Do the Nobel Prizes Still Make Sense in the 21st Century?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лис 2013
- PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateOKAY
↓ More info and sources below ↓
The Nobel Prizes reward the greatest accomplishments of the human race. Right? Then why haven't they changed much in 100+ years? Do they really represent how science is done? And why so few women?
References and more:
Molly Oldfield - The Secret Museum amzn.to/173lLpj
Georgia Lupi Nobel Prize infographic: www.brainpickings.org/index.ph...
Alfred Nobel's will: www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobe...
Top 10 Nobel snubs: www.scientificamerican.com/sli...
Nobel Prize controversies (like Johannes Fibiger) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Pr...
Women who have won science Nobels mentalfloss.com/article/53186/...
The Nobel ignores how modern science works: spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/ae...
Nobel prize and myth of the "lone genius" blogs.scientificamerican.com/t...
Thomas Edison on success: www.brainpickings.org/index.ph...
Steve Jobs on creativity: www.wired.com/wired/archive/4....
Open letter to Nobel committee: www.newscientist.com/article/d...
Thumbnail art via catwalker/Shutterstock
-----------
Join us on Patreon!
/ itsokaytobesmart
Twitter
/ drjoehanson
/ okaytobesmart
Instagram
/ drjoehanson
/ okaytobesmart
Merch
store.dftba.com/collections/i...
Facebook
/ itsokaytobesmartpbs
The prize is still important. It highlights our endeavors in pursuing and applying science to expand and improve our lives. 1. They need to expand the categories. 2. They need to develop a way to reward the teams behind stars. Something like Nobel rings.
Three Rings for the physicists under the sky,
Seven for the chemists in their halls of stone,
Nine for physicians doomed to die,
One (similar but not really) for the economist on his dark throne.
true; all what the future laureates need to know is the history of the prize, whether they want to hear it or _not_
@@robinisomaal love this comment as a scientist and a Tolkien fan ❤
As a mathematician, I'd be quite happy for there to not be a Nobel prize for mathematics. The Fields Medal has been around for almost as long as the Nobel Prize and even if a Nobel Prize in Mathematics were introduced, the Fields Medal would still be much more prestigious amongst mathematicians, if a little unnoticed by the rest of the world.
For the Nobel Prizes to change and award one for mathematics would seem, to me, like they were glory hunting in a way. Such as when a sports fan switches which team they support part way through the season because they're not playing so well.
Michael Barrowman They only award in those fields that are beneficial to humanity. Mathematics is a tool used in science as a means to an end. It does nothing on its own. Symbolism, theorems, and mathematical analysis on its own is useless. When applied to economics, physics, chemistry,...it becomes beneficial to the world. A Noble prize awarded to a theoretical physicist,...like Einstein, Schrodinger, Feynman, or Dirac illustrates the point of applying mathematics usefully and its utility to humanity.
scretching08 Yes. Of course. Because Mathematics has done less to further humanity's understanding of the universe and our place in it than Literature and Economics.
Well, that is not what I meant. I am a graduate student of Applied mathematics and
I have also taken the traditional undergrad courses in linear algebra, discrete mathematics, calculus I-IV and differential equations. It is just that calculus was invented by Newton and Leibniz right, from what we know,...but these were tools developed by mathematicians-physicist and the like to solve real world problems.
Don't get me wrong, it is just that pure mathematics is only beneficial to humanity; when it has a real world applications. Pure mathematics on its own, does nothing except serve an aesthetic appeal.
Oh! you may want to review mathematical economics and econometrics (the use of inferential and descriptive statistics in economics). as far as economics is concerned. Now there were numerous Noble prizes award for such applications. Joseph Stiglitz has won two Noble Prizes because of his use of mathematics in his research.
As far as literature is concerned, No comment!
Thanks!
it would be like the Oscars for Nobel prizes
Mathematics on its own is USELESS ????????? WTF are you talking about ok you're an applied math student we get but don't be disrespecting pure Mathematicians like that
creativity: steal others technology and slap my name on it and sue them if they say otherwise. -Steve Jobbs
* - Thomas Edison.
I thought that was bill gates
I think you mean Thomas Edison.
More like Zuckerberg
Ahhh it was mark Zuckerberg who bitched his partners
Nikola Tesla was a lone genius who was discredited by Thomas Edison.
Thomas Edison electrocuted puppies just to “prove” that Nikola Tesla’s AC was dangerous.
While DC was even more dangerous
I've been telling people that for years
I was thinking the same thing!!!
Lone geniuses still exist. Gregory Pearlman is a great example. The only issue is they are rare and not most people like it's always been.
IT WAS JAMES WATSON
Yes. James Watson is according to Wikipedia a racist, sexist, narcissistic dick.
I went frame by frame to see it. :)
It took me a few minutes of rewatching that second to figure it out.
Either him or crick has a memior where they say they would have given Rosalind more credit if she was pretty
Kobe Wan Kenobi no It was JAMES WATSON, but I don't care either 👍
Doesn't computer science have the Turing award?
So does it really need Nobel prize category?
as it said Nobel prizes were the King of prizes so
The mathematicians also have the Fields Award which is their Nobel Award.
@@nekotamo5154 It's not. The actual one is Abel prize
Alfred Nobel: physics, chemistry literature, medicine, peace.
Economy: Let me introduce my self.
It was James Watson
yeah, same xD
THANK YOU!
yes , but three people founded it and only two received nobel
Would someone please explain to me why Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Pride?
he was black
thats it
mgstj9gh that happens without SJWs intervention and has always been a thing. It's actually making a resurgence but it's not being pushed by the left.
Bill Bergendahl bc no one cares about Yemen
He was the first African American President. Do I really need to say more?
As a Swedish person, the Noble prise is the only Swedish tradition I truly like so I say we keep it. We just need to make a few changes to it
I think they're relevant, but like you said, they should get up with the times. Theres should be more categories. For instance, I'm a Psychology student right now, and i'll be studying and working in Cognitive Neuroscience for the rest of my life. I would love to see the great authors of my área win na award if they make na important discovery
There already is a "Nobel" for mathematics. It's called the Fields Medal. It even comes with its own solid gold medal and cash prize. Theyre not annual, so theyre usually well deserved. Like the one they tried to give to Perelman for the Poincare Conjecture.
As a biologist, it's very satisfying to see some great names of our field (like Ernst Mayr, E.O. Wilson, Carl Woese and J. Maynard Smith) being laureated by the Swedish Academy (I'm talking about the Crafoord Prize)
If LIterature deserves a Nobel prize, why not Music also? This would inspire musicians to actually start making music of very very high value + Hanz Zimmer would win one like every year hehe
+Martin Acoustics12 Perhaps it's because Alfred Nobel did not specify a category for music; even so, Mr. Zimmer wouldn't be the only winner. Too bad James Horner and Basil Poledouris have passed away.
Maximus Desimus Maridius Notice all the categories are a type of science or something academic. While learning an instrument is a very hard the Nobel Peace Prize is for something that can achieve something. Music already basically has a Nobel Peace Prize. The Grammy’s
That's actually kind of a thing. The Polar Prize, also handed out in Sweden but by a different organization founded by ABBA members, is only handed for people who have basically fundamentally changed the course of music and music history. Check out the wikipedia page about it - there's a wide variety of amazing people who have received it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Music_Prize
Music has a large number of high profile prizes already. It doesn't need it.
Death metal would put any modern Genre to shame
Best video so far, not that I don't love the others.
Beautifully rounded conclusion at the end.
I love learning this way, keep up the hard work please. You should be very proud of it.
Very interesting video, it made me remember of Jacinto Convit, a Venezuelan physician and scientist who developed the anti-leprosy vaccine. The guy's amazing, he's 100 right now and he's currently working on a cure for different types of cancer.
And he didn't win the noble prize, though he was nominated.
Marie Curie is just a bad ass!!😂😂😂😎😎
Edison was a crook....
We need a Noble Prize for education
That's what got to my mind after watching this video, I definitely agree! Education or popularization of science/knowledge, because it's incredibly important to make people aware of the world surrounding them and I dare say teaching is one of the most responsible roles a person can take up. That's why it has to be done right and it's no easy task.
No, we need a Nobel punishment for education.
I nominate Vsauce (Michael), John&Hank Green, and Joe Hanson
No wait that's the Nobel Prize for Education on UA-cam, sorry.
Edit: if this category is the whole of the internet, I nominate Salman Khan. Khan Academy saves the behinds of countless students on a regular basis.
Kave Sp. they don’t have one for math
every research leans on giant shoulder now, i think there's no such a lone genius without inspired by another genius
Allan Powell Goffe, Henry Thomas Sampson Jr., Patricia E. Bath, Jewel Plummer Cobb, Bettye Greene, Percy Julian, Ernest Just, Henry Aaron Hill, Marie Maynard Daly, William Hinton, Warren Henry, and so many more amazing and deserving scientists of African decent.
Perfect, simple and concise analysis of the current situation. Keep te awesome work ;)
This video is fantastic. Very informative, thank you
Lol, took me a while to realize what was wrong with Heisenberg's picture
Alfred Nobel was one of the major weapons manufacturers of his time. He bought the Bofors Co and changed the production into advanced cannons for war. He also invented the smokeless gunpowder thus making it easier to see the combattants at the battlefields. Today the Nobel Prize is still sponsored by the weapons industry (SAAB) with a direct connection to Nobels Bofors.saabgroup.com/sv/responsibility/contr/contribution-to-social-development/saab-and-nobel/
Mathematics = Fields Medal
Computer Science = Turing Award
Nice one - really enjoyed this. And great that you credited Molly's book: it's awesome.
I think there should be prizes for environment and technology. environment because it just needs the attention of the public and technology because, well... it's practicly our everyday life...
environment should be under peace
Actually Wangari Muta Maathai won a nobel peace prize for both her contribution to sustainable development and peace, so in a way environment is not totally forgotten (although it is the only example I know)
Morningblossom Environment makes sense
What about education?
Also science is getting more and more collaborative so it’d be hard to just award one or 3
Loved the video, direct and thought provoking!
Hi what program do you use to edit your videos?
I think there should a be a Nobel prize in the UA-cam category. It's Okay To Be Smart should win!
I totally agree with you regarding the Nobel Categories ! But not for sure the youtube videos .LOL !
I totally agree with you Joe. You made a good point there. Everything is changing so fast, especially IT Information & Technology these days. Therefore they, Nobel Prize Foundation, should think seriously the category or the field of sciences, I guess.
Ah I love this video! Firstly, great new style/editing.
So I've never been interested in the Nobel prizes and could only name you Higgs out of the winner from the last 10 years. Probably because being a whole-organism biologist, they never have any in my area (with the exception of Tinbergen, Lorenz and von Frisch) so I definitely agree they should add more subjects to the almost-Nobel list. (And scrap the Peace Prize - I mean, it's such a joke nowadays)
...
true, peace prize is just a comedy.
Perhaps in the early 20th century that could be true, but I don't think many working scientists today would tell you that's how science is done. Science progresses through the remixing of previous ideas and self-corrects through collaboration and cooperation. Is the "lone thinker" idea just a historical fiction?
You did such a good job with the video footage, lighting, audio, text script, etc. You know that already though.
All of these awards are actually quite meaningless when you really, really, really think about it. They might play a role in promoting science but using them as measurement of "scientific greatness" is quite shallow.
Because they somehow assume that scientific work, in any kind of science is a conducted totally by certain individuals and such individuals deserve all of the credit. Which are totally not how science works, it doesn't work like that now and it has never worked like that in the past. All achievements now are built on the foundation of the past, every scientist is just adding a new layer on the quest of mankind for knowledge. One layer is as crucial as another layer, missing one layer and the structure shall collapse.
i think it should be awarded to all of those who have made useful or revolutionizing discoveries/inventions.
I could get behind that. It could get a bit technical though.
The title should be changed to "Do the scientific Nobel Prizes Still Make Sense in the 21st Century" because the peace prize stopped making sense a long time ago, and the literature prize is not relevant to the video either.
Insightful, thanks.
it's funny that he invented the prize to escape the ignominy of creating dynamite and now that's basically mentioned every time we bring up the prize...
Hahahahaha lol
Nobel prize value & awarding process should always remain high.
I loved the part where Joe said that James Watson is weird and mean
thank you for your summary, since it was stated that wining for individual work to thank that person for his committment on scientific work, it is not fair to award thousands for a work that deserve as you claim nobel prize for its final result. Take for example goverments who may accedently find their result meet nobel prize but when you analyize work done, you may end up by borrowing nobel prize winners paper work. It may be fair to keep the conditions as they are.
And also, let's talk about nobel prizes for the humanities and the social sciences! It's not like they're doing nothing worth of appreciation or nothing that would help understand where humanity came from and where it will be going! Why isn't anyone ever considering that?
I second your "weird and mean" comment (I've also met that man).I find it thought provoking that in a time when more women enter college (and, in my field, more women enter grad school) that women are still under-represented at the highest levels. It's not that women aren't interested! It's that few of us are willing to fight the entrenched misogyny. I know I wasn't.
Let's have a special Nobel, the Franklin Nobel, for women who should have been nominated but weren't because they lacked testes.
Great video - IMO, the Nobel prizes have become like the Oscars - more to do with the politics of the establishment than actually rewarding true talent.
Also - thanks for the callout on Watson. Never met the man but I've not heard many good things about him. I'll just paraphrase a quote I heard from Monod many years ago about Watson and Crick, "Never before have people perceived such great shadows from such midgets."
I think it boiled down to one question then : should we reward the cause over the person and not vice versa? It would save a lot of money and actually help the winner(s) to use the money to further their research.
Why do you need a Nobel Prize for math when we have Field Prize?
There should be many more categories
If I can, I would reward you, Joe for teaching me and the many other people science by a super interesting, amusing and pleasant way.
I hope you read my comment, that is all I can reward you for know.
The "" race "" and gender problem is due to AGE, they're awarding people who were born in the 50s and then there were very few women and not whites who studied or were allowed to study, in contrast nowadays the countries with most papers are USA, the EU, China and India, and women represent around 40% in chemistry and 60% in biology / medicine, just 25% in phisics tho
With all that said, the prices are going to be much more diverse in 50 years just because they are awarded to old men and women
Also, specific fields have prices a lot more important than the Nobel, just less knowm
prices of any kind never have been relevant
I think the point about the death of the "lone genius" is the strongest here. Usually when there is a newly-expanding research topic, you would have numerous research groups around the world working on it, each group consisting of at least 2 people (a professor and a doctor or graduate, maybe even more). This easily passes the 3 person limit. And now, how do you select who wins the prize?
I think most scientists don't even care about getting a nobel prize, they feel much more rewarded from getting grants and funding for their research. Nobel prizes serve more as a way to communicate science to the public, and to turn scientists into superstars. This is even more important in an age where being a superstar involves participating in reality shows or mumbling into a mic and adding "Lil" to your name.
The Nobel prize has gained the prestige to serve this cause, and creating a new award out of thin air won't achieve that effect immediately.
I would say maybe remove the 3 person limit, and reward the research lab rather than one person, but have the head of the lab represent the lab. Not optimal but could be better
Topics need a massive overhaul.
There was even a sociological study done (I think it was placed in psych/economics at the university level so the staff could actually do it), but it was titled "The Weirdest People in the World?" and showed that studies done on Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic people (as they normally are) cannot be representative of the worlds universals for human behaviour. That would deserve a prize in my eyes, even if placed in Peace.
I was still very devastated that only one or two laureate won their Nobel Prize but there are some great scientist or writer I think Nobel Prize should expand their contribution to other fields like Computer Science, Mathematics, Statistics etc .
You shall get a Supernobel cuz youre that osom! Hank from sci show gets one too... and Michael from Vsauce and a few others too.. :)
That's a very important discussion. I think we should not put that much credit on a single prize, although unfortunately the Nobel Prize has been by far the most prestigious one. In my opinion, the mentioned fields of Mathematics and Ecology are pretty well represented in other awards like the Fields Medal and the Crafoord Prize, respectively. Btw, the last one is given by the same swedish institution responsible for some scientific Nobel Prizes.
There's also the Breakthrough Prize, which I believe might become a "thermometer" for future Nobel Prizes in equivalent categories.
Have you reviewed LOSING THE NOBEL PRIZE by Professor Brian Keating? Interview him?
They should make Biology a category
I guess it is included in Physiology/Medicine category.
It's always James Watson(& Crick too i guess)
Molly Oldfield's secret museum has an article about Nobel's will... I would recommend everyone to pick up this gem of a book!
I just think they need to make more categories.
I think if there was an energy category from the beginning, it would be ... so much better. Probably.
Good video we need more talk on this and the comments are toxic
Funny, I was thinking about Nobel prizes right before opening UA-cam and seeing it here
To me the most interesting part of science is "lone thinkers" coming up with ideas and insights. Isn't that, what drives research?
I'm from Sweden(where the nobel prizes are awarded) and I think there should be more categories but I just don't get why they can't share the prize between people that have been doing things together....
Sheldon and Amy won, it should be the 3 of us but nah
Perhaps the Nobel Prize Committee should take a page out of Improbable Research's book and make categories to fit the research/people they find most deserving. This year, Ig Nobel prizes were awarded for Archaeology, Public Safety, and Probability, in addition to other, more usual categories.
It depends not only on the century, but also the area of research: I would agree with you, that in medical or biotechnology research nobody suddenly comes up with a brilliant new "theory", that is totally game-changing. But in theoretical physics it could be the case. Also in neuroscience a completely fresh, theoretical approach could lead to more interesting experiments than ceaseless imaging. I think figures like einstein, von neumann, newton etc. give plausiblity to the "lone-thinker"-idea.*
There is none for Art, Dance, Music, Sociology, Cultural studies, and I think in a growing global world, those are as important and 'scientific' as science fields
Nobel prizes are still relevant.
Definitely agree! Noble price is just an old relic and we should move pass that.
I'm learning about alfred nobel
Of course, the problem could be paying the discovery. Though it could work as research funding.
great video - extremely interesting & thought provoking
I think a better idea would be to "reform" the rules created after Nobel's own suggestions, in a way that can heavily reflect his idea but would still be open to changes. For one thing, I'm talking about dismissing the sense of "achievement" (even though that might totally be relevant) and focusing on one question: "Has this person made an indispensable contribution for the good of humanity?" Optionally followed by, "Would this reward encourage that very person, and others, to do the same for more years to come?"
Another thing I'm concerned about is the "pattern" you've mentioned in the video, but eluding another idea simply because it may either be controversial or you may have doubts on the matter (which is good journalism: "When in doubt, leave it out"). Even though being nominated by experts in a particular field gives some credibility to the nominee's accomplishment, don't you think that might actually keep the prize highly restricted to "certain sectors of the society"? For instance, there may be great achievers and selfless contributors, not unlike Ramanujan, in (let's just assume) a Third World country, but because that person himself may not actually be popular OR may not belong to a community of experts (in other words, that person has probably done plenty WITHOUT help from higher powers), then.... he'd actually be left out from the nomination?
Correct me if I'm wrong (because I think I actually might be), but the Nobel Prize, despite its purpose, doesn't actually seem to be a prize for individuals who have done somethnig good for the humanity. The "other" unspoken rule seems to be that, along with obvious worldly accomplishment, one needs to be "at the right place and time" (such as Harvard, Oxford, etc.) AND have agency / connections with other professionals that can nominate him for the prize.
So, are you the kid who just cured cancer but are still working at Starbucks or McDonalds to feed yourself, being unable to afford college fees? You're out of luck, my friend...
throughout history countless deserving women have had their work overlooked by the nobel system. these prizes are arbitrary and absurd
dont pay attention. Then all the awards thus far were awarded to undeserving white men I suppose.
If you don't like the prize, or think there's something wrong with it, or old, or something else, don't accept it. Or better, create your own prize.
James Watson! *shaking fist violenty in the air
It makes no sense for the simple reason that it takes more than those people awarded to make a discovery. What about those that toiled sleepless nights to push the meter of human knowledge forward, the ones who did the research that layed the foundation of the award winning discovery? They deserve that price just as much as the ones who won the popularity contest because let's be honest, that's what this is.
This was an excellent video.
I do believe that the Nobel prize is still relevant, but i also believe that more categories are needed and that women should be the recipients more often
I would honestly be in favor of getting rid of the prizes for Lit and Peace and instead recognizing Math and Biology. But even as someone in CS, I'm not sure about a prize in computing simply because almost any research that would be worthy of the prize is pretty much just math, so it seems redundant
No. That's not what he's suggesting.
He specifically said he sees it as a symptom of a larger problem and that problem isn't that more women don't *win*, it's that more women aren't considered for *nomination* even when their work is deserving.
Unconscious and (occasionally) deliberate bias is a problem in the scientific community at large and the lack of female nominees - and, as a result, female winners - is symptomatic of that problem.
Alftred Nobel came up with the idea of using his money for the annual prizes after his brother Ludvig died in 1888 and a French newspaper mistakenly thougt that i was Alfred himself who had died. The paper published: "The Merchant of Death is Dead". Alfred Nobel was directly involved, not only in dynamite buisiness, but also in armaments through his purchase of the steel Co Bofors which production he changed to milkitary weapons and thus became one of the world´s leading military weapons manufacturers.
I stopped paying attention to the Nobel Prizes when they gave Yasser Arafat one for peace.
having a youtube nobel prize might not be a good idea because 1. education is a small part of the tube 2. science youtubers don't make their own theorems and stuff, usually
but it would be nice to have a prize for more than a subscriber count
5:36 we fell into the trap of the circle game
Man, I should have just scrolled down before wasting my time playing with the pause button to find out the weird and mean laureate was James Watson!
there should be a Nobel prize for astronomy or at least music or the arts
Ummm... Gandhi never won the Nobel Peace Prize. So, there's that.
Because they were racist. The committee later admitted that they made a huge mistake.
Rob Thom
Stop playing the race card! Nobel Prizes cannot be awarded posthumously as he was assassinated before being awarded the Prize. There were many more worthy inventors in the field of science (such as Rosalind Franklin) who deserved a Nobel Prize (for her contribution to DNA discovery) and never palyed the race card. You should do the same!
nabi2310 Okay. Maybe calling them racist was a little glib. However, early Nobel winners predominantly favor European men and, later, Ivy league grads. In Gandhi's case, he was nominated 5 times without winning, the first nomination coming 11 before he was killed. You're right that racism is a strong term. However, the Nobel committee itself bemoaned their ignorance as you can read here: www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/peace/gandhi/
Rob Thom
If it were up to me, I would have awarded the late Gandhi a Nobel Prize and not Mandela. I am an atheist Iranian who experienced unimaginable physical racism in Hungary (when my parents sent me there to study) and it annoys me when people misuse the term. The reason that more Westerners win science prizes is because the Western nations are developed and civilized while we still stone people to death, kill atheists, gays, apostates, etc. In my home country, a woman's life is worth half a man's: www.amnesty.org.au/iar/comments/24123/
... And mother Teresa won one, and she was a pretty gruesome bitch. The Nobel Peace Prize has very little nothing to do with creating peace.
Don't really know why you would want Gandhi to win one though. When digging through some of his statements and letters, you'll find some pretty disturbing stuff.
I see your point but I don't see how that could be arranged. You can't give money to a discovery, only to a person or an institution.
good show, Johannes did deserve it after all ...
I spent about 5 minutes trying to pause the video at the right time to see who the weird and mean one was, and then was surprised they felt the need to quasi-hide it. James Watson is infamously dickish.
I came to know about Nobel prize when I was only 6 years old. From then I wanted to win one. I so much wanted to win one that now I as a doctor willing to become a Neurological Surgeon wanted to do something great for humanity. And just now all my dreams and reason for living is shattered. I have absolutely no chance of getting anything in life as I am 1) woman, 2) brown, 3) belong to a small country in southwest Asia 4) I am not associated with any Nobel Laureates work. I am doomed.
it's one of the few things we in sweden get attention for...
For a swedish guy, i feel like i should point out Astrid Lindgren. This was an author during a time when the general ide awas that women blonged in the kitchen. Instead she wrote books for children and teens during a time when nobody really talked about their situation. She was traslated to about 150 linguages or so, and several generations of children started reading because of her. She did not recieve a Nobel Prize in literature... but that's just my five cents ;)