THE CONTUNUING UTILITY OF NOBEL AWARDS

Nobel awards came into existence in 1901.We all know that Alfred Nobel left behind a legacy which funds these awards.Over the years they have acquired a cult status and have been generally accepted as the best parameter of human excellence in the contemporary world and there has hardly been any attempt to deviate from this accepted dogma.

I believe it is apposite to consider a few facts here and re-evaluate our veneration for these awards.

Nobel wanted the legacy he left behind to recognise every sphere of human excellence.How among disputes these awards came into being has been very aptly described in a volume that evry serious researcher of science history would be aware of.The trustees decided the best way was to have three awards for scientific disciplines and one each for literature and peace.The scientific disciplines so defined were

1.Physics
2.Chemistry
3.Medicine and physiology

There was some debate whether mathematics as a dsicipline merited an award but the committee decided against it.


Let us consider the scientific disciplines first.

The fact that these disciplines were defined presumed that parallel research and development in each would be roughly commensurate.We know this to be patently false!Physical sciences dominated the early part of 20th century while the most significant pieces of scientific work were in the life sciences.As there was only one prize in a discipline for a year,this effectively meant that many deserving scientists were left out and had to endure the pain of witnessing the lesser deserving get one in a different discipline.

The bigger problem was that towards the later half of the 20th century most of the researches were interdisciplinary.There was a lot of discussion whether Hounsfield merited an award in physics or medicine.He ultimately won in medicine.

Another major problem in particular with medicine was over emphasis on basic research to the exclusion of the humanistic dimension of human endeavours.Schweitzer won his prize for peace and not medicine!It is very difficult to identify a clinician in the Nobel list.

Of course the most galling aspect as most woudl agree is the political dimension that has seeped into the Nobel selection process.A few examples;

1.Einstein never won a Nobel for his theory of relativity

2.Henrietta Levitt never won a Nobel as she did not have a powerful sponsor

3.Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla never won the Nobel

4.Jagadis Bose never won the Nobel

5.Satyen Bose never won the Nobel although at least three scientists working on boson particles named after him did win Nobels.

6.Chandy Sudarshan was deprive dof his Nobel which he shoudl have won with Roy Glauber


It si hardly surprising that when a poll was conducted over 80 universities worldwide to dtermine teh most meritorious scientists of all time,many contemporary scientist failed to find a place.The results of the poll have been published as a volume aand a description appears in the Wikipedia.Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP_SCIENTISTS_OF_ALL_TIME



The awards for literature hava also invited a great deal of criticism.The most influential English novelist of the 20th century Thomas Hardy did not succeed in winning an award.

But the msot conetentious of course have been the peace awrds.The Nobel Committee itself is on record admitting failure in not awarding Gandhi a Nobel-at least six Gandhians were decorated!This was patently owing to British pressure ,although overt, on the Committee.


I wonder if the time has come for us to recognise these failings and institute a novel method of honouring human excellence.