Talk:Frederick Sanger

Needs clarification
The opening para says he's the only one to win the nobel prize twice "in chemistry", but the next paragraph says there were 4 -- 3 now deceased -- to have won twice. This just means in other fields, I assume? It should be stated as such.

Why not list the other 3? And their fields.

Someone who knows the details pls tweak these paras.

There are 4 scientists who have won the Nobel Prize twice, namely Marie Curie (1 Ph, 1 Ch), John Bardeen (2 Ph), Frederick Sanger (2 Ch), and Linus Pauling (1 Ch, 1 Peace). Sanger is the only person who has won the prize in the field of chemistry twice, with the other 3 winning twice in different fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BatteryChen (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

66.105.218.29 (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The article states that he was 40 in 1916 when he married. Given that he was born in 1918, this seems unlikely on all levels. Correction required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.50.135 (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

DNA sequencing
I have removed a number of edits by as unsourced. Neither the citations in the main article nor the existing citations in this article support the additions made. While I am not an expert in this subject matter, and I have no reason to believe that the edits are not accurate, we will need verifiable and reliable sources before adding the content to this encyclopedia. Please discuss the material and sources before adding again. Thank you. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Study dates?
It says that he went up to Cambridge in 1936 and took 3 years to do his Part 1, but still graduated in 1939. When did he fit in his Part 2 study? 194.39.218.10 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed this because I couldn't find a source to support that. Someone more familiar with the Tripos system may have more insight.— James Estevez (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the Tripos system either but the present text seems fine. I took the information from segment 10 of the Brownlee interview. For the first year of his Part I Sanger studied Physics, Chemistry and two half subjects, Biochemistry and Maths. He struggled with Maths and Physics. After the first year he dropped Physics and took Physiology instead. He took 3 years to complete his Part I for which he obtained a BA. (The interview doesn't mention the class of his degree). He then did Biochemistry for a year for his Part II. This suggests a total of 4 years. The interview doesn't give dates but the title on the video segment has "Cambridge Undergraduate 1936-1939" which suggests a total of only 3 years (but could be 4 years). (I notice that the link to the video is no longer correct.)  Aa77zz (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've looked at Segment 11 of the Brownlee interview. It mentions that Sanger was studying for the Part II of the Tripos in 1939-40 at the beginning of WWII. He therefore obtained his Part I (a BA) in 1939 and his Part II (an MA?) in 1940. Aa77zz (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article stated that he graduated in both 1939 and 1940. The latter is correct. I've also updated the URL for the video of the Brownlee interview. I'm surprised to find that my university no longer gives me access. Fortunately I have a downloaded copy. I normally prefer printed articles but this particular interview is a very useful resource; it is exceptionally long (200 min) and detailed. Aa77zz (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Death date
Does anyone have a reference for the death date of 19 November? I've not been able to find anything beyond the fact of his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added a reference.--Racklever (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, am I missing something obvious? Where does it say he died on the 19th? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the Telegraph obituary is now online which gives the date. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph gives the date, but not the place. USA Today gives the place as Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge. — QuicksilverT @ 17:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Baronet
He could have been a better baronet than Mark Thatcher. What a shit! Lisbeth, hey! --83.220.238.65 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frederick Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041026014225/http://www.vega.org.uk/series/facetoface/sanger/index.php to http://www.vega.org.uk/series/facetoface/sanger/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frederick Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407064631/http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/people/biographies/fsanger.html to http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/people/biographies/fsanger.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Opening paragraph, Nobel Prize citations
should the descriptions of his two Nobel Prizes merely be the official citations which are written in a stiff, rather unfriendly style? I feel like his first could be something like for determining the structure of numerous proteins, most importantly insulin and the second for the invention of the first-ever DNA sequencing technique, largely still in use today.

-- SoloBear 89  04:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * SoloBear 89, although I get why they are stiff (all Nobel prize descriptions follow that format) it would be good to give it a bit more human flow, so I agree with you. I would support your proposed edits. BooleanQuackery (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)