Graphene Nobel Prize Committee Criticized For Inaccuracies

An anonymous reader writes "A leading researcher in the field of graphene has published a letter to the Nobel committee asking them to address significant problems with the factual accuracy of the supporting documents that laid the case for awarding Andrei Geim and Konstantin Novoselov the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics. Nature talks with letter author Walt de Heer about his claims that, aside from factual inaccuracies, the document diminishes the role of other groups and 'reads like a nomination letter.' At least one change has already been made by the committee."

value?

[phrostie]

Noble prizes no longer have any value or worth.
it's a social club, that is all

Difficulties with science

[toQDuj]

Well, this is an understandable result of trying to hand out science nobel prizes. The science these days is more the effort of many groups competing and collaborating than that of a single individual. Picking out an individual therefore, worthy of the Nobel Prize, is bound to be inaccurate. The prizes should be given to groups instead...

Re:value?

[levicivita]

You may well be referring to several categories of Nobel prizes (e.g. peace prize, or economics) which indeed have become (or have always been?) an avenue for the Nobel Committee to make political and cultural statements. That is rather transparent to any reader willing to go beyond CNN's coverage of the matter. However, the hard sciences' Nobel prizes are highly credible and are taken quite seriously. It is reasonable for people to expect a high standard, in my opinion. Factual inaccuracies in rendering the decisions cast an undesirable cloud on the decision making process.

Re:value?

[CheshireCatCO]

Nobel prizes (e.g. peace prize, or economics) which indeed have become (or have always been?) an avenue for the Nobel Committee to make political and cultural statements

The Nobel committee doesn't hand out the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economics. It's difficult to see how they'd then be using it to make statements.

However, the hard sciences' Nobel prizes are highly credible and are taken quite seriously.

The science Nobels have always been just as tentative and flawed as the Peace Prize. Einstein never was acknowledged for Relativity, for example. (He basically won it for the photoelectric effect work he did.) If you know many people in the sciences, you'll encounter more than a few with strong opinions about who should have gotten/shared/never received a prize.

Re:value?

[clarkkent09]

But why do they have to taint the science prizes by being so ridiculous with the peace prize? Kissinger, Mother Theresa, Arafat, Peres, Al Gore, Obama... Don't they realize that it seriously devalues the entire institution, not just the peace prize. I understand that it is given out by a different (Norvegian?) committee but Swedish Academy should separate itself from it or make them rename it or something.

Clearly Valuable

[andersh]

That is clearly just your [rather meaningless] opinion, and it's not representative of the world's view of the Nobel prizes.

Even the world's most populous nation, China, clearly believes the Nobel Peace prize is meaningful to the point of doing everything in its power to remove the stain on their nation's record!

What is your problem with the prize? Is it that you don't like Kenyan, Muslim heads of state (end of sarcasm)?

You present no arguments why the prizes have no value or worth, yet I can present any number of arguments, cases and quotes. Nobel Peace prize winners have gained the security and access they needed to further their work. From Wangari Maathai in Kenya to the recently released Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.

Re:value?

[Chris Burke]

I realize all that, which is exactly why I mentioned the Oscars, and winning a prize for something other than what the prize is technically being awarded for. So I think you are missing my point, which is:

In this instance, the thing that the Nobel Prize was technically awarded for was in fact deserving of a Nobel Prize.

When that happens in, say, the Oscars, people aren't complaining, they are nodding in agreement with the Committee's decision. An award that is both fully deserved for the specific accomplishment mentioned, and that is also a nod to further contributions, is doubly deserved and in that case does the opposite of degrade the award.

Your point, that this and other less defensible decisions by the Nobel Committee are all the result of fallible human standards is so uninteresting as to not even be worth mentioning. As if there could be an award for "the most important discovery or invention within the field of physic" that doesn't involve fallible human standards. What, you think there's an objective universal method of measuring "importance"? I doubt you do, so what's the beef? You think they could do better? Of course. What fallible human organization couldn't?

I think it's still the case that they have done better at awarding deserved prizes in science than the non-science prizes, and the Einstein example only demonstrates this (while this case may be a counter-example). If you're equating the two simply because they involve fallible human standards, then your problem is with the concept of a prize for "best" science.

Not uncommon

[geogob]

The kind of things that are pointed out in the letter are very common in the academic and scientific world. We see these kind of 'inaccuracies' all the time in scientific papers and talk, regardless of whether they have been peer reviewed or not. In this context, I even wonder why someone would be surprised to see this arise in Nobel prize nominations.

First, the nominations are based on sources themselves having such 'inaccuracies'. Second, the Nobel committee is just another form of peer review and is also prone to make such 'inaccuracies'.

Finally, I've read other post stating that politics are important in some other Nobel prizes (eg. Nobel peace prize) but, God forbid, not in Physics and similar. 'Politics' are always important -- not necessarily international politics or politics as most people mean it, but academic politics. It would be illusory to think otherwise.

Thoughts from graphene reseacher

[631i41]

I have worked with graphene for about a year now (I know, I joined the party a bit late) and have heard Walt speak a few times. It seems that Walt has always been a little bitter about this. Is his bitterness warranted? I think that he makes a strong case for himself and I am truly disappointed by the inaccuracies he has pointed out (they are substantial and valid in my estimation as novice scientist *see de Heer's letter*). There are a few things I'd like to add to the discussion. I do not doubt the merits of either Geim and Novoselov's or de Heer and Berger's work, both groups have made significant contributions regarding graphene and perform excellent work. The core conflict at hand, whether Geim and Novoselov deserve the prize, is a difficult one. And as so many others have said before, this is a process that is inherently human and susceptible to error. But should we not strive to be most scrutinizing and fair in deliberating the outcome? I know that Walt feels that he deserves just as much credit as Geim and Novoselov for his work; and I think that severely hurts his case (as others mentioned) by tainting it with a tinge of jealousy or bitterness. But the fact remains that he makes many very important observations about the inaccuracies, failures, and "hype" (for lack of better terminology) of the Sci. Bckgd. document which is (we assume) to be held to the highest standards. It is really sad to see this happen. It makes me wonder the true value of the Nobel Prize. Shouldn't our work itself, as scientists, stand alone as a testament to our efforts and value?