Subscription Center
As the 2008 laureates are announced, SciAm looks back at some of Nobel history's also-rans
October 6, 2008 | 28
 Lise Meitner--left out of the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of nuclear fission)
In 1907 Meitner ( left ), a physicist by training, began collaborating with German chemist, Otto Hahn ( right ). They worked together for 30 years until 1938 when Meitner, an Austrian Jew, was forced to leave Nazi Germany....[More]
 Oswald Avery--never won a Nobel for showing that genes are made of DNA, not protein.)
Avery was nominated for the Nobel throughout the 1930s, '40s and '50s, according to the late Nobel historian Burton Feldman--first for his work on antigens and later for his DNA research....[More]
 John Bahcall--left out of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics for research on solar neutrinos.)
Nobels in theoretical physics can be tricky. Albert Einstein famously never became a laureate for his relativity theories that shook the foundations of Newtonian physics because his predictions were not proved during his lifetime....[More]
 Albert Schatz--no 1952 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of streptomycin)
Until recently, the Nobel Foundation heavily favored senior scientists over their junior colleagues, according to Nobel historians. Schatz was a 23-year-old graduate student when he joined Selman Waksman's laboratory at Rutgers University....[More]
 Rosalind Franklin--her work on the structure of DNA never received a Nobel)
Although James Watson and Francis Crick's theoretical work sped up the process, many, including Crick, felt Franklin , with her X-ray photographs of DNA crystals, would have eventually solved the puzzle on her own....[More]
 Jocelyn Bell Burnell--frozen out of the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of pulsars)
As a graduate student under Antony Hewish at the University of Cambridge, Burnell detected the first pulsars . She published her results with Hewish in Nature in 1968, and, in 1973, she and Hewish shared the prestigious Franklin Institute's Michelson Medal ....[More]
 Victor Ambros, Gary Ruvkun and David Baulcombe--missed out on the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology)
No one in the biology community denied that Andrew Fire and Craig Mello, the recipients of that year's prize in physiology or medicine, deserved a Nobel for their work on RNAi ....[More]
 Keith Porter--1974 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for innovations in cell biology)
The same year Jocelyn Bell Burnell missed out on becoming a physics Nobel laureate, Porter was overlooked for the physiology or medicine prize. In 1974 the award was shared by George Palade, Albert Claude and Christian de Duve--Porter's colleagues at The Rockefeller University....[More]
 Ralph Alpher--missed out on the 1978 and 2006 Nobel Prizes in Physics)
Alpher started publishing the papers that laid the groundwork for the big bang theory in 1948. At the time, though, the technology wasn't there to confirm his ideas....[More]
 Josiah Gibbs and Dimitri Mendeleev--missed out on the early Nobel Prize in Chemistry.)
Both Gibbs ( bottom right ) and Mendeleev had a profound influence on modern chemistry. Gibbs's work on chemical thermodynamics from the 1870s was well-known, but when it came time to award the first Nobel in chemistry in 1901, the honor instead went to a chemist whose work built on Gibbs's....[More]
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
How to Get More Bicyclists on the Road
Biotech's Plans to Sustain Agriculture
Readers Respond on "Knowing Your Chances"--And More...
The Dollars and Sense of Closing Schools for H1N1
50 Years Ago: Kidney Transplantation
Inflammation Brings on the Blues
Inhale or Don't?: Marijuana Hurts Some, Helps Others
Boosting Vaccines: The Power of Adjuvants
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
28 Comments
Add CommentQuite a few snubs. proportionally for the women don't you think? At least chemists come back and honor those snubbed. Meitner has an element named after her and Gibbs and Mendeleev are household words to us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very discouraging for the scientists if their efforts are not recognized. It is like artists performing in an empty theatre. With no recognition received, the artists won't be able to show excellence in their performance. So, if the scientist deserves the nobel prize and if he/she is excluded due to limitation on the number of scientists sharing it then the scientist who is left out should be given due recognition in the Nobel prize awarding ceremony or should be considered for the next year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is like anything else; there can be only so many winners.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery year there are LOTS of people, men and women who "deserve" the prize, but it comes down to the best of the best, as well as who is the most popular or has the most "pull". This isn't like the lottery, were any number of people can get lucky and hit the right numbers, this is governed by humans and humans are biased.
It's like a popularity contest for the Geeks :)
That is sort of a spurious argument, "NoblePrize".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience isn't a "performing art". Most scientists are way below the radar as it were. Most know they will never do anything "significant" in their field, and most know they will never win any prizes. Just like most of us, scientists are just people doing their jobs.
And the reward for that is a nice paycheck (most scientists can't complain too much about what they make), benefits and the respect of their peers.
I think they should give the nobel prize to the person who figures out how a TickleMe Plant MOVES when Tickled. There are many theories and it has been studied for centuries, yet know one knows for sure how or why it moves. I found great growing supplies to grow a tickleme plant at http://www.ticklemeplant.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that many scientists don't get credited for their work and that sometimes undeserving people get the credit for hard workers work is just another harsh reminder of how unfair life is. I hereby take my hats off to all those scientists and great people who were never recognised. The world may not have been fair to them, but we can still appreciate their magnificent work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not shocked that Robert Gallo did not share the Nobel Prize with Montagnier after the controversy over who discovered the HIV virus first. His work was tainted by his disturbing behavior. I find shocking that you would mention him as a person who should have shared the prize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSnubbery underscores the ultimate of a practice that is rampant in modern science, the phenomenon of Snobbery; it commonly takes the form of cronyism, where specific groups of "scientists", arranged by institution, (maybe even gender, race etc.) cohere to reward each other to the exclusion of all else, heaping accolades upon accolades to each other. For example, being affiliated to a particular group means your "work" is more "valuable" than everyone else's, never mind the real substance in it. So it's no surprise that such a fine mind is marginalized. I once thought to myself what would I do if I got offered a Nobel Prize? Probably would turn it down - it is becoming irrelevant - except that for PEACE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother Nobel snub is [the late] Dr. Theodore H. Maiman. In 1960, Dr. Maiman demonstrated the worlds first laser --- a ruby laser --- at Hughes Research Labs in Malibu, California. Prior to Maimans impressive demonstration, ruby was ruled out as a viable laser gain material, primarily based on its published optical properties. Maiman questioned these measurements and performed his own set of spectroscopic measurements on ruby, which showed that ruby, was indeed, a serious candidate as a laser gain media. The race to demonstrate the worlds first laser involved many world-class research labs, including Bell Labs. The competition was akin to a David vs. Goliath scenario, with Bell Labs highly supported, myriad groups of brilliant scientists and state-of-the-art labs on the one hand, and, Dr. Maiman, with his very limited budget and small group of researchers, on the other. On May 16, 1960, Maiman and his assistants observed the first beam of laser light on our planet. Being the first to observe laser action, in itself, represents a major achievement. Yet, perhaps even more impressive to winning the race, was Maimans understanding of the fundamental physics that underlie this beautiful device, coupled with his creative and inventive ability to combine optical, quantum mechanical, and spectroscopic principles in a coherent manner to generate coherent light. The Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for laser and maser investigations was awarded to three brilliant scientists: Drs. Charles H. Townes, Nikolay G. Basov and Aleksandr M. Prokhorov. The fact that Dr. Maiman was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize honor but, in essence, ended up in second place, does not do justice for a brilliant physicist who, in the opinion of many colleagues, placed first. In my humble opinion, Maimans not being recognized as a Nobel Laureate for his impressive achievement points to a flaw in the prizes selection process. See, for example, http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/people.php?id=1234591&lid=1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.
Another Nobel “snub” is [the late] Dr. Theodore H. Maiman. In 1960, Dr. Maiman demonstrated the world’s first laser --- a ruby laser --- at Hughes Research Labs in Malibu, California. Prior to Maiman’s impressive demonstration, ruby was ruled out as a viable laser gain material, primarily based on its published optical properties. Maiman questioned these measurements and performed his own set of spectroscopic measurements on ruby, which showed that ruby, was indeed, a serious candidate as a laser gain media. The race to demonstrate the world’s first laser involved many world-class research labs, including Bell Labs. The competition was akin to a David vs. Goliath scenario, with Bell Labs’ highly supported, myriad groups of brilliant scientists and state-of-the-art labs on the one hand, and, Dr. Maiman, with his very limited budget and small group of researchers, on the other. On May 16, 1960, Maiman and his assistants observed the first beam of laser light on our planet. Being the first to observe laser action, in itself, represents a major achievement. Yet, perhaps even more impressive to winning the race, was Maiman’s understanding of the fundamental physics that underlie this beautiful device, coupled with his creative and inventive ability to combine optical, quantum mechanical, and spectroscopic principles in a coherent manner to generate coherent light. The Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for laser and maser investigations was awarded to three brilliant scientists: Drs. Charles H. Townes, Nikolay G. Basov and Aleksandr M. Prokhorov. The fact that Dr. Maiman was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize honor but, in essence, ended up in second place, does not do justice for a brilliant physicist who, in the opinion of many colleagues, placed first. In my humble opinion, Maiman’s not being recognized as a Nobel Laureate for his impressive achievement points to a flaw in the prizes’ selection process. See, for example, http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/people.php?id=1234591&lid=1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.
As a Chemical Physics Ph.D. currently earning a living as a computer "guru" in Corporate America, I maintain a strong interest in following the "fellowship" I left behind in the world of scientific research. As with sports, entertainment, and other less noble pursuits, science, it seems, has also been "tainted" with the mistaken belief that there is a "best" {fill in the blank} and somehow the Nobel Prize is the reward for those who have achieved that lofty goal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomehow "we" (I include myself) consider the Nobel Prize to be the equivalent of an Oscar, an Emmy, or the Heisman trophy rather than being just another form of recognition - albeit a prestigious one - of the significance of a scientific discovery - one that has a severe set of constraints and an unpublished "model" for declaring its winners.
After reflecting on this article, I realize that I mistakenly took the lack of achieving a Nobel prize for contributing to a discovery as a statement that the contribution was somehow less significant than the discoveries which were acknowledged.
Not so - at least for me - any more. The 10 "Top" Snubs and the hundreds that were not mentioned each received, I am sure, their own measure of recognition. Their omission from the ranks of the Nobel Laureates does not diminish the significance of their discoveries or their contributions to science.
So from this day forward, I shall look at the Nobel Prize as a form of recognition coupled with a "lottery" draw. And like any of the other "prizes" and forms of recognition, it does not by itself mark the individual contributions at the "top" of that ever growing body of scientific knowledge.
I will still enjoy reading who receives future Nobel Prizes and what they did to qualify for one - would that there were an "also ran" listing of those who were considered but - for one reason or another - were not chosen...
How about the UCLA neurologist(?) who should have shared, along with
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHoundsfield, the Nobel Prize for the 'discovery' of the CT scanner- Dr. William Oldendorf. I believe that it was Oldendorf who laid the theoretical and mathematical basis for the CT scanner.
Kenneth R. Phillips, MD
Each year the Nobel Prize seems to be awarded more on political considerations and less on merit. The deliberations are secret, much like the secret deliberations of editors and referees of the so-called "academic journals" which publish the often censored so-called "scientific" articles describing their so-called "scientific" discoveries for which winners were awarded the prize. But we don't read or learn those many other rejected articles, often rejected out of prejudice in secret. Secrecy is the enemy of the truth. The internet is rapidly changing this. The academic orthodoxy which has controlled science for so many centuries is largely becoming irrelevant as are the so-called institutions of "higher" learning. In fact, it would appear that the more higher education Americans receive, the dumber they become. It would also appear that the members of the Nobel Committee need to go back to school themselves and re-learn the scientific method if they ever learned it in the first place. It would also appear they are just as brainwashed by propaganda media as most citizens. Joseph Paul Goebbels did his job well didn't he? It is also interesting that the Nobel Committee never admits an error or mistake. They are very similar to arrogant professors or members of government are they not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWinfield J. Abbe, Ph.D., Physics
Athens, GA
The history of the Nobel and scientific discoveries is riddled with missed/near hits, and forgotten names.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific snubs have nothing on the literary left-offs: Tolstoy, Ibsen, Zola, Twain, Proust, Joyce, Nabokov, Auden, Bellow, Roth...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFull list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature#Non-laureates_and_controversies.
In fact, many of the literary winners look very B-list now.
She is also forgotten for working out with her nephew Otto Frisch the process of nuclear fission and writing the paper on which explained it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShe is also forgotten for working out, with her nephew Otto Frisch, the process of nuclear fission, and publishing the paper on which explained it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter Waterhouse and Ming-Bo Wang also deserve a mention in the RNAi entry. Like the others who missed out, they've received prizes for their work recently. They received the Australian Prime Minister's science prize for their work (https://grants.innovation.gov.au/SciencePrize/Pages/Doc.aspx?name=previous_winners/PM2007Waterhouse_ming.htm)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislhpd [at 09:44 PM on 10/06/08] is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee for examle: http://www.aegis.com/law/journals/1995/GALLO001.html GALLO REPORT: Highlights of Executive Summary INVESTIGATION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE HIV BLOOD TEST PATENT DISPUTE AND RELATED MATTERS
This is just one of several official documents that have recorded Gallo's misconduct.
lhpd [at 09:44 PM on 10/06/08} is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, for example, http://www.aegis.com/law/journals/1995/GALLO001.html
"GALLO REPORT: Highlights of Executive Summary INVESTIGATION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE HIV BLOOD TEST PATENT DISPUTE AND RELATED MATTERS",
which is one of several official documents recording Gallo's indictent for misconduct.
It does seem like the Swedish had a distaste for women! Another great miss though not from Science was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhiji) who missed out due to colonial misconceptions. Gandhi reinterpreted (reinvented after they were lost in the dark ages) Christian principles for the modern age and are becoming ever more relevant in an era engulfed in violence and terrorism, Palestinian problem illustrates how violence cannot be defeated with more of the same!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay be scrapping the rule against Posthumous prizes would be a good idea.
But who loses more! Nobel prize is an overhyped phenomenon which recongnizes greatness way after the world recognizes true talent
Who cares about the Nobels? Science is about science, not celebrities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe conclusion from that 1944 article Avery et al. J Exp Med 79 (2): 137. (1944)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCONCLUSION
The evidence presented supports the belief that a nucleic acid of the desoxy- ribose type is the fundamental unit of the transforming principle of Pneumo- coccus Type III.
To the esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen of the Karolinska Institute, and members of the 2008 Nobel Prize Committee,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, and many thousands of others worldwide, in the name of Alfred Nobel, humbly ask that you reconsider the 2008 Nobel Prize award in physiology and medicine, revoking these prestigious awards to Barr�-Sinoussi and Montagnier until purification of a retrovirus that causes AIDS is fully, unquestionably and independently established and verified with a high degree of probability. After 25 years of ever increasing public doubt, Alfred Nobel himself would demand nothing less than the highest due diligence in this matter.
The reasons we find for revocation are many, but to be short and concise, I present to you the following facts:
Professor Bjorn Vennstrom, who was on the Nobel nominating committee, immediately after the award was given to Luc Montagner et al, said in a radio interview that he hoped the award would silence those who claim HIV does not cause AIDS. He said: "We hope this will put an end to conspiracy theories and others who defend ideas that are not founded in research".
Though we have difficulty understanding why a scientist would wish for anyone not to question any and everything, the only thing that will ever silence those who question HIV is not science by consensus or award, but credible science itself.
Pr. Vennstrom's words are evidence of his bias and of political and emotional viewpoint on this matter, and are not founded in the presented scientific evidences.
By the way, Vennstrom was also postdocing from 1980-1982 in San Francisco with Bishop and Varmus, who became oncogene Nobelists in 1989. But, there is as yet no evidence that "oncogenes" from human or animal cancers can transform normal cells to cancer cells. Yet, the question "why?" is no longer, "scientifically correct" since the Nobel Prize closed the case. Roma locuta causa finita.
Now the Nobel committee has done just the same with HIV, which Varmus' committee, including Montagnier but NOT Gallo, named Human Immunodificiency Virus in 1986 without proof that this virus can cause immunodeficiency (Science, 1986).
Another obvious bias on the Nobel committee, is Professor Jan Andersson, who was interviewed as the "spokesperson" for the committee selection of Luc Montagnier, immediately after the award to Montagnier was annouced. Professor Andersson is himself an HIV researcher with his own grants and "science" that is also highly threatened by those worldwide thousands who question HIV.
Quite obviously, these two Nobel committee members were instrumental in urging the 2008 committee to give Luc Montagnier this award. And in so doing, the committee has not demonstrated unbiased or credible science as their measure in awarding the prize.
It is crystal clear to many looking at this situation that bias, politics, and self interests are at stake.
Furthermore, the award to Luc Montagnier for purifying (isolating) HIV is unconscionable, considering that in a 1993 interview, Montagnier himself said about HIV, and I quote: "I repeat, we did NOT purify". [www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/dtinterviewlm.htm]
If perchance anyone ever does succeed in purifying isolated HIV from those said to be infected, it would at a minimum be required to have something more conclusive than Robert Gallo's presented "evidence" that HIV is the cause of AIDS, which evidence consisted of 36 out of 72 of his "AIDS patients" showing Reverse Transcriptase (RT) activity (Science 1984).
RT activity is NOT restricted, as was believed by former scientists and retrovirologists, to be exclusive to retroviral activity. RT is also known to be caused by yeasts and can also be detected in other occasions as well. RT activity is also not any proof whatsoever of disease causation by any retrovirus. Furthermore, "evidence of RT activity as causation" was only found in a mere 40 percent of his AIDS patients. 40 percent is far removed from any high probability of disease causation.
However, those worldwide thousands who DO question HIV as the cause of AIDS are indeed quite pleased that Gallo has been brushed from Nobel history.
Be assured, that as soon as "we who question HIV" have credible independent science to back Montagnier and Gallo's claims, such as purified retrovirus taken directly from the blood sera of immunocompromised hiv positives, such as evidence of high probablity of disease causation by such a retrovirus, we will be glad to silence our own questioning selves, and we will be glad to join with the believers of the faith that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Until then, I, and many thousands of others, in the name of Alfred Nobel, again humbly ask that you reconsider the 2008 Nobel Prize award for physiology and medicine, and revoke this prestigious award until purification and proof of causation of a retrovirus that causes aids is fully and unquestionably independently established and verified. I remind you again that Alfred Nobel himself would demand of you nothing less than the highest due diligence in this matter.
Unless you do so, the award itself becomes dishonored as a meaningless display of this generation's climate of unsupported scientific claims, based on bias, financial, and political motivations, consensus science, and popular belief instead of proven, verified, scientifically backed evidence.
To the esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen of the Karolinska Institute, and members of the 2008 Nobel Prize Committee,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, and many thousands of others worldwide, in the name of Alfred Nobel, humbly ask that you reconsider the 2008 Nobel Prize award in physiology and medicine, revoking these prestigious awards to Barré-Sinoussi and Montagnier until purification of a retrovirus that causes AIDS is fully, unquestionably and independently established and verified with a high degree of probability. After 25 years of ever increasing public doubt, Alfred Nobel himself would demand nothing less than the highest due diligence in this matter.
The reasons we find for revocation are many, but to be short and concise, I present to you the following facts:
Professor Bjorn Vennstrom, who was on the Nobel nominating committee, immediately after the award was given to Luc Montagner et al, said in a radio interview that he hoped the award would silence those who claim HIV does not cause AIDS. He said: "We hope this will put an end to conspiracy theories and others who defend ideas that are not founded in research".
Though we have difficulty understanding why a scientist would wish for anyone not to question any and everything, the only thing that will ever silence those who question HIV is not science by consensus or award, but credible science itself.
Pr. Vennstrom's words are evidence of his bias and of political and emotional viewpoint on this matter, and are not founded in the presented scientific evidences.
By the way, Vennstrom was also postdocing from 1980-1982 in San Francisco with Bishop and Varmus, who became oncogene Nobelists in 1989. But, there is as yet no evidence that "oncogenes" from human or animal cancers can transform normal cells to cancer cells. Yet, the question "why?" is no longer, "scientifically correct" since the Nobel Prize closed the case. Roma locuta causa finita.
Now the Nobel committee has done just the same with HIV, which Varmus' committee, including Montagnier but NOT Gallo, named Human Immunodificiency Virus in 1986 without proof that this virus can cause immunodeficiency (Science, 1986).
Another obvious bias on the Nobel committee, is Professor Jan Andersson, who was interviewed as the "spokesperson" for the committee selection of Luc Montagnier, immediately after the award to Montagnier was annouced. Professor Andersson is himself an HIV researcher with his own grants and "science" that is also highly threatened by those worldwide thousands who question HIV.
Quite obviously, these two Nobel committee members were instrumental in urging the 2008 committee to give Luc Montagnier this award. And in so doing, the committee has not demonstrated unbiased or credible science as their measure in awarding the prize.
It is crystal clear to many looking at this situation that bias, politics, and self interests are at stake.
Furthermore, the award to Luc Montagnier for purifying (isolating) HIV is unconscionable, considering that in a 1993 interview, Montagnier himself said about HIV, and I quote: "I repeat, we did NOT purify". [www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/dtinterviewlm.htm]
If perchance anyone ever does succeed in purifying isolated HIV from those said to be infected, it would at a minimum be required to have something more conclusive than Robert Gallo's presented "evidence" that HIV is the cause of AIDS, which evidence consisted of 36 out of 72 of his "AIDS patients" showing Reverse Transcriptase (RT) activity (Science 1984).
RT activity is NOT restricted, as was believed by former scientists and retrovirologists, to be exclusive to retroviral activity. RT is also known to be caused by yeasts and can also be detected in other occasions as well. RT activity is also not any proof whatsoever of disease causation by any retrovirus. Furthermore, "evidence of RT activity as causation" was only found in a mere 40 percent of his AIDS patients. 40 percent is far removed from any high probability of disease causation.
However, those worldwide thousands who DO question HIV as the cause of AIDS are indeed quite pleased that Gallo has been brushed from Nobel history.
Be assured, that as soon as "we who question HIV" have credible independent science to back Montagnier and Gallo's claims, such as purified retrovirus taken directly from the blood sera of immunocompromised hiv positives, such as evidence of high probablity of disease causation by such a retrovirus, we will be glad to silence our own questioning selves, and we will be glad to join with the believers of the faith that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Until then, I, and many thousands of others, in the name of Alfred Nobel, again humbly ask that you reconsider the 2008 Nobel Prize award for physiology and medicine, and revoke this prestigious award until purification and proof of causation of a retrovirus that causes aids is fully and unquestionably independently established and verified. I remind you again that Alfred Nobel himself would demand of you nothing less than the highest due diligence in this matter.
Unless you do so, the award itself becomes dishonored as a meaningless display of this generation's climate of unsupported scientific claims, based on bias, financial, and political motivations, consensus science, and popular belief instead of proven, verified, scientifically backed evidence.
Lets keep appreciating and remembering this people. The Nobel Prize is not the ultimate and final judge for their brilliant works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you "click to enlarge" on the photo of Ralph A. Alpher, you will see the statement that by the 1960s he had moved on to other subjects. This is incorrect. He continued to contribute to cosmology and astrophysics and correcting the history of the development of the "Big Bang" theory throughout the 20th century. His son, Victor S. Alpher, Ph.D., is continuing to write articles about Ralph A. Alpher's career, including his contributions to the war effort (1940-1945) and Cold War through development of ordnance and guided missiles, torpedo technology, and other areas. See www.ralphalpher.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be on any top 10 list is somewhat of an honor. The story of the "snubbing" of Dr. Ralph A. Alpher is a long one. My father's career had a major influence on my life. As an historian, being able to conduct research on his career has been a convenient frustrating and satisfying aspect of my life. After my father's passing, I began research on his Classified/Secret work during WWII (Naval Ordnance), which is interesting in itself as an aspect of Military History. In addition, biographical articles that would be of interest to many professionals and science & History of Science aficionados are listed on his website: www.ralphalpher.com. My aim is to do scholarly research, where there appears to be simple joy of familial relation I try to separate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this