April 28 Sir Paul Nurse

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

MONDAY, APRIL 26th 8 pm We look forward to welcoming to Kenton SIR PAUL NURSE RATHER THAN GIVE A TALK, WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE IN THAT SIR PAUL IS HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON HIS EXTENSIVE CAREER AND HOBBIES PLEASE HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS READY OR SEND THEM IN BEFORE THE MEETING Paul Nurse is a geneticist and cell biologist who has worked on how the eukaryotic cell cycle is controlled. His major work has been on the cyclin dependent protein kinases and how they regulate cell reproduction. He is Director of the Francis Crick Institute in London, and has served as President of the Royal Society, Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK and President of Rockefeller University. He shared the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and has received the Albert Lasker Award, the Gairdner Award, the Louis Jeantet Prize and the Royal Society's Royal and Copley Medals. He was knighted by The Queen in 1999, received the Legion d'honneur in 2003 from France, and the Order of the Rising Sun in 2018 from Japan. He served for 15 years on the Council of Science and Technology, advising the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and is presently a Chief Scientific Advisor for the European Union. As well as his many medical accomplishments, amazingly Paul also has time to fly planes and engage in varied hobbies Paul flies gliders and vintage aeroplanes and has been a qualified bush pilot. He also likes the theatre, hill-walking, going to museums and art galleries, and running very slowly. All our Zoom sessions are available on the Kenton https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3531782577? YouTube channel: pwd=N0tlSWxxUGZmOEUrM1ZzclJFN1pzdz09 Kenton Shul In The Park Goes Live. Meeting id: 353 178 2577 Password : kenton Click Here to access them. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

RANDY SCHEKMAN Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, USA
GENES AND PROTEINS THAT CONTROL THE SECRETORY PATHWAY Nobel Lecture, 7 December 2013 by RANDY SCHEKMAN Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, USA. Introduction George Palade shared the 1974 Nobel Prize with Albert Claude and Christian de Duve for their pioneering work in the characterization of organelles interrelated by the process of secretion in mammalian cells and tissues. These three scholars established the modern field of cell biology and the tools of cell fractionation and thin section transmission electron microscopy. It was Palade’s genius in particular that revealed the organization of the secretory pathway. He discovered the ribosome and showed that it was poised on the surface of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) where it engaged in the vectorial translocation of newly synthesized secretory polypeptides (1). And in a most elegant and technically challenging investigation, his group employed radioactive amino acids in a pulse-chase regimen to show by autoradiograpic exposure of thin sections on a photographic emulsion that secretory proteins progress in sequence from the ER through the Golgi apparatus into secretory granules, which then discharge their cargo by membrane fusion at the cell surface (1). He documented the role of vesicles as carriers of cargo between compartments and he formulated the hypothesis that membranes template their own production rather than form by a process of de novo biogenesis (1). As a university student I was ignorant of the important developments in cell biology; however, I learned of Palade’s work during my first year of graduate school in the Stanford biochemistry department.
[Show full text]
Insight from the Sociology of Science
CHAPTER 7 INSIGHT FROM THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE Science is What Scientists Do It has been argued a number of times in previous chapters that empirical adequacy is insufficient, in itself, to establish the validity of a theory: consistency with the observable ‘facts’ does not mean that a theory is true,1 only that it might be true, along with other theories that may also correspond with the observational data. Moreover, empirical inadequacy (theories unable to account for all the ‘facts’ in their domain) is frequently ignored by individual scientists in their fight to establish a new theory or retain an existing one. It has also been argued that because experi- ments are conceived and conducted within a particular theoretical, procedural and instrumental framework, they cannot furnish the theory-free data needed to make empirically-based judgements about the superiority of one theory over another. What counts as relevant evidence is, in part, determined by the theoretical framework the evidence is intended to test. It follows that the rationality of science is rather different from the account we usually provide for students in school. Experiment and observation are not as decisive as we claim. Additional factors that may play a part in theory acceptance include the following: intuition, aesthetic considerations, similarity and consistency among theories, intellectual fashion, social and economic influences, status of the proposer(s), personal motives and opportunism. Although the evidence may be inconclusive, scientists’ intuitive feelings about the plausibility or aptness of particular ideas will make it appear convincing. The history of science includes many accounts of scientists ‘sticking to their guns’ concerning a well-loved theory in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, and some- times in the absence of any evidence at all.
[Show full text]
The Joys and Burdens of Our Heroes 12/05/2021
More Fun Than Fun: The Joys and Burdens of Our Heroes 12/05/2021 An iconic photo of Konrad Lorenz with his favourite geese. Photo: Willamette Biology, CC BY-SA 2.0 This article is part of the ‘More Fun Than Fun‘ column by Prof Raghavendra Gadagkar. He will explore interesting research papers or books and, while placing them in context, make them accessible to a wide readership. RAGHAVENDRA GADAGKAR Among the books I read as a teenager, two completely changed my life. One was The Double Helix by Nobel laureate James D. Watson. This book was inspiring at many levels and instantly got me addicted to molecular biology. The other was King Solomon’s Ring by Konrad Lorenz, soon to be a Nobel laureate. The study of animal behaviour so charmingly and unforgettably described by Lorenz kindled in me an eternal love for the subject. The circumstances in which I read these two books are etched in my mind and may have partly contributed to my enthusiasm for them and their subjects. The Double Helix was first published in London in 1968 when I was a pre-university student (equivalent to 11th grade) at St Joseph’s college in Bangalore and was planning to apply for the prestigious National Science Talent Search Scholarship. By then, I had heard of the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA and its profound implications. I was also tickled that this momentous discovery was made in 1953, the year of my birth. I saw the announcement of Watson’s book on the notice board in the British Council Library, one of my frequent haunts.
[Show full text]
Discovery of DNA Structure and Function: Watson and Crick By: Leslie A
01/08/2018 Discovery of DNA Double Helix: Watson and Crick | Learn Science at Scitable NUCLEIC ACID STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION | Lead Editor: Bob Moss Discovery of DNA Structure and Function: Watson and Crick By: Leslie A. Pray, Ph.D. © 2008 Nature Education Citation: Pray, L. (2008) Discovery of DNA structure and function: Watson and Crick. Nature Education 1(1):100 The landmark ideas of Watson and Crick relied heavily on the work of other scientists. What did the duo actually discover? Aa Aa Aa Many people believe that American biologist James Watson and English physicist Francis Crick discovered DNA in the 1950s. In reality, this is not the case. Rather, DNA was first identified in the late 1860s by Swiss chemist Friedrich Miescher. Then, in the decades following Miescher's discovery, other scientists--notably, Phoebus Levene and Erwin Chargaff--carried out a series of research efforts that revealed additional details about the DNA molecule, including its primary chemical components and the ways in which they joined with one another. Without the scientific foundation provided by these pioneers, Watson and Crick may never have reached their groundbreaking conclusion of 1953: that the DNA molecule exists in the form of a three-dimensional double helix. The First Piece of the Puzzle: Miescher Discovers DNA Although few people realize it, 1869 was a landmark year in genetic research, because it was the year in which Swiss physiological chemist Friedrich Miescher first identified what he called "nuclein" inside the nuclei of human white blood cells. (The term "nuclein" was later changed to "nucleic acid" and eventually to "deoxyribonucleic acid," or "DNA.") Miescher's plan was to isolate and characterize not the nuclein (which nobody at that time realized existed) but instead the protein components of leukocytes (white blood cells).
[Show full text]
Cambridge's 92 Nobel Prize Winners Part 2 - 1951 to 1974: from Crick and Watson to Dorothy Hodgkin
Cambridge's 92 Nobel Prize winners part 2 - 1951 to 1974: from Crick and Watson to Dorothy Hodgkin By Cambridge News | Posted: January 18, 2016 By Adam Care The News has been rounding up all of Cambridge's 92 Nobel Laureates, celebrating over 100 years of scientific and social innovation. ADVERTISING In this installment we move from 1951 to 1974, a period which saw a host of dramatic breakthroughs, in biology, atomic science, the discovery of pulsars and theories of global trade. It's also a period which saw The Eagle pub come to national prominence and the appearance of the first female name in Cambridge University's long Nobel history. The Gender Pay Gap Sale! Shop Online to get 13.9% off From 8 - 11 March, get 13.9% off 1,000s of items, it highlights the pay gap between men & women in the UK. Shop the Gender Pay Gap Sale – now. Promoted by Oxfam 1. 1951 Ernest Walton, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for using accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei 2. 1951 John Cockcroft, St John's / Churchill Colleges: Nobel Prize in Physics, for using accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei Walton and Cockcroft shared the 1951 physics prize after they famously 'split the atom' in Cambridge 1932, ushering in the nuclear age with their particle accelerator, the Cockcroft-Walton generator. In later years Walton returned to his native Ireland, as a fellow of Trinity College Dublin, while in 1951 Cockcroft became the first master of Churchill College, where he died 16 years later. 3. 1952 Archer Martin, Peterhouse: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for developing partition chromatography 4.
[Show full text]
Introduction and Historical Perspective
Chapter 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” modified by the developmental history of the organism, Theodosius Dobzhansky its physiology – from cellular to systems levels – and by the social and physical environment. Finally, behaviors are shaped through evolutionary forces of natural selection OVERVIEW that optimize survival and reproduction ( Figure 1.1 ). Truly, the study of behavior provides us with a window through Behavioral genetics aims to understand the genetic which we can view much of biology. mechanisms that enable the nervous system to direct Understanding behaviors requires a multidisciplinary appropriate interactions between organisms and their perspective, with regulation of gene expression at its core. social and physical environments. Early scientific The emerging field of behavioral genetics is still taking explorations of animal behavior defined the fields shape and its boundaries are still being defined. Behavioral of experimental psychology and classical ethology. genetics has evolved through the merger of experimental Behavioral genetics has emerged as an interdisciplin- psychology and classical ethology with evolutionary biol- ary science at the interface of experimental psychology, ogy and genetics, and also incorporates aspects of neuro- classical ethology, genetics, and neuroscience. This science ( Figure 1.2 ). To gain a perspective on the current chapter provides a brief overview of the emergence of definition of this field, it is helpful
[Show full text]
Five Great Ideas of Biology
GREATGREAT IDEASIDEAS OFOF BIOLOGYBIOLOGY Paul Nurse KITP Public Lecture, Feb 24, 2010 THETHE CELLCELL The basic unit of life ROBERTROBERT HOOKEHOOKE’’SS MICROSCOPEMICROSCOPE Cork Image: Past Present STEMSTEM IMAGES:IMAGES: PASTPAST ANDAND PRESENTPRESENT Nehemiah Grew (1682) ANTONIANTONI VANVAN LEEUWENHOEKLEEUWENHOEK MICROORGANISMSMICROORGANISMS VANVAN LEEUWENHOEK?LEEUWENHOEK? THEODORTHEODOR SCHWANNSCHWANN “We have seen that all organisms are composed of essentially like parts, namely, of cells.” (1839) RUDOLFRUDOLF VIRCHOWVIRCHOW “Every animal appears as a sum of vital units, each of which bears in itself the complete characteristics of life.” (1858) CELLCELL Rockefeller Nobel Prize Winners in Cell Biology George E. Palade (1974) Christian de Duve (1974) Albert Claude (1974) Günter Blobel (1999) MAMMALIANMAMMALIAN EMBRYOEMBRYO SPERMSPERM ANDAND EGGEGG THETHE CELLCELL The basic unit of life Underpins all reproduction and development Stem cells THETHE GENEGENE Basis of heredity GREGORGREGOR MENDELMENDEL MENDELMENDEL’’SS GARDENGARDEN PEASPEAS PEASPEAS 1919TH CENTURYCENTURY CHROMOSOMESCHROMOSOMES EDOUARDEDOUARD VANVAN BENEDENBENEDEN’’SS NEMATODENEMATODE CHROMOSOMESCHROMOSOMES PNEUMOCOCCUSPNEUMOCOCCUS Avery, MacLeod and McCarty, Rockefeller University (1944) DNADNA MOLECULEMOLECULE CENTRALCENTRAL DOGMADOGMA THETHE GENEGENE Basis of heredity Genotype to phenotype Implications for what we are EVOLUTIONEVOLUTION BYBY NATURALNATURAL SELECTIONSELECTION Life evolves Mechanism of natural selection ERASMUSERASMUS ANDAND CHARLESCHARLES DARWINDARWIN
[Show full text]
MCDB 5220 Methods and Logics April 21 2015 Marcelo Bassalo
Cracking the Genetic Code MCDB 5220 Methods and Logics April 21 2015 Marcelo Bassalo The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) Frederick Griffith The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) • The nature of the transforming principle: DNA (1944 - 1952) Oswald Avery Alfred Hershey Martha Chase The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) • The nature of the transforming principle: DNA (1944 - 1952) • X-ray diffraction and the structure of proteins (1951) Linus Carl Pauling The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) • The nature of the transforming principle: DNA (1944 - 1952) • X-ray diffraction and the structure of proteins (1951) • The structure of DNA (1953) James Watson and Francis Crick The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) • The nature of the transforming principle: DNA (1944 - 1952) • X-ray diffraction and the structure of proteins (1951) • The structure of DNA (1953) How is DNA (4 nucleotides) the genetic material while proteins (20 amino acids) are the building blocks? ? DNA Protein ? The Coding Craze ? DNA Protein What was already known? • DNA resides inside the nucleus - DNA is not the carrier • Protein synthesis occur in the cytoplasm through ribosomes {• Only RNA is associated with ribosomes (no DNA) - rRNA is not the carrier { • Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) was a homogeneous population The “messenger RNA” hypothesis François Jacob Jacques Monod The Coding Craze ? DNA RNA Protein RNA Tie Club Table from Wikipedia The Coding Craze Who won the race Marshall Nirenberg J.
[Show full text]
Commercial Partnerships Annual Review 19/20
1 Overview Commercial Partnerships Annual Review 19/20 Together we will beat cancer 2 Overview Our missions & values Contents CRUK’s vision is to bring forward the day when all cancers Overview are cured. Over the last 40 years, cancer survival rates in 4 CBO’s statement the UK have doubled. In the 1970s just a quarter of people 5 Highlights from the 19/20 financial year survived. Today that figure is half. In order to improve on this, we need to work with industry partners to progress Introduction the best ideas to market. This is where the Commercial Partnerships team can help. 2 What we do and why 7 Where we do it 8 Our principles for doing business 9 Our commitment to CRUK funded researchers Our Our Our 10 Our Commercial Objectives mission vision ambition Our achievements 11 - 17 Objective 1: Supporting researchers with translational activity The mission of CRUK Commercial Together we will 18 - 19 Objective 2: Encouraging entrepreneurial culture and skills in CRUK Commercial Partnerships will be beat cancer and our research community Partnerships is to the world’s leading see 3/4 of people maximise the translation cancer translation and survive by 2034 20 - 26 Objective 3: Develop industry partnerships in therapeutics of cancer research for commercialisation 27 - 29 Objective 4: Diversify and maximise opportunities beyond therapeutics patient benefit group 30 - 31 Objective 5: Invest in our people and processes, promote diversity See our objectives on See our achievements on See our impact on 32 - 35 Objective 6: Leverage and return
[Show full text]
In 1953 in England James Watson and Francis Crick Discovered the Structure of DNA in the Now-Famous Scientific Narrative Known As the “Race Towards the Double Helix”
THE NARRATIVES OF SCIENCE: LITERARY THEORY AND DISCOVERY IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY PRIYA VENKATESAN In 1953 in England James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in the now-famous scientific narrative known as the “race towards the double helix”. Meanwhile in France, Roland Barthes published his first book, Writing Degree Zero, on literary theory, which became the intellectual precursor for the new human sciences that were developing based on Saussurean linguistics. The discovery by Watson and Crick of the double helix marked a definitive turning point in the development of the life sciences, paving the way for the articulation of the genetic code and the emergence of molecular biology. The publication by Barthes was no less significant, since it served as an exemplar for elucidating how literary narratives are structured and for formulating how textual material is constructed. As Françoise Dosse notes, Writing Degree Zero “received unanimous acclaim and quickly became a symptom of new literary demands, a break with tradition”.1 Both the work of Roland Barthes and Watson and Crick served as paradigms in their respective fields. Semiotics, the field of textual analysis as developed by Barthes in Writing Degree Zero, offered a new direction in the structuring of narrative whereby each distinct unit in a story formed a “code” or “isotopy” that categorizes the formal elements of the story. The historical concurrence of the discovery of the double helix and the publication of Writing Degree Zero may be mere coincidence, but this essay is an exploration of the intellectual influence that both events may have had on each other, since both the discovery of the double helix and Barthes’ publication gave expression to the new forms of knowledge 1 Françoise Dosse, History of Structuralism: The Rising Sign, 1945-1966, trans.
[Show full text]
Innate Immunity and Dendritic Cells in Kidney Disease and the Nobel Prize
EDITORIALS www.jasn.org Innate Immunity and Dendritic nately, Janeway died in 2003 and was no longer eligible to receive the prize. Cells in Kidney Disease and the The discoveries of Hoffmann and Janeway alerted immu- nologists all over the world to the possibility of a new signal- Nobel Prize ing pathway, and in 1998, Bruce Beutler and colleagues at the † Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Dallas first identified Hans-Joachim Anders* and Christian Kurts TLR4 as recognizing bacterial endotoxin.5 Beutler’s approach *Medizinische Poliklinik, Klinikum der Universita¨t Mu¨ nchen-LMU, Campus Innenstadt, Munich, Germany; and †Institutes of Molecu- was as clever as simple. He took advantage of two well-known lar Medicine and Experimental Immunology (IMMEI), University lipopolysaccharide-resistant mouse strains to map the newly Clinic of Bonn, Bonn, Germany discovered loci of the Toll genes. In doing so, he realized that J Am Soc Nephrol 22: ●●●–●●●, 2011. endotoxin resistance was linked to loss-of-function muta- doi: 10.1681/ASN.2011100975 tions in the Tlr4 gene. Two more circumstances encouraged researchers from many disciplines to rush into this new area of science, pro- On December 10, 2011, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or ducing more than 18,000 related publications within the last Medicine will honor the work of Jules Hoffmann, Bruce 15 years: first, Tlr4 mutant mice as well as suitable immuno- Beutler, and Ralph Steinman for their landmark discoveries stimulatory compounds, now discovered as agonists for dis- in the field of immunology. This recognition brings wide at- tinct TLRs, became available at relatively low costs to every- tention to a paradigm shift in understanding how multicel- one, and second, Shizou Akira, in Osaka, produced null mice lular organisms sense and interpret their external and inter- for most TLRs and many other related genes, and did not nal environments in maintaining homeostasis or initiating hesitate to share them with collaborators and competitors.
[Show full text]
The Francis Crick Institute
Clinical Medicine 2017 Vol 17, No 2: 105–7 PROFESSIONAL ISSUES T h e F r a n c i s C r i c k I n s t i t u t e A u t h o r s : K e i t h P e t e r s A a n d J i m S m i t h B The Francis Crick Institute Laboratory, opened in 2016, is sup- is within easy reach of GlaxoSmithKine (GSK) and Astra ported by the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Zeneca’s principal research laboratories in Stevenage and the Wellcome Trust, and University College London, King’s Col- Cambridge, respectively. lege London and Imperial College London. The emphasis on But in order to justify investment on the scale required, the research training and early independence of gifted scientists new institute needed to be more than a simple translocation to ABSTRACT in a multidisciplinary environment provides unique opportuni- a new site. ties for UK medical science, including clinical and translational After discussion and negotiation, the MRC, Cancer Research research. UK (CRUK), the Wellcome Trust and University College London (UCL) created a partnership: CRUK’s London Research K E Y W O R D S : MRC , CRUK , Wellcome , Crick , UCL , King’s , Imperial Institute (LRI) would join the NIMR, with researchers from UCL contributing expertise in the physical and clinical sciences. Importantly, the Crick was not simply to be a merger The Francis Crick Institute has been referred to as the most of LRI and NIMR but a new entity with a different ethos – a signiﬁcant development in UK biomedical science for a multidisciplinary institute with a substantial new investment in generation.
[Show full text]