Time magazine has its Man of the Year. Sports Illustrated has its Sportsman of the Year. Not to be left out, the editor in chief of Science magazine jumped on the boat and declared a Molecule of the Year.

"It occurred to him that the Man of the Year had developed a sort of a following," said Science Editor Ellis Rubinstein about the honorary title, which is a spoof of other magazines with similar designations.

Every year for the past five years, the editorial board of Science has awarded Molecule of the Year to an object in science that it thinks has provided the most interesting and worthwhile achievements of the past year.

"We thought it would be fun and educational if we could isolate a molecule that stood for the major progress in science every year," said Rubinstein.

The Molecule of the Year is what the board deems a major achievement, but it is not necessarily a molecule. Judging includes consideration of the speed with which a particular area has progressed --generally recognized by publication of about 1,000 scientific papers in the area -- as well as the potential contribution of the work to society.

And this year's award recipient is, in fact, a gene called p53. The protein product of the gene functions as a tumor suppressor by preventing unregulated cell growth -- the cause of cancer.

Research indicates about 50 percent of all cancers are associated with a mutation in the p53 gene, making it the gene most commonly mutated in human cancers. All cancer is a result of gene mutation, but all mutations do not result in cancer.

". . . p53 and its fellow tumor suppressors are generating an excitement that suggests prevention now and hope for a cure of a terrible killer in the not-too-distant future," wrote Science magazine Editor In Chief Daniel E. Koshland Jr. in the Dec. 24 issue of Science.

Elizabeth Kolata, a free-lance reporter who has written the Molecule of the Year article for the last three years, said understanding the relationship between the gene's alteration and cancer incidence will lead to better treatment, diagnosis and prevention of cancers.

Although progress toward a cancer cure is undeniably significant, some scientists may think the magazine's selection is presumptuous. But Rubinstein said this distinction is good because it allows scientists to see what important things have been happening outside of their fields.

"We don't regard ourselves as oracles of the field . . . it's not sensible to take ourselves too seriously," said Rubinstein. "A lot of scientists are very serious people and it offends them to see a particular piece of work highlighted."