[I apologise in advance if this is not the right place to discuss]
Very recently I came across this paper link.
Reading this, really got me thinking whether a computational biologist can ever be considered for a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Now that a lot of interesting stuff is happening in this field, is it really a possibility? My question is aimed for those people who are not practising biologists or have a formal degree in biology , but are talented folks from computer science and mathematics.
2 answers
Of course it's possible. As long as they make a substantial contribution to Medicine.
But the list of people who never win a Nobel is much longer than the list of people who win ;)
Close but no Nobel: the scientists who never won
There are always far more people who deserve a Nobel than those who receive one, so the field is...tough.
whether a computational biologist can ever be considered for a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
N°10 : CLUSTALW
Log in to answer this question.
-
Job: Postdoctoral Fellow (Quantitative Modeling Group)
written by BerkeleyLab •
-
Job: Research Associate, computational/statistical genetics & genomics, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Un…
written by helene.ruffieux •
-
Forum: How can bench biologists transition to be bioinformatics scientist?
written by seahym •
-
Tutorial: A Wet-Lab Guide to 'what I wish I had known' for Computational Biology
written by Sinji
-
Transcription regulatory network and gene pathway
written by bharata1803
One such example, I believe, is the 1979 nobel prize for the development of computed tomography (CT or CAT scan).
A computational biologist could get "a turing award" which is considered Nobel equivalent for computer science (thought it is for "an individual selected for contributions of a technical nature made to the computing community" so that may make it difficult).
Then there are the "breakthrough prizes" which a scientist may be more interested in getting (more dough!).
Should we even care about such things ? Are such prizes meaningful given that most deserving people don't get one and that it gets harder to evaluate individual contributions ?