Should the Nobel Prize Committee change how the prize is awarded?

[Czernobog]

I don't normally post in the Science forum, but this story rather caught my attention.

The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science

The wider problem, beyond who should have received the prize and who should not, is that the Nobels reward individuals—three at most, for each of the scientific prizes, in any given year. And modern science, as Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus write in Stat, is “the teamiest of team sports.” Yes, researchers sometimes make solo breakthroughs, but that’s increasingly rare. Even within a single research group, a platoon of postdocs, students, and technicians will typically be involved in a discovery that gets hitched to a single investigator’s name. And more often than not, many groups collaborate on a single project. The paper in which the LIGO team announced their discovery has an author list that runs to three pages. Another recent paper, which precisely estimated the mass of the elusive Higgs boson, has 5,154 authors.​

Now, the method for choosing the recipient of the Nobel Prize is, to some degree, set forth in the Will of Alfred Nobel:

Defenders of the prize note that the Nobel committee is bound to the conditions laid out in Alfred Nobel’s will—the document that established the awards. But the will calls for the recognition of “the person”—singular—who has made the important discovery in their respective field “during the preceding year.”​

The problem is that the Prize Committee has already played a little loose with that restriction:

The Nobel committee, by contrast, recognizes up to three people, for work that could have been done decades prior. If they are already bending the original rules, why not go further? As the editors of Scientific American suggested in 2012, why not award the scientific prizes to teams and organizations, just like the Peace Prize can be?​

The linked article makes an excellent case for the problems with how the prize is currently awarded, and I would highly recommend reading it. So, what do you guys think? Should the Nobel Prize change how it is awarded to more accurately portray how scientific discoveries are made?

 

[fncceo]

No ... I'm pretty sure everyone who has received the Peace Prize has wholeheartedly deserved it.

 

[Czernobog]

No ... I'm pretty sure everyone who has received the Peace Prize has wholeheartedly deserved it.

For Fuck's Sake!!! I had someone on another forum do the exact same thing! Do none of you Neanderthals understand the difference between the Nobel Prize for PEACE, and the Nobel Prize for Science?!?!

How about you go, reread the fucking OP, read the accompanying article, and try again!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Do none of you Neanderthals !

Is this your subtle way of indicating that you are an Australopithecus?

 

[fncceo]

Do none of you Neanderthals

Homo Habilis, Biatch!

 

[Czernobog]

Do none of you Neanderthals

Homo Habilis, Biatch!

Do none of you Neanderthals !

Is this your subtle way of indicating that you are an Australopithecus?

Okay... Science geek jokes officially suck. LOL Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't normally post in the Science forum, but this story rather caught my attention.

The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science

The wider problem, beyond who should have received the prize and who should not, is that the Nobels reward individuals—three at most, for each of the scientific prizes, in any given year. And modern science, as Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus write in Stat, is “the teamiest of team sports.” Yes, researchers sometimes make solo breakthroughs, but that’s increasingly rare. Even within a single research group, a platoon of postdocs, students, and technicians will typically be involved in a discovery that gets hitched to a single investigator’s name. And more often than not, many groups collaborate on a single project. The paper in which the LIGO team announced their discovery has an author list that runs to three pages. Another recent paper, which precisely estimated the mass of the elusive Higgs boson, has 5,154 authors.​

Now, the method for choosing the recipient of the Nobel Prize is, to some degree, set forth in the Will of Alfred Nobel:

Defenders of the prize note that the Nobel committee is bound to the conditions laid out in Alfred Nobel’s will—the document that established the awards. But the will calls for the recognition of “the person”—singular—who has made the important discovery in their respective field “during the preceding year.”​

The problem is that the Prize Committee has already played a little loose with that restriction:

The Nobel committee, by contrast, recognizes up to three people, for work that could have been done decades prior. If they are already bending the original rules, why not go further? As the editors of Scientific American suggested in 2012, why not award the scientific prizes to teams and organizations, just like the Peace Prize can be?​

The linked article makes an excellent case for the problems with how the prize is currently awarded, and I would highly recommend reading it. So, what do you guys think? Should the Nobel Prize change how it is awarded to more accurately portray how scientific discoveries are made?

I think you make an excellent point. I have a feeling that probably every scientist would agree.

 

[Czernobog]

I don't normally post in the Science forum, but this story rather caught my attention.

The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science

The wider problem, beyond who should have received the prize and who should not, is that the Nobels reward individuals—three at most, for each of the scientific prizes, in any given year. And modern science, as Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus write in Stat, is “the teamiest of team sports.” Yes, researchers sometimes make solo breakthroughs, but that’s increasingly rare. Even within a single research group, a platoon of postdocs, students, and technicians will typically be involved in a discovery that gets hitched to a single investigator’s name. And more often than not, many groups collaborate on a single project. The paper in which the LIGO team announced their discovery has an author list that runs to three pages. Another recent paper, which precisely estimated the mass of the elusive Higgs boson, has 5,154 authors.​

Now, the method for choosing the recipient of the Nobel Prize is, to some degree, set forth in the Will of Alfred Nobel:

Defenders of the prize note that the Nobel committee is bound to the conditions laid out in Alfred Nobel’s will—the document that established the awards. But the will calls for the recognition of “the person”—singular—who has made the important discovery in their respective field “during the preceding year.”​

The problem is that the Prize Committee has already played a little loose with that restriction:

The Nobel committee, by contrast, recognizes up to three people, for work that could have been done decades prior. If they are already bending the original rules, why not go further? As the editors of Scientific American suggested in 2012, why not award the scientific prizes to teams and organizations, just like the Peace Prize can be?​

The linked article makes an excellent case for the problems with how the prize is currently awarded, and I would highly recommend reading it. So, what do you guys think? Should the Nobel Prize change how it is awarded to more accurately portray how scientific discoveries are made?

I think you make an excellent point. I have a feeling that probably every scientist would agree.

Which, rather begs the question, if the majority of the science community feels this way, then why doesn't the nominating committee make the necessary changes to the process?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't normally post in the Science forum, but this story rather caught my attention.

The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science

The wider problem, beyond who should have received the prize and who should not, is that the Nobels reward individuals—three at most, for each of the scientific prizes, in any given year. And modern science, as Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus write in Stat, is “the teamiest of team sports.” Yes, researchers sometimes make solo breakthroughs, but that’s increasingly rare. Even within a single research group, a platoon of postdocs, students, and technicians will typically be involved in a discovery that gets hitched to a single investigator’s name. And more often than not, many groups collaborate on a single project. The paper in which the LIGO team announced their discovery has an author list that runs to three pages. Another recent paper, which precisely estimated the mass of the elusive Higgs boson, has 5,154 authors.​

Now, the method for choosing the recipient of the Nobel Prize is, to some degree, set forth in the Will of Alfred Nobel:

Defenders of the prize note that the Nobel committee is bound to the conditions laid out in Alfred Nobel’s will—the document that established the awards. But the will calls for the recognition of “the person”—singular—who has made the important discovery in their respective field “during the preceding year.”​

The problem is that the Prize Committee has already played a little loose with that restriction:

The Nobel committee, by contrast, recognizes up to three people, for work that could have been done decades prior. If they are already bending the original rules, why not go further? As the editors of Scientific American suggested in 2012, why not award the scientific prizes to teams and organizations, just like the Peace Prize can be?​

The linked article makes an excellent case for the problems with how the prize is currently awarded, and I would highly recommend reading it. So, what do you guys think? Should the Nobel Prize change how it is awarded to more accurately portray how scientific discoveries are made?

I think you make an excellent point. I have a feeling that probably every scientist would agree.

Which, rather begs the question, if the majority of the science community feels this way, then why doesn't the nominating committee make the necessary changes to the process?

Maybe nobody asked?

 

[Zander]

Here is why.

Nobody gives a fuck about the Nobel prize for peace, science or anything else.

It's a joke.

 

[Czernobog]

I don't normally post in the Science forum, but this story rather caught my attention.

The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science

The wider problem, beyond who should have received the prize and who should not, is that the Nobels reward individuals—three at most, for each of the scientific prizes, in any given year. And modern science, as Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus write in Stat, is “the teamiest of team sports.” Yes, researchers sometimes make solo breakthroughs, but that’s increasingly rare. Even within a single research group, a platoon of postdocs, students, and technicians will typically be involved in a discovery that gets hitched to a single investigator’s name. And more often than not, many groups collaborate on a single project. The paper in which the LIGO team announced their discovery has an author list that runs to three pages. Another recent paper, which precisely estimated the mass of the elusive Higgs boson, has 5,154 authors.​

Now, the method for choosing the recipient of the Nobel Prize is, to some degree, set forth in the Will of Alfred Nobel:

Defenders of the prize note that the Nobel committee is bound to the conditions laid out in Alfred Nobel’s will—the document that established the awards. But the will calls for the recognition of “the person”—singular—who has made the important discovery in their respective field “during the preceding year.”​

The problem is that the Prize Committee has already played a little loose with that restriction:

The Nobel committee, by contrast, recognizes up to three people, for work that could have been done decades prior. If they are already bending the original rules, why not go further? As the editors of Scientific American suggested in 2012, why not award the scientific prizes to teams and organizations, just like the Peace Prize can be?​

The linked article makes an excellent case for the problems with how the prize is currently awarded, and I would highly recommend reading it. So, what do you guys think? Should the Nobel Prize change how it is awarded to more accurately portray how scientific discoveries are made?

I think you make an excellent point. I have a feeling that probably every scientist would agree.

Which, rather begs the question, if the majority of the science community feels this way, then why doesn't the nominating committee make the necessary changes to the process?

Maybe nobody asked?

That doesn't make sense. I mean Ray Damadian took out a page ad in the New York Times, The Washington Post, and The L.A. Times back in `03 in protest. He can't be the first one.

 

[Czernobog]

Here is why.

Nobody gives a fuck about the Nobel prize for peace, science or anything else.

It's a joke.

That's demonstrably not true. Beyond the monetary value of the prize, laureates are virtually guaranteed a stream of lucrative speaking gigs. Their papers garner more citations. They tend to live for a year or two longer than people who were nominated but never actually won. And the award imprints them with a permanent imprimatur of greatness. The Nobel Prize is not, say, a MacArthur genius grant, which is awarded to people “who show exceptional creativity in their work.” It recognizes a particular discovery. And yet the discoverer is forever billed as an intellectual force in their own right—creating an equivalence between one historical contribution and their entire portfolio of ideas forevermore.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't normally post in the Science forum, but this story rather caught my attention.

The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science

The wider problem, beyond who should have received the prize and who should not, is that the Nobels reward individuals—three at most, for each of the scientific prizes, in any given year. And modern science, as Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus write in Stat, is “the teamiest of team sports.” Yes, researchers sometimes make solo breakthroughs, but that’s increasingly rare. Even within a single research group, a platoon of postdocs, students, and technicians will typically be involved in a discovery that gets hitched to a single investigator’s name. And more often than not, many groups collaborate on a single project. The paper in which the LIGO team announced their discovery has an author list that runs to three pages. Another recent paper, which precisely estimated the mass of the elusive Higgs boson, has 5,154 authors.​

Now, the method for choosing the recipient of the Nobel Prize is, to some degree, set forth in the Will of Alfred Nobel:

Defenders of the prize note that the Nobel committee is bound to the conditions laid out in Alfred Nobel’s will—the document that established the awards. But the will calls for the recognition of “the person”—singular—who has made the important discovery in their respective field “during the preceding year.”​

The problem is that the Prize Committee has already played a little loose with that restriction:

The Nobel committee, by contrast, recognizes up to three people, for work that could have been done decades prior. If they are already bending the original rules, why not go further? As the editors of Scientific American suggested in 2012, why not award the scientific prizes to teams and organizations, just like the Peace Prize can be?​

The linked article makes an excellent case for the problems with how the prize is currently awarded, and I would highly recommend reading it. So, what do you guys think? Should the Nobel Prize change how it is awarded to more accurately portray how scientific discoveries are made?

I think you make an excellent point. I have a feeling that probably every scientist would agree.

Which, rather begs the question, if the majority of the science community feels this way, then why doesn't the nominating committee make the necessary changes to the process?

Maybe nobody asked?

That doesn't make sense. I mean Ray Damadian took out a page ad in the New York Times, The Washington Post, and The L.A. Times back in `03 in protest. He can't be the first one.

I said, "maybe"!
Crusty old habits, I guess.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here is why.

Nobody gives a fuck about the Nobel prize for peace, science or anything else.

It's a joke.

*Nobody YOU know