Comments on: The tedious inevitability of Nobel Prize disputes

By: The Nobel Savages « Galileo's Pendulum

The Nobel Savages « Galileo's Pendulum — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:01:37 +0000

[...] to award (getting back to the whole collaboration-vs.-individual issue). Carl Zimmer eloquently expressed these and other problems with the Nobels last year, so I won’t go on. Ed Yong’s modest [...]

By: Nobel Prize Season | On a Quasi-Related Note

Nobel Prize Season | On a Quasi-Related Note — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:46:54 +0000

[...] As with any award, there are bound to be some discussion about the worthiness of the winners, and those who were snubbed. Regardless of ones personal views of the winners, the fact that there is discussion about them, and the science they worked on and became experts in, is something unquestionably wonderful. [...]

By: The day I met a Nobel Laureate (or, The one and only time I have asked someone for an autograph) « Baldscientist

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:38:51 +0000

[...] part of the other categories of the Nobel prizes as well. Some even argue that the Nobel is “a lousy way to recognize important science“. I strongly disagree with this statement. Any discovery that helps save lives, for example, [...]

By: O.R. Pagan

O.R. Pagan — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:30:28 +0000

@Daniel and @Sven:

I absolutely agree with you guys; “whomever provides the money for the prize gets to sets the rules”. There will always be dissenting opinions on EVERYTHING, especially when such a big ($) award is involved. The way the prizes are awarded may not be perfect, but in a society that as a whole mistrusts and misunderstands science, any way of highlighting scientific discoveries and celebrating scientists is a good thing…

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:04:07 +0000

And then there are less well pubilized but highly prestigeous prizes. For example, the Fields Medals for mathematicians and the Kyoto Prize (~$650,000) for the best work over a wide span of the sciences.

By: I’ve got your missing links right here (8 October 2011) | Not Exactly Rocket Science | Freedom Developers

Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:10:12 +0000

[...] was given to a scientist that many feel is undeserving of the honour,” says Kevin Bonham. But Carl Zimmer argues that Nobel Prize disputes are tedious and inevitable. “The people behind the Nobel Prize have [...]

By: Naumadd

Naumadd — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:59:30 +0000

One should always remember that the prizes are much more about the people giving them than those receiving them. If I choose to give a prize for best book of the year, the choice is about me, not who wins and who loses. My choice is necessarily subjective. If the choice was intended to be objective, I would clearly spell out the specific criteria I intend to use in judging. In that case, the winner doesn’t necessarily represent my personal favorite. My subjective choice is right for me, but the choice is never intended to be “right” according to everyone else. In that sense, it is silly for them to argue amongst themselves about how unfair I was to this book or that book. I judge by my values, not theirs. They are free to choose as they like and, if able, award their favorite(s). I take it for granted that the Nobel committe sometimes awards to those I favor and sometimes not. It’s not really for me to say who they OUGHT to choose. It’s not my prize to give. Is it yours?

By: John Kubie

John Kubie — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:15:17 +0000

I remember a few years ago when Ray Damadian took out a whole-page ad in the NY Times protesting that he did not share nobel prize awarded to the developers MRI …

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:51:35 +0000

Ok, the visible universe is accelerating apart. I see no reason to suspect that the visible part is all there is. Further away there is more matter, maybe much denser, which is gravitationally attracting the visible matter. This hypothesis is perhaps falsifiable, which ought to be enough.

By: Sven

Sven — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:37:27 +0000

It’s a valid point, but a legally moot one, since the committees didn’t make the rule that the prize can’t be shared by more than three people. It’s in the statutes of the Nobel Foundation. And besides the fact that foundations created by a will have very little legal room to change their statutes after over 110 years, they especially can’t change the number of people sharing a prize, because they’re obligated by a legal agreement made with Nobel’s heirs back in 1898.

In short, they likely could not change this even if they wanted to.

What seems almost as inevitable as disputes over the prize, is people suggesting new prizes or rule changes, without realizing how little legal room there is to maneuver in. They’re effectively the executors of Nobel’s will, so it doesn’t really matter if the rules are absurd or outdated. (And there _are_ lots of absurd and anachronistic such organizations out there, handing out “scholarships for unwed former-milkmaids who want to learn needlepoint”, or what-have-you. I don’t think the Nobel Prize rules are quite so absurd as to ever relegate the Nobels to that status, though.)

Frankly, I’m not too sure it’s anachronistic either. Even if we all know science isn’t done so much by individuals anymore, with today’s short-attention-span media, having a handful of individuals to focus on probably garners them (and thus the discovery) more attention than awarding a huge group would.