It's that time of year again...Nobel Prize week. Each day the Nobel Prize committee will announce the winners of this year's awards for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.
This year the first three announcements have involved a lot of Americans, something that isn't always the case for this international award.
On Monday, three Americans shared the Nobel Prize for Medicine "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase." Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Grieder and Jack W. Szostak each get 1/3 of the prize.
On Tuesday, 1/2 the Nobel Prize for Physics went to Charles K. Kao "for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication." The other half was split between Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith "for the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit – the CCD sensor."
And today, two Americans and an Israeli share equally in the Nobel Prize for Chemistry "for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome." They are Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz, and Ada Yonath.
The remaining prizes will be announced in the following days.
It is important to keep in mind that the Nobel Prizes are given for work that may have been done decades ago, only after the significance of their achievements have become clear. It is critical that we continue to provide support for scientists in various fields for both basic and applied research. Without it our innovation for the future is sure to suffer.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Make New Friends |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments: 73
I think the 24-hour cable news channels would say that they are the alternative to the evening news. Which makes your point even more important. How come we aren't touting the great achievements that these people worked years for, and only now, sometimes decades after the initial discoveries, are they recognized for it?
The content that the few of us want to hear... gets pushed out by the majority. We are a sad society!
Thank you.
I guess we'll see.
Interesting and worth watching the "Peace prize" is one non- academic award and we shall wait and see.
It is disappointing in a discussion about scienitists who quietly work and changed the world and our futures can be so easily usurped by a man that has done nothing more then take a political office just as 43 three people have done before him.
I wonder what you would say if in ten years the millions of people in Iraq are flrushing undr self government and the the Middle East has many more countries under some form of self rule and freedom and fear of war has disappeared who would you think should recieve a Nobel Prize fro Peace or is that prize only based on current politics?
I am so happy for this on many levels and you know that the right will rip this news apart and stomp on it and POTUS 44.
I have a new acronym for them:
D.I.R.T. = Democratically Induced Republican Tantrums!
So let them pound DIRT!
I am humbled in your presence. We must talk.
It is apprehend that I have not been reading the right news accounts. Could you direct me to where I can read about the “abolition or reduction of standing armies and the holding and promotion of peace congresses” or a description of how he has “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations”?
If we look at the Presidents that have received the Award, first was T. Roosevelt for his part in ending the Russia-Japan war, and W. Wilson for founding the League of Nations. If we include former President Carter, it was for his decades of work. Even last year’s awardee M. Ahtiraasi received it for decades of work. I do acknowledge that A. Gore received the Award for his work at spreading the word about the environment without reference to the years of effort, however, I do believe that he was carrying his message for decades including the years as V.P.
Again help me understand what President Obama has done aside from allowing the American people elect him to the Presidency and to succeed a much vilified former President?
I have to admit to a personal bias that awards of any kind should be for accomplishments rather than for simply being.
I surely can’t say what Nobel would have thought of this but if we read from his will,
“"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Nobel seemed to be focused on work and accomplishment. What work has the President done aside from read speeches written by others? Please don’t hold back in describing what he has done in the 9 months since being elected and taking office.
That is inappropriate.
The Nobel Prize committee picked Obama, not me, not you, and not Johnice. If you don't like their choice, take it up with them. There is no way that anyone other than the committee can explain why they have made their selection.
And, in fact, they have explained why. So read their reasons and if you disagree with them, then write them and tell them so. Asking us to explain it when they have already done so is simply an attempt to rationalize your own position.
I recognize that you had no influence on the decsion of the Judges nor is your role to defend their choices. I return to you idea of suing the Nobel Prize for heightening the visibility of science and those who practice it. I feel that the Judges by describing the activities they help people see what scieince can mean to society at large. The descriptions can be a nice tool for educators to use in describing to their students and parents the value in learnig science.
What I am trouble with regarding the Peace Prize is how can that be used in similar manner.
Johnice R.,
I don't know how you define an open mind, so I can;t tell if I am or not.
I readily admit at this stage of my learning there is a higher threshold of information necessary to change the principles I use for evaluting events and making decisions.
One of those steps in that threshold is emotions, I have learn poor decisions are genrally made based solely on the emotion of the moment.
As David pointed out I surely don;t know the Judges thinking when they made the choice. It is most probably because I have over looked soem specific works of our President, but as I have mention looking at the long hisotry of those receiving th ePeace Prize President Obama's Prize seems a bit out of the pattern. I always wonder why a pattern is broken and try to understand the implcation of such changes. As in this case, where the early history seemed to be more focused on specific accomplisments, in recent years it seems to have shifted to more about a body of work over decades. However, in this case (without some help for me to better undrstand the President's works) it seems more about hope. If it is about hope is then whose hope, the Judges or the worlds, and is it about fear.
As I have mentioned it could be about the hope of the Judges to infleunce the President in upcoming negociations on the environment. Or it maybe the fear of the Judges that hope will not be achieved so the want to bestow their Prize before too long in case our President doesn;t achieve any of the goals he has set for the world.
I surely have no other candidate that I feel was slighted by Presidnt Obama being selected. I am simply trying to understand how can we benefit by the Judges selection and the criteria they use.
I'm not sure the award is given such that we can benefit from it. It's given based on the committee's perception of the recipient's having met the criteria. They have explained their view.
It is too bad that the people can use the Nobel Prize for Peace in the same way as the Prizes for the sciences. It has a long and respected history that has evelated the work of some many people and provide a spot light on the impact people can have through their work. I suspect that spotlight has been used to light the way into the sciences by many people.
Even though the impact of the work done for being awarded Literature Prize may not be a clear as those for the sciences it still is provides a means to highlight literature both by idenifying new authors to consider, and elevates the peoples work to a world recognition and can encourage people to dedicate thems to the field.
It seems that the Prize for Peace could do that for people into politics, global diplomacy, and many other fields. However, without giving people tangible works/results of work it loses that impact.
As you say the Judges make the decision. And it surely seems they are most definitely not accountable to anyone not even Nobels expectations for the Prize.
Even the discussion is not focused on the hopes what President Obama might do, but rather they have turned the focus on themsleves and their selection criteria. For me it was a lost opportunity.
It makes me wonder what they will do when he actually achieves sonething as note worthy as past Lauriets, such as Roosevelt and Wilson.
We don't get a say in it.
But we do get to choose how we react to the news. And those choices say much about us.
My reason is one to particpate in an exchange of ideas and try to learn, and the other is that even though they can;t change the past they may infleunce the future.
Just my view, from my desk, in my office, in my home, in America!
I have told you why I particpate in this discussion and on Gahter.
"The decision has been made and who does what and when from here on out it is the Nobel Committee who have the last word." If this is what you believe I am asking why do you comment here on this topic since the decision has been made and there is nothing we can say will change it.
The question has no answer I can challenge or agree with since it is your answer, I am interested and wonder if it is something I should consider when deciding whehter to particpate in a conversation on Gather.
I ask the same question of David.
I apologize if I have some how offended you.
I try to be respectful, to provide honest and open comments, to provide sufficeint explanation of my thinking so others can focus on the weakness of my logic, and to make a good effort at addressing any questons asked of me.
Thanks for your time and comments.
Though apparently Johnice wasn't (see her comments in the substring above). I have a new article up on it.
Sadly, Franklin died at a young age of ovarian cancer, but not before she did groundbreaking work on tobacco mosaic and polio viruses.
Critical for present day scientists, but even more critical that we get back to teaching real science in the public schools. It is dismaying that all this religious dogma has made its way into public school science curricula - and real science itself has been watered down substantially in deference to it.
In general, our science teaching has degraded even as scientific and technological discoveries have increased. But one look at our graduate schools in the sciences, math, engineering and related disciplines is enough to show us that other cultures are rapidly passing us by in this regard.
Anyway, I enjoy seeing many of these people recognized. Most are unknown except in their own scientific communities.
Agreed that most are unknown, especially the scientist types (I would hope the literature winners are people that have actually been read).
Some of the prizes it seems for peace for instance have been eye brow raising and much more political than meritorious.
I do remember that Guatemalan lady who got the literature prize but wasn't it rescinded because her story and background turned out to be lies? That was a few years back...
Rigoberta Menchu (n.d)
Me llamo Rigoberta Menchu y asi me nacio la conciencias was first published in France, Spain and Cuba in 1983, and first in English as I, Rigoberta Menchu (London) in 1984. It has been republished many times, and now has been rewritten by Menchu. This single work is credited with finally drawing international attention to the genocidal policies of the Guatemalan military governments and, indeed, resulted in a Nobel Prize for the author. The book has since drawn much controversy, sparked primarily by the publication of anthropologist David Stoll's work Rigoberta Menchu and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans (1999). Stoll is a U.S. trained anthropologist who has studied in Guatemala and, after reading Menchu's book, became concerned about discrepancies in the text. His criticism of Menchu has raised heated discussion about the motives of both Menchu and Stoll, and about the literary devices of the testimonio genre. Stol has now just published jointly with Arturo Arias another study of this issue The Rigoberta Menchu Controversy (2001).
There is a short piece about her in this article about nine women Nobel winners.
I did find another author from Guatemala that won the award in 1967. I didn't see any controversy attached to his name. There may be others at the Nobel prize site.
Miguel Angel Asturias
I know the book caused some uproar, the subject deservedly so. Her background almost as much
and Charles: Nobel prizes are given for discoveries that pose a highly significant discovery. Usually it takes many years to determine the actual significance of the discovery, which is why some of these discoveries happened years ago. However, the Nobel prize is never awarded posthumously, so all the Nobel winners are alive still.
"It is important to keep in mind that the Nobel Prizes are given for work that may have been done decades ago, only after the significance of their achievements have become clear."
It is sad that so many are so deserving, and politics invades the hallowed Nobel institution by awarding this prestigious prize to someone who has not actually accomplished anything for peace, except rhetoric, so far. I hope he can actually accomplish something, but a Nobel for nine months of effort is just plain wrong.
On the other hand, the Peace Prize is inherently more subjective and even political. It is commonly given for contemporaneous efforts. In fact, it is often given to those who have dramatically changed the playing field so that future achievements can occur.
From the Washington Post article:
Elinor Ostrom, a political economist at Indiana University, and Oliver Williamson, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, will split the $1.4 million prize, formally known as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Ostrom is the first woman to win the prize since it was created in 1969.
Ostrom won "for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons."
Williamson won "for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm."