Why Is There No Nobel Prize In Technology? (qz.com) 148
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: As the world focuses its attention on this year's recipients of the planet's most prestigious prize, the Nobel, it feels like something's missing from the list: technology. Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel established the prizes more than century ago with the instruction that his entire estate be used to endow "prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind." The categories laid out in his will -- physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and peace -- have remained the basis of the awards, and a prize for economics was added in 1968. So, what gives? Why only those five original fields? Nobel didn't say, revealing only that he made his choices "after mature deliberation."
One way of looking at it is that when he was designing his categories, he wanted the prizes to only reflect advances in fundamental science. In this view, "lesser" sciences such as biology, geology, or computer science -- or technology-driven fields such as engineering or robotics -- don't qualify. As genome-sequencing pioneer Eric Lander once said, "You don't get a Nobel Prize for turning a crank." But what then of literature and peace, or the newer prize for economics (an applied science at best, and a pseudoscience at worst)? Technology isn't the only field to get the cold shoulder. Mathematics -- the international language, the foundation of so many scientific pursuits, and arguably the most fundamental theoretical discipline of all -- doesn't have a Nobel Prize, either. Mathematicians have complained about this for decades. One story suggests that Nobel disliked the Finnish mathematician Rolf Nevanlinna, and assumed that he would be the first winner of the mathematics prize, if he decided to award one. Alternatively, math undergraduates are often told that Nobel was jealous of a Swedish mathematician who had an affair with his wife (though this story is ruined by the fact that Nobel didn't actually have a wife).
One way of looking at it is that when he was designing his categories, he wanted the prizes to only reflect advances in fundamental science. In this view, "lesser" sciences such as biology, geology, or computer science -- or technology-driven fields such as engineering or robotics -- don't qualify. As genome-sequencing pioneer Eric Lander once said, "You don't get a Nobel Prize for turning a crank." But what then of literature and peace, or the newer prize for economics (an applied science at best, and a pseudoscience at worst)? Technology isn't the only field to get the cold shoulder. Mathematics -- the international language, the foundation of so many scientific pursuits, and arguably the most fundamental theoretical discipline of all -- doesn't have a Nobel Prize, either. Mathematicians have complained about this for decades. One story suggests that Nobel disliked the Finnish mathematician Rolf Nevanlinna, and assumed that he would be the first winner of the mathematics prize, if he decided to award one. Alternatively, math undergraduates are often told that Nobel was jealous of a Swedish mathematician who had an affair with his wife (though this story is ruined by the fact that Nobel didn't actually have a wife).
Technology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Better still, Technology is just applied physics.
Re:Technology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better still, Technology is just applied physics.
Oops. You've triggered the obligatory xkcd. [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Technology? (Score:4, Insightful)
The XKCD missed Philosophy..... Mathematics is applied Philosophy :-)
Re: (Score:3)
No. Mathematics is real. Statistics is applied Philosophy.
Re: (Score:1)
Math is logic which is a branch of philosophy. The study of knowledge of any kind is philosophy.
Anything that you can get a Doctor of Philosophy in is, well, philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The study of knowledge is epistemology.
Logic is a subcategory within Epistemology, and within logic there is Mathematical Logic, and Mathematics derives from the combination of Mathematical logic and other branches of philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's applied, it's not philosophy
Re: (Score:1)
Want a 'technology' prize? Invent a better transistor based on new physics. They awarded the prize to the original transistor - which was 'a better triode using newfangled solid-state physics'. So, no problem getting a tech prize - for the physics enabling the tech.
The Nobel prize is more needed in basic research. Someone who invents the 'desktop computer' or 'the smart phone' has a good chance to get rich directly from the invention itself.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Technology? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the previous winners is for the invention of the Blue LED. Wouldn't that be considered technology?
However much of technology today would fall under one of the areas of key sciences.
However most ground breaking technology often comes from being in the right spot at the right time. The Desktop Computer, Should Woz Get a noble prize for that? Yes it had changed the world in a big way... However what he did wasn't any breakthrough He just put a lot of purchased chips together and sold it as a kit. If he didn't do it, there were thousands of other people who could have done this, as making a personal computer was a hobby at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Technology is the reduction of labor required to produce a result. Look at artisans versus the assembly line versus cellular manufacture--especially since assembly lines and cellular manufacture use the same tools, yet cellular manufacture is faster and uses less labor. That's technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the previous winners is for the invention of the Blue LED.
The LED itself is technology. What he got the prize for was not the LED, but the physics that made it possible to manufacture the LED.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the previous winners is for the invention of the Blue LED. Wouldn't that be considered technology?
Maybe.... The real category that's missing is fundamental advancements in computation that are Shared with mankind; not patented for exclusive use or kept secret.
There's a fundamental difference between scientists who make discoveries and publish their work VS businesses who invent things or do things based on their own science kept secret and marketed for maximum personal profits.
Re: (Score:1)
The 'breaking' technology of the Apple 1 was not simply that it was 'a bunch of chips put together' that anybody else could do.
The breakthrough was that it was a single board computer, complete. All you had to do was solder a power transformer onto it, solder a keyboard onto it, and plug in a TV set.
There were thousands of other nerds fiddling around with computer technology and microprocessors. It took Woz and Jobs putting together a single board design like they did and selling it with an ad in Kilobaud
because it was not in Alfred Nobel's will (Score:5, Insightful)
the Nobel Prizes are conducted in accordance with instructions in his will. that's how it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:because it was not in Alfred Nobel's will (Score:5, Informative)
And, technically speaking, it is not a Nobel Prize.
Re: (Score:2)
the Nobel Prizes are conducted in accordance with instructions in his will. that's how it is.
Should he be allowed to maintain those instructions forever, though? I think not. He has been dead LONG since he wrote that will, and a dead person can't hold perpetual interest in things. After perhaps 100 years or so following their death, the public ought to say his authority to direct use of the funds has expired, and they will be used in whatever manner is in the best public interest, Or if he create
Re:because it was not in Alfred Nobel's will (Score:5, Informative)
The foundation IS managed in accordance with the will, as upheld by Swedish law. Swedish law is incredibly strict in regards to modifying foundations after establishment, especially foundations built upon a will. The reason for that is because the potential for fraud is too great without those strict laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Call on line 1. From the vatican or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Call on line 1. From the vatican or something.
The Vatican? As if they're ones to talk. That's one of those oddball cities in Italy that is administered by cult leaders and still maintains the frivolous claim of being their own sovereign nation embedded inside another country, but they have no military so at the end of the day, their compound is at the mercy of the local authorities.
Re: (Score:3)
Technology is not a category in the same sense physics, chemistry, and physiology are.
Yeah, one could just as easily ask
- Why is there no Nobel Prize in Business?
- Why is there no Nobel Prize in Conservation?
- Why is there no Nobel Prize in Fisheries Management?
- Why is there no Nobel Prize in Cuisine?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, not in the spirit of why Nobel created the prizes.
Nobel created dynamite and various other explosives (far safer than the one previously invented by him). The problem was, when his brother died, an obituary in the paper was confused and thought he died. It said the "merchant of death has died" - given his inventions have killed people. Alfred Nobel, after reading this, realized that people might not think o
Re: (Score:2)
Technology is not a category in the same sense physics, chemistry, and physiology are.
Indeed, there are three technology prizes:
Re: (Score:1)
Technology is not a category in the same sense physics, chemistry, and physiology are.
And literature, peace, and economics are?
Dynamite (Score:1, Informative)
Because they do not want to give an award for something that turns out to be the next iteration of Dynamite.
Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Marketing is legalized lying.
In EU, lying in advertisement is a no-no. In USA, lying is protected by 1. amendment or something. And before you point out that this is a gross oversimplification, Matthew 7:3:
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. Lying in ads is illegal in both the USA and the EU. 1st Amendment free speech decidedly does not cover fraud. They're illegal in both places, but only if they catch you. And there's the ever popular "We didn't lie; we can't be blamed if you drew the wrong conclusions."
Re: (Score:2)
They're illegal in both places, but only if they catch you
Fair enough, I just assumed that in the context of this discussion law enforcement is follows presumption of innocence and other best practices of non-arbitrary law enforcement.
We didn't lie; we can't be blamed if you drew the wrong conclusions
I don't know about USA, but EU also covers deception in advertisement.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about USA, but EU also covers deception in advertisement.
In theory, yes. But when you watch ads on TV, hear them on the radio or see them on the internet you know that this isn't quite as accurate as some people would like it to be. In reality deception requires intent, which you'd have to prove in court. Something that is usually very difficult unless they were really sloppy with their 'artistic licence' in the ads.
Re: (Score:2)
deception requires intent
Perhaps in criminal case. In advertisement you can demonstrate that potential consumer is understanding the message incorrectly. If this is demonstrated, the first sanction is a warning and if the company withdraws its advert claims, no further sanctions are pushed. Usually companies comply, since such tends to get publicized and might hurt the brand.
Re: (Score:1)
Nobel prize, particularly Nobel Peace prize is a joke anyway, hardly prestigious considering that it's been awarded to the likes of: -
* Obama - for doing nothing, except his job, with quite questionable policies;
* Malala Yousafzai - for doing nothing, except running away from Taliban, seeking fame, and giving boring speeches, none of which are noteworthy;
* Aung San Suu Kyi - for committing ethnic cleansing and genocide against her own people, the Rohingya.
It's some-what of an insult if someone one the Nobel
Re: (Score:2)
Obama for not being Bush ... He was Just elected. Affirmative Action Nobel Prize Winner
Technology is not a science. (Score:4, Interesting)
And imagine every goddamn company promoting their product as worthy "technology".
"This year's Noble in Technology goes to Uber for their awesome app and innovative disruptive ride sharing technology!"
"This year's Noble goes to Elon Musk for his innovative disruptive genius idea that he got from a 19th century World's Fair."
Because technology is not a science (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology is applied science. Its Nobel Prize is a billion dollar company.
Re: (Score:1)
Because technology is not a science
Neither are literature, peace, or economics.
nebulous (Score:3)
Because technology is a vague and nebulous term.
And do you think someone should get a prize for inventing rounded corners or doing something that already existed - but on teh interwebses? Because if there was one, it would be shitcocks like them who win it.
Categories (Score:4, Informative)
"The categories laid out in his will -- physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and peace -- have remained the basis of the awards, and a prize for economics was added in 1968. So, what gives? Why only those five original fields?"
The summary/article forgot about the literature category.
Re:Categories (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Very true. It was actually a trick, to confer "Economics" (aka the upcoming neoliberal ideology, very close to the bank's cold hearts) the semblance of a science (which is not).
Re:Categories (Score:5, Informative)
They do half-way acknowledge that in that they say that the award for Economics was only added in 1968. But both the summary and the article seem to regard it as a real Nobel Prize, which it isn't. It's a "Nobel Memorial Prize", specifically named that to set it apart from the original Nobel Prizes, and funded differently. The Bank of Sweden funds it rather than the Nobel Foundation, but contrary to what the parent post said, it's still awarded by the Foundation--the Bank of Sweden has no say in who it goes to.
Re:Categories (Score:5, Informative)
And peace wasn't laid out in his will. It was added later.
Bzzt, wrong answer. "On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace - the Nobel Prizes." [nobelprize.org]
Physics (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Any advance in tech is from a development in physics or math fundamentally. "Technology" is too vague a term.
I agree with this sentiment. If there's a technology Nobel Prize it will just be Google or Apple or Microsoft or IBM or Samsung for the first few years, then once they see the marketing value they will corrupt it more than it already is (much like the Peace and Economics prizes which were added,) then before long, because there are so many technology companies clamoring for PR, you will end up with every prize going to some stupid Apple patent like "for the geometric construct of a rounded button" because
Re: (Score:2)
IBMers have won the Nobel prize 4 times already. Of course, they do real research.
Re: (Score:2)
Economists is why (Score:2, Funny)
Once the economists started getting awards, they didn't see any need to invest in further categories.
Technology has even better prizes (Score:5, Funny)
There is. It's called "becoming a billionaire, and probably also a household name".
There's also a Pulitzer in technology. It's called "Selling out to Google".
trendy tendy (Score:1)
Because 90% of 'great' technology is marketing hype and fashion trends.
because technology discovers NOTHING (Score:2, Informative)
The Nobel Prize is about discovery, technology is the act of monetizing existing science, not doing new science. Please.
Because they existing Nobel Prizes already are (Score:5, Informative)
Just look at some of the Nobel prizes in physics the last twenty years:
* Blue LED, and by extension white LEDs and low-energy LED bulbs. (2014)
* Graphene (2010)
* CCD (2009)
* Fibre-optics for communication (2009)
* Semiconductor-based integrated circuits (2000)
* Laser cooling (1997)
And chemistry:
* Nanotechnology (2016)
* Conductive polymers (2000)
All of those are more or less hugely important technologies ... that I as a non-physicist can have at least a fleeting grasp of what it is all about, so there may be something that I missed.
Many of the other prizes have gone to more fundamental science -- that may be used for some important technology in the future --
or to astrophysics or with applications mostly in medicine.
Re: (Score:3)
This should be hugely modded up;
As it pretty much answers the post and makes it redundant.
My Guess (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
still a large divide in access
Not as large as the divide in desire for internet.
Re: (Score:2)
It is that technology ultimately does not help everyone and really contributes to the wealthy elite more than anything.
Wha?
Technology is what transforms science into something practical that benefits real people. Mostly, it has benefited everybody. Some examples:
Food production (beyond simply gathering) ... etc.
Clothing
Shelter (beyond huddling in caves)
Writing
All of that is technology.
Just because there are specific technologies that primarily benefit a few doesn't tarnish the entire spectrum that is "technology".
And still no nobel for mathematics (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the Fields Medal not good enough?
The nobel in maths will be awarded 3 years out of 4.
Re: (Score:3)
Abel Prize: http://www.abelprize.no/ [abelprize.no]
Different subjects (Score:3)
Sciences require the experimental method and you are never sure of anything, just that the data fits the theories and for bonus points the theories make new predictions that when new data is gathered from measuring those predictions it also fits. Typically Nobel prizes in science are given for a few fields when someone comes up with the latter and the new predictions fit theory in some way that significantly advances the field and new work can then be built off of it.
Applied sciences, like technology and engineering don't typically create theory but simply apply the theory in a practical way that allows for the sciences to be turned into applications and products.
You can't offer too many Nobel prize catagories or it would be overwhelming, but at the same time just because a Nobel prize isn't offered for that type of activity it does not mean it is a 'lesser' pursuit nor does it mean its equivalent to 'turning a crank'
It's the Turing Award and it's given by ACM (Score:5, Informative)
Trust me, within the IT field, the Turing Award is considered every bit as prestigious as the Nobel Prize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ..bruce..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
candidate: "Well, I won the Turing Award."
Interviewer: "That's cool. Ok, we're going to do white boarding. Can you write out fizz buzz on the board?"
That's how it goes [joelgrus.com].
Damnit... (Score:2)
Why there's no Nobel Prize for Tech (Score:2)
Nobel realized this when a newspaper errantly printed his obituary, believing he had died. Like anyone else, Nobel was interested in hearing what would be said about him after he died. When he realized the answer was terms like "butcher," or "greatest mass murderer of ou
Fields Medal (Score:3)
Not really. There's the "Fields Medal" after all.
http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/fields/details/
One of those is worth about four Nobel prizes because, well, math, yo.
Re: (Score:2)
The age cutoff of 40 years old, which is oddly discriminatory. Would be nice if they updated it.
it's not about *applied* science (Score:1)
The award is about scientific discovery.... Technology rarely is discovery, it's applying other people's discoveries.
No Steve Jobs never deserved one, hah.
There's no Nobel Prize in Economics (Score:3, Informative)
Stop referring to the Nobel Prize in Economics. There's no Nobel Prize in Economics. There's the Swedish Central Bank's Prize in Alfred Nobel's Honour. It piggybacks off of the real Nobel prizes' good name. Every time you use the short name you take a piss on Alfred Nobel's grave.
This and calling the "Right Livelihood Award" the "Alternative Nobel Prize" are among my pet peeves.
Re: (Score:2)
There's the Swedish National Bank's Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel[sic].
Hey, thanks for clarifying that.
You know what, since that's kind of long, why don't we just call it the "Nobel prize in economics" for short?
Dunno about a Nobel (Score:3)
but there should be an Arthur C Clarke Award for "Significantly Advanced Technology"
Greatest Benefit (Score:2)
As for "the greatest benefit to mankind" that Nobel wanted to recognize, the list of Turing Award winners includes those who brought us personal computing, the internet, and the world wide web.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nothing. The "just invented" prize winners include the people who invented internal combustion, semiconductors and sliced bread. Oh, and a standing award for the faster-than-light people. See, it doesn't really matter how impressive the people who get your award are. Because they can get multiple awards.
The
Simple: the guy who laid it out didn't include it. (Score:2)
Because, simply, Alfred Nobel didn't think it worth having a category.
"On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace - the Nobel Prizes."
In 1968, the Swedish State Bank added Economics 'in memory of Nobel' and they are announced together, but technically it's not really a Nobel Prize.
It would certainly be within the realm of possibility that some super-ric
Need way more categories (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
Aside from "technology" not being a science, it's also such a broad term as to border on useless. "Technology" is just "applied science". Literally everything we make and do that involves using the results of scientific research can be correctly called "technology".
Details, details... (Score:2)
Alternatively, math undergraduates are often told that Nobel was jealous of a Swedish mathematician who had an affair with his wife (though this story is ruined by the fact that Nobel didn't actually have a wife).
Maybe the details of the story are just a tiny bit off... could it be that Nobel's jealousy drove him to seduce and have an affair with the wife of a Swedish mathematician? Hmmmm....
This Byzantine issue again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevanlinna was one year old when Nobel died (Score:2)
Uhm...who cares? (Score:2)
Some rich old dude left a bunch of money when he died for prizes to be awarded in four categories...and these prizes became pre-eminent in those fields. OK, so what? Why does that mean that we have to have a "Nobel prize for [insert name of pursuit here]"? Why don't we have a Nobel prize for movies (since there is already one for literature...why was film left out)? Who cares, we have the Academy awards, the Cannes film festival, the Golden lion in Venice, etc.
Similarly, in technology, we have the Turing P
I don't get how they have one for Literature (Score:2)
Less prize categories not more (Score:1)
There is... (Score:1)
There is no Nobel Prize for economics (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
Technology isn't the only field to get the cold shoulder.
Technology isn't a field - it's a buzzword.
Because "technology" meant something else in 1895 (Score:2)
When the prize fund was established at the end of the 19th century, the word "technology" described the study of practical applications of the "useful arts." So it was not really considered as a category of knowledge. It was just a descriptor to identify a place where you could go to study them, as in " École Polytechnique" or "Massachusetts Institute of Technology." The former was founded at the end of the 18th century and the latter in the middle of the 19th, and reflect the accepted definition of
Why is there no Nobel Prize for X? (Score:2)
There are five Nobel Prizes: physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. They are there because Nobel named them in his testament. He did not consider robotics, as there was no robotics at his time, and engineering in general was just craftsmanship. He also did not consider theology, philosophy, mathematics, social sciences, and psychology. This is most likely rooted in his time and his focus on the natural sciences. In his time, new findings in the natural sciences propelled mankind f
Re: (Score:2)
Here's your non-Bettridge answer : (Score:2)
There you are. He chose to not-say, for his own reasons. Unless someone uncovers a previously misplaced codicil to his will, or invents a time machine so he can be snatched from his death bed and tortured to get an answer (which may or may not be true), we don't know and will never know.
In the time-machine-torture scenario, it is entirely possible that by the time of snatching, h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are any good, you could win the prize for literature.