Hello Nature readers, would you like to get this Briefing in your inbox free every day? Sign up here
Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier share the 2020 Nobel chemistry prize for their discovery of a game-changing gene-editing technique.Credit: Alexander Heinel/Picture Alliance/DPA
CRISPR pioneers win chemistry Nobel
Two scientists who pioneered the revolutionary gene-editing technology CRISPR are the winners of this year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna share the award for developing the tool that has inspired countless applications in medicine, agriculture and basic science. CRISPR, short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, is a microbial ‘immune system’ that prokaryotes — that is, bacteria and archaea — use to prevent infection by viruses called phages. In a landmark 2012 paper in Science, the duo adapted the system to function in a test-tube and showed that it could be programmed to cut specific sites in isolated DNA.
Nobel-prize predictions have often included CRISPR, but there has been debate over who would receive the award among the technology’s many contributors. The work also sparked a fierce patent battle that rumbles on to this day. One of those who might have shared the award today, geneticist George Church, thinks the committee made the right call: “I think it’s a great choice,” he says .
Australian research gets billion-dollar boost
Australia’s universities and national science agency were thrown a lifeline in yesterday’s budget. Universities are set to receive Aus$1 billion (US$710 million) in funding to support research next year, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation will receive an extra Aus$459 million over four years. The country’s first budget since the pandemic began offers a major spending spree designed to kick-start the economy.
COVID-19 coronavirus update
Illustration by Bex Glendining
The science supports the fact that face coverings save lives. Studies suggest that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and might reduce the severity of an infection by lessening the dose of the virus. But more-definitive answers about how well masks work or when to use them get complicated: biology, epidemiology, physics and human behaviour all factor in. Even the question of what kinds of study would provide conclusive proof is hard to answer. Nature takes a comprehensive look at the evidence available and the large, randomly controlled trials seeking answers.
Contact tracing Trump: ‘massive but feasible’
US President Donald Trump traveled to seven states within a week of his diagnosis. Tracking down all the people with whom he had contact and testing them would be a massive effort requiring cooperation between states. But it is feasible and could prevent further spread, says physician and contract-tracing specialist Emily Wroe. The White House reportedly does not plan to do any contracting tracing or release any information about the number of staff that were infected. “It's a missed opportunity to prevent additional spread,” says Wroe.
US regulators rein in vaccine rush
The US Food and Drug Administration has released stricter guidelines for drug developers who might seek an emergency-use authorization (EUA) for the COVID-19 vaccine. Manufacturers must now collect safety data on at least half of their clinical-trial participants for two months after they receive their final dose. (Most of the vaccine frontrunners require two doses.) And immunologist Moncef Slaoui — the science leader of the US government’s ambitious vaccine project, Operation Warp Speed — says the effort has urged manufacturers to refrain from pursuing an EUA until they are “able to immunize at least a relevant fraction of the population”. Approval of a vaccine that wasn’t widely available would be “a major disappointment” to the public, says Slaoui.
Features & opinion
Why Nature must cover politics
Science and politics are inseparable, argues a Nature editorial. Nature plans to increase politics coverage from around the world, and to publish more primary research in political science and related fields. “The conventions that have guided the relationship between science and politics are under threat, and Nature cannot stand by in silence,” the editorial says.
Surgisphere scandal: what happened?
A questionable data set from a mysterious company forced high-profile retractions, cast doubt on drug trials and tarnished public trust amid a deadly pandemic. But the warning signs had been there all along, reports The Scientist. Its investigation describes a series of missed opportunities, wishful thinking and signs that a similar snafu could happen again.
Image of the week
Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, ECMWF
The ozone hole over the Antarctic is one of the largest and deepest in recent years. In this animation, the colours indicate the amount of ozone in millipascals (mPa) in the atmosphere, with levels below one mPa appearing transparent. Last year, the hole was particularly small; both extremes were due to specific meteorological conditions. This year, a particularly strong, stable and cold polar vortex of low pressure encouraged the build-up of ozone-destroying chemicals, says the European Commission’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS). The big hole “confirms that we need to continue enforcing the Montreal Protocol banning emissions of ozone depleting chemicals,” says Vincent-Henri Peuch, director of CAMS. (The Independent | 4 min read)
