The nature of great discoveries

Interview with the 2006 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry

Why do people go to lectures by outstanding specialists? Looking at an elderly (or not so elderly) person who has something to do with something great and getting their autograph is certainly not bad, but it is hardly the only reason why people crowd in lines and then sit or stand for hours in a stuffy room. Coming to lectures, visitors expect to learn exactly how great people think, to hear what phenomena and events they consider important, to understand how they imagine the patterns of “work” of the world around them.

The most interesting thing is that the lecture does not necessarily have to be devoted to global issues of existence - a scientist can talk about his research, but all those signs of non-standard thinking that interest those who come are manifested in how exactly the lecturer constructs the story, what details he highlights and what conclusions he draws .

The other day, the 2006 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, Roger David Kornberg, came to Moscow, and although his lecture, given at Lomonosov Moscow State University, was very highly specialized, it clearly showed all the signs of an unusual person. Kornberg, in impeccable English, more typical of the hosts of the British corporation BBC News than of an American from Missouri, told the audience how he and his colleagues gradually refined the structure of RNA polymerase II - an enzyme that “reads” the information embedded in almost all genes of our genome and the genome of all other organisms whose cells have a nucleus.

Today, the most powerful method for elucidating the structure of biomolecules is X-ray diffraction analysis. But this technology is extremely labor-intensive and does not work for all objects. According to Kornberg, this method may be replaced by methods using nanoparticles and nanostructures.

Kornberg spent more than 30 years studying RNA polymerase II, a topic he began studying in the 1970s. At that time, there were no methods by which it would be possible to restore the structure of the protein, which is one of the key links in the chain of implementation of the information embedded in DNA, so for the first ten years the scientist and his colleagues searched for alternative approaches and, in the end, found their. It took about another ten years to debug and fine-tune the new technique. The efforts expended paid off in full - Kornberg was able to figure out the structure of RNA polymerase II down to the location of individual atoms.

It would seem, why do researchers need to know the details of the structure of an individual enzyme - albeit a very important one - in such minute detail? At the very beginning of the lecture, Kornberg explained why he was so eager to “disassemble” the polymerase into atoms - without knowing the exact structure of the enzyme, it is impossible to fully understand its functions. Focusing on the structure of the enzyme, scientists figured out individual details of reading genetic information and even predicted the existence of as yet unidentified aspects of this process, which is most important for living beings.

Scientists need this knowledge not only to further clarify how life functions. By understanding the correct design of a process, researchers can come up with more effective ways to correct processes that are going wrong. Disturbances in the functioning of RNA polymerase II often lead to very serious consequences, often incompatible with life. But some diseases that arise due to enzyme “breakdowns” are not fatal, although they are dangerous. These include, for example, increased skin sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation. Existing medications today correct only the consequences of this disease, but do not eliminate the cause. As scientists learn more about how RNA polymerase II works, they may be able to create drugs that completely cure the disease in people.

The elucidation of the structure of RNA polymerase II is undoubtedly one of the most outstanding discoveries of the 20th century. The Lenta.ru correspondent managed to talk with Roger Kornberg about what other discoveries he considers equally important.

Lenta.ru: In your opinion, which discoveries made recently may be awarded a Nobel Prize in the foreseeable future? In your opinion, do stem cell scientists have a chance of getting a Nobel Prize? After all, these studies cause a very mixed reaction.

Roger Kornberg: It seems to me that all these disputes will not affect the decision of the Nobel Committee. On the contrary, I will be very surprised if in the coming years a Nobel Prize is not awarded for the important discoveries that have been made in this field, in particular for the creation of IPS cells ( induced pluripotent cells - an analogue of embryonic stem cells, which are obtained by adding to "ordinary" cells have some specific genes - note by Lenta.ru ).

But in general, in the recent past, many discoveries and works have been made that are worthy of the Nobel Prize.

Lenta.ru: For example?

RK: There are many of them. I would not like to name any one of them, because in this case I will miss the others, and they will be no less important.

Roger Kornberg, together with Zhores Alferov, is co-chairman of the coordinating scientific council of the Skolkovo innovation center. Answering a question from listeners about the assessment of this ambitious project, Kornberg noted that he considers it effective as one of the ways to revive science in Russia.

Let's try to look at this issue from a different angle. In addition to the Nobel Prize, there are other serious scientific awards, for example the Lasker Prize (a prestigious American prize in the field of medical sciences, which is considered as a kind of analogue of the Nobel Prize - note Lenta.ru ) or other awards. They are all awarded for very important research, and there are many such studies. Each of the studies that have received these awards is fully worthy of Nobel Prizes.

Look at the Lasker Prize laureates of recent years - scientists who studied microRNAs, nuclear receptors, the same IPCs. All of these studies are considered by the Nobel Committee as candidates for the award. The problem is that the Nobel Prize is awarded only once a year. The committee has to sort through all these worthy works and still make a choice. Some scientists are lucky, like me, for example, but others are not.

Lenta.ru: Can you predict what truly important discoveries may be made in the foreseeable future?

RK: I think I will disappoint you with my answer. The nature of truly great discoveries is that we cannot expect them to be made. And anyone who tries to predict them is acting at least unreasonably, and in my opinion, downright stupid.

Iryna Yakutenko

Lenta.ru: Progress: The nature of great discoveries