ChatterBank3 mins ago
Nobel Prizes
Yet again another scientist has not been given the highest award when it was justly earned. I refer to the discovery of Pulsars where the true discover was not even mentioned in the Nobel Lauriates. It went instead to more senior people in the organisation who had taken her work and published it in Nature.
The same thing happened when Crick and Watson claimed credit for DNA when the true researcher using chrystallography pointed the way to its design.
Do you feel the awards are unfairly given in some cases?
The same thing happened when Crick and Watson claimed credit for DNA when the true researcher using chrystallography pointed the way to its design.
Do you feel the awards are unfairly given in some cases?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This may have happened many years ago but the subject was revived in a TV documentary yesterday on BBC4.
More details of the discovery
http://imagine.gsfc.n.../answers/980227a.html
More details of the discovery
http://imagine.gsfc.n.../answers/980227a.html
I think I can speak with some authority on this as I'm a retired foreign elected member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, one the four awarding bodies that work on behalf of the Nobel Foundation.
I attended regular conferences to evaluate potential prizewinners in Chemistry, Biochemistry and Medicine over seventeen years and committee nominations have always been fraught with difficulty. The International nature of the prize when combined with a committee of scientists from all over the world can indeed lead to accusations of unfairness. There are recorded instances of some committees showing a bias towards a particular country and a great deal of money has been spent in efforts to demonstrate the impartiality of the parent body, often with mixed success.
By and large though, the system works reasonably well. If it wasn't for commitments elsewhere, I might well still be flying out to Sweden on a regular basis at taxpayers expense.
I attended regular conferences to evaluate potential prizewinners in Chemistry, Biochemistry and Medicine over seventeen years and committee nominations have always been fraught with difficulty. The International nature of the prize when combined with a committee of scientists from all over the world can indeed lead to accusations of unfairness. There are recorded instances of some committees showing a bias towards a particular country and a great deal of money has been spent in efforts to demonstrate the impartiality of the parent body, often with mixed success.
By and large though, the system works reasonably well. If it wasn't for commitments elsewhere, I might well still be flying out to Sweden on a regular basis at taxpayers expense.
Incidentally, as a biochemist I've spent many years evaluating the contribution of Rosalind Franklin to the discovery of the DNA Helix. I've spoken about it publicly, in academia and even on television. As the years pass, the recognition of her work has steadily increased and she's certainly not been forgotten.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day, you have to remember that Franklin died in 1958, four years prior to the award being given to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins - posthumous awards are forbidden. She was no longer eligible.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day, you have to remember that Franklin died in 1958, four years prior to the award being given to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins - posthumous awards are forbidden. She was no longer eligible.
As the Nobel prize is the pinnacle of a scientists research its important that it goes primarily to those that deserve it most. Franklin may have missed out because of posthumus awards not given but documentary films about the double helix show that she was sidelined before the paper was published and Crick and Watson conspired with Wilkins to take the credit.
The length of time to make an award is also in question. Many scientists are in their latter years. It opens up again why Obama was given the Nobel prize when nothing had been achieved but only intentions. You feel in this case it was awarded because of the lack of faith in protecting their presidents from assassination.
The length of time to make an award is also in question. Many scientists are in their latter years. It opens up again why Obama was given the Nobel prize when nothing had been achieved but only intentions. You feel in this case it was awarded because of the lack of faith in protecting their presidents from assassination.
Hold it. You say that documentary films "show" that she was sidelined. What precisely does "show" mean? Remember that no matter how many films you watch, you're very likely watching something that's providing you with one opinion derived from research by one or more people.
Opinions are not evidence. If you look further, you'll find just as many people who assert that Franklin was not sidelined. I think it's as well to remember that the protagonists in this case are long dead and the true version of events will never be known.
Having looked into this since the mid-sixties, for what it's worth, I don't believe that Franklin was sidelined but just like the films you've seen, that's my opinion. I also provided the same opinion in two monographs I wrote on this subject a few years ago.
Opinions are not evidence. If you look further, you'll find just as many people who assert that Franklin was not sidelined. I think it's as well to remember that the protagonists in this case are long dead and the true version of events will never be known.
Having looked into this since the mid-sixties, for what it's worth, I don't believe that Franklin was sidelined but just like the films you've seen, that's my opinion. I also provided the same opinion in two monographs I wrote on this subject a few years ago.
Franklin was not an understudy of Wilkins but a peer.
///Born in July of 1920, Rosalind Franklin graduated with a Ph.D. from Cambridge University in 1945. In 1951, she went to work as a research associate for John Randall at King's College in London. A chemist by training, Franklin had established herself as a world expert in the structure of graphite and other carbon compounds before she moved to London. In James Watson's account of the discovery of the structure of DNA, entitled The Double Helix, Rosalind Franklin was depicted inaccurately as an underling of Maurice Wilkins at King's College. In fact, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin were peers. Franklin had discovered that DNA could crystallize into two different forms, an A form and a B form. John Randall gave Franklin the A form and Wilkins the B form, assigning them each the task of elucidating their molecular structure///.
///Born in July of 1920, Rosalind Franklin graduated with a Ph.D. from Cambridge University in 1945. In 1951, she went to work as a research associate for John Randall at King's College in London. A chemist by training, Franklin had established herself as a world expert in the structure of graphite and other carbon compounds before she moved to London. In James Watson's account of the discovery of the structure of DNA, entitled The Double Helix, Rosalind Franklin was depicted inaccurately as an underling of Maurice Wilkins at King's College. In fact, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin were peers. Franklin had discovered that DNA could crystallize into two different forms, an A form and a B form. John Randall gave Franklin the A form and Wilkins the B form, assigning them each the task of elucidating their molecular structure///.
1 to 8 of 8
