2 ms·

> Like do you think institutions should award exclusively on merit, or on some other aspects of their mission? Lets approach this a bit differently - Is there

> Like do you think institutions should award exclusively on merit, or on some other aspects of their mission? Lets approach this a bit differently - Is there something inherit within a segment of our population that makes them more meritable and "better scientists"? The answer is either: - Yes, a subset of our population is superior and awards like Nobel Prize should be dominated by them - No, everyone is generally of equal skill and merit (or potential), and the Nobel Prize should roughly, on average, be awarded to people that look like the population. Then, considering your answer above, how does that match to reality? What accounts for this mismatch? Why are fields (and awards like this) underrepresenting our populations? If you want "the best science" and to be continuously improving the field, don't you want to make sure you're not shutting the door on whole demographics? To say "focus exclusively on merit" seems to suggest that you think that merit favors one demographic.

Knufen 5y ago
> Then, considering your answer above, how does that match to reality? What accounts for this mismatch? Why are fields (and awards like this) underrepresenting our populations? Isn't that obvious? Nobel prices (especially science) often have a lag time of 50 years (semi random number) and is also often given to middle aged people. So since science has been dominated by white guys we will see almost all Nobel prizes given to white guys. I expect this to change in 100 years as more women enter STEM and then with some added lag time.
MagnumOpus 5y ago
There very obviously is a good reason why European and Anglo-Saxon populations dominate cutting edge science, even without going into "inherit" factors: The GDP/capita and incomes of these countries/ethnicities were and are far higher than those of Africans or Asians (especially 40 years ago when current laureates where educated), so more people can go into science careers that need 18+ years of schooling and have uncertain payoffs compared to industry careers. These countries also have far better funded universities and science institutes to make science without immediate payoff possible.
evandijk70 5y ago
How would you the question if some segment in our population is inherently 'more meritable'? There are many obvious confounding factors (culture, education, opportunity, racism) that are very hard to correct for. The Nobel prize is only given to people with exceptional performance, so the sample size will be quite small. Regardless of the answer to the question posed by you, it seems to me that we should stay true to the wishes of Alfred Nobel, who stated that a series of prizes should be conferred to those who confer the "greatest benefit on mankind". Since he is the one that provided the funding for this award, I think this award should be awarded according to that measure.

Knufen 5y ago

> Then, considering your answer above, how does that match to reality? What accounts for this mismatch? Why are fields (and awards like this) underrepresenting our populations? Isn't that obvious? Nobel prices (especially science) often have a lag time of 50 years (semi random number) and is also often given to middle aged people. So since science has been dominated by white guys we will see almost all Nobel prizes given to white guys. I expect this to change in 100 years as more women enter STEM and then with some added lag time.

MagnumOpus 5y ago

There very obviously is a good reason why European and Anglo-Saxon populations dominate cutting edge science, even without going into "inherit" factors: The GDP/capita and incomes of these countries/ethnicities were and are far higher than those of Africans or Asians (especially 40 years ago when current laureates where educated), so more people can go into science careers that need 18+ years of schooling and have uncertain payoffs compared to industry careers. These countries also have far better funded universities and science institutes to make science without immediate payoff possible.

evandijk70 5y ago

How would you the question if some segment in our population is inherently 'more meritable'? There are many obvious confounding factors (culture, education, opportunity, racism) that are very hard to correct for. The Nobel prize is only given to people with exceptional performance, so the sample size will be quite small. Regardless of the answer to the question posed by you, it seems to me that we should stay true to the wishes of Alfred Nobel, who stated that a series of prizes should be conferred to those who confer the "greatest benefit on mankind". Since he is the one that provided the funding for this award, I think this award should be awarded according to that measure.