5 ms·

Leaves a dull taste to hear that a once prestigious prices has lost all of it's meaning. When people like Obama [1] win a Nobel Prize and Putin [1] get's sugges

• maguay 13y ago
  The science prizes still hold their prestige even if the peace prize has often been controversial. The peace prize has always been the most controversial of the set (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Peace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Peace for starts).
• glormph 13y ago
  Anyone can 'suggest' people for a peace prize. The peace prize != the medicine prize. Also, it's just a (prestigious) prize. Keep doing science, don't think about it. And for god's sake, don't come up with science policies that 'will make our country win more Nobel prizes'.
  • X4 13y ago
    You don't say it, but I guess you mean it. The time politics and policies come into play things start going the wrong way. See "TED" [1] for example. [1] http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-02-29/why-im-fed-up-with-tedbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-02-29/why-im-fed-up...
    • glormph 13y ago
      I think I meant that while the prize is a great appreciation of a scientist's work, it is not like a gold medal in a sports competition. There is usually no way of knowing how to get one beforehand, and they don't always go to fields that have received special attention from governments. 'More Nobel prizes to our country' is therefore hard to accomplish by politicians (and sounds populistic). Instead of using the Nobel prize as a rhetorical tool, politicians would probably do better to foster good science in general. Keep universities healthy, leave the policy making to scientists instead of pointing out areas that are going to get increased funding. Make sure scientists can investigate whatever they find interesting based on scientific quality of a proposal/track record. Maybe do keep a check on scientific nepotism et al. Both being a scientist and defining a proper science policy are hard though.
• xanth 13y ago
  The controversy of Nobel prize is proportional ambiguity inherent to the prizes subject.
• tptacek 13y ago
  I guess if you don't know anything about vesicle mechanics, sure, contribute a totally irrelevant political argument instead.
• forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
  For me Nobel Price in peace is worthless long before Obama won it. Don't let me get started with the "Nobel memorial price" that banksters created. But Nobel prices in science had always been and continue being prestigious.
• sp332 13y ago
  It's a completely different committee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_Medicine#Nomination_and_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_M...
• kunai 13y ago
  You're decades late. The Peace prize lost its meaning and prestige long before Obama got it. The committees presiding over the other awards are completely different from the Peace committee, and the other awards still carry an enormous amount of merit, and if you're a biologist you'll know how important vesicle transport is. However, you probably aren't. Don't pick at strawmen and use your arguments somewhere else.
• aortega 13y ago
  "once prestigious prices"? Tell me of a more prestigious price in science, there is none. Maybe the field medal in mathematics comes close. Peace and Economics Nobels are non-scientific and only share the name with the original prices.
  • blueblob 13y ago
    Turing award in computing?
• zhaphod 13y ago
  I hope you are consistent and feel the same about the peace prize to Kissinger