Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Featured News Nobel Prize 2018 Announcements

  1. Sep 24, 2018 #41

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    I dont know about the other categories, but I am pretty sure that this
    is not how the Nobel Committtee thinks.
     
  2. Sep 24, 2018 #42

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, CRISPR is much easier to use. But I was thinking that TALENS is already useful, because of reports like the case of a baby girl cured of leukemia with the help of TALENS: https://www.nature.com/news/leukaemia-success-heralds-wave-of-gene-editing-therapies-1.18737.
     
  3. Sep 24, 2018 #43

    bob012345

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No prize for dark matter until we actually know what it is or if it actually exists. It's premature. I hope the physics prize is for a practical technology development this year.
     
  4. Sep 24, 2018 #44
    I'm not denying that historically women were excluded from Science - I think that is pretty factual (as factual as historical claims can be). However, does that mean that we should exclude men from consideration to make up for that today?

    Even if a deserving women did win this year - how does that make up for whatever wrong was done in the past? How many Black or Hispanic Nobel prizes were awarded in Physics? Should we only award prizes to underrepresented groups for the next century until the distribution of prizes roughly matches the distribution in population?

    You're trying to bring identity politics and equality of outcome (a deeply flawed political ideology) into what is supposed to be the ultimate realm of objectivity - Science.

    How about we just award prizes fairly without consideration of race/gender/sexuality etc... and not let politics infect every single aspect of our lives.
     
  5. Sep 24, 2018 #45

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    I have never said that. You are making a straw-man argument.

    No. The Nobel Prize is not about science and is nothing like an ultimate realm of objectivity. If you believe this you are living in a dream world.
     
  6. Sep 24, 2018 #46

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2017 Award

    Agreed. I'm pretty sure people would interpret an award for dark matter after the death of Vera Rubin much more as a slight against her than a tribute.

    Most people in the field see CRISPR as a superior technology to TALENS, including the people who pioneered the use of TALENS, as most have pretty much moved on to using CRISPR.

    TALENS are still in clinical development in part because of the long time it takes to bring new therapies to the clinic as well as intellectual property issues.
     
  7. Sep 24, 2018 #47

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  8. Sep 24, 2018 #48

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    The prize can be given to collaborations or institutes, it just has never been done. I guess they just don't want to do that for whatever reason. Picking (at most) three experimentalists from the discovery would have made no sense, the discovery was the work of hundreds to thousands.
     
  9. Sep 24, 2018 #49

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Well, this is exactly what has been done historically, even though ATLAS and CMS are unusually large collaborations. The latest example would be the neutrino oscillation prize, where Kajita and McDonald were far from the only people in the collaborations, but they did play leading and crucial roles.
     
  10. Sep 25, 2018 #50

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    They didn't close both loopholes simultaneously, so I woudn't bet on them.
     
  11. Sep 25, 2018 #51

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Million dollars is a big money for a person, but small for a collaboration. The point of giving big money is to motivate people to work hard on big problems. It's not such a big motivation if you think: If I work hard, perhaps my big collaboration will one day get million dollars.
     
  12. Sep 25, 2018 #52

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Getting the Nobel Prize itself is very motivating. It would motivate people a tiny bit to join larger collaborations.
    If you choose your field of work based on the probability to win the Nobel Prize you make something wrong anyway.
     
  13. Sep 25, 2018 #53

    DrClaude

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    FWIW, she has now won a special Breakthrough Prize.
     
  14. Sep 25, 2018 #54
    Hi! I was just wondering who would you think will win the Nobel prize in Physics and for what.

    Thanks! :)
     
  15. Sep 25, 2018 #55

    jedishrfu

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't know but here's how they decide the issue:

    https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/physics/

    It seems the web is silent on the issue, no doubt afraid to jinx their favorite candidates. They must have been selected and notified already but have to stay mum until the big event.
     
  16. Sep 25, 2018 #56

    bob012345

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Even limiting the choice to equally worthy candidates, choosing a woman because she is a woman demeans the meaning of the prize. They just have to decide which of the worthy work is the most worthy which is why it's so difficult. Making 'sure' someone's gets a prize before they die misses the point of the prize. It's not about the person, it's about the work. It would be better to change the rules such that a scientist's work could be recognized posthumously but that's not going to happen. Too bad though.
     
  17. Sep 25, 2018 #57

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    They get notified very shortly before the announcement - something like 1-2 hours.
     
  18. Sep 25, 2018 #58

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    And for many years, NOT choosing a woman because she was a woman was pretty much standard practice. That also demeaned the meaning for the prize. Bearing in mind the huge number of deserving causes and the arbitrariness of choice for the final winner then why not tip the balance amongst the 'equally good' candidates and make up, in some small way, for many years of unfairness?
     
  19. Sep 25, 2018 #59

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  20. Sep 25, 2018 #60
    I prefer the Olympic sports with objective criteria rather than judges.

    Beauty contests? Not my thing.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted