Talk:Nobel Prize controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	To-do list for Nobel Prize controversies:	edit - history - watch - refresh
	Sourcing for the following: Physics Robert Millikan, 1920 Yuval Ne'eman, 1969 George Zweig, 1964, 1969, 1990

Contents 1 Posthumus awards 2 Grothendieck 3 Nominations Later Condemmed 4 gandhi? 5 Controversial nominations 6 Ariel Sharon 7 Two suggested additions 7.1 Controversial exclusions 7.2 Controversial recipients 8 Yasser Arafat 9 Cheaters 10 Science Misconduct and the Nobel 11 Edison/Tesla 12 Literature prize in 1974 13 Kissinger 14 Einstein 15 Bovine insulin -- Beijing scientists' exclusion 16 2000 Nobel Chemistry Prize controversy 17 Sourcing - to-do? 18 Controversial recipients 19 To Add Another Section titled Nobel Prize Misses? 19.1 Editing syntax

[edit] Posthumus awards

Nobel's aren't awarded posthumusly, I seriously doubt that the Nobel Foundation waited for Rosalind Franklin to die before they awarded the prize. This page is going to have issues with POV. --nixie 06:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think much of the controversy lies in the very fact that Nobels are never awarded posthumously. Franklin's case simply illustrates this. -- FirstPrinciples 06:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grothendieck

In a letter to the Royal Swedish Academy declining the Crafoord Prize Mathematician Alexander Grothendieck asserted that "... during the past two decades, the ethics of the scientific profession (at least among mathematicians) has declined to such a degree that pure and simple plundering among colleagues (especially at the expense of those who are not in a position to defend themselves) has almost become the rule, and in any case is tolerated by all, even in the most flagrant and iniquitous cases. Under these conditions, agreeing to participate in the game of "prizes" and "rewards" would also mean giving my approval to a spirit and trend in the scientific world that I view as being fundamentally unhealthy, and moreover condemned to disappear soon, so suicidal are this spirit and trend, spiritually and even intellectually and materially." Also see:Scientific fraud and the power structure of science.

This and this are decent sources about some controversial choices --nixie 06:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This quote would be great for an article about scientific controversies, but it seems so indirectly related to the Nobel Prize that I felt compelled to remove it from the article. —johndburger 00:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have posted the rest of Gorthendieck's statement about the corrupting influence of such prizes to make the relevance clear. The Crafoord Prize is also awarded by the Swedish Royal academy and is generally-considered the "Nobel prize in mathematics".

The Crafoord Prize is not generally considered the "Nobel Prize in mathematics". The Fields Medal is generally considered the mathematical equivalent of the Nobel Prize, at least amongst mathematicians as well as what of the popular press that I have seen. Zaslav 06:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations Later Condemmed

Right now, this lists Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and... GWB. This seems a bit too much like it's trying to make a point. I say this because "later condemned" is such a vague and imprecise designation. Condemned by whom? Since none of the above have been awarded the prize at all, and since there are probably hundreds of thousands of people authorized to make nominations, I submit that this category is useless and probably unverifiable. Perhaps it can be improved, but I don't see how. I will give this a bit of time to see if anyone can come up with good suggestions. If not, I'm deleting it. Vonspringer 21:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A few years ago the prize committee began releasing the nominations from the first half of the 20th century. It was then that these nominations came to light. They have been criticized, but those criticisms are not especially notable, so far as I have seen. I think that rather than deleting this section we should rework it into coverage of old nominations, omitting the criticism angle. However, since thousands of nominations have been made, and since many of those nominated are still notable, simply listing all notable nominees isn't practical. -Will Beback 23:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a possibility. We could call it "Notworthy Unsuccessful Nominations" or something like that. We would need to add some more failed nominations other than three dictators and a controversial U.S. president to avoid the appearance of bias, especially since GWB's nomination can't be confirmed by the Nobel committee for nearly 50 years. I don't know enough about the subject to know who should be added. I'll give it a few days, and if someone who knows more doesn't come along, I'll do my best to improve it myself. Vonspringer 00:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you meant notEworthy, or was notworthy a freudian slip?Jameskeates 11:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gandhi?

Why didn't Gandhi win the prize. Whats up with that. He kicked the British out of India with non violence. I mean Martin Luther King pretty much wroshipped him. He got nominated 5 times and they didn't give it to him once. They should have given it to him all 5 times.

Gandhi is as close to a posthumour prize as the committee's ever gotten. In 1948 (the year of Gandhi's death), the Nobel Committee did not make the award, stating "there was no suitable living candidate". Wink, wink. It's generallly assumed that he was going to win it if he hadn't been assassinated.

[edit] Controversial nominations

• Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Peace by E.G.C. Brandt, member of the Swedish parliament. The nomination was withdrawn in a letter of February 1, 1939.
• Josef Stalin, nominated in 1945 by a Norwegian former foreign minister, nominated in 1948 by a Czech professor.
• Benito Mussolini, nominations in 1935 by a German college law faculty and a by a French law professor.

When were these nominations controvesial, and among whom? They were secret until recently. -Willmcw 01:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Those nominations are controversial nowadays. Andjam 01:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you give us links to the controversy? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing that the Hitler nomination has generated controversy? I'll google some pages if you wish, but only if you put it down on the record that you doubt that the nomination is controversial. Andjam 01:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"Controversy -A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views" [1] For these nominations to be controvesial, someone would have to be supporting them. If we want to list these the appropriate header would be "Nominations which were later condemned". Does anyone alive today really think that any of these three really should have won? If not, then there is no controversy. -Willmcw 02:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You asked, and shall receive: If anyone deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it was Adolf Hitler. I'd be happy with "Nominations which were later condemned". I guess I was happy with "controversial" because it's often a polite euphemism for "widely condemned". Andjam 03:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, on the face of it the cited article appears to suggest that Hitler loved peace and shold have won the award. However, it does not mention the nomination so it seems to be speaking in general terms (even the nominator quickly withdrew his own nomination). Let's go with "Nominations which were later condemned", it's more accurate. -Willmcw 04:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Remember that 1938 was the year of Peace for our time. The British Prime Minister had just come back from visiting Hitler and proclaimed that the work of Hitler had assured "the peace of Europe", and world leaders were congratulating Hitler, who also had enormous popular support within Germany (people should not forget that millions voted for Hitler). People around the world did not know what was to come later. In terms of it being a controversy, I am sure there were lots of Jews within Germany who did not agree with much of the rest of the world, and did not think Hitler was a wonderful peace-loving guy. Rnt20 07:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This image from Neville Chamberlain summarizes the opinion most western leaders had of Hitler in 1938, which may explain why Hitler was nominated for the Peace Prize. You have to remember that most of Hitler's rise to power had come from popular support within democratic Germany (i.e. he won elections), and even in 1938 he had enormous popular support. And there is no question that, worldwide, Hitler was considered far more of a "peace" figure in 1938 than George Bush was in 2003, and yet it is widely cited that Bush was (controversially) nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 (obviously we won't know this for certain for a few years). If Hitler had died in 1939, and there had been no Second World War, Hitler would have gone down in history as one of the most successful peace-brokers of the 20th Century, rather than as the tyrant he became. The bad things Hitler did in the 1930s were only brought to the forefront of public attention later (dredged up by Allied propaghanda departments). Rnt20 07:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That is one view, though a view which neglects Germany's role in the Spanish Civil War, as many did at the time. Altogether, I don't think that Hitler's nomination was fantastic. It really isn't surprising that he was nominated, given the uniquely open nomination process for the Peace Prize. The nomination was withdrawn in February of 1939, a full six months before the outbreak of World War II. The agreement at Munich has some parallels to the Camp David accord forty years later that won Sadat and Begin the Prize, except for the outcome. (may the Nobel Peace Prize committee gets a few right). -Willmcw 09:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Chamberlain received 24 nominations, starting in 1928, though neither he nor Hitler ever got the Prize. What does that tell us about the significance of nominations? -Willmcw 09:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel Sharon

Two users ([[User:Willmcw and 138.231.136.10) repeatedly posted confusing information about Ariel Sharon on this page. I think what they were trying to say was that Ariel Sharon's prize was controversial, not just that he disapproved of Yasser Arafat, although this was not clear. I have added some text which I hope reflects these views.

If this is not what was intended please add a comment below. Rnt20 11:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that'd better. The prize was controversial due to both of its recipients. -Willmcw 19:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two suggested additions

[edit] Controversial exclusions

Leo Tolstoy was never awarded the Literature prize. It's first edition (1901) was awarded instead to almost forgotten Sully Prudhomme (René François Armand Prudhomme).

[edit] Controversial recipients

What about Menachem Begin (1978, Peace prize, shared with Egyptian president Anwar Sadat)? He was once declared a wanted terrorist, and $50,000 were offered by the British administration of Palestine as a reward to anyone assisting in his capture, after the Etzel organization blew up part of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 90 people (1946). --Filius Rosadis 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, his win was clearly controversial. Not only was he at odds with the UK, but the Palestinians too- his organization, IRGUN, held many xenophobic principles (including a complete population 'transfer' (euphamism emphasized) of palestinians to neighbouring arab states).

[edit] Yasser Arafat

How is it a "point of view" to say that Arafat is considered by many to be a terrorist. I did not write that he is a terrorist. It is inaccurate to say that only by Israel, and only in the past, was he so considered, as "Yassar Arafat had previously been regarded as a "terrorist" by Israel." suggests. --DavidSJ 23:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, I would point out that absolutely no one disputes the fact that Arafat was the founder, and lifelong leader, of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which DID use terror tactics to advance its agenda...the very definition of a "terrorist organization". The PLO made liberal use of anti-civilian bombings, both suicidal and otherwise, and did not refrain from attacking the civilians of nations other than Israel. Sometimes merely being of the wrong religion (Jewish) was enough for the PLO to commit casual, off-the-cuff murder (as per Mr. Klinghoffer, who was thrown over the side of the Achilles Lauro still in his wheelchair).

It might be possible to say that, once the Palestinian Authority was created, Arafat began to reform his ways. But in the wake of his personal dual decision to break off the Oslo Accords and launch the intifidas which continue to take the lives of Israeli and Palestinian alike via the use of terror tactics, I do not see how it is reasonable to claim that Mr. Arafat was NOT a terrorist. I would certainly note that his history of involvement in and support for terrorism produced a far longer list of crimes than Sharon and Begin put together --- if we are to consider THEM "suspect", then Arafat cannot be given a free pass. --Calbeck 21:39 MST, 17 March

What about Menachem Begin? As leader of Irgun, he attempted to employ many xenophobic policies before being coopted by popular politics (much like arafat) and reforming his ways. He won in 1979 (?) with Anwar Sadat (Egypt) and Jimmy Carter.

I think Arafat's nobel was controversial as he was a "terrorist". But so was the win for former general and minister of defence

[edit] Cheaters

Within the physics community a few Nobel proze winners are believed to have cheated others out of the honours. At least 5 names come to mind quickly, however this is something that is not widely know outside the physics community and is not much discussed on the net either. One case I read about in a science magazine (paper edition) about 20 years ago but that one is not in their web archive.

How should this be dealt with? This was brought up in the case of one specific laureate and I see the article is now carefully worded stating he won the prize without saying it was his work, which is technically correct. -- 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One problem is that if cheating is revealed After you win "The Prize" nothing happens. The trick is to win it and then nobody will touch you. It all gets hushed up. A hard temptation to resist. A good recent example is Jan Hendrik Schön who had the misfortune to be accidentally-discoverd cheating before he won the Nobel. Otherwise, he would have gotten away clean. He was a good enough theoretician to be mostly right and the few times he wasn't would be put down to the usual noise.

Cheating? I'm not sure where the fraud lies. Does someone sneak in extra ballots in the committee rooms? Do scientists claim credit for the discoveries of others? Do warring armies pretend to be at peace to further the candidacies of statesmen? Has the Nobel website been hacked to change the name of the winner? Have vacations in Jamaica been used to sway voters? Please explain what cheating is involved. Will Beback 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Naturally, by "cheating" I mean "scientific dishonesty". This can go all the way from faking data, like Schon, to not properly acknowledging the contribution of others (aka, "citation amnesia"). The Swedish definition of scientific misconduct is "Intention(al) distortion of the research process by fabrication of data: theft or plagarism of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript or application form or publication: or distortion of the research process in other ways." ("Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries",Lancet. 1999;354(9172):57-61)-- Click on Lancet article.

• Interestingly, the Danish definition of misconduct is " Intention(al) or gross negligence leading to falsification of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist" (emphasis-added). Assume the Nobel occasionally gives a scientist "False credit or emphasis". If so, then technically they are guilty of "Misconduct" if they do not correct this, when it is brought to their attention. Which may be why the Swedish definition of scientific misconduct drops it, though they follow the Danish lead in most other particulars. May 9,2006

Has scientific fraud ever been found in work that was recognized by a Nobel? Or is this hypothetical? -Will Beback 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In the data-faking sense, no, at least not identifiably. True, if Jan Hendrik Schön had been a little more careful, he might have been able to do it, assertions of "we knew it all along" notwithstanding. Once he won "the Prize", any irregularities subsequently-uncovered would have been dismissed as the usual noise. But cases of misconduct as "false credit or emphasis given to a scientist" are legend. Read the above list for some examples.

One problem is "citation amnesia", which is not properly giving credit to prior investigators. Often enough, this is not due to "Nobel fever", but the exigencies of patent law. The Noble committee are essentially amateurs, typically trying to figure out who did what and when in a scientific area in which they are not experts. Further, there are professional and monetary reasons for the discovery record to be distorted. In fact, they do a surprisingly good job under the circumstances. But they can and have been fooled. Dr P

Unless we have a reliable source talking about a real instance, I don't see what the point is. -Will Beback 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Two recent examples of documentable probable "Citation Amnesia" by Nobel-prize winners:

• The 2003 Prize in Medicine and Physiology for developing MRI imaging. The prize slighted the pioneering work of Herman Y. Carr, who both pioneered the present NMR gradient technique and, using it, had demonstrated rudimentary MRI imaging in the 1950's. The Nobel prize winners had very likely seen Carr's work, but did not cite it. See Carr's letter to Physics Today. This is a separate issue from the exclusion of Raymond Damadian from the same award because of his Creationist views.

• 2000 Chemistry Prize "For the discovery and developemt of Conductive Organic Polymers" Basically, for a 1977 report of passive high conductivity in oxidized polyacetylenes, plus the mechanism of electronic conduction in such polymers and the development of practical materials applicable in passive devices such as batteries. A decade of so later, this work was also supposed to have led to "active" devices. That is, devices like a transistor, in which a voltage or current controls electron flow.

• However, a similar mechanism of conduction in such materials had previously been proposed by John McGinness (J. E. McGinness, Science 177, 896 (1972)), who then built an active electronic device (Science, vol 183, 853-855 (1974)), a decade or so before such were supposed to exist. This device had a high conductivity "ON" state. In fact, a subsequent article in the journal Nature (Nature Vol. 248 April 5 1974, p475 ( News and Views )) made much of this materials "strikingly large conductivity", "highly conductive state", etc., wording rather like the Nobel citation over two decades later.

• Science and Nature are the highest impact journals in the world. How could anybody have missed this? Yet, the Nobelists insist they never saw it, rather than the more credible "we saw it and didn't think it was relevant" explaination. Remember, these are Noble prize winners, with bunches of post-docs, etc.. This is lawyer-talk-- if they admit they were aware of this "prior art", then their patents are screwed, as below. BTW, this voltage-controlled switch is now in the Smithsonian collection and is generally recognized as the first active organic electronic device (see, e.g. "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003).

• Meanwhile, the eventual Nobel winners had discovered that their original material was far too unstable to make practical devices and had gone to one whose patent description was rather like that of McGinness' material, which he also used to make batteries, etc.. The quandry here is that if you tell the patent examiner about such prior art, you can never get the patent. Shockley et al ran into this problem with their transistor. However, if you do not inform the patent examiner about such prior art, you can never hint that you knew about it without effectively admitting to "inequitable conduct", which may cause the loss of your entire patent. Interestingly, in over 400 papers, the Nobel winners never cited McGinness' papers once, though they are clearly material. Obviously, the usual excuse of missing a cite because of publication in obscure journals is out. Similarly, several times, McGinness and his coworkers attempted to contact the eventual winners and draw their attention to this "prior art". No reply. So they then just blew the matter off---any patent issues can be resolved in court, if necessary. Imagine their surprise when this work won the Nobel. May 9, 2006

Another well known case of questionable integrity was how Jocelyn Bell Burnell did not win or even share the Nobel prize for the discovery of pulsars. Antony Hewish who did claim and win the prize is occationally mocked while the real discoverer has stated with fine British humour that it seemed improper to award the prize to a mere student. --14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nobel's will specifies that the award goes to the person who "Shall have made" the discovery. Doesn't specify academic rank.

Dividing into a new section below

[edit] Science Misconduct and the Nobel

• By the Danish definition of "...a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist", the Nobel Foundation commits Scientific misconduct with regularity. This is just inherent in the way the prize is awarded. The Swedish system for investigating science misconduct is allegedly mostly based upon the older Danish model. Yet, they omitted this specific item in their definition. Just perhaps, they recognized the problem this might pose for "The Prize". Natually, the Noble Foundation is a private organization. So, they can give the prize to a red-assed baboon, if they wish. But this is a separate issue from "...distortion of the research process in other ways.", which the Swedish rules on scientific misconduct prohibit. There is also article 27 of the International Declaration of Human Rights. This specifies that

"(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author." 5/12/6 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by pproctor (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia has rules against cheating too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your own grumbles against the Nobel Prize Committee. — Dunc|☺ 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

With due respect. Last I looked, talk pages are the usual and customary place for hashing out controversial issues that might not belong on the main pages. Naturally, you are welcome to participate in the discussion.

As for the link above, note the "/whine.htm", deliciously named well before Raymond Damadian was accused of "whining" about his lost Nobel. Must be the water. Pproctor 03:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention. Seeing your interest in evolutionary biology from your personal page-- A parent website to the link you cite above www.organicmetals.com, starts off with a quote from our favorite evolutionary biologist, Charles Darwin. Check it out. Pproctor 04:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to look into this matter, after lunch. Dunc has a habit of reverting a lot of things without discussion, and without bothering to take the time to explain to new Wikipedians how the system works.

There may, or may not, be a good reason to include the information which Dr. Proctor offers us. But the fact that he himself is offering it, is not a good reason to dismiss him. --Uncle Ed 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this needs discussing calmly, with reference to other sources, and without violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. (btw, I have tried to explain how it works, but all I got in return was a lecture on how Larry Sanger was right about Wikipedia's anti-elitism being bad, and how WP:VAIN didn't apply to Proctor because he has a PhD). — Dunc|☺ 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Larry's still right, but that doesn't trump WP:VAIN. We all agree to follow this website's rules while we are here. If I don't like the rules on what can be included and how, I can start my own encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Larry may be right. The problem is not with expert editors as with editors who think they know better than everyone else and are exempt from WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Anyway, the discussion should be on whether to include a reference to "Who Discovered the First High-Conductivity Organic Polymer?".

I would say that a Nobel Prize controversy would have to include some element of controversy. Something that newspaper columnists and the blogosphere would love and in turn produce lots of third references. As it stands, we have one personal webpage (we need to ignore the various WP:NOR violations attempting to link the Nobel Committee with scientific misconduct). As far as I can tell this is a storm in a teacup; the controversy is limited to Peter Proctor's own website, and his posting to Usenet [2]. Now this may still be worth a brief mention, but then again may not (the whole page is quite frankly mess). — Dunc|☺ 19:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is exempt from WK:NOR, etc.. Wouldn't think of it-- in fact, such "boundry conditions" help us organize our thoughts. The difference is that (as the guideline notes), we "experts" know what sources are important and what they really say in quantitative as well as qualitative terms. It's what comes from all those decades of education and experience. In fact, in the real world, this is what they pay us the big bucks for, not "original research". Pproctor 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that the great Dr Peter Proctor M.D. is exempt from the policy of WP:NOR - despite WP:NOR noting that experts "do not occupy a privileged position" within Wikipedia?

This whole original research thing would be simple to solve; you need to do atleast one of the following:

1. Show where someone other than yourself has backed up your claim of being denied.
2. Show where someone other than yourself has taken time to rebut your argument (even if you think their arguments are rubbish; the thing about controversy is that it generates discussion).
3. Show where you have protested through an academic channel to you peers, e.g. a letter to Physics Today (who I trust would not publish any old rubbish) rather than your website.

Otherwise it is original research. And it has to go. — Dunc|☺ 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked: From "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003).

• "Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added) that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi. This advance was made by McGinness, Corry, and Proctor who examined conduction through artificial and biological melanin oligomers. They observed semiconductor properties of the organic material and demonstrated strong negative differential resistance, a hallmark of modern advances in molecular electronics.58 Like many early advances, the significance of the results obtained was not fully appreciated until decades later...(p 14)"

Like Herman Carr, we had a letter published in a journal about the Nobel issue. In this case "New Scientist" I'll try to find a copy. In any case, the issue is not our prioriy claims (which are just coincidental to the device), but those of Weiss et al, as noted below. Pproctor 04:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Fantastic Plastic", On-line edition, New Scientist, November 4, 2000. In which I point out that not only did Shirawaka et al not discover the first highly conductive organic polymer, but that an active molecular electronic device (which their discovery was supposed to have resulted in) existed three years before their first publication.

Again, lest I be accused of "vanity", we did not, repeat not, make the first conductive organic polymer. Depending on your interpretation, that honor goes to people at Bell Labs for Charge transfer complexes or to Weiss et al, who basically did their same experiment 14 years before the Nobel winners (cites below). We were merely the putative last to make a highly-conductive organic polymer before they rediscovered the electrical properties of this set of compounds just as the field was starting to mature. OTOH, by now, the people who really got screwed are either dead or long-retired. So the point is moot, except to the science historians, who are going to have decades of fun with this one.Pproctor 02:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edison/Tesla

• In the 1920s Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla were mentioned as potential laureates, but it is believed that due to their animosity toward each other neither was ever given the award, despite their enormous scientific contributions. There is some indication that each sought to minimize the other one's achievements and right to win the award, that both refused to ever accept the award if the other recieved it first, and that both rejected any possibility of sharing it, as was rumour in the press at the time.

Do we have any source for this? If not I'm going to remove it because it appears to be speculation. -Will Beback 00:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Read:

• Cheney, Margaret, "Tesla: Man Out of Time", ISBN 0-13-906859-7
• Seifer, Marc J., "Wizard, the Life and Times of Nikola Tesla". ISBN 1-559723-29-7 (HC), ISBN 0-806519-60-6 (SC)
• O'Neill, John H., "Prodigal Genius". ISBN 0-914732-33-1

These should contain the references that you need. This page also give a tast of the news reports about it. Edison and Tesla Win Nobel Prize in Physics. Literary Digest, December 18, 1915.

There isn't anything "speculation" about this. It's statements of fact (but change the date!). 204.56.7.1 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Another site: Controversy about This Year's Nobel Prize in Medicine teslasociety.com 204.56.7.1 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This looks like it is all based on an incorrect newspaper story from 1915. The New York Times of November 6, 1915, p1, "Edison and Tesla to get Nobel Prize" attributed to the Copenhagen correspondent of the Daily Mail of London a claim that Edison and Tesla were to share the Nobel Prize for Physics, and Svedberg was to get one for chemistry. The next day, Nov 7, 1915, p 17 Tesla said all he knew about it was the story in the NY Times the previous day, that he thought if he got one it might be for wireless transmission of power, and that "He thought Mr. Edison was worthy of a dozen Nobel Prizes." This is the polar opposite of later claims that he turned it down because he did not want to share an award with Edison. Finally Dec 26, 1915, the NY Times stated that the original story was a mistake: "The first report was incorrect." And it was incorrect for the chemistry prize as well as for the physics prize. It appears more likely due to sloppy reporting than behind the scenes fighting between Edison and Tesla. Tesla had often expressed his friendship for and admiration of Edison. See the New York Times, Jan 22, 1894, p3: “In coming to the United States, he {Tesla}found his first occupation in the Edison works. To be there had long been the “goal of my ambition,” and for Mr. Edison Mr. Tesla always has had the strongest admiration.” Then, there was NY Times, March 14, 1895, p9:"The two men are scarcely rivals, for they conducted their investigations on substantially different lines. Personally, they are warm friends.” When Edison died Tesla said of him, NY Times, Oct 19, 1931, p 25: "He will occupy a unique and exalted position in the history of his native land, which might well be proud of his great genius and undying achievements in the interests of humanity." It looks like the antipathy of Tesla toward Edison only appeared in his declining days, or that it might have been invented by biographers. I haven't seen a verifiable source for it in the form of writings of Tesla. The 1915 physics prize being offered to Edison and Tesla and somehow refused appears to be a myth.Edison 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literature prize in 1974

I can't find any mention in this article or the main Nobel Prize article about the mildly disproportional amount of literature prizes awarded to Swedes. I can imagine some of them would be worthy recipients (Selma Lagerlöf and perhaps Pär Lagerkvist), but other selections seem awkward especially considering the list of people who were never awarded. I'm thinking in particular of the prize in 1974 awarded jointly to Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, both of which were in the Swedish Academy at the time. Their individual entries both mention this. Similarly Verner von Heidenstam was a member of the Academy in 1916 when he got the award. Does anyone know if these people are/were internationally acknowledged as worthy recipients? In case anyone's wondering, I'm a Swede myself. :)

[edit] Kissinger

A discussion of Kissinger's winning should be opened. eg. Why has it not been revoked? More importantly, why was he nominated in the first place? Were such facts really unknown?

Perhaps so, but remember -- Wikipedia isn't a place to make changes happen, but rather a place to record the changes which are already happening. If there's a significant public discourse already going on, it may well be worth a mention; to that end, do we have reliable sources and verifiable information, so that we can avoid original research? Thanks for your time, either way, and have a nice day. :) Luna Santin 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there some controversy over the fact that Graham Green was never awarded a Nobel?

[edit] Einstein

How about if we remove the following sentence or at least rewrite it to sat something relevant to Nobel Prizes: "Einstein was also known to have confessed to have met with some issues in his marriages, love matters - recently made known in published form in more details." I do not see the point. Edison 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bovine insulin -- Beijing scientists' exclusion

I am deleting this section, as it is not clear that there is any controversy here -- was the recommendation by a Laureate enough to make it a controversy? There is little on the web in terms of ghits, and no articles in Wikipedia on either contributor...

The first total synthesis of bovine insulin - a world's first, a Nobel Prize-level achievement work (done between 1958 - 1965) which won world-wide recognition, and praised in 1966 by Arne Wilhelm Kaurin Tiselius, President of the Nobel Foundation and Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry - was the work of several chinese scientists from Beijing University. It is now common knowledge that one can use bovine insulin to retrieve the human insulin gene (because bovine and human insulin are remarkably close to identical) and then insert the human insulin gene into a bacteria, allow the latter to divide and generate buckets of human insulin for diabetics's use and injection - with no fears of allergic reaction (a 1978 protein-production biotechnology). However, the two scientists nominated for the Nobel Prize (recommended several times by no less than the Nobel Laureate Chen Ning Yang himself) - Niu Jingyi and Wang Yinglai - did not manage to obtain any Nobel prize in the end.

--Ogdred 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 Nobel Chemistry Prize controversy

In the field of organic electronics, there is not just one, but multiple well-acknowledged controversies about this award. First, that of the exclusion of Charge transfer complexes, which were discovered to have high electrical conductivity in the 1950's. Likewise, John McGinness' device. E.g., if you want evidence of controversy-- from "Battery Development and Applications Milestones":

"1974 The semiconducting properties of organic materials discovered and their use as the basis for a bistable switch patented by John E. McGinness, Peter Corry and Peter H. Proctor working on melanin at the University of Texas.

Three years later, without citing the Texans' prior art, Heeger, MacDiarmid and Shirakawa published a similar paper, for which they were subsequently awarded the Nobel Prize."

However, there were at least three generally-acknowledged examples of high-conductivity organic polymers before that of the 2000 Noble winners, of which McGinness' was the last. So he was not in competition anyway, at least as the citation is phrased. Most especially, Weiss and coworkers 1963 paper, which you-all deleted. The 2000 Nobel winners 1977 paper is essentially a duplicate of this paper, using another of the same class of material. Pproctor 04:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, get a notable source that says as such and we will be happy to include the later part. Furthermore, there is also an issue of notability. Every single prize has some criticism. You need to convince us that this is criticism that should be in thae article, that is that these claims are common enough about this prize that they should be noted. I will also once again strongly caution you about WP:AUTO. JoshuaZ 06:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur w/JoshuaZ. Every prize had more than one contender, and supporters of those who were not awarded the prize criticised. This does not a serious controversy make. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

First, read the rest of the list of controversial awards. They are mostly by mere assertion "Many physicists beleive, etc". Scientists do not want to go on record as complaining in public about a Nobel award, for reasons the case of Raymond Damadian makes abundantly clear. Same is true here, though, as I note above, there are some public rumblings besides my own. E.g., the citation to the Weiss paper comes from one such anonymous researcher.ey are mostly by mere assertion "Many physicists beleive, etc". Scientists do not want to go on record as complaining in public about a Nobel award, for reasons the case of Raymond Damadian makes abundantly clear.

As for "notable source", the above is from a general history of batteries by a battery manufacturer. You probably cannot find the equivalent for most of the other things on the list. Likewise, contrary to your assertion, this is not just about one specific "prior art" item, but multiple ones.

The award is for a specific thing, "The discovery and developemt of conductive organic polymers". So all that is necessary is to show that one or more highly conductive organic polymers existed before one specific 1977 publication. Even better, "conductivity" means a quantity, expressed as ohms-cm2. A real, objective, NPOV, NOR, number in a particular WK-verifiable peer-reviewed paper. This number is less than about 100 ohm-cm2. To give some perspective, most organic polymers are about eight orders of magnitute better resistors.

Again, some charge-transfer polymers (discovered 1954) are superconductors. Similarly, Weiss et al reported 1 ohm-cm2 in 1963, while McGinness et al reported less than 1 ohm-cm2 for the ON state of their 1974 device. BTW, "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003) cites the latter as the first organic electronic device. Is a PNYAS review "notable" enough? Or, howabout a Nature News and views" article (Nature Vol. 248 April 5 1974, p475 ( News and Views )). You don't really believe all this went unnoticed, do you?

Anyway, the real smoking gun is Weiss et al's 1963 paper [3], which is not only prior to McGinness' (thus obviating any "vanity" issues here) but is also almost identical with the 1977 paper [4] that won the Nobel. Download and read them side-by side. There is not a lot of difference between "high-conductivity iodine-doped polypyrrole" and "high-conductivity iodine-doped polyacetylene". Pproctor 15:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Many problems with your above comment. First as KC observed, every nobel has some people making such claims that doesn't make it a controversy. Second, the various nobels often have short simple statements about what the prizes were for, statements which are in fact frequently general like the above and could arguably refer to other work also. Third, reading the above papers and noting level of similarities is WP:OR. Again, the best thing to do is to find multiple independent WP:RS sources which make the claim. Many of the mentioned controversies in the article were large enough such that they made even lay publications such as newspapers. Finally as to your claim that most of the mentions on the list "are mostly by mere assertion 'Many physicists beleive, etc'. Scientists do not want to go on record as complaining in public about a Nobel award, for reasons the case of Raymond Damadian makes abundantly clear"- this claim is ridiculous for three reasons: first this is if anything an argument to remove material from the section not to add (Wikipedia doesn't care why something isn't coming from WP:RS sources merely that it isn't). Second many scientists have complained vocally in some of the examples mentioned. Third, your example case is in fact awful since the Damadian case resulted in much debate and discussion among both scientists and lay people. (Also I'm not completely sure I understand why you say the Damadian case somehow makes your previous assertion "abundantly clear" are you claiming that other scientists were retaliated against for making pro-Damadian comments?) JoshuaZ 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, the other examples in the article depend on assertion. Go after them too, to be consistent.

Second, NOR and NPV are not violated because several peer-reviewed publications before the Nobelist's 1977 paper report conductivity of less than 100 ohms-cm2 in an organic polymer. Nor is it a violation of such to point this undeniable fact out. In fact, this confirms as close to WK:NPOV and WK:NOR as you are likely to see. Similarly, if the Nobel foundation (whom we can assume to be "authoritative") states that this is why the 2000 Nobel Chemistry prize was awarded, then it is definitely a violation of WK:NOR on your part to question their word, without something equivalent to support this assertion, naturally. Pproctor 18:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NOR is violated, whether those papers are sufficiently similar is OR, and I'm not engaging in OR to point out that something is not sufficient evidence to be worthy of inclusion here. We are allowed to investigate the reliability and relevancy of sources. Please read try to actually WP:OR. Also as to your edit summary about not being able to deny truth- I have nowhere claimed that you are wrong. Indeed you seem to have made a strong case for your position but even if you are completely correct OR and related issues would still apply. JoshuaZ 18:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that the Noble foundation might not tell the full story in its citations, etc. is what I meant by "original research". This may be true, you can't claim it without some outside source, any more than I can.

Similarly, I limit my opinion that the Weiss et al and Shirakawa et al papers are "similar" to these talk pages. On the article page, I merely note that in 1963 Weiss et al reported an iodine-doped derivative of polyacetylene with a conductivity of 1 ohm-cm2. Likewise, I note that Shirakawa et als paper reporting highly-conductive iodine-doped polyacetylene (for which they won the Nobel) was published in 1977. Likewise, I give links to full PDF versions of both peer-reviewed-and-in-respected-journal papers, for "verifiability". All according to the guidelines, which most of the rest of the page blatantly violates with lots of completely undocumented statements.

Any "similarity", assuming it exists, is up to the reader, whom I would not presume to instruct. No OR at all, merely the papers and their publication dates. I likewise reference a 1964 book containing meterials on conductive Charge transfer complex polymers. Pproctor 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:OR. The assertion that your comment about the citation has little relevancy isn't an OR issue because I'm not citiing it in an article, I'm using it as a reason to not have it in the article. See the difference? Second of all whether you use the word similar or not on the article page isn't relevant because it is clear that that is what you are trying to imply. To do so is WP:OR. JoshuaZ 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read NP:OR ad nauseum and avoid any hint of it on the article page. How is it "clear" that I am implying anything? Perhaps your imagination is better than mine. I merely note without further comment that Weiss et al reported a conductivity of 1 ohm-cm for iodine-doped polypyrrole in 1963. How does this suggest that this paper is otherwise "similar" to Shirakawa's 1977 paper reporting conductivity of 38 ohm-cm for iodine-doped polyaniline. The issue is high-conductivity in an organic polymer (the subject of the Nobel). Thus, I limit my comments to merely repeating the respective conductivities noted in the papers, not a bit of original reseach anywhere. Note that the other example I give, conductive Charge transfer complexes is chemically and electronically unrelated to polyaniline, other than being a conductive organic polymer. Pproctor 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The following meets the NOR test well:

• The 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Shirakawa et al was awarded for "The discovery and Development of Conductive Organic Polymers". This was originally based upon a 1977 paper reporting [5] a conductivity of 38 ohms-cm in oxidized, iodine-doped polyacetylene. However, three years before, a news article in the journal Nature noted the "strikingly large conductivity", "highly conducting state", and "large conduction" of a material recently reported [6] in the journal Science. An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003) notes that this paper reports the first organic electronic device. This material had a conductivity of less than 1 ohm-cm in its "ON" state. However, over a decade before this paper, Weiss et al had reported [7] [8] a conductivity of 1 ohm-cm in oxidized iodine-doped polypyrrole, a polyacetylene derivative. Similarly, as early as 1954, scientists at Bell Labs reported a conductivity of 8 ohms-cm in Charge transfer complexes. Some of these later proved to be superconductive.

I use the Nature news article and the PNYAs review (satisfying WK:NOR) to bring up the John McGinness paper in Science. Then, to bring an WK:NPOV (also required if you cite your own published work), I shoot down any priority claims it has to "high conductivity" per se by citing Weiss et al and the Bell Labs researchers, who really deserve the credit. Pproctor 14:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That this is a "constoversy" is OR and the use of the Weis paper to "shoot down" the priority claims is also clearly OR. Almost all of this goes under a form of prohibited new synthesis. JoshuaZ 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That the Nature "News and Views" article and the PNYAS review made a fuss about this paper and its demonstration of high conductivity in an organic polymer (what the Nobel went for) is not "OR". Nor is the fact that such had been shown before this paper. Interestingly, recently, there was major criticism of an editor for editing a wikipedia article to claim undue credit for a discovery [9]. This is the exact opposite of the case here. Like Herman Carr, I had a letter to the editor published on this issue (in New Scientist) about Oct-Nov. 2000. It is not on line. Next time I get to the library, I'll get the exact particulars. Pproctor 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

New Scientist, November 4, 2000, On-line edition. Letter to Editor entitled "Fantastic Plastic". Pproctor 19:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing - to-do?

An anon recently made several additions, without sourcing, as are some of the older entries. Suggest we make a list of controversies which are lacking cites and start a to-do list, with the object being to source, or failing finding a RS, remove the entries. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. JoshuaZ 01:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial recipients

This section just severes as a place to discuss controversies surrounding the awards recipients; unless the award of the Noble to a person has been specifically questioned by some authorative source they should be removed.--Peta 02:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Add Another Section titled Nobel Prize Misses?

Ref: Bovine insulin -- Beijing scientists' exclusion.

I suggest The case for Niu Jingyi and Wang Yinglai (The first total synthesis of bovine insulin case) is more appropriate under a possible new section titled Nobel Prize Misses.

In 1966, the visit and encomium by Arne Wilhelm Kaurin Tiselius, President of the Nobel Foundation and Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, did raise hope of a possible Nobel Prize win in the offing. If we follow the true history of the case, one can only conclude that it is largely due to the reluctant, cool, and, at times confusing cooperation (or noncooperation) from the Communist Party of China then - so much so that all the proper timing is out: the nominations got so far as to reach one member of the Swedish Committee at one point though.

I would also put Rosalind Franklin (and possibly e.g. Chung-Yao Chao, Robert Oppenheimer) case under the Nobel Prize Misses!Not exclusion, to be fair.Yzphub 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing syntax

The introduction may have been written by someone who is not a native English speaker and seems a little awkward. I am editing it for readibility, while retaining as much of the original sense as possible. Pproctor 02:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)