The process of awarding Nobel prizes is gradually outdated?

Only being awarded the Nobel Prize for decades after important scientific discoveries took place could make this prestigious award no longer relevant. It is a warning of some scientists, given in the context of many researchers behind the great achievements will likely not receive important phone calls from Sweden.

>>>The 2014 Nobel Prize begins on October 6

This happened in 2011 when the Nobel committee announced that half of the Nobel Prize in Medicine would be awarded to Canadian biologist Ralph Steinman.

The risk of reducing the value of Nobel prizes

Soon after, it was learned that Steinman had just died before the announcement of the Nobel Prize for three days. The Nobel Committee acted exceptionally while still giving Steinman a prize, despite the rule that the prize was not given to the deceased. The committee said that they thought Steinman was still alive when making a decision, so the prize was still valid.

"If we keep going like this, there will be more cases (like Steinman) appearing. It's only a matter of time. So people have to do something to change this." Santo Fortunato, a physicist at Finland's Aalto University commented.

Ralph Steinman died at the time he was awarded the Nobel Prize

Earlier this year, Fortunato and several scientists wrote an article in the prestigious Nature magazine, showing that the process of waiting for the Nobel prize is becoming longer.'Before 1940, the Nobel Prize was awarded 20 years after scientific research was conducted, which accounted for only 11% of the physical prize, 15% of the chemistry prize and 24% of the medical prize' - the article wrote - ' However, since 1985, such prolonged delays have increased, accounting for 60% of physical prizes, 52% of chemical solutions and 45% of medical prizes. '

The article said that if the current trend continues, most scientists may have died at the time they were listed as Nobel laureates."This delay threatens to undermine the most prestigious award of science ' - the article broadcast a warning message.

Can not rush

Criticism reappeared, just before the 2014 Nobel Prizes were announced this week. Proponents of the current review process say that delay is caused by verification, confirming a scientific finding. According to them, this is a very complicated and lengthy process.

For example, the discovery of the Higgs particle was awarded only the Nobel Prize in physics last year, although this hypothesis of the particle appeared nearly half a century ago. Since the Higgs is a very elusive subatomic particle, its existence has only been proven in recent years, with the help of extremely large and expensive experimental studies. By the time the theory of the Higgs was proved right, one of the first three people to find it was physicist Robert Brout (Belgian-American), who died.

The Nobel Prize ceremony usually takes place in Stockholm on December 10 every year

But with Sven Lidin, chairman of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, the Higgs particle is a good example of why people can't speed up the award.'We want to make sure that we give prizes to those who open the first door to bring a new, deeper, scientific perspective. This means there will definitely be a delay in the awarding process - "he said - " It will usually take 20 years before the first opening factors are mature to become a Nobel Prize. "

And this vigilance is not unfounded. In 1989, two scientists once announced the discovery of a technique called cold fusion, which allows atomic nuclear reactions to take place at temperatures close to room temperature. This hypothesis, if proven true, can solve most of the energy problem that the world is facing. But 25 years have passed, the hypothesis has not been proven right.

"Every year, many people claim to have made a series of miraculous discoveries. But in the end, not many of them are just as miraculous as people thought ' - Lidin said - ' Because of that, I need something. Be cautious before making hails.

Alternative prizes are required

In the Nature article, involving senior scientists likely to miss the chance to receive a Nobel Prize, Fortunato came up with a solution: ' We should consider giving away the Nobel Prize. Obviously the recipients will not get much benefit, because they are dead. But I think it's important that their findings are recorded '.

However Lidin objected to this. According to him, the donation will lose the meaning of the Nobel Prize in helping the public see that science is an ongoing activity.

But even if the Nobel Prize continues to be given to living scientists, as the rule was first set in 1974, the ever-greater delay will make Nobel become the prize of 'high society. year old'.

According to researcher Matthew Wallace of the Spanish National Research Council, if one wants to provide young scientists with a benefit, one needs a prize to replace the Nobel prize. " To encourage innovation, creativity, there must be prizes given to young researchers and more researched in recent times," - he said.

The title has been reset by repository.