cgl@beta.lanl.gov (C G Langton) (10/28/88)
Although not within the last 10 years, I know that a great many people feel that Rosalind Franklin should have shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA. Watson's book on the discovery - "The Double Helix" - is a very candid, inside look at how the existence of such a prize can affect the nature of scientific research - not to mention the careers of scientists themselves - in both positive and negative ways. ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Langton Center for Nonlinear Studies phone: 505-665-0059 MS-B258 email: cgl@LANL.GOV Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (B.SZABLAK) (10/28/88)
In article <22172@beta.lanl.gov>, cgl@beta.lanl.gov (C G Langton) writes: > > Although not within the last 10 years, I know that a great many > people feel that Rosalind Franklin should have shared the Nobel > Prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA. My understanding is that Rosalind Franklin died prior to the awarding of the prize, and that the Nobel prize cannot be awarded posthumously nor can it be shared by more than 3 recipients (rules established by Nobel).
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/29/88)
Rosalind Franklin didn't get the Nobel prize because she was dead at the time. The rules expressly forbid giving the awards to dead people. I think, in general, that this is a good rule. It does mean that there will be some great researchers not awarded with a prize that everybody agrees should be theirs. But if they could award it to dead people, they would do so far too often. It's a well known trend with awards and distinctions. So non-controversial. And after all, the dead person doesn't care she gets an award or not. The real tragedy is that the Nobel committee often takes too long to give an award -- long enough for somebody to die. I think there is no question that the structure of D.N.A. is one of the most fundamental discoveries of the century in biology (or perhaps any field), and the Nobel committee should not have waited. But that's another issue. Perhaps the Nobel committee could set up a special category for people who "should have gotten awards, but died too soon to get them." This would have no money, and it would not replace the awards for living people. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (10/30/88)
In article <37721@philabs.Philips.Com>, dpb@hen3ry.Philips.Com (Paul Benjamin) writes: > In article <7360@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: > >Do you really think that someone should get the Nobel prize for putting > >together someone else's theoretical work with someone else's experiment? > > > Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas Consider this tidbit: Southerland wrote a paper on a substance X that was produced in cells after appropriate stimulation. A anonymous reviewer at the Journal of Biological Chemistry suggested that X might be cyclic AMP and suggested a few followup experiments to check it. Southerland did those experiments, included it into the discussion, naming cAMP as the second messenger. Southerland won the Nobel Prize. To this day, the identity of the reviewer is unknown. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4 years down, 3 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "I wouldn't have invited me either."
werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (11/03/88)
In article <22172@beta.lanl.gov>, cgl@beta.lanl.gov (C G Langton) writes: > > Although not within the last 10 years, I know that a great many > people feel that Rosalind Franklin should have shared the Nobel > Prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA. The reason Franklin didn't share the prize is that she died before it was awarded and the Nobel Prize can't be awarded posthumously. If she had lived, then it would have been interesting to see whether her or Wilkins would have been the third person on the citation. The prize can be awarded to only three people, and there were two Nature papers: Watson and Crick, and Wilkins and Franklin: that's four. Maybe it would have gone only to Watson and Crick, who knows? But due to her untimely death, no conspiracy theories are necessary to explain why she wasn't cited. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4 years down, 3 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Morphology is part science and part 'Ipse Dixit.' "