Harvard University received more Nobel prizes than any other University. The University of Chicago received more Nobel prizes in economics than any other. Do you believe that some institutions and some universities have an unfair advantage in the nomination process? Also, some worthy candidates work in secret for governments or big business raises questions about its relevancy?
Dear Amir
I find your question interesting and thank you.
In few cases probably we can find a shade of political figure !
With 2.5 billions human beings living in India and China, there is a great likelihood that many worthy nominees for the Nobel Prize aren't being considered.
In my view, the Nobel Prize is highly over-rate. The people are awarded long years after they have done their work, so it is recognition for what is already there in the knowledge domain. It is more a recognition rather than promoting the pool of scientific knowledge.
Any event such as the Noble Prize, aimed at recognizing the great works of individuals is good, laudable and must be promoted. However, the parameters need to be improved and enhanced to better serve its purpose, such as the one illustrated by Prof. Emmanuel. Best regards
Dickson
Any event such as the Noble Prize, aimed at recognizing the great works of individuals is good, laudable and must be promoted. However, the parameters need to be improved and enhanced to better serve its purpose, such as the one illustrated by Prof. Emmanuel. Best regards
Dickson
Nobel prize is the highest achievement for a scholar or scientist. The mechanism of awarding Nobel Prize must be fair and unbiased. The influential institutes may be filtered out if the criteria are improved with a condition that the prize would be given once to a discipline of an institute in 10 years. Thus, in rest of the nine years, the prize will be contributed to other than the most winning institute.
Regards,
Jahangir
The Nobel Prize in economics is a relatively young affair (1969); it was initially designed to comprise social science, but limited technically to economics. It is no Nobel Prize, but a memorial prize from the Bank of Sweden for A.Nobel. The Nobel Prize is politically relevant as it indicates the dominating group think, e.g. you can read out the baptism of neo-classics, etc. Some of the researchers deserved this public attention, but I would rather point to happy coincidence. So, it is a mixture of politics, publicity and social roulette; it mirrors the expectations of influential groups who try to guide public choice by 'science'. One of my favorite Nobel lectures is: The Accounts of Society (R.Stone, 1984); in the same year, the winemakers of Tokaj (Hungary) were happy to harvest best ever quality grapes.
There are also other prizes related to sciences achievements like Fermat prize. So, i think is far for several purposes.
We note that Sarter refused the Nobel proze in 1968.
With my best regards!
Adel OUESLATI
Dear Adel Oueslati-The Nobel Prize is recognized across the world and is given for exceptional achievements in more than one area.
Dear Arben Salihu - many wonderful suggestions and comments. Amir
I am not a properly qualified person to answer the question properly.
But I can supply a long list of names of Scientists and Writers whose works we're not below than ANY Noble Lauriate in consideration of quality.
Well, It becomes prestige of an institution which has received it once to go for more and by the experience there is gain in filing application and projection of your work.
So difference among institution is likely to occur.
There should be many other prizes related to scientific achievements worldwide as it's quite not possible for one prize (Noble Prize) to be fair.
@ Amir W. Al-Khafaji
As stated in my previous post, the Nobel prize in economics is not a Nobel prize. It is financed from the Bank of Sweden, etc. Just visit their own website. Nowhere did I mention that it is not famous. Please read the descriptors to your question (Nobel prize=no; relevance=political/public choice; candidates=institutional advantage; economics=policy; unfair advantages=time and chance). Current Status: the dominant group think now turns to the behavioral side of social/economic systems. So, the open and informed group guess is now no more on money and institutions, but on human economic behavior. Actually, not a bad idea; I hope it is not to late for this fundamental insight. As I like gaming, I also do like the Bank of Sweden prize. Refering to a bottle of Tokajer, I saw one from 1984 at e-bay for $250. It was a good year for Richard Stone ! Such are the accounts of society.
Dear Stephen,
Press Release: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017
9 October 2017
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2017 to
Richard H. Thaler University of Chicago, IL, USA
Press Release: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2017
4 October 2017
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2017 to
Jacques Dubochet University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Joachim Frank Columbia University, New York, USA
and
Richard Henderson MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK
You are technically correct but it is the same Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences that gives the award in memory of Alfred Nobel. It is a recognition that is made along with the other awards and receives enormous prestige worldwide. Harvard University is still the top institution and the overwhelming majority of the award winners are either European or American.
Amir
Dear Stephen- if you google Nobe Prize in Economics you will hit the announcement that I posted. The point is that in the USA when they interview some of these economists they are introuced as Nobel Laureates! The point of my question is simple, do you the think the Nobel Prize is fair or relevant? I think you answered my question and your answer provides readers much more insights than was contained in my original question. Thank you for your input. Amir
@amir
Your listing is boring ! Economics is not a science, nor is medicine. Physics has to get out of meta-physics. No mention of peace(?) and literature. I like societal games and beauty contests, but they are not related to science. What do you want to hear? There is a sharp distinction between societal guesses and scientific progress. We are part of a game; let us play.
Dear Stephen,
You know, a question can be very long and I think you gave enough information. I am sorry that you find the question boring but here more winners for 2017.
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2017
Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne
"for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves"
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2017
Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank and Richard Henderson
"for developing cryo-electron microscopy for the high-resolution structure determination of biomolecules in solution"
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2017
Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young
"for their discoveries of molecular mechanisms controlling the circadian rhythm"
The Nobel Prize in Literature 2017
Kazuo Ishiguro
"who, in novels of great emotional force, has uncovered the abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection with the world"
The Nobel Peace Prize 2017
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
"for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons"
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2017
Richard H. Thaler
"for his contributions to behavioural economics"
I hope others can read these posts and benefit form your comments. I will try to make my questions more interesting next time. Perhaps make them a bit longer and more precise. I apperciate your input. Amir
Dear Amir ! You never refer or respond to the given details, thus produce always more 'information'. Science cannot be disconnected from human life; my point is: What do you want to know? You are asking a question in a forum of scientific research. My answer was (is): for the sake of science, we have to participate in this game. We have to observe and to respond.
Dear Amir
I find your question interesting and thank you.
In few cases probably we can find a shade of political figure !
Dear Stephen
I started actively participating in RG last month and have been exposed to amazing scientists, economists, historians, philosophers, etc. The experience has been truly enlightening not only through my interaction with scientific research but also with other unique scholars. I am still learning how to properly navigate through RG and ask suitable questions.
My purpose behind the question simply - Is the Nobel Prize fair and should there be alternatives to replace it. Your response is "for the sake of science, we have to participate in this game." My personal opinion is that we have few alternatives at this time but see either a replacement or an evolution of the Nobel Prize. As you see above, other respondents may disagree with both of us and am still interested in gaining deeper perspectives on the subject. Your answer helped me gain deeper insights about the game being played and I thank you. Amir
Dear Amir ! It is a pleasure to know about all your efforts. Greetings: stephen
Dear Stephen - it is my pleasure to connect with you to read your comments and unique insights. Amir
The Nobel Prize for Creativity is the annual prize for creativity in various fields of science and literature as well as peace on December 10 each year. I believe that all kinds of Nobel Prize are fair for their direct connection with the assessment of scientists, with the exception of Nobel Peace Prize as they relate to the views of governments members and their political views that play a role in identifying this, such as President Obama's award of the Nobel Prize
The Nobel Prize for Creativity is the annual prize for creativity in various fields of science and literature as well as peace on December 10 each year. I believe that all kinds of Nobel Prize are fair for their direct connection with the assessment of scientists, with the exception of Nobel Peace Prize as they relate to the views of governments members and their political views that play a role in identifying this, such as President Obama's award of the Nobel Prize
Dear Issam- thank you for sharing your opinion and thoughts. It is very much appreciate. Amir
More related to political view points, can you tell me why Mahatma Gandhi never get noble prize and many examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
It is important to recognize people who work for the good of society and Nobel peace prize is one such. I think it may not be fair but the intention to be fair is there. I think this is very relevant
Nobel Prize is awarded to research that contribute to fundamentally to development research. Mostly form PhD thesis of the individual. The analytics of the work must change the status quo of human thinking.
Hence, the researcher ask the right question and with the tools for the right thinking are pointers to the award. The award procedure are more of framework thinking. Most university in the world do not have that structure that i called research value methodology. This is the frontier of creating wealth and well-being for humanity from research. Also, human capital power intelligence and the institutions of the winners. That is why the BEST universities in world ranking has evolve within the same names of universities in the last 40 years.So, winning Nobel award, you must be within that clusters or Nurturing.
Interesting!
I don't much believe in immediate fame and glory for scientific works... Time will tell, in a much more accurate manner, on those who deserved fame or fortune.
Nevertheless, when we think of a money awarding system, as a contribution to proceed good works, the Nobel system seams to fit !
Dear Maria Bettencourt Pires- Very interesting answer. Thank you.
Great science work capture solving problems, that is why it is framework thinking like the first person that work on the algorithms of peer-to-peer computing that now resulted to google, facebook etcs.
The greatest challenge of any scientist is to ask the right question and seeking for tools to affirms the solution. The club of distinguish scientists and academy eclipse that philosophy.
Large list of comments we need to place ourselves to such a position that we can also arrange prizes for others not to comment on some one who got it was fare or unfair.
Just suppose that if you were given the same Nobel prize and people were commenting the prize was given to a non deserving candidate what would have been your feelings.
We should think and aim high. I often think about the founder of the Nobel prize award, you see he thought that his invention caused a lot of damage to the humanity so he tried to pay back to humanity in this form and we never feel our words, our deeds hurt the humanity and we invented nothing
We did nothing to boost the standards of humans in most of the part of the world and perhaps even our neighborhood.
Sorry if any body got hurt from my comments but this is just what I feel.
Dear Ashique Ali - thank you for sharing your thought. It is very much appreciated. Amir
There is considerable doubt that politics has a role in awarding the prize. For example, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a well-known criminals. I think,the Nobel Peace Prize is in doubt.
I remember the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Kissinger, a rather strange choice for a man who considered war a legitimate arm of politics. But nevertheless, surely it must highlight areas of scientific importance, although at the same time causing the neglect of equally worthy areas.
In the area of literature, the Prize has been often political but often at times adventurous, and by awarding it to Dylan has opened up discussion and reset mindsets.
Good answer.
Of couse, it is relevant.
It may be even fair... in Medicine, Physics and Chemistry...
Yet the Nobel Prize in Literature, Peace and Economics is stongly politized.
See the examples of Orhan Pamuk, Boris Pasternak, Mo Yang, Bob Dylan..
Thanks for sharing. Honestly, I do not know, particularly because the large majority of researchers never received such prize, nor is thinking in receiving it. However, we can never say that this water we will never drink.
Dear All,
I think every aspiring scientist in this world should have a fair chance of winning a Nobel Prize, that is very important.
Soumitra K. Mallick
for Soumitra K. Mallick, N. Hamburger, Sandipan Mallick
The actual monetary disparity in some countries and regions between how much industry professionals are getting and how much academicians/researchers are earning is the reason for all of us to hold back and think. Think about what such an unbalanced system represents, and where it leads us as a society. Simply, the world functions the way it is - but we are the ones that made it this way.
As for the Nobel prize, it is definitely a monumental achievement for those earning it. However, I think the whole new reward system for the remarkable scientists should be set in place. And to emphasize more the outcomes and the benefits that public can expect from it.
As it is now, in our over commercialized world, many many studies just went unnoticed.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Economics