The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2003

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded in 2003 to Paul C. Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for their contributions to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Participants explore the implications of this award, the history of MRI, and controversies surrounding other scientists who were not recognized.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express uncertainty about the specific discoveries made by Lauterbur and Mansfield that led to the Nobel Prize.
  • There is a suggestion that MRI technology has been around for a long time, raising questions about the timing of the award.
  • One participant mentions a controversy regarding Raymond Damadian, suggesting he should have been a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize, while others argue that his contributions did not directly lead to MRI technology.
  • Another participant brings up historical instances of other scientists, such as Chien-Shiung Wu and Rosalind Franklin, who were also not awarded Nobel Prizes, attributing this to political biases in science.
  • Concerns are raised about the politics involved in the awarding of Nobel Prizes, with references to perceived injustices in the recognition of contributions to science.
  • There is a discussion about the criteria for awarding Nobel Prizes posthumously, with a clarification that they are typically not awarded after death unless the recipient dies before the official announcement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the recognition of Damadian's contributions and the political nature of Nobel Prize awards. There is no consensus on whether he was unjustly overlooked or whether his work was sufficiently impactful. Additionally, there is a shared concern about historical biases in the recognition of female scientists, but the specifics of each case remain contested.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to the historical context of the Nobel Prize and the contributions of various scientists, highlighting the complexities and controversies involved in scientific recognition. Some claims about the contributions of Damadian and others are presented without resolution, indicating ongoing debates in the community.

Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
61
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/2003/index.html

"for their discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging"

Paul C. Lauterbur - University of Illinois
Sir Peter Mansfield - University of Nottingham
 
Biology news on Phys.org
So, what exactly was their discovery?
 
I haven't read it all yet, but it is all in here:

http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/2003/press.html
 
So, I guess they were the ones responsible for the MRI. Hasn't that been around for a long time? I don't know, but I think they should have gotten recognition long ago. But then, I don't know how long it's been around (I didn't read the whole article either). Heck, any amount of time that people usually call "recent" seems like a long time to me anyway .
 
wow 2 nobel prizes, impressive. Let me read.
 
Originally posted by Mentat
So, I guess they were the ones responsible for the MRI. Hasn't that been around for a long time? I don't know, but I think they should have gotten recognition long ago. But then, I don't know how long it's been around (I didn't read the whole article either). Heck, any amount of time that people usually call "recent" seems like a long time to me anyway .

It took a long time because of a controversy about another scientist that probably should have also been a corecipient...Raymond Damadian He was shafted! Whoever thinks science isn't rife with politics is wrong.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20031008/06/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It took a long time because of a controversy about another scientist that probably should have also been a corecipient...Raymond Damadian He was shafted! Whoever thinks science isn't rife with politics is wrong.

According to the opinion of a lot of experts who know the field, he wasn't shafted; his early work on NMR was good, but it didn't contribute to MRI, which is what the prize was given for. His highly publicised and richly funded sour grapes campaign is a disgrace.
 
Originally posted by adrenaline
It took a long time because of a controversy about another scientist that probably should have also been a corecipient...Raymond Damadian He was shafted! Whoever thinks science isn't rife with politics is wrong.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20031008/06/

That's terrible. I read somewhere that Chien-Shiung Wu was also denied her fair share of the Nobel award given to Lee and Yang for the discovery of parity violation. Of course, in her case, it is usually blamed on bias against her gender.

This has probably happened lots of times before. So you are right, adrenaline, science is rife with politics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Mentat
That's terrible. I read somewhere that Chien-Shiung Wu was also denied her fair share of the Nobel award given to Lee and Yang for the discovery of parity violation. Of course, in her case, it is usually blamed on bias against her gender.


Not to mention Rosalind Franklin who probably should have been given the Nobel prize (posthumously I guess) along with Watson and Crick. The list goes on and on. Yes, dirty politics is everywhere.
 
  • #10
From what I understand of the Nobel Prize, they cannot be awarded posthumously except in cases where the recipient dies before the award is officially made in December.

Damadian had a kernel of a good idea, but he didn't develop it. The reason scientists and medical professionals can do magnetic resonance imaging is because of Lauterbur and Mansfield. His contention that he would have eventually developed the gradient methods that Lauterbur and Mansfield did is a moot point - plain and simple fact of the matter is that he didn't develop them. He got beat in that race, and that was the race that mattered in transforming an idea into something which has revolutionized science and medicine.

The Nobel committees are notorious for being either very quick or very slow. For example, Rod MacKinnon (co-recipient with Peter Agre for the chemistry prize this year) had his first ion channel structure published in 1998 as memory serves, and he's still putting them out. That's a pretty good response time (although there have been better ones).
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Mentat
That's terrible. I read somewhere that Chien-Shiung Wu was also denied her fair share of the Nobel award given to Lee and Yang for the discovery of parity violation. Of course, in her case, it is usually blamed on bias against her gender.

This has probably happened lots of times before. So you are right, adrenaline, science is rife with politics.

Wu's experiment was very simple, and based directly out of Lee and Yang's paper. It was for these reasons that she didn't share the prize.
 

Similar threads

2021 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Svante Pääbo wins Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for Paleogenomics
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Nobel Prize 2020 in Physiology or Medicine
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
2019 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
2017 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Interesting article about the Nobel Prize "Rule of Three"
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Why Was Reprogramming Mature Cells Worth a Nobel Prize?
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
Celebrating Fire and Mello's Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
History Who should have been the 4th laureate in the Nobel Prize in Physics?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Medical Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2007
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K