From extending lifespan to bolstering the immune system, the drug’s effects are only just beginning to be understood.
The first researcher to clone the gene for green fluorescent protein, but who was passed over for the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, is back in academic science.
February 26, 2013|
Douglas Prasher got a lot of media attention in October 2008 when word came from Stockholm that a trio of researchers was getting the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on the discovery and development of green fluorescent protein (GFP). Prasher had been the first to clone the gene for GFP and had shared the cDNA with two of the researchers who got the prize, but he was not included among the ranks of Martin Chalfie, organic chemist Osama Shimomura, and University of California, San Diego, biologist Roger Tsien. In fact, at the time the announcement was made that the GFP researchers were awarded the prize, the erstwhile biochemist Prasher was working as a courtesy shuttle driver at a Huntsville, Alabama, Toyota dealership.
But now, after 4 years marked with some of the same ups and downs that landed Prasher behind the wheel of that courtesy shuttle in the first place, the 61-year-old has made his way back to the lab—specifically, the bustling lab of Tsien.
And Prasher is back to working with fluorescent proteins. As a staff research associate in Tsien’s lab, he’s developing a novel high-throughput process to identify new fluorescent proteins via mutagenesis. “Douglas is trying to build a system to screen large mutant libraries to isolate cells displaying desirable time-dependent optical phenotypes that cannot be found using fluorescence-activated cell sorting,” Tsien wrote in an email to The Scientist. “He seems enthusiastic now and in a supportive environment. His talents should be able to flourish again.”
It turns out that Tsien has long been an advocate for Prasher, recommending him and eventual winner Shimomura, who first isolated GFP, for recognition when Stockholm came knocking. “I was interviewed in around 2004 by two members of the Nobel Committee on Chemistry who asked me who I thought deserved a prize for GFP,” Tsien recalled. “I immediately replied ‘Shimomura and Prasher,’ based on my belief that both of their contributions were irreplaceable in the history of GFP.”
Tsien added that Prasher’s contributions to the development of GFP into a ubiquitous biological tool—and his willingness to share the gene with anyone who asked, including Tsien and Chalfie—deserved the Nobel even more than his own. “After Prasher's 1992 paper on the isolation and sequencing of the gene for GFP, and his willingness to distribute the cDNA, those who historically took over the development could have (and would have) been replaced by many other people with only a modest delay in progress,” he said. “Between 2004 and 2008 I kept nominating Shimomura and Prasher for various awards, including the Nobel.”
And upon learning of Prasher’s fall from academic science—which stemmed from his failure to achieve tenure at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts, where he cloned GFP—Tsien continually offered Prasher a position in his lab. “I had mentioned the possibility even before 2008, during my annual request for his updated contact information to list on nomination forms,” Tsien said.
But Prasher decided to stay in Huntsville rather than make the move to San Diego. “There were a couple times [Tsien] tried to get me interested, but being German and being stubborn, I didn’t really follow up on it,” Prasher recalled. “A lot of it had to do with family situations.” Prasher struggled financially after he left Woods Hole in 1992, landing a government research job and a position at a NASA contractor before ending up making about $300 a week at the Toyota dealership.
Prasher eventually scored a position at a small contract research firm in Huntsville in 2010 but was laid off in December 2011. After that, he contacted Tsien, who reiterated his offer to join the lab, and Prasher finally moved to San Diego in June of last year.
As Prasher settles into his new position in Tsien’s lab, he said that he often thinks about how his life would have been changed by winning the Nobel Prize in 2008. “First, I would have been a nervous wreck in Stockholm because I have never considered myself to be in the same caliber as Marty, Roger, and Osamu,” he said. “Second, my job prospects would probably have been significantly brighter. Third, assuming I would have acquired a decent job, the stress experienced by the family would have been significantly less.”
Prasher noted that his family’s finances are still in a shambles and that he is in the middle of a divorce. But he does retain fond memories of his time working as a shuttle driver, and he’s managing to stay optimistic about is return to academia. “On the positive side, I certainly don’t take life so seriously now, and I discovered while driving the courtesy shuttle that I thoroughly enjoy talking to people, well, at least most people,” he said. “Plus I have fine-tuned my ability to tease and I practice it on a daily basis.”
As for Tsien, he remains puzzled as to why he won the 2008 Nobel and Prasher didn’t. “Why was I chosen, given that our contributions were published after those of Shimomura, Prasher, and Chalfie, and that Nobel Prizes are supposedly awarded for specific discoveries rather than a lifetime of diverse achievements?” he asked. “The only people who know the answer are not telling. The answer may be revealed decades from now, when everyone who cares is dead.”
Correction (February 27): This article erroneously listed Prasher's previous academic affiliation as the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. He was in fact employed at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. This mistake has been corrected. The Scientist regrets the error.
February 27, 2013
What an inspiring story....and a cautionary tale of the cruelty of fate. Prasher's story gives me hope to keep on trucking through adversity in science, no matter what.
February 27, 2013
Very happy to read this article.
I owe my personal thanks to Doug Prasher. After years of working as a Pathologist, I decided to pursue a Ph.D. and for the thesis project, attempted to clone a GFP- transgenic zebrafish. Availability of GFP made that project possible not to mention the immense joy I experience each time I see an image of any GFP-transgenic experimental model.
It also shows Roger Tsien's magnanimity. Thank you Roger.
February 27, 2013
Thank you to the Scientist for bringing up this captivating, sad but inspiring story. It shows how treacherous is any reliance on governmental funding. Clearly, if the NIH did not reject Prasher's grant proposal, the GFP field would have advanced sooner and Prasher would get the Nobel. There is absolutely ZERO accountability for rejection decisions at NIH and NSF. This just highlights how flawed the funding system is and how much talent is thrown out. Prasher is a talented researcher who is inept at playing "the funding games." Unfortunately, the system ejects such people without so much as even saying - sorry.
February 27, 2013
This should be required reading for anyone considering grad school.
In fact, it should be required reading for anyone still in grad school. Quit before it's too late. You aren't going to be one of the ones who "makes it". Or even if you are, you're still better off doing something else with your life.
February 28, 2013
"What an inspiring story....and a cautionary tale of the cruelty of fate... "
"...captivating, sad but inspiring story..."
From other comments above -
Yes "inspiring", but is this really a case of "the cruelty of fate"? Or are there more sinister parameters at work here? Tsien should be commended for his decency and sense of fair play and for stating "The only people who know the answer are not telling. The answer may be revealed decades from now, when everyone who cares is dead."
I have worked in this general area, do not know Phrasher, but have observed some social environmental factors that could make this a possibility, and these have a bearing on perceived 'class' and ethnicity including race. These factors in general deprecate the value of the contributions from these sources; for blacks - they virtually have no presence in the field, for ethnic types - they can run a smorgas board of acceptance and for those whites with an obviously less than ‘upper middle class’ status, i.e. poorer white background the acceptance level is also lowered. I do not know if Phraser fits in to any of these slots, but those more familiar with the personalities can make a better judgement.
March 1, 2013
The days when you could get a nobel prize (or even tenure) for cloning a gene are long gone, in fact they were long gone in 1992.
There are a couple of things that Tsien could have conceivably done to support Prasher's career when it would have done some good. One would have been to include Prasher as a coauthor on publications derived from his cloned gene, which I gather Prasher did not make a condition of the gift. Tsien did in fact give Prasher a co-authorship on his first GFP paper, but apparently not on any subsequent papers -- adequate by the minimal standards of professional courtesy. The other would have been to help him get funded, if he happened to be on a study section reviewing Prasher's applications. Either one might have enabled Prasher to salvage his academic career and build on his early success.
All water over the bridge. It must be exhilarating (and a little scary) to jump back into the field after a long absence.
March 4, 2013
Thank you for making the correction regarding Douglas Prasher's prior academic affiliation. In fact, it is Osamu Shimomura who is affiliated with the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, where he now holds the title of Distinguished Scientist:
March 4, 2013
I'm glad that Prasher got rewarded eventually, perhaps because of the honesty and support of Tsien. There might be many who go unrewarded and people do not even remember them...
March 15, 2013
Rongxiang Xu, Douglas Prasher, Roselind Franklin I wonder how many scientist won Nobel Prizes crushing the true shoulder of the real giants of science. Maybe they will get the honor of another true giant like Marie Curie and get an element named after them, when they were over looked for a Nobel Prize.