Tags Posts tagged with "Nobel Prize"

Nobel Prize

From left, K. Barry Sharpless and John Moses. Photo from CSHL

By Daniel Dunaief

K. Barry Sharpless changed John Moses’s life. And that’s before Moses even started working as a postdoctoral researcher in Sharpless’s lab.

When Moses, who is the first chemist to work at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in its 132-year history, was earning his PhD in chemistry at Oxford, he read an article that Sharpless co-authored that rocked his world.

Nicknamed the “click manifesto” for introducing a new kind of chemistry, the article, which was published in Angewandte Chemie in 2001, was “one of the greatest I’ve ever read,” Moses said, and led him to alter the direction of his research.

Moses walked into the office of the late chemist Sir Jack Baldwin at Oxford, who was Moses’s PhD advisor, and announced that Sharpless, a colleague of Baldwin’s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was the only chemist he wanted to work with in the next phase of his career.

Baldwin looked at Moses and said, in a “very old-fashioned gangster English, ‘That shows you’ve got some brains,’” recalled Moses.

Sharpless was important not only to Moses’s career, but also to the world.

Recently, Sharpless, who is the W.M. Kepp Professor of Chemistry at Scripps Research, became only the fifth two-time recipient of the Nobel Prize.

Sharpless will share the most recent award, which includes a $900,000 prize, with Carolyn R. Bertozzi, the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford University, and Morten P. Meldal, professor at the University of Copenhagen, for the invention of a type of chemistry that has implications and applications from drug discovery and delivery, to making polymers, to developing anti cancer treatments.

The way click chemistry works is that chemists bring together catalysts and reagents, often attached to sulfur or carbon, that have a high level of specific attraction for each other. The click is like the sound a seat belt makes when secured, or the click a bike helmet lock makes when the two units are connected.

Scientists have often described the click reaction as being akin to LEGO blocks coming together, with an exact and durable chemical fit.

Natural product synthesis is generally challenging and often requires complex chemistries that are not always selective. This type of chemistry can produce side reactions that create unwanted byproducts and require purification.

Click reactions, by contrast, are selective and reliable and the products are generally easy to purify. Sometimes, purification is as simple as a water wash.

“It’s a democratization of synthetic chemistry,” Moses said.

Moses said biologists have performed click reactions. Chemists have developed click tablets that can be added to a reaction to create a plug and play system.

Moses described the reactions in click chemistry as “unstoppable” and suggested that they are part of a “domino rally” in which a latent build up of reactivity can create desired products with beneficial properties.

Moses, who arrived at CSHL in 2020, has collaborated with several researchers at the famed lab. He is submitting his first collaborative paper soon with Dr. Michael Lukey, who also started in 2020 and performed his PhD at Oxford, and Dr. Scott Lyons. He is also working on a New York State Biodefense funded project to create shape shifting antibiotics that can keep up with drug resistance pathogens. 

He has collaborated with Cancer Center Director David Tuveson to develop a new ligand to target a protein important in pancreatic cancer. Moses said they have a “very exciting” lead compound.

Early resistance

While the Nobel Prize committee recognized the important contribution of this approach, the concept met with some resistance when Sharpless introduced it.

“When [Sharpless] submitted this, the editor called colleagues and asked, ‘Has Barry gone crazy?’” Moses said.

Some others in the field urged the editor to publish the paper by Sharpless, who had already won a Nobel Prize for his work with chirally catalyzed oxidation reactions.

Still, despite his bona fides and a distinguished career, Sharpless encountered “significant resistance” from some researchers. “People were almost offended by it” with some calling it “old wine in new bottles,” Moses said.

In 2007, Moses attended a faculty interview at a “reasonably good” university in England,. where one of his hosts told him that click chemistry is “just bulls$#t!”

Moses recognized that he was taking a risk when he joined Sharpless’s lab. Some senior faculty advised him to continue to work with natural product synthesis.

In the ensuing years, as click chemistry produced more products, “everyone was using it and the risks diminished quickly,” Moses added.

Unique thought process

So, what is it about Sharpless that distinguishes him?

Moses said Sharpless’s wife Janet Dueser described her husband as someone who “thinks like a molecule,” Moses said.

For Moses, Sharpless developed his understanding of chemistry in a “way that I’ve never seen anyone else” do.

Moses credits Dueser, who he described as “super smart,” with coining the term “click chemistry” and suggested that their partnership has brought together his depth of knowledge with her ability to provide context.

Moses believes Sharpless “would admit that without [Dueser], his career would have been very different! In my opinion, [Dueser] contributed immeasurably to click chemistry in so many ways.”

Indeed, click chemistry won a team prize from the Royal Society of Chemistry last year in which Dueser was a co-recipient.

As for what he learned from working with a now two-time Nobel Prize winner, Moses said “relinquishing control is very powerful.”

Moses tells his research team that he will never say “no” to an innovative idea because, as with click chemistry, “you never know what’s around the corner.”

Moses said Sharpless is a fan of the book “Out of Control” by Kevin Kelly, the co-founder of Wired Magazine. The book is about the new biology of machines, social systems and the economic world. Sharpless calls Kelly “Saint Kevin.”

On a personal level, Sharpless is “humble and a nice person to talk to” and is someone he would “want to go to a pub with.”

Moses believes Sharpless isn’t done contributing to chemistry and the world and anticipates that Sharpless, who is currently 81 years old, could win another Nobel Prize in another 20 years.

An inspirational scientist, Sharpless ” is “that kind of person,” Moses said.

From left, Chang Kee Jung, Barry Barish and Carl Lejuez. Photo by John Griffin/Stony Brook University

By Daniel Dunaief

Albert Einstein predicted gravitational waves existed, but figured interference on the Earth would make them impossible to observe. He was right on the first count. On the second, it took close to a century to create an instrument capable of detecting gravitational waves. The first confirmed detection, which was generated 1.3 billion light years away when two black holes collided, occurred in September of 2015.

For his pioneering work with gravitational waves, which now include numerous other such observations, Barry Barish shared the Nobel Prize in 2017 with physicists Rainer Weiss and Kip Thorne.

In the fall of 2023, Barish is bringing his physics background and knowledge to Stony Brook University, where he will be the inaugural President’s Distinguished Endowed Chair in Physics. Barish will teach graduate students and serve as an advisor to Chang Kee Jung, Chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy and Distinguished Professor.

From left, Barry Barish and Chang Kee Jung. Photo by John Griffin/Stony Brook University

“I’m really happy,” said Jung in an interview. “Nobel Prize winning work is not all the same. This work [Barish] has done with LIGO [the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory] is incredible.”

Jung suggested the discovery of these two merging black holes “opened up a completely new field of astronomy using gravitational waves.” The finding is a “once-in-a-generation discovery.”

Gravitational waves disrupt the fabric of spacetime, a four-dimensional concept Einstein envisioned that combines the three dimensions of space with time. These waves are created when a neutron star with an imperfect spherical shape spins, and during the merger of two black holes, the merger of two neutron stars, or the merger of a neutron star and a black hole.

Jung suggested a way to picture a gravitational wave. “Imagine you have a bathtub with a little rubber ducky,” he said. In the corner of the bathtub, “you slam your hand into the water” which will create a ripple that will move the duck. In the case of the gravitational wave Barish helped detect, two black holes slamming into each other over 1.2 billion light years ago, when life on Earth was transitioning from single celled to multi celled organisms, started that ripple.

While Barish, 86, retired after a lengthy and distinguished career at CalTech in 2005, Stony Brook has no plans to create a team of physicists who specialize in this area. “The most important thing is that people together exchange ideas and figure out what to do next that’s interesting,” Barish said in an interview. “I’ll keep doing gravitational waves.”

Instead of encouraging graduate students and even undergraduates to follow in his footsteps, Barish hopes to “help stimulate the future here and help educate students,” he said.

An important call

Jung, who became chair of the department in the fall of 2021, has known Barish for over three decades. On a periodic informal zoom call, Jung reached out to Barish to tell him Stony Brook had offered Jung the opportunity to become chair. Barish suggested he turn it down. As Jung recalled, Barish said, “Why do you want to do that?”

On another informal call later on, Jung told Barish he decided to become chair, explaining that he wanted to serve the university and the department. Barish asked him what he would do as chair. Jung replied, “‘I would like guys like you to come to Stony Brook. It took [Barish] about 10 seconds to think about it and then he said, ‘That’s possible.’”

That, Jung said, is how a Nobel Prize winning scientist took the first steps towards joining Stony Brook.

Last week, Barish came to Stony Brook to deliver an inaugural lecture as a part of the newly created C.N. Yang Colloquium series in the Department of Physics and Astronomy.

Stony Brook officials were thrilled with Barish’s appointment and the opportunity to learn from his well-attended on-site lecture.

In remarks before Barish’s packed talk at the Simons Center Della Pietra Family Auditorium, Carl Lejuez, Executive Vice President and Provost, said he hears the name C.N. Yang “all the time,” which reflects Yang’s foundational contribution to Stony Brook University. “It’s fitting that we honor his legacy with a speaker of Dr. Barish’s character who, like Yang, is also a Nobel Prize winner. It’s a really nice synergy.”

Indeed, Yang, who won his Nobel Prize in 1957, coming to Stony Brook “instantaneously raised the university profile,” said Jung, whose department is the largest on campus with 75 faculty.

Surrounded by a dedicated team of scientists, and with the addition of another Nobel Prize winner to the fold, Jung believes the team will continue to thrive. 

“If you put together great minds, great things will happen,” he said.

Seeing the bigger picture

Barish is eager to encourage undergraduates and graduate students to consider the bigger picture in the realm of physics.

“[In general] we train graduate students to do something really important by making them narrower and narrower and narrower, so they can concentrate on doing something that’s worthy of getting a thesis and is as important as possible,” Barish said. “That works against creating a scientist who can look beyond something narrow. That’s bothered me for a long time.”

The problem, Barish continued, is that once researchers earn their degree, they continue on the same path. “Why should you happen to have had a supervisor in graduate school determine what you do for the rest of your life?” he asked.

Once students have the tools of physics, whether they are experimental or theoretical, they shouldn’t be so locked in, he urged. “It’s possible to use these same tools to do almost any problem in physics,” Barish added.

His goal in a course he plans to teach to advanced graduate students (that’s also open to undergraduates) is to provide exposure to the frontiers of science.

A few years ago, Barish recalled how the New York Times ran a picture of a black hole above the fold. He taught a class how scientists from around the world combined radio telescopes to make it act like one radio telescope the size of the Earth.

Helping students understand how that happened “pays off in the long run in making our physics students that we turn out be broader and more interesting and more interested in physics,” Barish said.

When Barish arrives next September, Jung said he plans to have some assignments for interactions with undergraduates. “Undergraduate research is critically important,” Jung said. Barish will also interact with various student groups, as well as the community outside the university.

“We will create those opportunities,” Jung said.

File photo

By Daniel Dunaief

Daniel Dunaief

Three years and a different world ago, I attended a scientific conference at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on a gene editing technique called CRISPR, or more technically CRISPR-cas9.

I rubbed elbows with some of the many talented scientists at an internationally renowned institution. In a casual atmosphere filled with high-powered talks from people who speak the language of science with accents from all over the world, the grounds at CSHL, with its winding roads and personalized parking spaces, offers a tree-lined backdrop for new collaborations and discoveries.

Back then, I invited one of the conference organizers, Jennifer Doudna (pronounced Dowd nuh), who is a Professor of Chemistry and Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, to lunch.

After a talk she gave to a packed Grace Auditorium, she and I strolled to the cafeteria to discuss a gene editing tool that has the potential to change the world.

Indeed, even today, labs around the world are using a technique based on the way bacteria recognize and fight off viruses to combat the effect of SARS-CoV-2, or the virus that causes COVID-19.

During that sunny July day in 2017, however, we were blissfully unaware of the challenges to come in 2020. We sat down at a central table outside, with people passing, nodding and acknowledging my tall and talented lunch guest.

While she responded to an appreciative crowd of casually dressed researchers, she was present and focused on the many questions I’d prepared for an upcoming Power of 3 column (see page B9 for another look at that column).

Like many revolutionary technologies and inventions such as splitting the atom, CRISPR is neither all good nor all bad. Editing genes creates opportunities to cure or prevent diseases and to disarm a range of miniature invaders.

At the same time, gene editing puts the power of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein into the hands of scientists or doctors, offering the kind of tool that requires careful ethical considerations.

Indeed, just last year, a Chinese court sentenced a researcher to three years in prison for using gene editing in unborn babies.

Doudna, who moved to Hawaii when she was seven and is a passionate gardener, is in the third year of a four-year $65 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which monitors security concerns for the intentional or accidental misuse of the technology.

Eating with Doudna on a breezy, bright summer day, I appreciated how ready she was to tailor the conversation to my level of understanding of this technology, offering details about gene editing and making sure I understood her.

While she was impressive and articulate, she certainly didn’t seem as if she were speaking to me from on high. She shared a deliberate and directed intelligence, blending a combination of an explanation of what she’d done and thoughts on the next scientific steps.

Doudna, who lives with her husband Jamie Cate, who is also a Berkeley scientist, and their high school senior son Andrew, shared an appreciation for the history of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where she’d visited at different points in her career.

Back in 1987, she spotted a woman walking towards her. Nobel prize winner Barbara McClintock, whose name still comes up regularly in conversations with scientists at the site, strolled by, giving Doudna a thrill.

The next time someone spots or interacts with the Berkeley Professor at CSHL, they will likely feel the same excitement, as Doudna was recently named a recipient of the Nobel Prize.

Then again, it was clear from the way the attendees at the conference reacted to Doudna three years ago that, Nobel prize or not, she was already a rock star in the scientific community whose foundational work may, one day, lead to the kind of breakthroughs that extend and improve life.