Much of the controversy over this event has little to do with the functionality of CRISPR itself, but rather the patent dispute and whether or not the recipients should have been credited for this discovery. I feel as though this award was well deserved, however, others seem to disagree. During the few months following Charpentier and Doudna’s breakthrough, a biochemist named Feng Zhang made CRISPR edit the genomes of live, human cells. Three is the maximum number of recipients that are allowed to share one award, and some believe that by giving the award to two people, they are excluding someone who many people consider to be a co-developer of CRISPR’s new functionality. I believe that it was a completely reasonable decision to give this award to Doudna and Charpentier, as there is no denying that they were the first pioneers in this experiment that made the initial/key discoveries. As of Wednesday, there have been 7 women in total that have won this award, while the amount of male winners is 185.
With that being said, here are some questions:
- Do you think that Doudna and Charpentier deserve to have full credit for this award because they made the initial discoveries, or do you think Zhang should’ve been included alongside them?
- To go into a broader topic regarding women in STEM, there is no doubt that this area has been historically dominated by men. As a result, women are oftentimes not treated as equals in their field. How should we handle this issue to make the field more inclusive and equal?
To end, here is a quote from Charpentier: “I think it’s very important for women to see a clear path. I think the fact that Jennifer Doudna and I were awarded this prize today can provide a very strong message for young girls.”
Sources:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/07/two-crispr-scientists-win-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/summary/
I agree that Doudna and Charpentier deserve to have full credit for this award because they were the first ones to actually discover what CRISPR could do. I think that sure, Zhang deserves credit, but he doesn’t deserve a part of the Nobel Prize because he did not make the biggest discovery in chemistry; Doudna and Charpentier did. According to an excerpt of Alfred Nobel’s will from nobelprize.org, where he talks about the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, he states that it shall be awarded “...to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement…” Based on that, it makes sense that Doudna and Charpentier would get sole credit, because the initial discovery of the capabilities of CRISPR, which the women found, was arguably more important than the improvement that Zhang added. This is because Zhang most likely would not have made the improvement had the women not made the initial discovery.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. While I think Zhang deserves some form of credit, it would be completely unfair to gift an award to someone who did not partake in the initial, groundbreaking parts of the discovery.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Lauren said. I think that using CRISPR to edit human cells is a very significant achievement and is well deserved to be recognized. However, I would think that Feng Zhang's work is just an extension to the much greater discovery of CRISPR by Doudna and Charpentier. Thus, judging from a scientific perspective, I would argue that the credit of this incredible discovery goes to Doudna and Charpentier. One thing I find interesting Mia brings up is the number of male and female prize winners, pointing out that males dominated this area; I think the main reasons for the unbalanced sex ratio roots back from history, which makes the one-sided numbers understandable and not very significant. And this is my pure opinion: If I was a girl, I would be more motivated in something if that thing is male dominated, because the few number of females would make me feel even more special and accomplished, just my opinion :)
ReplyDeleteYes, I completely agree...you put it into words perfectly -- Zhang's discovery should be viewed as an extension, as it probably wouldn't have been possible without the initial discoveries made by the winners. You bring up an interesting point about how being a woman in a male-dominated field should serve as motivation. While I think this is true, I am specifically concerned about the many accounts of women feeling defeated in their field because they are not taken seriously. This is the root of the problem that I would like to be addressed!
DeleteAs Lauren and Zeke have mentioned, the credit for the discovery of CRISPR most certainly should only go to Doudna and Charpentier. They are the original founders of this amazing innovation and when it comes to the important projects that it will be utilized for, they would not be possible without these women's work. I understand how Zhang could argue that he is part of the core discovery however due to his timing and lack of cooperation with the original founders (his work was very separate) his ideas are certainly an "extension" of CRISPR. Furthermore, Mia brings up that these were the first two women to share a science Noble Prize. This is an incredible feat for them to achieve and hopefully paves the path to many more female science Noble Prize winners. Women have been underrepresented and discriminated against in the STEM workplace since the beginning of time and these women serve as role models to young girls to pursue these subjects passionately.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous comments that Doudna and Charpentier should be the only people to win the Nobel Prize. Yes Zhang was part of this work however he was definitely helped by Doudna and Charpentier, and as Zeke put it, "an extension." I also think that it is incredible for 2 women to share the Nobel Prize, especially in science which (like you said) is a field that is dominated by men. I think it is great for a feminist movement as a whole, and in order to combat inequality it works well too. As Anusha put it, these women can be role models for young girls and women who are interested in science, and I think that as long as people keep fighting, there will be more and more equity. -Rowan CC
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs others have stated, I think that certainly Doudna and Charpentier should be recognized for their groundbreaking discoveries in CRISPR gene editing. Zhang was key in adding and expanding on the original research that was done by Doudna and Charpentier. Therefore she shouldn't win the Nobel Prize. From the perspective of Zhang I can see how possibly she may be upset for not being recognized for her work. It's important to remember that she didn't make that first initial discovery. I think as stated in the article that having more women in science and STEM such as Doudna and Charpentier can serve as role models for young girls around the world. In addition, teaching girls at a young age about science at a young age may spark their interest. I think this is crucial because the science field as a whole is dominated by men and inspiring girls to pursue science is a step in the right direction. -Elizabeth Langley
ReplyDeleteThis post is closed; no more comments will be graded.
ReplyDelete