Bio 1A almost made me drop out of sciences. I wish I had her as a professor. Congrats to her for this amazing recognition

She has a Hawaii connection where she grew up on the Big Island. https://www.staradvertiser.com/2020/10/07/breaking-news/2-scientists-win-nobel-chemistry-prize-for-gene-scissors/

GoCal80 said:

---

I wonder if this Nobel will somehow play into Cal's patent fight with MIT over this technology. It seems that this award, made by a committee of scholars that does a deep study of who made the various contributions before making an award, will settle how it will be seen historically.

---

I mentioned this last year in the CRISPR thread, but Cal wins the Nobe Prize but MIT wins the patent fight. Would you rather have a Nobel or a billion dollars?

The innovator for this technique was never in question. The patent is...

....unfortunately I think MIT has the stronger position here.

Historically, Cal has not been great at filing IP. Stanford and MIT have been phenomenal. Not so much Cal...I'm not sure why but I think we're starting to wake up to this reality.

There goes another parking spot. How many parking spots are now allocated for Nobel winners? What happens to the spots of deceased winners? We should at least put a marker there and give the spot to the best prof in that discipline.

So Awesome!
Go Bears!
(And two Nobels for UC in what, two days???)

Too bad UC Berkeley isn't the patent owner on that thing. Sucks. Since collaboration is necessary and encouraged in academia, it seems patents like that should be awarded to all parties - especially those winning Nobel Prizes for the thing!

On a related note, one of the kids in my daughter's BioTech Partners summer internship program got to work in Doudna's lab about four years ago. He was so lucky to get the placement. Looks like his resume just got boosted just a little bit! (Unfortunately, Oakland Tech just disbanded the BioTech academy. Makes no sense being in the heart of biotech in the East Bay. Lost opportunity right there.)

Usually us non-scientists would have a hard time predicting Nobel Prize winners... but not this time!

Big C said:

---

Usually us non-scientists would have a hard time predicting Nobel Prize winners... but not this time!

---

I'm a scientist and was worried about this one because the Swedish Royal Academy can be fickle. There were others people were arguing could be worthy of this prize, as indicated in this MIT publication: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009601/nobel-prize-chemistry-crispr-gene-editing-doudna-charpentier/

"Controversial pick: Nobels can go to up to three people, so the committee's choice to leave the third slot unfilled is likely to generate debate. Those potentially left out of the honor include Virginijus iknys, a Lithuanian biochemist at the University of Vilnius who made similar discoveries. Also snubbed is Feng Zhang of MIT, who was among the first to show CRISPR editing in human cells and who has so far prevailed in a costly dispute with Charpentier and Doudna over CRISPR patent rights."

Today was a win for the good guys!

Doudna, say her name!

Huge win.

Quote:

---

Controversial pick: Nobels can go to up to three people, so the committee's choice to leave the third slot unfilled is likely to generate debate. Those potentially left out of the honor include Virginijus iknys, a Lithuanian biochemist at the University of Vilnius who made similar discoveries. Also snubbed is Feng Zhang of MIT, who was among the first to show CRISPR editing in human cells and who has so far prevailed in a costly dispute with Charpentier and Doudna over CRISPR patent rights.

---

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009601/nobel-prize-chemistry-crispr-gene-editing-doudna-charpentier/

GoCal80 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Usually us non-scientists would have a hard time predicting Nobel Prize winners... but not this time!

---

I'm a scientist and was worried about this one because the Swedish Royal Academy can be fickle. There were others people were arguing could be worthy of this prize, as indicated in this MIT publication: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009601/nobel-prize-chemistry-crispr-gene-editing-doudna-charpentier/

"Controversial pick: Nobels can go to up to three people, so the committee's choice to leave the third slot unfilled is likely to generate debate. Those potentially left out of the honor include Virginijus iknys, a Lithuanian biochemist at the University of Vilnius who made similar discoveries. Also snubbed is Feng Zhang of MIT, who was among the first to show CRISPR editing in human cells and who has so far prevailed in a costly dispute with Charpentier and Doudna over CRISPR patent rights."

Today was a win for the good guys!

---

I just saw your post after I posted mine.

Proud Hilo High School grad!

GoCal80 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Usually us non-scientists would have a hard time predicting Nobel Prize winners... but not this time!

---

I'm a scientist and was worried about this one because the Swedish Royal Academy can be fickle. There were others people were arguing could be worthy of this prize, as indicated in this MIT publication: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009601/nobel-prize-chemistry-crispr-gene-editing-doudna-charpentier/

"Controversial pick: Nobels can go to up to three people, so the committee's choice to leave the third slot unfilled is likely to generate debate. Those potentially left out of the honor include Virginijus iknys, a Lithuanian biochemist at the University of Vilnius who made similar discoveries. Also snubbed is Feng Zhang of MIT, who was among the first to show CRISPR editing in human cells and who has so far prevailed in a costly dispute with Charpentier and Doudna over CRISPR patent rights."

Today was a win for the good guys!

---

I certainly didn't know that Ms. Doudna was going to win THIS year, just figured it was likely SOME year. I saw where the Physics winners won for their work a long time ago. How do they determine WHEN the winners win? Or do they just sort of select the most deserving candidates who have yet to win?

okaydo said:

---

---

Thanks for posting this list. My professor from my first Class at Cal is on it!

Oui?

GoCal80 said:

---

Big C said:

---

ultulty
Usually us non-scientists would have a hard time predicting Nobel Prize winners... but not this time!

---

I'm a scientist and was worried about this one because the Swedish Royal Academy can be fickle. There were others people were arguing could be worthy of this prize, as indicated in this MIT publication: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009601/nobel-prize-chemistry-crispr-gene-editing-doudna-charpentier/

"Controversial pick: Nobels can go to up to three people, so the committee's choice to leave the third slot unfilled is likely to generate debate. Those potentially left out of the honor include Virginijus iknys, a Lithuanian biochemist at the University of Vilnius who made similar discoveries. Also snubbed is Feng Zhang of MIT, who was among the first to show CRISPR editing in human cells and who has so far prevailed in a costly dispute with Charpentier and Doudna over CRISPR patent rights."

Today was a win for the good guys!

---

Some in our faculty were worried about the politicking going on for the prize and patent.

Bearonthebench said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

Big C said:

---

ultulty
Usually us non-scientists would have a hard time predicting Nobel Prize winners... but not this time!

---

I'm a scientist and was worried about this one because the Swedish Royal Academy can be fickle. There were others people were arguing could be worthy of this prize, as indicated in this MIT publication: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009601/nobel-prize-chemistry-crispr-gene-editing-doudna-charpentier/

"Controversial pick: Nobels can go to up to three people, so the committee's choice to leave the third slot unfilled is likely to generate debate. Those potentially left out of the honor include Virginijus iknys, a Lithuanian biochemist at the University of Vilnius who made similar discoveries. Also snubbed is Feng Zhang of MIT, who was among the first to show CRISPR editing in human cells and who has so far prevailed in a costly dispute with Charpentier and Doudna over CRISPR patent rights."

Today was a win for the good guys!

---

Some in our faculty were worried about the politicking going on for the prize and patent.

---

Bearonthebench said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

Big C said:

---

ultulty
Usually us non-scientists would have a hard time predicting Nobel Prize winners... but not this time!

---

I'm a scientist and was worried about this one because the Swedish Royal Academy can be fickle. There were others people were arguing could be worthy of this prize, as indicated in this MIT publication: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009601/nobel-prize-chemistry-crispr-gene-editing-doudna-charpentier/

"Controversial pick: Nobels can go to up to three people, so the committee's choice to leave the third slot unfilled is likely to generate debate. Those potentially left out of the honor include Virginijus iknys, a Lithuanian biochemist at the University of Vilnius who made similar discoveries. Also snubbed is Feng Zhang of MIT, who was among the first to show CRISPR editing in human cells and who has so far prevailed in a costly dispute with Charpentier and Doudna over CRISPR patent rights."

Today was a win for the good guys!

---

Some in our faculty were worried about the politicking going on for the prize and patent.

---

I am shocked, absolutely shocked, to hear that there might be politics going on in the field of science!

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Great post. Loved the comradeship among the members of the entire team.
Go Bears

hanky1 said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

I wonder if this Nobel will somehow play into Cal's patent fight with MIT over this technology. It seems that this award, made by a committee of scholars that does a deep study of who made the various contributions before making an award, will settle how it will be seen historically.

---

I mentioned this last year in the CRISPR thread, but Cal wins the Nobe Prize but MIT wins the patent fight. Would you rather have a Nobel or a billion dollars?

The innovator for this technique was never in question. The patent is...

....unfortunately I think MIT has the stronger position here.

Historically, Cal has not been great at filing IP. Stanford and MIT have been phenomenal. Not so much Cal...I'm not sure why but I think we're starting to wake up to this reality.

---

The patent situation is complicated. Berkeley has many patents on CRISPR, and filed first on applying CRISPR to mammalian cells. The MIT group ponied up for fast tracking their patent application related to human applications (Cal should have done that!) and managed to get it approved first on a highly controversial (i.e bullsh*t) call by the patent office. But Cal has patents on the basic process, so any commercialization has to address those patents too. As Doudna once put it metaphorically, Cal has a patent on tennis balls, while MIT has a patent on tennis balls with one specific color. By the way, much credit goes to the French co-winner with Doudna, Emanuelle Charpentier.

Bearprof said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

I wonder if this Nobel will somehow play into Cal's patent fight with MIT over this technology. It seems that this award, made by a committee of scholars that does a deep study of who made the various contributions before making an award, will settle how it will be seen historically.

---

I mentioned this last year in the CRISPR thread, but Cal wins the Nobe Prize but MIT wins the patent fight. Would you rather have a Nobel or a billion dollars?

The innovator for this technique was never in question. The patent is...

....unfortunately I think MIT has the stronger position here.

Historically, Cal has not been great at filing IP. Stanford and MIT have been phenomenal. Not so much Cal...I'm not sure why but I think we're starting to wake up to this reality.

---

The patent situation is complicated. Berkeley has many patents on CRISPR, and filed first on applying CRISPR to mammalian cells. The MIT group ponied up for fast tracking their patent application related to human applications (Cal should have done that!) and managed to get it approved first on a highly controversial (i.e bullsh*t) call by the patent office. But Cal has patents on the basic process, so any commercialization has to address those patents too. As Doudna once put it metaphorically, Cal has a patent on tennis balls, while MIT has a patent on tennis balls with one specific color. By the way, much credit goes to the French co-winner with Doudna, Emanuelle Charpentier.

---

I guess the Patent Office does not consider humans to be mammals.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Bearprof said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

I wonder if this Nobel will somehow play into Cal's patent fight with MIT over this technology. It seems that this award, made by a committee of scholars that does a deep study of who made the various contributions before making an award, will settle how it will be seen historically.

---

I mentioned this last year in the CRISPR thread, but Cal wins the Nobe Prize but MIT wins the patent fight. Would you rather have a Nobel or a billion dollars?

The innovator for this technique was never in question. The patent is...

....unfortunately I think MIT has the stronger position here.

Historically, Cal has not been great at filing IP. Stanford and MIT have been phenomenal. Not so much Cal...I'm not sure why but I think we're starting to wake up to this reality.

---

The patent situation is complicated. Berkeley has many patents on CRISPR, and filed first on applying CRISPR to mammalian cells. The MIT group ponied up for fast tracking their patent application related to human applications (Cal should have done that!) and managed to get it approved first on a highly controversial (i.e bullsh*t) call by the patent office. But Cal has patents on the basic process, so any commercialization has to address those patents too. As Doudna once put it metaphorically, Cal has a patent on tennis balls, while MIT has a patent on tennis balls with one specific color. By the way, much credit goes to the French co-winner with Doudna, Emanuelle Charpentier.

---

I guess the Patent Office does not consider humans to be mammals.

---

They do. As did I when I used that term. It is just that the fast-tracking by MIT resulted in their patent being considered before UC/Cal's was.

Anyway, the thing is that a specific commercial application, in e.g. medicine, could require a company to license multiple patents, e.g. one for the basic process, and the other for specific use in humans (or other mammals, e.g. in farm animals).

Also Cal has patents for use of CRISPR in plants/agriculture and many other scenarios. Don't get me wrong, the MIT patent SUBSTANTIALLY cuts in to UC/Cal's potential financial yield from the discovery, but it is not as if there is just one patent for CRISPR and Cal lost out on it and will not get significant royalties from it. And UC/Cal has already, and will continue to, receive royalties from the patents they have on CRISPR.

The MIT patent was bullish*t. Most of us, even those without a horse in the race, thought that their patent was about as obvious an extension that there could be. Patents are not supposed to be awarded for obvious things. But in court, the MIT lawyers used an admirable trait of Doudna from a scientists perspective against her: at an earlier conference, when Doudna was asked whether it would work in human cells, she said she was not certain, as it had not yet been done. But she was just showing scientific restraint. The lawyers, and ultimately the court, used that comment to assert that it must not be obvious if she was not certain it would work. It was most certainly obvious, even if it was not yet carried out. The MIT lab and many others around the same time used exactly Doudna's approach to edit human cells in culture. Then they tried to take all the credit. It was ridiculous.