Nobel Prize: Glory, bitter and things ...

Just like the medal always has the wrong side. The Nobel Prize, the most noble award for scientists throughout its history, has also had a lot of things to do.

>>>The interesting numbers of the Nobel Prize

Why do people refuse to accept and oppose the Nobel Prize?

In addition to the cases of political pressure, especially during World War II, in the history of the Nobel, there were also active scientists who refused to accept this noble award. In 1964, existential literary author Jean Paul Sartre refused to accept the Nobel Prize for literature on the grounds that he did not allow himself to become an institution even though it was the most glorious place. By 1973, Vietnamese political activist Le Duc Tho also refused to receive the Nobel Peace Prize because at that time the country had not really been at peace.

In addition to the official Nobel prize rejections, there are also many true rumors about the famous scientists refusing to accept this award because the award is unfair. Among them is scientist talent referee Nikola Tesla. He was the inventor of some electrical equipment, which many colleagues often copied his ideas. In a life of 86 years, Tesla received 800 patents.

Nobel Prize as well as a two-sided medal!

In 1915, according to media reports, Tesla refused to accept the Nobel Prize in Physics with Thomas Edison. Because he thinks that Edison himself has exploited many of his research works. Reportedly, Tesla had previously met Edison in the US and worked in Edison's lab. He was tasked with improving direct current machines, even in some cases far ahead of Edison's invention. However, Edison always denied Tesla's merits, eventually leaving the company and dying when "not a penny" in 1943.

Unlike the Tesla case, female scientist Elsie Rosalind Franklin, despite contributing to discover DNA double helix but was not recognized. She died in 1958, four years later James Watson received the Nobel Prize in Physiology. It is said that James Watson stole the X-ray diffraction picture in Franklin's DNA to explain DNA. Evidence in Nature's articles, Franklin's work is only third and again in the sense of contributing to the hypothesis of Watson and Crick scientists.

Photo: huongque.de

The hidden behind the Nobel prize even led to litigation. That is the case of the famous medical doctor Dr. Rongxiang Xu. He is said to be the father of human stem cell regeneration science. Studies of his ability to regenerate cells since 1984 have been applied to burn more than 20 million people in 73 countries around the world. Rongxiang Xu doubted the dishonesty and fairness in the Nobel Prize Council's evaluation and filed a lawsuit.

Dr. Xu's petition dismissed the work of scientists Shinya Yamanaka (Japan) and John Gurdon (England) who won the 2012 Nobel Prize in Medicine, which according to the Nobel Council's evaluation is reprogramming research. (or replicating) your human stem cells create a new opportunity to study diseases, develop new screening methods and therapies.

The Nobel Council has declined to comment on such rumors and includes other information regarding the refusal or opposition to the Nobel Prize. The council argues that those who refuse to receive the Nobel prize are absurd and that they can only refuse when the winner is announced.

Nobel Prize in modern times and inadequacies

Along with criticism of the Nobel Prize is not always fair, there is a view that the traditional assessment of the Nobel Prize is no longer appropriate in the trend of cooperation, diversity and interdisciplinary research. study today.

For example, in 2011, the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to two American scientists Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess with scientist Brian Schmidt, two US-Australian citizens who were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2011 for their research. their about supernova.

However, according to Martin Rees, former head of the Royal Academy of Royal Sciences and astronomer, all three astronomers won the 2011 Nobel Prize to work in two groups. The problem is that the Nobel Committee only limits awards to no more than three individuals. The prize will be more fair if it is done for all members of the two groups.

In the same view, Roger Davies, an astrophysicist at Oxford University in the UK, notes that the two research teams of the three astronomers included experts in observing, measuring, and analyzing techniques. data and also draw results from all these skills. Nobel laureates are just the group leader, although directing research but achieving results requires each member to make creative contributions.

Earlier, in 2008, in France many people publicly opposed the Nobel Council when Jean-Claude Chermann, who played an important role in detecting the HIV virus, did not receive the award while he worked together. work with two Nobel Prize winners in medicine that year were Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi.

The New York Journal of Science's editor, Roger Highfield, judged that large-scale collaboration is becoming an inevitable trend in modern science. Today's scientific breakthroughs come from dozens or even hundreds of individuals in labor groups, and the support of many different science sub-sectors. So is the problem only given to three individuals who have achieved justice?

There is also a view that giving Nobel prizes is not given to other sciences such as oil and gas, plastics, pesticides . are extremely useful industries for society, a false preference of the Nobel Prize Review Committee.

Scientists propose that, in the context of a rather blurred boundary between sciences, becoming more multidisciplinary, the Nobel Prize Committee should introduce new scientific contributions and change every year for fit.