Nobel Prize

Dr. Timo

The Nobel prizes for 2008 are coming out. The prize for physics went to elementary particle physics, yay! I actually work with the concepts these guys created on a daily basis, so I'm pretty excited -- take that, cosmology and material science!

So, do you guys get excited by the Nobel prizes, or by science in general?

Starfox

So, do you guys get excited by the Nobel prizes, or by science in general?

Yes. One question I've always had: where do they draw the line between physics and chemistry? Those fields seem quite close, especially material science, as you said. Not that I'm complaining about recognition for science, it just seems kind of weird to have those two.

Dr. Timo

You have to understand that in the days of Alfred Nobel the distinction between those two was much easier to make. Also, what you are referring to is actually only a small area of physics which has direct applications / similarities to chemistry. Much in the same way only a "small" area of chemistry has applications to biology etc.

HungryJoe

So, do you guys get excited by the Nobel prizes, or by science in general?

I get excited by science in general and I usually at least notice who wins the Nobel Prize, but notice is all that I care to do. I don't get overly excited about who wins the Nobel Prize.

...

So, do you guys get excited by the Nobel prizes, or by science in general?

The first, sorta, the second, yes. I never paid much attention to the Nobel Prizes, but whenever I hear(d) something about them I tend to go "Oooh, that sounds awesome!". As for science, of course that's exciting, philosophers won't be able to make us hover cars and teleportation devices.

EDIT:

I don't get overly excited about who wins the Nobel Prize.

Agreed, I get excited about the thing that won the nobel prize, not the person.

Dr. Timo

I get excited about the thing that won the Nobel prize

So are you showing the love to spontaneous symmetry breaking right now? Because I sure am!

Apreche

Every year they give out the Nobel Prizes, and every year I do a little research about whatever the prize was given for. I think from that perspective, the Nobel prizes are good in that they are an easy way to find out what the most important recent scientific advances are, to give the non-scientists of the world a good idea about what is worth learning about.

On the other hand, I think that a problem with the Nobel prizes is that they are given out annual no matter what. I think a much better way to do it would be to give out prizes at any time there is a deserving recipient. If there are suddenly five amazing achievements, give out five prizes. If science is going slowly, don't give out any awards.

This will result in three positive changes. First, it will be much more exciting when an award is handed out, because there is no guarantee it would happen. Instead of saying "The Nobel Prize this year goes to..." it will be "Holy Shit a Nobel Prize is being given out!" Also, o people who deserve prizes will need to be overlooked, because you can always give out more prizes. And of course, there will never be a situation in which someone undeserving gets a prize, but I don't think that has ever been a big problem.

...

I get excited about the thing that won the Nobel prize

So are you showing the love to spontaneous symmetry breaking right now? Because I sure am!

Sorta. It sounds exciting, but it's somewhat hard to understand without going a bit deeper into the stuff.

Scott, I totally agree with that point, though the downside would be that the stupid people in the world would complain even louder about science not doing a thing for them whenever there's a period of a year or two, three, when there is no Nobel prize worthy breakthrough.

Dr. Timo

I think a much better way to do it would be to give out prizes at any time there is a deserving recipient.

Uuh, you do realize that the number of people who arguably could get a Nobel (and deserve it) is much larger than the number of prizes they give out. At least that is the case in physics, and it is the reason why most years the prize is split up in three parts (the most Nobel's will allows for). Often, like this year, it is even split between inventions/discoveries for that same reason.

Another hint at the fact that there are more deserving candidates than it is possible to give awards out, is that the Nobel prize seriously lags behind. Nobel stipulated in his will that the prize should go to inventions that benefited humanity most in the preceding year. This provision has long been thrown out the window, partly because verification of a discovery is time consuming, but also because there is quite a pile up of deserving inventions. I mean, the integrated circuit got a Nobel prize in 2000!

Apreche

Uuh, you do realize that the number of people who arguably could get a Nobel (and deserve it) is much larger than the number of prizes they give out.

All the more reason to go with my idea. They could start by giving prizes to all the deserving people in waiting. Then in the future, the prizes would bring attention to more recent developments, instead of old ones.

Dr. Timo

They could start by giving prizes to all the deserving people in waiting

And the money for that would come out of your pocket perchance?

Apreche

And the money for that would come out of your pocket perchance?

It costs money to give someone a medal and make a press release? If you get me some bronze, I'll learn how to melt it and mold it into a disc. I'll even pay for the ribbons myself, so they can wear them. I'll give them the choice of any color the craft store offers.

...

And the money for that would come out of your pocket perchance?

It costs money to give someone a medal and make a press release? If you get me some bronze, I'll learn how to melt it and mold it into a disc. I'll even pay for the ribbons myself, so they can wear them. I'll give them the choice of any color the craft store offers.

Nobel bequeathed 94% of his total assets, 31 million Swedish Kronors, to establish and endow the five Nobel Prizes.[5] (As of 2008 that equates to 186 Million US Dollars.)

Scientists don't have much use for a medal. Giving them money for their research is an appropriate prize for good work.

lackofcheese

Erm, you're forgetting the $1.5million grant.
EDIT: Gah! 12 seconds!

Apreche

Erm, you're forgetting the $1.5million grant.

They already finished the research. You're rewarding them for work already done. It's too late for a grant.

lackofcheese

Well, it's a standard part of the Nobel prize. It wouldn't be a Nobel prize without it.
Quoting Wikipedia,

A maximum of three laureates and two different works may be selected per award. Each award can be given to a maximum of three recipients per year. Each "Nobel Prize Award" consists of a gold medal, a diploma, and a monetary grant:

The highlight of the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony in Stockholm occurs when each Nobel Laureate steps forward to receive the prize from the hands of His Majesty the King of Sweden. In Oslo, the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee presents the Nobel Peace Prize in the presence of the King of Norway. Under the eyes of a watching world, the Nobel Laureate receives three things: a diploma, a medal and a document confirming the prize amount.[12]

The grant is currently 10 million SEK, slightly more than US$1.5 million.[13]

...

Erm, you're forgetting the $1.5million grant.

They already finished the research. You're rewarding them for work already done. It's too late for a grant.

Scott, it's science, they can continue doing their research, they can kickstart their next research, science won't run out of research possibilities for quite some time.

Apreche

Scott, it's science, they can continue doing their research, they can kickstart their next research, science won't run out of research possibilities for quite some time.

Well, right now they're giving out $1.5 million per prize per year. I think just about anyone would be happy just to get the prize, even if they don't get the money part of it. Even if we change the prize to give it to everyone who deserves it, we can still give out the same, or a greater, amount of money in grants. We just won't have the grant be directly associated with the awards. No big deal.

Luke Burrage

I think you are missing the point. Very few changes to the structure and guidelines for the Nobel Prizes have been made over the years, as the money was set aside for exactly the process outlined by Nobel himself before he died.

If you want a different prize system, this really is one of those times where someone has to step up and make their own new and different prize from scratch. You know, like the countless other organisations and individuals have already done. If you have a 200 million dollar fund you want to put aside for prize money you can call the shots! For example: "The Templeton Prize was first awarded in 1973 and monetary amount is adjusted to always be slightly higher than the Nobel Prize. In 2008 the prize was $1.6 million." The Templeton Foundation also pays for research of non-award winners to the tune of 60 million a year, but it is the big prize that brings the press and the prestige.

Without the prize money, and being awarded to anyone who deserves it, your award is nothing more than a gold star or a pat on the back. If your work is already at the level where it is universally accepted as being high level work, you will already be held in high esteem by all in your field.

Dr. Timo

Scott: I think you are partly right about the Nobel Prize not being about the money. It is the most esteemed prize in the sciences because it has very, very rarely been given out to someone undeserving. In fact, I can only think of one example, and that is a Peace prize which are always a bit tricky. Thus, the bar of entry is already extremely high. The long "waiting list" and long period of time between a discovery and getting the prize are in evidence of this. So what I'm trying to say is that your basic sentiment:

I think that a problem with the Nobel prizes is that they are given out annual no matter what.

is false, and that people in the sciences every year go "Holy Shit a the Nobel Prize is being given out!"

Dr. Timo

So this week the prizes for 2010 are being announced. In vitro fertilization and graphene are already out, the prior being (again) one of those times where I can wholeheartedly say that the prize is deserved. Graphene is very deserving too, but I feel that the -96 chemistry prize for buckyballs could cover a lot of the amazing monatomic carbon wizardry. On the other hand these substances will completely transform technology, materials, even our way of living and very likely within our lifetimes too, so two Nobel prizes may not be overkill.

More interestingly, the guy who got the prize is now the first person to get both a Nobel and an IgNobel (for levitating frogs a couple of years ago).