roberts@garnet.berkeley.edu (10/28/88)
Maybe this is too pretentious and/or ignoble a subject, but I am curious what criticisms people have of the Nobel Prizes. In a recent issue of "The Scientist", an unsigned article (partly "staff-written") appeared criticizing the Nobel Prizes for a number of things, such as encouraging self-promotion. (A friend of mine says that the Nobel Prizes are to science as NBC is to the Olympics.) It was interesting, but it suffered from a lack of details and examples. There are many questions that can be raised: In physics, is the emphasis on particle physics really justified, or does it merely reflect the makeup of the prize committee? Are there cases where the real discoverer is not awarded the prize (e.g., quasars)? How large a role does lobbying play? Are the prizes given for feats of organization rather than innovation (e.g., Schally et al.)? In the last 10 or 20 years, have prizes been given for outright mistakes (an old example is the prize for frontal lobotomies)? In the last 10 years, what's the biggest mistake? Etc. I don't have any strong opinions myself, except that the Nobel Prizes (and the prize winners) do not seem to receive their fair share of criticism. Seth Roberts, Department of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley roberts@garnet.berkeley.edu (415) 845-4566