This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What’s your favorite (and/or least favorite) Nobel-Prize-winning science?
The Nobel Prize is awarded annually in recognition of significant scientific advances. In my Bioelectricity class, we’ve already learned about many Nobel Prize winners. Arrhenius, for example, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1903 for his electrolytic theory concerning the dissociation of ions (electrically charged particles), Nernst, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1920 for his work in understanding the energy of reactions, Hodgkin and Huxley won in 1963 for their discoveries concerning nerve action potentials, Neher and Sakmann received one in 1991 for work to isolate single ion channels in cells, and MacKinnon was awarded the Prize in Chemistry in 2003 for his discoveries concerning ion channels in cell membranes, just to name a few!
However, although the Nobel Prize for sciences is awarded formally for physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine, there is no prize for engineering, for example, and also there have been controversies for prizes awarded in the past. And, so, why not ask:
What’s your favorite (and/or least favorite) Nobel-Prize-winning science? What makes science “good” or “bad” at all?
Closing Statement from Andrew Kiang
Thanks to all of you for sharing your favorite Nobel Prize winners and your opinions about what makes "good" science. In the end, "good science" is still hard to define clearly but it seems to lean on the side of working genuinely to benefit mankind. I am glad to hear there are other prizes with as much prestige as the Nobel. Good work in other categories besides the strict Nobel sciences need to be encouraged.
Mark Michalski
Harnsowl Ko 50+
Roger Lee
Joanna Cruz
I do not have a favorite or least favorite Nobel-Prize winning science. However, a Nobel laureate that has impacted my studies is Richard Feynman. I learned of Feynman in General Chemistry class from watching his video “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out” and watched the video again for Physics-Mechanics class. I gained true understanding and appreciation for his work in quantum electrodynamics in Modern Physics class.
In the video, he gives his unique opinion of the Nobel Prize and other honors. He expresses his dislike for honors and discusses the negative aspects about honors. He states that the most important prizes are “the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery, and the observation of people using it.” To work towards benefiting mankind for the passion of subject matter rather than for honors is, I think, a great mentality to have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg
There are prizes that are considered to be the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for other fields such as engineering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_known_as_the_Nobel_of_a_field
Genevieve Tran 50+
Andrew Kiang 50+
Genevieve Tran 50+
Alan Kroeper
And, no, I don't think there should be one for engineering. I am an engineer, and I've won awards within my field. But Nobel had much broader aspirations. Nobody wants to hear about the best way to process or manufacture this or that.
We want Borlaug. if you haven't done anything that important, you don't need a prize...
Veronica Shalotenko 50+
From a student’s perspective, it seems that you might be underestimating the creative potential of the engineer. Certainly, there are engineers whose day-to-day work involves mundane inspections and calculations. However, I would argue that historically, there have been engineers who have shown considerable skill and creativity and, in my opinion, would have been deserving of a Nobel Prize. Take, for example, the construction of the Panama Canal in the late 19th/early 20th century. Considering the technological limitations of the time, the fact that the engineers involved managed to see the project to completion is impressive. To this day, the Panama Canal is recognized as one of the greatest achievements in engineering. I don’t think that it would have been at all out of place for George Washington Goethals (the head engineer in the later years of construction) to receive a Nobel Prize for his work.
Alan Kroeper
We engineers have done many, many creative things, and Goethals is a great example (we've got a bridge named after him here in New Jersey)
I did not mean to say that our work is mundane or ordinary, just that it rarely involves discovery. We generally apply other folks discoveries. Engineering is filled with great challenges (and great fun in the application of technology to problems), but rarely involves actual discovery.
It's just my opinion that Nobel intended his (science) prizes to be more related to discovery.
I would, however, be more than willing to accept any prize that paid that well...
Howard Yee 50+
I will refrain from listing my "favorite" Nobel Prize winner because I don't have one. I will however, mention that my favorite computer scientist who won the Turing Award aka "The Noble prize of computer science" is Marvin Minsky for his work on Artificial Intelligence. He also started the AI lab at MIT. (His inventions include the first Head-mounted display, Logo (the 'my first programming language' of programming languages), SNARC (the first randomly wires neural network learning machine). His research in AI became foundational to many subclasses of AI research like the analysis of artificial neural networks.
I don't think enough people give computer science enough credit. It's awesome. The hardware and software that's derived from computer science is responsible for sustaining all of our modern day infrastructure. Check out all the other Turing Award winners, I'd choose them all as my favorite if I could.
Andrew Kiang 50+
Steven Nikolidakis 50+
I’m glad you posted this link as it reminded me of a fascinating story I heard about a few years ago about a Russian mathematician by the name of Grigori Perelman, who won the Fields Medal, the highest award in Mathematics. Perelman was able to solve one of the Millennium Prize Problems, a set of problems which were considered important for the advancement of mathematics, and therefore a $1,000,000 prize would be awarded to anyone who was able to solve one. Perelman, however, refused to accept either the money or the highly coveted prize, stating that he did not want attention and that he should not be considered a hero for solving the problem. There is even news that Perelman decided to abandon mathematics because he was “disappointed” in the field. Although there are clearly some mind-boggling pieces to this story, I respect Mr. Perelman for his contribution. It is clear that his motive was just to advance the field of mathematics, and was disinterested in either the glory or the money which came with it. Whether I agree with his actions or not, and even though he did not actually physically receive any award, he still has a fascinating story, making him my "favorite" prize winner. To read more about Mr. Perelman, follow this link:
http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Perelman-Grigory.html
Natalie Gao
Oliver Reed
My favorite Nobel Prize was awarded to Fleming, Florey and Chain in 1945 for the discovery of penicillin. Along with revolutionizing medicine in the 1900's, penicillin serves as a fascinating reminder of what role luck can play in scientific discovery. Fleming himself acknowledged that if he had followed proper controls and was engaged in his then current field of research, penicillin probably would not have been discovered.
Andrew Kiang 50+
Ted Stickel
Oliver Medvedik 50+
The development of resistance by uncontrolled uses of antibiotics was certainly understood even during Fleming's time. He may have been one of the earliest guys to sound the alarm, but I have to check that. Fortunately, I think that there is a limit to how "super" a super bug can get. Over the eons,Mother nature has been a potent generator of all the possible permutations of polypetides and glycopetides, etc, that can be developed to circumvent our defenses, with and without antibiotics. Unfortunately, due to solely economic reasons, research into discovering new antibiotics, of which we have only just begun to scratch the surface of, has significantly tapered off. Maintaining that chemical "arms race" by bio-medical research should be a priority, but sadly isn't.
Paul Gullacher
He is a case study on blind patriotism and the impact on his values and ethics, after all he earned the name "Father of Chemical Warfare". As a winner, he is an interesting character to say the least.
For its application to the betterment of mankind, and the worsening of it (?), Fritz Haber is my most/least favorite (and the most interesting I know of) nobel winner.
Do we need to cite sources?
Andrew Kiang 50+
Andrew Leader 50+
To me, Haber is sort of the embodiment of the "evil scientist"--he made a scientifically sophisticated weapon, and even took part in directing its use on the battlefield. Yet at the same time, he can be credited with providing a way to sustain half the humans alive today.
I find Heisenberg a similarly enigmatic figure. We like his Uncertainty Principle, but we don't like his politics (He worked as a physicist for the Nazis as they were trying to build a nuclear bomb). This bomb, of course, was never built and used, but his discoveries have revolutionized physics and technology.
So how can we decide what to think of these scientists? This question evades answer. We can't judge them on all of these principles at once. This is what I mean when I say I enjoy the internal conflict over how I feel--These people are not 1-dimensional. The complexity of these characters is actually interesting--almost as interesting as the science!
Sabine Sitruk
Sabine Sitruk
I'm convinced she would deliver once of the best performances at TED.
Alan Kroeper
I hope I reach the age and the wisdom to inspire the same feeling...I doubt both, but I do hope...
Andrew Kiang 50+
Jiří Valenta
Andrew Kiang 50+
Josh Mayourian 50+
Looking through this fascinating conversation started by Andrew, I have been able to research all different types of interesting scientists and Noble Prize winners. However, I have found that Dr. Jaroslav Heyrovský is definitely the most interesting of all. The perseverance Dr. Jaroslav Heyrovský had was inspiring, as he was so close for so long, and finally won 25 years after being nominated 18 times. Furthermore, he was honored all around the world for all the great work he has done. It is incredible to be so talented in multiple fields like Dr. Jaroslav Heyrovský was. Thanks for sharing this, as his story is truly something to look up to.
Josh
Andrew Tam
In the article above, Time describes its list of the top ten Nobel prize controversies. In most cases, it seems that the ideas themselves are prize worthy, but something about the person's past makes their prize questionable. For example, Cordell Hull won the Nobel prize for helping to establish the U.N. His case is considered controversial because six years earlier, Hull advised the denial of passage of a Jewish refugee ship into the U.S.; consequentially, the denial led to the death of many of those passengers.
At least in this class of controversies, I feel that it is slightly unfair to frown upon these Nobel prize winners. Sure, they may have made a decision in the past that people are not in agreement with, but that shouldn't cloud the fact that they had a Nobel-prize-winning idea. While the standards for Nobel prizes are certainly high, we can't expect people to be absolutely perfect in every aspect. People make mistakes and it should certainly be acceptable to do so.
Samantha Massengill 50+
Thanks for this link! I completely agree with you about the controversies that you describe and I believe that a Nobel-prize-winning idea does not make the idea any less amazing because of a person's mistakes in the past. Similarly, I don't think "bad" science should be characterized by these mistakes.
The controversy on Harald zur Hausen reminded me that the HPV link to cervical cancer might be one of my favorite Nobel-Prize-winning sciences. This discovery effects every young woman in the world who is able to access the HPV vaccine. The HPV vaccine protects against the two types of HPV that are responsible for causing 70% of cervical cancer cases. I'm glad Harald zur Hausen got recognition despite efforts made by pharmaceutical companies trying to take a stake in the drug. You can read about Harald zur Hausen's scientific process here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/hausen.html. And no, Michele Bachmann, I didn't become mentally retarded after having the vaccine.
Matthew Wieder 50+
On a related note, Rosalind Franklin who passed away before Watson, Crick and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize for their work on nucleic acids, (most notably the discovery of the double helix), was not recognized for years for her contribution to the discovery. Nobel Prize rules aside with regard to honoring the work posthumously, her X-ray diffraction images of DNA were vital to Watson and Crick resolving the structure of DNA and the absence of her proper recognition is unfortunate to say the least.
Finally, there is the case of the discovery of Insulin where Frederick Banting and John Macleod received the award as co-recipients. Banting at first refused to accept the award along with Macleod as he did not feel Macleod deserved the award as he felt the only contribution Macleod made was to provide a lab and a lab assistant Charles Best. Banting felt that Best and not Macleod deserved the award and when he finally agreed to accept the award split his money with Best to acknowledge Best's contribution. Whether, or not someone should be recognized with the Nobel Prize for just providing the economic means to accomplish the work is debatable however I think not and I believe Banting would agree.
Maria Georgescu 50+
As for the comment about bad science, I think that only comes with falsifying data or taking credit for someone else’s work (sure, in the latter case, the science is still publicized but the moral code of not stealing is completely thrown out the window). We should also remember that all these prizes are never a single man’s work. Besides building on previous discoveries, more immediately, there is always the contribution of the fellow lab members working under the head of the lab.
Nicolette Sinensky 50+
Your comment on Nobel Prize winners being considered controversial because of unfavorable pasts strikes me as being quite ironic. If you look at the origins of the Nobel prizes, Alfred Nobel started the Nobel committee so that he would be remembered for something good instead of for being the inventor of dynamite. If we question the integrity of the prize winners because of something they did in their past, we might as well question the integrity of the committee itself.
I think its fitting that we honor those who have made mistakes in the past but have redeemed themselves with these prizes. They, like Nobel, deserve to be remembered for the good that they have done for the world as well as the bad.
Oliver Medvedik 50+
For me, I think it's easier to answer what makes "good science" good rather than what make bad science bad, simply because there are too many things that can masquerade as science when in fact they are not. The best science would be a well thought out question regarding a natural phenomenon (or series of questions) that is answered unequivocally and, as a result, solves a vexing paradox that just will not be forced to fit within the constraints of an existing model or paradigm. A good example of this would be quantum theory explaining the black body problem in physics. Or even a series of questions and answers that describe a phenomenon that was previously unacknowledged, thereby starting entirely new fields of study, such as in cell theory, following the invention of microscopy and modern astronomy following the invention of telescopes. Good science is required to achieve all of this, which requires proper controls and unbiased reporting of all data coming in. As well as carefully set up experiments so that your answers are unequivocal,i.e. either yes or no, rather than maybe. Everyone especially hates to get a "maybe" type of answer! This usually means that something hasn't been set up correctly in some way.
As for my favorite Nobel Prize discovery? I particularly enjoy the story behind Dr. Kary Mullis and his invention of PCR. Not just because it is so useful to me and everyone else working in molecular biology, but because it is so simple that it made people say "why didn't I think of that!". Simple, yet powerful.
Ted Stickel
Oliver Medvedik 50+
Didn't know that. But I figured an invention like that may have been somewhat contentious due to it's "simplicity" and other people in the lab developing it further to optimize it's potential. Still, I wasn't aware of the work going back to 1969!
Dick Morel
Andrew Kiang 50+
Gregory Gage 100+
While you are right that there is no prize for engineering, there are still many engineering inventions that have won the Nobel Prize in Physics. For an example, there were 3 scientists from Bell Labs (John Bardeen, William Shockley, and Walter Brattain) shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1956 for discovering the principles of the transistor. While they didn't invent the computer, they allowed for the computer revolution to happen by allowing the devices to become tiny. My favorite Nobel Prize was awarded in 2000 to an engineer and physicist from Texas Instruments, Jack Kilby, for inventing the integrated circuit (IC) back in the 1950s. I go through catalogs of ICs everyday for my designs, and am forever grateful for his contributions to science and engineering.
As for your last question, what makes science good/bad? I think that any science that answers something we don't know is "good" science. The history books are filled with ideas that were silly at the time, only to become very important some day in the future. The only "bad" science I see is "pseudoscience": the misuse of data to "prove" theories, instead of using data to debunk other plausible alternatives. My advice to everyone is to be skeptical. Skepticism is a Virtue!
Tommy Bong
Sophie Rand 50+
I think what's interesting about this is that it seems quite logical. Heisenbergs theoretical experiment involved trying to observe an electron, but the only way to look at something is to shine light on it. By shining light on an electron or shooting a photon at it, you're putting energy into the electron, thereby changing it's original state (the one you wanted to observe)
scientific version of we want what we cant have?