Another year, no CRISPR Nobel Prize

Nobel Prize

[Editor’s note: Aaron Dy is a PhD student in biological engineering at MIT.]

To most of us, the question for CRISPR is “when” not “will” it get a Nobel Prize. However, there are still questions over “when”, “who” will get the credit, and which Nobel Prize it will even be.

Another year and another year of wondering for CRISPR and a potential Nobel prize (let’s assume it doesn’t win for literature or peace later this week). Last year we were already getting stories about how it was missing out – “CRISPR loses Nobel to tiny machines” – and stories about this year’s award still mentioned CRISPR as a “an oft-cited contender during the Nobel award season”.

[H]ere’s a very-much-non-definitive list of people rumored to be up for a CRISPR Nobel (in alphabetical order): Emmanuelle Charpentier at Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin (fomerly Umeå University), George Church at Harvard University and Wyss Institute, Jennifer Doudna at University of California, Berkeley, Virginijus Šikšnys at Institute of Biotechnology in Lithuania, and Feng Zhang at Broad Institute and MIT.

With the rule of three and possibility of different categories I have no idea how this one will actually end up. But maybe the real question is why we’re even giving out awards to three people for work that so many contribute to.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: When will CRISPR get a Nobel Prize?

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-14-at-11.11.06-AM
‘Turbo cancer’ or mRNA cancer cure? Strategies to counter misinformation
ChatGPT Image May 28, 2026, 08_16_38 PM
Viewpoint: Why the EPA mismeasures cancer risk of chemicals and what should be done to fix it
edb7f6d7-2370-418f-9578-74e29678e35c
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Nicotine vaping—public health miracle, or risk to children? Professor Cliff Douglas
fda_logo_decimated
Viewpoint: RFK, Jr.’s FDA is on a screaming downward path—and why it may never recover
ChatGPT-Image-May-22-2026-10_56_42-AM-2
‘It’s not super useful’: As wariness about AI grows, Trump proposes rollback of healthcare safeguards
Screenshot-2026-05-27-at-10.51.25-AM
Viewpoint: ‘Monsanto’ blues—Planned Netflix movie promises yet another round of anti-glyphosate disinformation
ChatGPT-Image-May-22-2026-10_26_09-AM
Gutting the National Science Board: How the Trump-RFK, Jr. crusade is erasing the separation of science and state
ChatGPT-Image-May-28-2026-11_31_47-AM-2
Relying on your doctor or AI miracle cure, death and debilitation? Neurologist makes the wrong choice
Picture1
The Orange Bowl without oranges: Can CRISPR save Florida citrus?
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-11_51_01-AM
Viewpoint: RFK, Jr.’s ‘sadistic’ solution to autism, depression, and other ills looks a lot like prison camp
Screenshot-2026-05-26-at-12.36.18-PM
MAGA’s latest ‘health obsession’? Nicotine patches promoted by ‘Zynfluencers’—including some in the Trump administration 
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
vax-misinformation-main
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Limit free speech to blunt social media misinfo?
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.