALING WITH HIGHER
ORGANISMS, WE SHOULD ACCORD THE
STATUS OF GENETIC VARIATION."
AND THIS IS IN 1944.
AND THE SUBSTANCE INDUCING IT
THE GENE IN SOLUTION ONE IS
TEMPTED TO CALL IT APPEARS TO BE
A NUCLEIC AS OF THE DEOX RIBOSE
TYPE, WHATEVER IT IS SOMETHING
WHICH SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF
COMPLETE DESCRIPTION IN TERMS OF
STRUCTURAL CHEMISTRY.
THIS IS A PREDICTION IT CAN BE
POSSIBLE TO STUDY GENETICS AT
THE MOLECULAR LEVEL.
BUT AGAIN IT DIDN'T FLY IN THE
SUMMARY.
AVERY WAS NOMINATED FOR A NOBEL
PRIZE MANY TIMES.
AND THE LAST EVALUATION WAS IN
1955 BY HAMMARSTEN, SHOWED A
PICTURE BEFORE.
AND HE SAID, SO IT MAY BE TRUE
THAT HIS FINDING BUT THERE WERE
SOME RESERVATIONS.
SO NO PRIZE WAS GIVEN.
AND THEN AVERY DIED.
AND THE YEAR AFTER, THERE'S A
UNIQUE DOCUMENT IN THE NOBEL
ARCHIVES BY A SWEDISH NOBEL
LAUREATE SAYING WE MADE A
MISTAKE.
YOU FIND RARELY THAT KIND OF
DOCUMENT IN NOBEL ARCHIVES.
SO AVERY NEVER GOT THE FULL
CREDIT THAT HE SHOULD HAVE
RECEIVED.
BUT THINGS STARTED TO DEVELOP
WITH POWER AND AMONG THIS WAS
THE NEW ISOTOPE TECHNIQUES THAT
OPENED UP NEW DOORS IN INVIR
ROWCHEMISTRY.
AND CLASSICAL HERSHEY AND CHASE
EXPERIMENT.
HERSHEY AND CHASE, CHASE
DEVELOPED HER OWN CAREER LATER
ON.
SO THEY SIMPLY LABELED NUCLEIC
ACID WITH PHOSPHOROUS AND
PROTEINS WITH SULFUR AND THEN
LOOKED AT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN A
BACTERIOPHAGE INFECTS CELLS.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS, OF COURSE,
THAT THE NUCLEIC ACID GOT INTO
THE CELL AND THE SULFUR STAYS ON
THE OUTSIDE, THE PROTEIN.
AND THEN YOU THINK IT WOULD BE
ALL CLEAR.
BUT NOT SO.
AND BUT THEN CAME, OF COURSE,
THE CONTINUOUS WORK ON THE DNA
AND STRUCTURED DNA.
AND THAT IS A LONG STORY THAT I
WON'T ELABORATE.
TWO GROUPS ONE AT KINGS COLLEGE
WHICH ALLOCATED MEANS FOR THE
RESEARCH COUNCIL THAT WAS THE
GROUP THAT WAS GOING TO STUDY
NUCLEIC ACID AND THERE WAS A
GROUP WHICH INCLUDED CREEK AND
WATSON AND HEADED BY BRAGG AT
CAMBRIDGE THEY WERE GOING TO
STUDY PROTEINS.
BUT WATSON AND CREEK THEY
COULDN'T LET GO OF THE IDEA THEY
WANTED TO STUDY NUCLEIC ACID.
SO ROSALIND FRANKLIN WAS A VERY
CENTRAL FIGURE AND A LOT IS
WRITTEN ABOUT HER IN AT LEAST
THREE DIFFERENT BOOKS.
AND THE MOST FAMOUS IS THE
PHOTOGRAPH '51, WHICH GIVES THE
NAME OF A PLAY THAT DESCRIBES
HER CONTRIBUTIONS.
AND IT WAS WHEN CREEK SAW THIS
PICTURE AND HOW IT GOT INTO HIS
HANDS HAS BEEN A DEBATE OR
DISCUSSION FOR A LONG TIME.
HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DNA
SHOULD BE A DOUBLE HELIX.
THERE HAD BEEN EXPERIMENTS BACK
AND FORTH, AND THEY WERE HAVE
REFLECTION ON A TRIPLE HELIX.
AND THEN OTHER SCIENTISTS WANTED
TO GET IN HERE AND THEN THAT
KIND OF KICKED OFF.
SO BRAGG LET WATSON AND CREEK,
ACTUALLY, STUDY THE NUCLEIC ACID
AND THAT HAPPENED IN EARLY 1953.
AND AS A LITTLE REMINDER,
ROSALIND AND FRANKLIN'S VERY
IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION.
THIS IS CITED FROM AARON KLUG,
STUDYING THE VIRUS.
HE SAID IT WAS ROSE LIND FRANK
LING WHO SET ME THE EXAMPLE OF
TACKLING LARGE AND DIFFICULT
PROBLEMS.
HAD HER LIFE NOT BEEN CUT
TRAGICALLY SHORT, SHE MIGHT HAVE
STOOD IN THIS PLACE ON EARLIER
OCCASION.
AND SHE HAD DIED IN 1958.
OF AN OVARIAN CANCER.
SHE WAS NEVER NOMINATED FOR A
NOBEL PRIZE.
BUT WHEN THE FINAL NOMINATION,
THEY TOOK, AS WE'LL SEE A LONG
TIME.
THE FIRST NOMINATION FOR A PRIZE
FOR DNA WAS IN 1960.
IN THE REVIEWS, THEN IT
APPROPRIATELY MENTIONED ABOUT
HER ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL
CONTRIBUTION TO THIS
DEVELOPMENT.
SO IT IS IN FEBRUARY 28 WHERE
YOU SEE THAT WATSON AND
FRANKLIN, THE DOUBLE HELIX, USES
A SLIDE RULE.
THAT WAS THE COMPUTER OF THE
DAYS.
AND OF COURSE THEY HAVE -- THIS
WAS A VERY, VERY FUNDAMENTAL
DISCOVERY FROM ALL PERSPECTIVES.
THEY HAD IN THE EVENING BRAGGING
WE HAVE FOUND THE MOLECULE OF
LIFE.
BUT THE QUESTION IS, WHAT WAS
THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF
DISCOVERING THE DOUBLE HELIX?
THE DOUBLE HELIX IS A VERY, VERY
COMPLEX MOLECULE.
VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW
IT REPLICATES.
AND WE WON'T BE LABOR THAT POINT
BUT THAT WAS A CHALLENGE IN
EARLY TIME.
I FOUND AN INTERESTING -- YES,
THIS IS THE COMPLEXITY OF
REPLICATION BECAUSE ONE STRAND
IS GOING DOWNWARDS, ANOTHER
UPWARDS, AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT
MEANS OF REPLICATING THAT WE
WON'T DEVELOP.
BUT IN AN INTERESTING REVIEW, IN
1953, BY HUGO TERRELL,
FORTHCOMING SWEDISH NOBEL
WRITER, IN SWEDEN HE WRITES THE
FOLLOWING, GIVES A VERY GOOD
PICTURE OF THE WAY OF THINKING
AT THIS TIME.
SO, HE'S TALKING NOW ABOUT THE
STRUCTURE OF INSULIN.
SO THE INDEPENDENT AMINO ACIDS
DO NOT SHOW A TENDENCY TO
DISPLAY ANY KIND OF PERIOD CITY,
BUT APPEAR TO BE POSITIONED
WITHOUT ANY RULE AFTER EACH
OTHER.
HOWEVER, ALWAYS IN A GIVEN
PLACE.
ALL THE SLIN MOLECULES WERE
IDENTICAL.
THERE ARE NO REVERSALS IN
POSITION OF RELATED AMINO ACIDS
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, LEUCINE AND
ISOLEUCINE.
THUS EACH INSULIN MOLECULE
SHOULD BE EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO
OTHERS.
AND EARLIER ONE HAS BEEN BEEN
RELUCTANT TO BELIEVE THAT
PROTEIN MOLECULES SHOULD BE
REPRODUCIBLE INTO THE SMALLEST
DETAIL.
BUT HOW WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO
CONCEPTUALIZE THE SYNTHESIS OF
PROTEINS.
HOW ON EARTH CAN IT BE DONE.
IF THERE IS NO PERIOD CITY OR
OTHER PERMED ORDER THAT CAN BE
TRACED IN THE POLYPEPTIDE CHAINS
THAT FORM PROTEINS ONE WOULD BE
FORCED TO ASSUME THAT THE
FORMATION OF EVEN THE SIMPLEST
PROTEIN LIKE INSULIN WOULD
REQUIRE PERHAPS SOME 50
DIFFERENT ABSOLUTELY SPECIFIC
ENZYMES TO ATTACH EACH
INDIVIDUAL AMINO ACID, ONE AT A
TIME, UNTIL FINALLY THE CHAIN IS
COMPLETE.
THIS IS ADVANCED CHEMIST IN
SWEDEN NOT HAVING AN IDEA IF
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE
CALLED INFORMATION MOLECULES.
THAT IS IN 1953.
AND SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE
MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF DNA WAS
THE REALIZATION THAT THERE WAS
AN INFORMATION SYSTEM, THAT
THERE WAS A CODE THAT THE
NUCLEIC ACID COULD DECIDE THE
SEQUENCE OF AMINO ACID OF A
PROTEIN.
AND THAT WAS COMPLETELY NEW.
AND IT WAS SO NEW THAT IT TOOK A
LONG TIME TO REALLY APPRECIATE
THAT THIS WAS THE WAY IT WAS.
AND WE'LL SEE IT IN A MOMENT THE
FIRST NOMINATION FOR A NOBEL
PRIZE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF DNA
DID NOT COME UNTIL 1960.
SEVEN YEARS AFTER DISCOVERY OF
THE DOUBLE HELIX, WHY IS THAT?
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PRIZES,
ONE REALIZED NOW, FROM 1965.
AND ON, I'LL SKIP THAT, FROM
1957 WHEN THERE WAS A PRIZE IN
CHEMISTRY TO TODD AND CAN FOLLOW
THE RSV IN NOBEL LAUREATE.
SO IN 1955 IT COMES IT SEEMS IT
MUST BE THE NUCLEIC ACID THAT'S
CARRYING THE GENETIC
INFORMATION.
BUT NOT IMMEDIATELY AFTER '53,
LIKE IT WOULD BE PRONE TO.
SO FROM 1953 ONWARD.
AND THERE'S A PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY
TO TODD FOR HIS WORK ON NUCLEO
TIDES AND NUCLEOTIDE COENZYMES.
AND THEN COMES A PRIZE IN '58 TO
BEADLE AND TATUM FOR THEIR
DISCOVERY THAT GENES ACT BY
REGULATING DEFINITE CHEMICAL
EVENTS.
ONE GENE/ONE ENZYME CONCEPT THAT
ARE ALSO FUNDAMENTAL.
AND HAVE THE PRIZE IN 1958 WAS
GIVEN TO JOSH LEDERBERG, A VERY
YOUNG MOLECULAR BIOLOGY WOULD
USE THE TERM AT THE TIME AND HE
HAS GENETIC RECOMBINATION AND
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GENETIC
MATERIAL OF BACTERIA.
HE WAS ONLY 33 YEARS OLD.
HE'S THE SECOND-YOUNGEST OF ALL
NOBEL LAUREATES.
YOUNGEST ONE WAS BANTINE PRIZE
FOR INSULIN, WHEN HE WAS 32
WHERE GENE WATSON WAS 34 WHEN HE
RECEIVED HIS PRIZE IN 1962.
GEORGE LEDERBERG IS EXTREMELY
INFLUENTIAL AND WAY AHEAD OF HIS
TIME BUT THE OTHER PRIZE WAS
GIVEN IN NUCLEIC ACID WORK ALSO
IN 1959, THE PRIZE TO CHOA AND
KORBBURG BUT IT'S AN
EMBARRASSING PRIZE BECAUSE WAS
FOR MECHANISM BIOLOGICAL
SYNTHESIS OF RIBONUCLEIC ACID
AND DEOX RIBONUCLEIC ACID.
AND THEY HAD AN DNA RNA
REPLICATING SYSTEM WHICH DOESN'T
EXIST IN THE NUCLEAR CELLS.
HIS TITLES WERE ALL WRONG
BECAUSE ALL THE RNAS IS FROM
DNA.
AND ARTHUR KORNBERG HE WAS
CLOSER BUT THEY FOUND OUT THE
ENZYME HE FOUND WASN'T THE
ENZYME AS REPLICATING DNA.
IT WAS BREAKING DOWN DNA.
AND IT WAS HIS SON, WHO, SOME
YEARS LATER, FROM THE RIGHT
ENZYME, THAT IS ACTUALLY
REPLICATING THE DNA.
AND SO I THINK THE COMMITTEE WAS
EAGER TO RECOGNIZE THE ROLE OF
NUCLEIC ACID AND MADE
PREDETERMINED DECISIONS TO BE
HONEST.
AND THEN AGAIN SOMETHING AS
IMPORTANT AS THE DISCOVERY OF
THE DOUBLE HELIX STRUCTURE OF
DNA, THUF PROMPTED YOU TO THINK
NOMINATIONS FOR NOBEL PRIZE
RATHER QUICKLY BUT IT DID NOT.
THE FIRST NOMINATION IN 1960,
AND IT'S BY BRAGG WHO HAS VESTED
INTEREST IN THIS.
HE WANTED TO DISTRIBUTE TWO
NOBEL PRIZES, ONE TO KANDEL AND
PERUSE FOR CRYSTALLOGRAPHY AND
HE THOUGHT I CAN PUT IT INTO
PHYSICS AND I CAN GET WATSON AND
CRICK INTO CHEMISTRY.
BUT IT CERTAINLY DIDN'T WORK
OUT.
IT WAS ASELIAS WHO DECIDED WE'LL
SPLIT IT.
SO THE CHEMISTRY PRIZE WILL BE
TO THE PROTEIN
CRYSTALLOGRAPHERS, AND ONE WILL
TAKE CARE OF WATSON AND CRICK
AND WILKINS ON THE PHYSIOLOGY OF
MEDICINE.
YOU CAN SEE HERE THE NOMINATION,
WHICH IS NOT VERY DRAMATIC.
OF COURSE, IT ACCUMULATES IN
1962.
AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR, THOUGH,
WE MUST GIVE A NOBEL PRIZE FOR
THE DISCOVERY OF A STRUCTURE OF
DNA, WHICH WAS WATSON.
AWARDED IN 1962.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SWEDISH
KING GIVES A HANDSHAKE FOR
FRANCIS FOR
FRANCIS CRICK, AND YOU HAVE
JOHNSON IN THE BACKGROUND AND
FURTHER ON WILKINS AND PERUSE
AND CANDRELS.
AND IT WAS A VERY IMPRESSIVE NEW
ADVANCE IN SCIENCE THAT WAS
RECOGNIZED BY THIS PRIZE.
SO WHAT DID THESE THREE EVEN
TALK ABOUT IN THE NOBEL
LECTURES.
WILKINS, HE ACTUALLY TALKED
ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF DNA.
BUT WATSON, HE BARELY MENTIONED
DNA.
HE TALKED ABOUT THE WORLD OF RNA
AND HIS STATUS OF TRYING TO
IDENTIFY MESSENGER RNA AND OTHER
TYPES OF RNA.
AND CRICK, HE ONLY SPOKE ABOUT
THE GENETIC CODE.
MENTIONING THE TRIP LET CODE 33
TIMES IN HIS LECTURE.
THEY WERE ALL WAY AHEAD OF THE
DISCOVERY OF THE DNA AS A DOUBLE
HELIX.
AND THIS ILLUSTRATES HOW
CATALYTIC THIS EARLY DISCOVERY
WAS.
ONCE IT GOT STARTED, THERE WAS
ENORMOUS SPEED OF DEVELOPMENT.
EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD THAT IF YOU
CAN REALLY GET AT THIS WE WILL
HANDLE THE FUNDAMENTALS OF
BIOLOGY THE ROLE OF STORING DNA
AND THE EXPRESSION OF THE GENES
OF THE DNA AND RNA AND THE
DIFFERENT FORMS OF RNA.
ALL THIS WAS NEW AND ADVANCED
WITH AN ENORMOUS SPEED DURING
THE 1950S AND THE 60S.
NOOUKZ .
AND THE TO FURTHER THE CONCEPT.
BENZER SINGLE NUCLEOTIDES OF A
SINGLE GENE AND THE OTHER IS MY
TRUE HERO IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY,
BRENNER, TRIPLICATE CODE, IN A
GENE IN TRIPLICATE AND YOU HAD
DELETION, AFTER THREE DELETION
MUTANTS YOU GO BACK IN THE RIGHT
READING FRAME.
AND HE HAS MADE MANY, MANY OTHER
CRUCIALLY CONTRIBUTIONS TO
SCIENCE.
FORTUNATELY, WE MANAGED TO GET
HIM A NOBEL PRIZE IN 2002.
I COULD SPEAK A LOT ABOUT HIM
BECAUSE HE IS A REMARKABLE
PERSON AND SCIENTIST.
WHAT ABOUT SHARGROF, AN AUSTRIAN
CHEMIST CAME TO THE COUNTRY IN
THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
AND HE SETTLED AT I THINK AT
COLUMBIA, AND HE DEVELOPED THE
TECHNIQUES, VERY IMPORTANT OF
ITS TIME OF ELECTROPHORESIS AND
SEPARATING THE NUCLEOTIDES OF
NUCLEIC ACID.
AND HE FOUND A VERY FUNDAMENTAL,
THAT IS, ALWAYS ABSOLUTE
PROPORTIONS OF A AND T AND G AND
C.
AND THIS IS SUCH A SOLID
FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE THAT IT
SHOULD HAVE RUNNING A BELL TO
HIM THAT THIS MUST BE OF
ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL VALUE BUT HE
DIDN'T FULLY APPRECIATE IT.
HIS PUBLICATION ABOUT THE DATES
OF RATIOS IS CITED IN THE WATSON
AND CRICK APRIL PAPER IN 1953.
WHEREAS, AVERY IS NOT CITED IN
THAT PAPER, WHICH IS AN
EMBARRASSMENT.
BUT CHARGRAFF IS.
WHEN WATSON AND CRICK RECEIVED
THE NOBEL PRIZE, CHARGRAFF WA
UPSET.
AND HE WAS WORTHY OF THE PRIZE
AND THE IDEAS OF COMBINING HIM
WITH SOME OTHER MAJOR
CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FIELD.
BUT HE NEVER RECEIVED THE PRIZE.
SEEMED TO BE RATHER OF A BIT OF
COMPLEXING AND BITTER PERSON.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT MOVED ON
AND I WON'T BELABOR THAT, BUT SO
I'VE WRITTEN IN MY FOURTH BOOK
ABOUT THE WHOLE CRONIN AND
NIRENBERG.
I HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS BUT NEVER
PAID A VISIT LOOKING FORWARD
TODAY.
NIRENBERG A FASCINATING PERSON,
OF COURSE, FOR THE WAY HE
ORCHESTRATED THIS.
WHEREAS, HOLLEY MADE A SINGLE
CONTRIBUTION TRANSFERRING THE
DNA AND KHORANA WAS AN
INCREDIBLE CHEMIST AND
DEVELOPING METHODS AND HE WAS
TRAINED IN ENGLAND, AND
THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE IMPRESSIVE
TEACHER SO FORTH.
SO WHEN WE COME TO THE 1969
PRIZE, ONE CAN SAY THAT THIS IS
REALLY COMING QUITE LATE BECAUSE
THE FUNDAMENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS
THAT MAX DELBRUCK AND HERSHEY
DID IT WAS WAY IN THE LATE 40S,
AND AFTER THAT MAX DELBRUCK LEFT
STARTED A NEW SYSTEM.
AND IN HIS NOBEL LECTURE HE
BARREL TALKED ABOUT HIS PHAGE
WORK BUT CURRENT WORK ON
METPLESIA AND WAY BACK HE
INCLUDED IN THE LECTURE HE
REFERRED TO THE THREE-MAN PAPER,
HISTORIC DOCUMENT.
IT WAS A BIT LATE.
AND HERSHEY WAS A TRUE
EXPERIMENTER.
HE DID MANY, MANY IMPORTANT
CONTRIBUTIONS AFTER THE EARLY
1940S, BUT HE WAS A PART OF THAT
OF USING PHAGES TO ILLUSTRATE
THE FUNDAMENTAL CONDIMENTS OF
GENETICS.
AND LURIA DID ALSO.
HIS WORK MOSTLY IN THE 40S AND
EARLY '50s.
AND HE HAD ALSO SHIFTED SYSTEM
AT THE TIME IN '69.
BUT STILL IT'S GOOD THAT WE
MANAGED TO GIVE A PRIZE TO THESE
PIONEERS OF GENETICS AND THE
FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERY DESCRIBING
WHAT IS A GENE FINISHING THE
TECHNIQUES HAVE DEVELOPED WHERE
PHAGES, THE DNA OF THE
PHAGEHEAD, AND THE WAY IT CAN BE
INJECTED INTO CELLS, WE LEARNED
A LOT OF DETAILS ABOUT THAT.
AND WHAT ABOUT THIS ORIGINAL
QUESTION, WAS IT MEANINGFUL TO
DISCUSS IF YOU COULD DEFINE THE
SIZE OF A GENE.
WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT IT TODAY,
CURRENTLY KNOWN THE SIZE OF THE
VIRUS ARE ENORMOUS, THIS
VARIATION RANGES FROM 76 BASE
PAIRS THAT CONSTITUTE ONE KIND
OF TRANSFER RNA TO THE MUSCLE,
ALL THE WAY TO THE MUSCLE
PROTEIN TITIN WHICH HAS A
HUNDRED THOUSAND BASE PAIRS.
SO ONE COULDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE
TIME, BUT TO ASK A QUESTION THE
SIZE OF A GENE WASN'T REALLY IN
LATER PERSPECTIVE VERY
MEANINGFUL.
SO I'VE SUMMARIZED THIS IN MY
MOST RECENT BOOK, WHICH IS ABOUT
THE GENES, VIRUSES AND CELLULAR
SIGNALLING, AND THIS IS ABOUT
1969 PRIZE, 1970 PRIZE IS
NEUROBIOLOGY, AND '71 IS THE
CYCLIC AMP.
BUT I PUT ON THE PAGE HERE THE
FIRST NOBEL LAUREATE IN
PHYSIOLOGY MEDICINE.
HER NAME IS KATAGORY.
CZECH, MET HER IN MEDICAL SCHOOL
AND THEY WENT TO VIENNA AND FROM
THERE FELT IN 1920 THEY HAD TO
LEAVE EUROPE AND HAD AN
INCREDIBLE CAREER IN THIS
COUNTRY.
AND THEY HAD A LABORATORY IN ST.
LOUIS THAT TRAINED SOME SEVEN TO
EIG
EIGHT FORTHCOMING NOBEL
LAUREATES, AND WHEN YOUNG PEOPLE
ASK ME WHAT SHOULD I DO IN
SCIENCE, CHOOSE YOUR MENTOR.
50 NOBEL LAUREATES HAVE WORKED
IN LABORATORY.
AND SO THERE'S A UNIQUE LINEAGE
THERE THEY STARTED THEIR
REMARKABLE LINEAGE THAT INCLUDED
OCHOA, KORNBERG AND A EXCHANGE
OF VERY QUALIFIED.
SO, I'M SORRY FOR THE
INTERRUPTION THAT WE HAVE HAD,
BUT I THINK I PUT AN END TO MY
LECTURE HERE AND SIMPLY TO SAY
THAT FOLLOWING THE GROWTH OF
KNOWLEDGE, IT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY
JOY, BUT BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL,
YOU HAVE TO TRY FOR YOURSELF TO
INTERPRET AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU
UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES ON AND THEN
YOU CAN TRY TO EXPLAIN IT.
AND WHAT ELSE, THERE IS MUCH
MORE TO COME, BUT WHAT THIS WILL
BE, WE DON'T KNOW.
AND WITH THIS I THANK YOU FOR
YOUR ATTENTION.
I APOLOGIZE AGAIN FOR THE
PROBLEM WE HAD WITH THE SLIDES.
[APPLAUSE]
>> ANYBODY IN HERE THAT WOULD
LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION, USE THE
MICS.
THERE'S ONE THAT CAME IN.
I'M GLAD YOU SHOWED THAT PHOTO
OF A FEMALE LAUREATE.
IT'S RELATED TO THAT.
AND THE RELATIVE DEARTH OF
FEMALE LAUREATES, FROM YOUR
PERSPECTIVE AND INSIGHT OF THE
NOBEL SELECTION COMMITTEE, DO
YOU THINK ROSALIND FRANKLIN
WOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE
NOBEL PRIZE HAD SHE NOT DIED?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
ONE CAN SEE THIS IN ALL THE
REVIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SHE
WAS FULLY ACCREDITED FROM THIS
THAT MEANS THAT WILKINS WOULD
HAVE TO BE LEFT OUT BECAUSE IT'S
A MAXIMUM OF THREE.
BUT NO, I THINK FULL AGREEMENT
ON THAT.
AND SHE CONTINUED TO DO VERY
IMPORTANT WORK IN THE FEW YEARS
SHE HAD AT HER DISPOSAL.
>> THE ARGUMENT THAT SOMETHING
AFTER A WHILE IS AWARDED AFTER A
DEATH BUT NOT IN THE SCIENCES
PERHAPS.
IN THE PEACE PRIZE IN THE
LITERATURE.
>> THERE'S NO -- YOU CAN'T
GIVE -- A PERSON HAD TO BE ALIVE
WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE PRIZE,
ACTUALLY.
>> NOTHING YET IN THE QUESTION
FROM THE PANEL HERE.
STILL WAITING FOR ANYTHING ELSE
TO COME IN.
YOU CAN SUBMIT A QUESTION VIA
THE VIDEOCAST FEEDBACK FORM
RIGHT BELOW YOUR VIDEOCAST
SCREEN.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION.
IN GOING THROUGH THE MARVELOUS
LECTURE, WHEN DID THE ACTUAL
CONCEPT IN YOUR MIND OF THE GENE
BECOME AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR
THE NOBEL COMMITTEE?
THERE WERE OBSERVATIONS THAT
WERE MADE, BUT CAN YOU SORT OF
TIME, WAS IT IN THE 1940S OR 50S
THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY SAID THERE
WAS A GENE AND WE ARE GOING TO
AWARD THE PRIZE FOR SEMINAL WORK
LEADING TO THAT?
WHEN DID THAT CONCEPT ACTUALLY
BECOME PART OF THE PRIZE'S
DISCUSSION?
>> IN ORDER TO AWARD THE
IDENTIFYING THE NATURE OF THE
GENE, I THINK ONE HAD TO WAIT
FOR THE END OF THE 1950S,
ACTUALLY.
AFTER -- THIS VERY LATE
REALIZATION, WOULD HAVE MISSED
AVERY 1856, THERE ON, THERE WAS
A LOT OF FOCUS ON GENES AND
NUCLEIC ACID AS IT'S APPARENT
FROM THE VARIOUS PRIZES GIVEN.
SO I WOULD THINK FROM THERE
ON -- AND SO MUCH WAS HAPPENING
ALL OF A SUDDEN IN MOLECULAR
BIOLOGY, THE FOUNDATIONS OF THAT
AND THE COMMITTEE WAS WELL
BRIEFED ON THAT NOT TO SAY THE
LEAST THE LEADING FIGURE ON
THAT, HE THEN REALIZED HE WANTED
TO GET THE BIOLOGY IN SWEDEN A
LOT OF EFFORTS TO GET GOING BE
SURE TO USE THE MIC
DR. SCHECTER.
IN YOUR BOOK THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR
BACTERIA ASSOCIATED WITH GASTRIC
CANCER AS PERHAPS THE WORST
NOBEL PRIZE THE ONE FOR WHAT'S
GENERALLY CONSIDERED INCORRECT
INFERENCES IS THE FACT THAT
NOBEL PRIZES HAVE BEEN SO
SUCCESSFUL IN NOT AWARDING
INCORRECT PRIZES INDICATIVE OF
THE VERY CONSERVATIVE NATURE AND
SHOULD THERE BE MORE ERRORS IN
ANTICIPATING IN RECOGNIZING
NOVEL RESULTS.
>> SO THIS IS A VERY GOOD -- IT
SAYS IN NOBEL'S WILL THAT YOU
SHOULD GIVE A PRIZE TO THE ONE
WHO, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR,
HAS MADE AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY.
THAT WAS A MAJOR CONCERN.
ALL THE WAY FROM THE BEGINNING.
IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG BEFORE ONE
REINTERPRETED THAT AND SIMPLY
REFORMULATED AND SAID THAT SO
WE, THE COMMITTEES UNDERSTOOD
THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE REPORT OF
A PARTICULAR DISCOVERY THAT
COULD BE 10, 15 YEARS OLD.
MAYBE NOBEL HAD ANOTHER VIEW ON
HOW ONE DISCOVERS.
HE WAS AN ENTREPRENEUR.
HE WAS -- AND ALSO COULD HAVE
HAD OTHER QUALIFICATIONS IN
PHYSICS YOU CAN GIVE A NOBEL
PRIZE FOR DISCOVERY OR
INVENTION.
IN CHEMISTRY, WE CAN GIVE NOBEL
PRIZE FOR DISCOVERY OR
IMPROVEMENT.
BUT IN PHYSIOLOGY OF MEDICINE
YOU CAN ONLY GIVE FOR DISCOVERY.
SO YOU HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT IS A
DISCOVERY.
AND REINTERPRET IT, MAY TAKE
TIME TO FULLY APPRECIATE IT.
BUT APPARENTLY A CERTAIN STAGE
NOT TO RUSH THINGS.
AND AS YOU MENTION THERE ARE
VERY FEW OBVIOUS MISTAKES.
THERE IS THE FEBE CASE WHICH IS
1927 ABOUT HE THOUGHT HE HAD
FOUND THE ORIGIN OF CERTAIN
CANCER.
THAT WAS ALL WRONG.
BUT BEYOND THAT, MOST THINGS
HAVE STOOD THE TEST OF TIME.
OF COURSE ONE CAN ALWAYS ARGUE
THAT WHAT ABOUT OTHER FIELDS
COMPETING FIELDS, OTHER FIELDS
OF MEDICINE IS HUGE.
AND ACTUALLY THE TITLE IS ALSO
IT'S A PRIZE IN PHYSIOLOGY OR
MEDICINE.
THAT'S ALSO VERY CLEVER
FORMULATION BY ALFRED NOBEL.
AND OVERALL, HIS WILL IS
REMARKABLE.
IT'S HANDWRITTEN.
IT'S WRITTEN IN SWEDISH.
THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE LAUREATE
THAT HELPED HIM FORMULATING THIS
AND STILL HE GOT IT ALMOST
RIGHT.
>> MAYBE ONE MORE AND MAYBE ONE
OF THESE ONLY FROM NIH TYPE
QUESTIONS.
MARSHAL NIRENBERG WAS THE FIRST
FEDERAL SCIENTIST TO WIN THE
NOBEL PRIZE IN 1968.
AND ONLY A FEW AFTER HIM HAVE
WON.
DO YOU THINK THE NOBEL COMMITTEE
HAS A CERTAIN PREJUDICE TO
FEDERAL SCIENTISTS?
IS IT HARDER FOR FEDERAL
SCIENTISTS TO WIN THE AWARD?
>> SO THAT WAS INTERESTING
NIRENBERG WAS THE FIRST.
SO IN THE EARLY PHASE OF THE
NOBEL WORK THERE WAS THIS
ENORMOUS DOMINANCE BY GERMANY.
THEY ATTRACTED ABOUT 60% OF THE
NOBEL PRIZES.
THEN CAME THE TERRIBLE TWO WORLD
WARS AND NOT THE LEAST FROM 1933
ONWARDS THE PERSECUTION OF JEWS
OUT OF EUROPE.
AND A LOT OF THOSE FOUND A NEW
HOMELAND HERE AND FOUND RESEARCH
ENVIRONMENTS THAT REALLY ALLOW
THEM TO DEVELOP.
SO AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR,
UNITED STATES TAKES ABOUT 70% OF
ALL THE NOBEL PRIZE IN NATURAL
SCIENCES.
AND YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF THAT
AND YOU SHOULD AIM AT RETAINING
THAT POSITION.
THE CHALLENGES ARE THERE.
I MEAN, EVERYONE AROUND THE
WORLD WANT TO BE PART OF THIS.
BUT YOU DO SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT IN YOUR INSTITUTES OF
HIGHER LEARNING, THERE ARE
CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTS THAT HAVE
FOSTERED THIS.
SO THAT IS MY COMMENT TO THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I THINK THIS BRINGS US TO A
CLOSE.
AND WE ALL WANT TO THANK YOU,
ERLING, FOR A MARVELOUS LECTURE.
AND THE FOR REALLY BRINGING THIS
INFORMATION TO US AND GIVING US
THESE REMARKABLE INSIGHTS, NOT
ONLY IN THE LECTURE, BUT IN YOUR
SIX WONDERFUL BOOKS.
AND THANK EVERYONE FOR TUNING IN
AND THOSE WHO CAME TODAY AND
THANK MOST IMPORTANTLY THE
OFFICE, THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE
FOR PUTTING THIS ON.
>> FOR THEIR PATIENCE.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THANK YOU.
[APPLAUSE]