Berkeley Alumnus Wins Nobel Prize (Class of '78)

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>
[quote]
Cal math grad Andrew Fire wins 2006 Nobel Prize in medicine</p>

<p>By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 02 October 2006</p>

<p>BERKELEY – Andrew Z. Fire, the Stanford University geneticist who today (Monday, Oct. 2) shared the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is an alumnus of UC Berkeley's mathematics department, having whizzed through Cal in a mere three years before moving on to graduate school at the age of 19.
Andrew Fire
Andrew Z. Fire (Stanford University photo)</p>

<p>Fire, who grew up in Sunnyvale, entered UC Berkeley at the age of 16, lived his final year in International House and graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1978 with "highest honors in mathematics and distinction in general scholarship." He was one of two students to share the department citation in 1978, which is given to the top graduating student.</p>

<p>Math professor Marina Ratner, who taught Fire in a graduate-level general topology class when Fire was in his sophomore year, described him as "brilliant." She tried to convince him to stay in mathematics even though he was taking more and more biology courses.</p>

<p>"Andrew told me that he loved math and was taking it for fun," Ratner recalled.</p>

<p>Fire subsequently obtained a Ph.D. in biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983.</p>

<p>Fire shares the Nobel with Craig C. Mello of the University of Massachusetts Medical School for their discovery that ribonucleic acid (RNA), aside from being a blueprint for proteins in a cell, also can shut down specific genes. This ability, dubbed "RNA interference" (RNAi), is being explored as a possible therapy for diseases such as cancer and AIDS.</p>

<p>"It has become clear over the past several years, based on Fire and Mello's basic discovery using the nematode worm system, that this (RNA interference) is a very widespread system of gene control involving RNA, and has implications for human health and human therapeutics that go far beyond what anyone could have imagined when this was initially discovered," said Jennifer Doudna, UC Berkeley professor of molecular and cell biology, who is investigating the basic processes involved in RNAi. "This was a stunning breakthrough for basic science and for medical science."</p>

<p>Fire made the discovery while on the staff of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C., but moved to Stanford in 2003 to be closer to family, according to an online profile at the institution.</p>

<p>RNAi was first observed in petunias, but Fire and Mello explored the effect in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, discovering in 1998 that double-stranded helical RNA binds to matching DNA to silence genes. They went on to explain the enzymatic reactions involved in silencing, though many questions still remain.</p>

<p>"RNA interference has been a wonderful tool, which I use all the time to knock out genes in cells to test what the genes are good for," said Robert Tjian, a professor of molecular and cell biology who studies RNA transcription. "After we sequence the DNA in the genomes of various organisms, it's going to take a lot of effort to find out what the genes are doing. RNAi is a very nice technology to speed that along."</p>

<p>Doudna noted that a Nobel was expected for the discovery of RNAi, which very quickly spread as both a useful tool in research labs and a promising way to silence genes in diseases where genes are overactive.</p>

<p>"Fire came to the field (of genetics) with a quantitative background and made a very exciting observation, and like other brilliant scientists, he didn't ignore it, but followed up and made this outstanding discovery that small RNA molecules were actually important for silencing expression of certain genes," Doudna added. "Little did they (Fire and Mello) or anyone else at the time know that this was going to be an extremely important and general mechanism at work in all animals."

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/10/02_nobel.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/10/02_nobel.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Also see:</p>

<p><a href="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2006/press.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2006/press.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://mednews.stanford.edu/fire/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mednews.stanford.edu/fire/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>This guy was probably going to win the nobel prize anyways, irrelevant of which undergraduate institution he attended.</p>

<p>Considering he breezed through greatly underaged, his interaction between other students and campus life was probably minimal (which is a good thing).</p>

3

<p>He was an MIT Phd, and his co-winner was a Harvard PhD. I think they did their prize-winning work primarily in Baltimore some years ago.</p>

4

<p>Wow Shiboing - what negativity.</p>

<p>You could probably say the same thing about EVERY nobel prize winner - they were going to win the Nobel Prize regardless of where they went to for undergrad. You better strip all the claims other undergrad institutions have about their alumni winning Nobel prizes. Don't just hate on Berkeley.</p>

5

<p>shibongboing/liberalcensor/collegesenior always has something nice to say. And Byerly, I'm sure if this guy went to Harvard for UG and then Berkeley for grad you'd say "Ug is where you learn how to learn, and Harvard made him great" or something like that. Or are you saying that UG doesn't matter?</p>

6

<p>I said no such thing. I just added the information as to where each did their PhD training, and where they conducted the research that was recognized via prize.</p>

<p>See also: <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/10/02/umass_gains_some_bragging_rights_in_shadow_of_mit_harvard/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/10/02/umass_gains_some_bragging_rights_in_shadow_of_mit_harvard/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

7

<p>Such a predictable response, Shiboingboing, and one which again shows your true colors. Weren't you the one who complained about how Berkeley has not produced an undergraduate Noble Laureate for many years? And now, when it happens again in recent history (don't forget about Robert Laughlin who also graduated from Berkeley in the 70's)? You're a class act. :)</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Laughlin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Laughlin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

8

<p>Byerly, I'd like your opinion on something. In terms of nobel prizes, should the undergrad school get credit for the winner, or the institution where received their PhD/did their research?</p>

9

<p>I'm not sure what "credit" means in this context. Is a college entitled to "credit" for nurturing somebody who later did important work elsewhere, where he/she started or completed the work that was later recognized, or where he/she is currently teaching? </p>

<p>Everybody can brag, I suppose. </p>

<p>The trouble is, many are honored years after they did their best work, or years after they left their original school, often when they are in their dotage. Some warm weather schools look to serve as, in effect, "retirement homes" for aging scholars - (ie, Santa Barbara) whose presence is of dubious value to current students. So it depends.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
The trouble is, many are honored years after they did their best work, or years after they left their original school, often when they are in their dotage. Some warm weather schools look to serve as, in effect, "retirement homes" for aging scholars - (ie, Santa Barbara) whose presence is of dubious value to current students. So it depends.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not to mention that certain Nobel laureates are affiliated only with certain schools or certain departments within a particular university and practically never interact with students at that same university who belong to a different department. </p>

<p>To give you an example, while Robert Merton is indeed active at Harvard, he's essentially only active within HBS. So his value to anybody at Harvard outside of the HBS community is questionable. This is simply because all of the various Harvard schools are highly territorial and insular, and HBS is arguably the most territorial of all of them, having its own gym and own dorms which are off-limits to anybody outside of the community, and almost never letting in undergrads into any of its classes. Similarly, undergrads have limited contact with Nobel Prize winners at many other universities who have ensconced themselves in a manner to effectively insulate themselves from undergrads.</p>

11

<p>I am bored. Whenever I look into elite college boards, I always see Byerly’s posts. If Harvard dropped early decision, why your schools do not follow Harvard? If your schools have accomplished anything, they are really nothing without Harvard’s involvements. If you are upset or offended, you know that Byerly means well. He bashes all schools.</p>

<p>Is the spam driving your crazy? Well, I have a fun solution. Let’s me summarize his today’s messages. You will feel better knowing that you are not the only victims in the CC. LOL</p>

<p>October 2, 2006

[quote]
just announced: Brown alum Craig C. Mello '82 won the 2006 Nobel prize in medicine

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
Fortunate enough to get his PhD at Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Byerly's
[quote]
You will please note that all these schools do is give us vague spin about the "strength" of the early pool; they <em>never</em> provide detailed supporting stats about the quality of those in the early pool vs those in the RD pool - the applicants, the admits and the matriculants - and the admit rate and yield rate for those in each pool with similar qualifications. Most (giving MIT pros here for being honest) never fess up about how many high-yield early applicants are take after deferral, and * none* ever report the yield rate on these deferreds.

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
One might argue that the "Tufts Syndrome" approach - ie, giving an admissions tip to applicants who, based on computer analyisis or the application of some formula (ie, counting "contacts", campus visits, etc) are more likely to enroll should be beneath the stature of a school like MIT which allegedly "doesn't care about" yield.

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
MIT, apparently, acknowledges this consideration in theory, but finds it out-weighed by the institutional advantage provided by the ability to fill half the seats with high-yield early applicants.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley Alumnus Wins Nobel Prize (Class of '78)

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
He was an MIT Phd, and his co-winner was a Harvard PhD.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nobel Prize in Medicine
Fire, 47, of Stanford University, and Mello, 45, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, published their seminal work in a 1998 paper.

[/quote]

Byerly's
[quote]
Yes. Lets not leave out Harvard. I think they have been doing fairly well in the Nobel department and otherwise when it comes to recognition - both in the case of alumni and in the case of staff. More National Academy members than any other college or university in America.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It would be fun to compile this data and fact every day.</p>

12

<p>George Smoot won a prize for physics.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Cosmologist George F. Smoot, who led a team that obtained the first images of the infant universe, confirming the predictions of the Big Bang theory, was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics today.</p>

<p>Smoot, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and an astrophysicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), shares the prize with John C. Mather of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. This is UC Berkeley's twentieth Nobel Prize since Ernest O. Lawrence won in 1939, and its eighth physics Nobel.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

13

<p>Byerly, completely pathetic.</p>

14

<p>too bad smoot's a horrible professor in terms of teaching.</p>

15

<p>Haha, t1388 you are bored indeed. But I have noticed too that Byerly could be a little less Harvard-centric. But hey, he/she can post whatever the heck he/she wants to on these boards, so long as he/she follows the rules.</p>

16

<p>Thanks for your tolerance, vicissitudes. I'll be at the Oregon game Saturday night after an early dinner at Zax ... perhaps I'll see you there!</p>

17

<p>Sure. I enjoy seeing your posts from time to time. You bring some interesting articles to attention...like the new THES rankings (drats, Berkeley fell another 2 spots).</p>

18

<p>Is he the second for Berkeley this year?</p>