Top headlines
Editor’s note
Nobel week is a science editor’s boon and bane.
On one hand, it might be the only time when every mainstream news outlet and their mother find themselves talking about esoteric topics like asymmetric organic synthesis. On the other hand, for anyone not on Central European Time – i.e. me, and the newly minted Nobel lareates in the U.S. – it means a lot of squinting at a glowing screen before dawn, frantically sending emails to find experts who can turn mind-blowingly elegant yet complicated science into articles that nonscientists can understand and marvel at, too.
Thankfully, we found some intrepid scientists who were up for that task.
For Monday’s physiology or medicine prize, we interviewed one of the winners: Karl Deisseroth of Stanford University, who shares his journey to pioneering the field of optogenetics – using light to control the activity of neurons. For more context, we reached out to neuroscientist Kimberly D'Ardenne of Arizona State University to help situate optogenetics in the long train of technological advances that have helped researchers better understand the brain.
For Tuesday’s physics prize, we tapped physicist Doug Cowen of Penn State to explain what the tiny particles whizzing through you, me and the cosmos – that is, neutrinos – even are, and why researchers had to build a Nobel-winning facility in the South Pole ice to study them. We also asked astrophysicist Tyce DeYoung of Michigan State University to describe what it’s like to work at the IceCube observatory.
And, finally, for Wednesday’s chemistry prize, which honors the researchers who figured out how to selectively create one of the two mirror images that some molecules can exist as, chemists Cedric Schaack and Mallory Green of Wake Forest University go over why this discovery makes the “difference between therapeutic breakthroughs and medical tragedies.” We also asked biochemist Sajish Mathew of University of Maryland Eastern Shore how these Nobel-winning chemical reactions have played in his own work on why a compound in grapes has had inconsistent results in treating Alzheimer’s disease.
As for me and my colleagues over at the science desk? We’ll be taking a Nobel-caliber nap … until next year!