Nobel Prize For "Chemistry"

Marvinthefish

Announced this morning in Sweden. The three joint recipients are Venki Ramakrishnan (Cambridge, England), Thomas Steitz (Yale, USA) and Ada Yonath (Weizmann Istitute, Israel) for studies on the structure and function of the ribosome. More here

Note: First woman to recieve the Nobel Prize For Chemistry in 45 years.

But getting to my main point (and the reason for the inverted commas in the title)--anyone else think the chemistry prize is given too often for researches in biology? I wasn't even sure where to start this thread: Biology or Phsics&Chemistry.

Although these three well deserve recognition, because their work really is astonishing and astonishingly important, should they get a chemistry prize?

Turtwig

Well, chemistry always had trouble identifying intself:p

Rutherford was given the Noble Prize in chemistry for his work on discerning the structure of the atom.

Mucco

Malty_T wrote: »

Rutherford was given the Noble Prize in chemistry for his work on discerning the structure of the atom.

Wasn't that punishment for describing chemistry as stamp collecting?

magneticimpulse

I have to agree with this one and alot of my friends doing Research in chemistry agree too. Its not very motivating as a chemist to see "structural biologist" picking up the chemistry prize. Yeah so all science has its overlaps. But i think if there is no synthetic chemistry involved, then its not really chemistry? Chemistry is about chemicals, synthesis, replicating natural products, discovering new elements, or chemical systems. Theres so much progress in the world of chemistry that I think they should be awarded to a more chemistry related team.

Azelfafage

Biology is applied Chemistry.
Chemist is applied Physics.
Physics is applied..............?

marco_polo

Azelfafage wrote: »

Biology is applied Chemistry.
Chemist is applied Physics.
Physics is applied..............?

Maths.

Maths is applied .........?

Turtwig

Elegance:o

Azelfafage

marco_polo wrote: »

Maths.

Maths is applied .........?

Maths is applied............ Stamp Collecting.

(Ask Rutherford.)

And..........

Stamp Collecting is applied............Biology.

"Rotha Mor an T'Saol."

.

Marvinthefish

Malty_T wrote: »

Rutherford was given the Noble Prize in chemistry for his work on discerning the structure of the atom.

Do you not think that is chemistry? More related (and relevant) to the subject of chemistry than ribosomes IMO!

Mark Hamill

marco_polo wrote: »

Maths.

Maths is applied .........?

Numbers?

Erlt

Malty_T wrote: »

Well, chemistry always had trouble identifying intself:p

Rutherford was given the Noble Prize in chemistry for his work on discerning the structure of the atom.

Well wouldn't say that, chemistry is "the study of matter" and all. Atoms being matter, seems to fit in well.

pisslips

marco_polo wrote: »

Maths.

Maths is applied .........?

Logic

Logic is applied existence

existence is.

pisslips

Erlt wrote: »

Well wouldn't say that, chemistry is "the study of matter" and all. Atoms being matter, seems to fit in well.

Physics?

Physicist's are always getting chemistry prizes.
All that materials science is physics or chemistry?
Electronic structure, solid state physics, I'm very confused as to where the line is drawn.

Professor_Fink

pisslips wrote: »

Physics?

Physicist's are always getting chemistry prizes.
All that materials science is physics or chemistry?
Electronic structure, solid state physics, I'm very confused as to where the line is drawn.

It's not. All chemistry is essentially physics, but not all physics is chemistry.

Marvinthefish

By the way, the chemistry awardees are each giving a lecture today. Live webcast here: http://nobelprize.org/award_ceremonies/lectures_2009.html

12.30pm-2.30pm CET

Erlt

pisslips wrote: »

Physics?

Physicist's are always getting chemistry prizes.
All that materials science is physics or chemistry?
Electronic structure, solid state physics, I'm very confused as to where the line is drawn.

I think the main problem here is the fact that people think that the science is strictly catagorised. It isn't, every science should overlap, if they don't there useless. And chemistry being the central science, there is a lot of overlap.