[webmaven]

> If you can find an efficient, generic, and universal method for synthesizing molecules of arbitrary shape and complexity, then you would receive the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and possibly Physics and Medicine too.

I hate to burst your bubble, but that is almost certainly not literally true. Any device with those capabilities will be the end result of heck of a lot of engineering (much of it incremental), but whatever scientific discoveries are necessary will be so far removed that they will hardly seem relevant.

Theoretically, the 2016 Nobel for chemistry might prove to be the relevant foundation for the necessary engineering, but time will tell.

Anyway, discoveries like CRISPR, that can be immediately (relatively speaking) deployed as a revolutionary tool, are by far the exception.

As an exercise, feel free to identify the Nobel prizes that were awarded for the invention of xerography (aka photocopying), digital laser printing, and thermoplastic 3D printing (or any other extant additive manufacturing method).

[ampdepolymerase]

The type of "incremental advances" you see in recent Nobels are the exception in history, not the norm. Stuff like CRISPR is what the Nobel is designed for.