[curiouscat]

I thought, nothing like a little betting to spice up academic life! 

Who's your pick (doesn't have to be on this list).



http://thomsonreuters.com/press-releases/092013/nobel-laureates

CHEMISTRY

A. Paul Alivisatos
Samsung Distinguished Professor of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, and Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science and Engineering, and Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA, USA

-and-

Chad A. Mirkin
George B. Rathmann Professor of Chemistry
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL, USA

-and-

Nadrian C. Seeman
Margaret and Herman Sokol Professor of Chemistry
New York University
New York, NY, USA
For contributions to DNA nanotechnology


Bruce N. Ames
Senior Scientist and Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, CA and University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
For the invention of the Ames test of mutagenicity

M.G. Finn
Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA, USA

-and-
Valery V. Fokin
Associate Professor of Chemistry
The Scripps Research Institute
La Jolla, CA, USA

-and-

K. Barry Sharpless
W.M. Keck Professor of Chemistry
The Scripps Research Institute
La Jolla, CA, USA
For the development of modular click chemistry

[408]

Considering how it usually goes to biologists, I will bet on 'test for mutagenicity' guy.

Not very chemical, and gets to buy into the public's chemophobia.


And next, the peace prize to the leader of Syria, Bashar al Assad!

[Yggdrasil]

DNA nanotechnology is too young – there are only a few very specialized applications, and none have really been revolutionary.  The committee should wait to see what comes of DNA nanotechnology before awarding it the prize.

Click chemistry is fairly widely used and is a cool concept, but I'm not sure its Nobel worthy idea.  Plus, Sharpless already has won the prize once, and I doubt the committee would award him a second prize.

The Ames test is widely used, but again I'm not sure it's a Nobel worthy idea (plus, given that it was developed in the 1970s, the Nobel committee has had plenty of chances to recognize Ames but has passed so far).

My pick would probably be WE Moerner and Michel Orrit for their first detection of single chromophores.  This work has gone on to spawn the field of single molecule spectroscopy which has been a very useful tool for studying biochemistry and biophysics, and has inspired the development of superresolution microscopy (another potentially Nobel-worthy field).

Some other good picks would be Waugh and Pines for the development of solid state NMR or Goodenough, Yazami and Yoshino for the development of the Lithium-ion battery.  Allen Bard and Harry Grey have done important work in the fields of electrochemistry and inorganic chemistry, respectively, but although their work is certainly Nobel worthy and they have made extremely important contributions to their fields, they unfortunately lack a singular, big discovery to hang their hat on.

It's probably too early now, but I'd be surprised if Diesseroth and Boyden didn't get the Nobel prize for their work on channelrhodopsin and optogenetics within the next 10 years.

[Hunter2]

I see that only persons from the USA mentioned. But the world has more countries. I guess more will be from Asia in future. Well Europe is sleeping and probably nothing from there.

[curiouscat]

I see that only persons from the USA mentioned. But the world has more countries. I guess more will be from Asia in future. Well Europe is sleeping and probably nothing from there.

Have anyone in mind?