Truth to tell I never pay much attention to the peace and literature Nobels. There is usually a political agenda behind these awards.

The economics Nobel is not a true Nobel Prize at all and is heavily ideological.

But the science Nobels, chemistry, physics and physiology and medicine, are the closest thing there is to international prizes awarded solely on merit. And this year an Australian, Brian Schmidt, is among the winners.

See:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/schmidt.html

The complete list is:

Chemistry:

Dan Schechtman: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2011/#

Physics:

Saul Perlmutter: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/perlmutter.html
Brian P. Schmidt: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/schmidt.html
Adam G. Riess: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/riess.html

Physiology and Medicine:

Bruce A. Beutler: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2011/beutler.html
Jules A. Hoffmann: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2011/hoffmann.html
Ralph M. Steinmann: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2011/steinman.html

Questions:

Do posters have any views on the allocation of prizes?

Were the recipients deserving?

Are there other scientists whose work is more deserving?

Some additional questions:

Should we have a Nobel Prize for technology?

Would Steve Jobs have won it?

I am tempted to say we should have a Nobel for ecology but I fear that would become as political as the peace and literature Nobels.

And for light relief try the Ig Nobels:

http://improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2011

The 2011 winners:

(Note that not only does Australia have a Nobel winner this year. It also has an Ig Nobel winner! His name is Paul Maruff.)

MEDICINE PRIZE: Mirjam Tuk (of THE NETHERLANDS and the UK), Debra Trampe (of THE NETHERLANDS) and Luk Warlop (of BELGIUM). and jointly to Matthew Lewis, Peter Snyder and Robert Feldman (of the USA), Robert Pietrzak, David Darby, and Paul Maruff (of AUSTRALIA) for demonstrating that people make better decisions about some kinds of things — but worse decisions about other kinds of things‚ when they have a strong urge to urinate.

REFERENCE: "Inhibitory Spillover: Increased Urination Urgency Facilitates Impulse Control in Unrelated Domains," Mirjam A. Tuk, Debra Trampe and Luk Warlop, Psychological Science, vol. 22, no. 5, May 2011, pp. 627-633.

REFERENCE: "The Effect of Acute Increase in Urge to Void on Cognitive Function in Healthy Adults," Matthew S. Lewis, Peter J. Snyder, Robert H. Pietrzak, David Darby, Robert A. Feldman, Paul T. Maruff, Neurology and Urodynamics, vol. 30, no. 1, January 2011, pp. 183-7.

ATTENDING THE CEREMONY: Mirjam Tuk, Luk Warlop, Peter Snyder, Robert Feldman, David Darb

Stephen,

I'm not sure a Nobel in technology is not already covered.

The Nobel committee traditionally liked to reward inventions that exploited scientific knowledge or discovery, with a (non absolute) reluctance to consider purely theoretical science. I understand they were not so happy with Einstein's theoretical physics as they were with the photoelectric effect.

Then again something with an engineering "bend" that recognised the leap made between enabling technologies and genuine human usage or application might be needful.

My concern is that so many things are a poor fit for the existing categories, perhaps we need something like a "Nobel at Large" that more freely recognised great contribution, even if the field, or the critical leap, is not readily a part of existing categories.

Where would biocomputation (chemocomputation?) fit?

Rusty

OOps.

Steven, not stephen, my apologies.

Rusty

Hi Rusty,

The lines between the various disciplines are breaking down and I think there is a case for making all science Nobels "at large."

Here are links to some critiques:

The tedious inevitability of Nobel Prize disputes
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/10/06/the-tedious-inevitability-of-nobel-prize-disputes/

>>Should scientists get credit for great work? Of course. But that’s what history is for. Charles Darwin and Leonardo da Vinci never got the Nobel Prize, but somehow we still manage to remember them as important figures anyway. The time that’s spend arguing over whether someone should get fifty percent of a prize or twenty-five percent or zero percent could be spent on much better things, like more science.>>

And:

A Bitter Sweet Nobel - Beutler, Janeway, and the Dawn of Innate Immunity

http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2011/10/a_bitter_sweet_nobel_-_beutler.php

It tells the story of Charles Janeway who first postulated the existence of innate immunity. It was in effect for proving Janeway right that Beutler, Hoffmann and Steinmann shared this year's prize in physiology and medicine.

To my mind the most remarkable and overdue Nobel is the one awarded to Dan Schechtman for the discovery of quasi-crystals.

>>“People just laughed at me,” Shechtman recalled in an interview this year with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noting how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening “crusade” against him, saying: “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.”>>

http://www.euronews.net/newswires/1147901-ridiculed-crystal-work-wins-nobel-for-israeli/