Nobel prizes are old: unfair to emerging scientists in the field-the Nobel scientists-IT information
October 13 October is the Nobel prize ceremony. In accordance with established practice, all award winners will be announced in early October gradually. For more than 100 years, the Nobel Prize is regarded as the highest title in the field of science and literature, in addition to the respect and cheers around Nobel Prize controversy has continued. Recently, the New Yorker website published an article that, Nobel rules of old, in need of reform to adapt to the new era of scientific development.
60 of the last century, luobote·Panen, a professor at the University of Washington (Robert Paine) found a strange phenomenon in coastal ecosystems. He observed that some special varieties of Starfish can make maintaining the delicate balance between biodiversity. These Starfish once removed from the coast, and coastal ecosystems as a whole will fall into chaos.
Thomas Paine invented the "keystone species" (keystone species), which is a concept. Biologists subsequently found in biota "keystone species", rainforest, grassland, and ocean, and even parasitic bacteria in the human gut are also present. Penn found this concept has become the guiding principles of ecology, and was applied to the human nature of policy. Like the mid 90 Americans kill again after the introduction of wolves in Yellowstone Park. Because, if there are no wolves to curb the development of deer, which eat all the vegetation of the Park out.
Dr Payne died in July this year, at the age of 83. Let us imagine, if he were not an ecologist, but a physicist or chemist, by virtue of such a far-reaching theory finds, enough to win a Nobel Prize. However it is unfortunate, but Penn is an ecologist, and duonuobeier none of the awards are "ecology Award", and doomed no matter how ecologists great achievements throughout his life will not be the "Science's highest honors" the Nobel Prize. By extension, Geologist, Oceanographer, meteorologist ... ... They are not science? But they missed the Nobel Prize.
Nobel's will, written in 1895, 120 years of vicissitudes, Division of field science differs from the previous. Not just physical, chemical, biological, three of the world, but to develop thousands of branches, subject of many predecessors did not expect. "Science" became rich, and established scientific prizes but no times. Leads to some extent lost today the Nobel Prize attracted the attention of the appeal. To be worthy of "Science's highest honors" the title, nothing non-upgraded his law.
According to Nobel Prize Sweden industrialists established Nobel's will. Since there is no direct heir, Sweden Alfred Nobel, the wealthy (Alfred b. Nobel) declared in the will of their heritage 31 million Sweden krona set up a foundation to honor those "outstanding contribution to mankind in the previous year". According to the discipline, Nobel drew up the "Physics", "chemistry", "Physiology or medicine", "literature", "peace", a total of five awards. (Later Sweden funded the creation of the National Bank for Economics, is also one of the Nobel prizes, but will not promise-the original) living in Nobel's day (second half of the 19th century), physics, chemistry and Physiology were the three most recognized subjects, three produced a series of great discoveries in the field. Then science spark, Nobel Prize like a master wishes, greatest scientific achievements was being awarded to: x-rays, radioactive substances found, artificial fertilizers as well as research on nuclear fission and so on.
In fulfilment of beginner's mind at the same time, however, because of its original award, Nobel had missed more. Such as is until the 19th century the rise of a discipline of ecology, ecology of even the world's first organization "United Kingdom ecology" was established in 1913. 1915, Wegener made the plates say, many natural phenomena such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, provides an explanation. Another subject, meteorology was only established in 1950, now facing dire global warming and environmental issues, meteorology and ecology plays an irreplaceable role. These emerging areas have been acknowledged are responsible for most public discussion of issues facing today's world small to save endangered species, the fight against earthquakes and typhoons.
Nobel prizes are without them.
The forest and the sea is essential to maintain the Earth's environment to live in, in these disciplines to address human question of life or death, but only because the establishment of late, they will be shut out from the prize.
Occasional exceptions. Agronomists Borlaug (Norman Borlaug) because of its wheat breeding research and was awarded the 1970 Nobel Prize medal. His research for the benefit of millions of people, more than all the physicists and chemists "saving" life. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change IPCC and Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize for his efforts on climate. But what's sad is, they are "Nobel Peace Prize".
This follow old potential Nobel Prize, some people think that old divisions are "pure science", but today many scientists including Nobel Laureate Nobel Prize old Division has been unable to adapt to the current pattern of scientific subjects.
In 2009, 10 scientists, including a Nobel Laureate jointly wrote an open letter, calling on Nobel Prize for the creation of new disciplines award. Their 68 years of "Nobel Prize" as a precedent for shows that keep pace with the additional award is breaking the rules, but when necessary. The request was eventually denied. View that the award of the Nobel Prize Committee to include today's generation the development of civilization.
If this continues, the Nobel Prize will actually bring a differentiation in the science. Only a few areas have won the Nobel Prize means injustice between the disciplines. Nobel Prize winners have the opportunity to get more visibility and research support, while other genius just because "wrong section" can only see people fresh. "Adherence to orthodoxy," the Nobel Committee probably would not think that such "unfair discipline" will not only hurt those who selected the development of leakage, over time, the overall progress of science is bad.
Above did not challenge the justice and winner of the Nobel prize selection achievements, great scientific discoveries is always exciting. However, compared to the achievements in physics, chemistry and Physiology or medicine, protecting the environment and saving a species is not as important? The Nobel Committee should be brave to reform itself, and update the stereotypes that set from the 19th century, so to really play a role in encouraging scientific development.
诺贝尔奖被批陈旧：对新兴领域科学家不公平 - 诺贝尔,科学家 - IT资讯
10月13日消息十月是诺贝尔奖的盛典。按照惯例，所有奖项的得主都会在十月上旬陆续宣布。一百多年来，诺贝尔奖被视为科学和文学领域的最高桂冠，在崇敬与欢呼之外，围绕诺贝尔奖的争议也一直不断。近日，纽约客网站就刊登一篇文章指出，诺贝尔奖规则陈旧，亟需改革以适应新时代的科学发展。
上世纪六十年代，华盛顿大学教授罗伯特·潘恩（Robert Paine）在海岸生态系统中发现一种奇特的现象。他观测到，几种特殊的海星品种能够让多种生物之间维持微妙的生态平衡。而一旦人为将这些海星从海岸上去除，整个海岸的生态系统便会陷入混乱。
潘恩由此发明了“关键物种”（keystone species）这一概念。随后生物学家们在各种生物群中找到了“关键物种的存在”，雨林中有，草原和海洋中有，甚至人体内脏里的寄生菌群中也存在。潘恩所发现的这一概念现今已成为生态学的指导理论原则，并被应用于人类的自然政策。比如90年代中期美国人在把狼赶尽杀绝之后又重新将之引进黄石公园。因为，若没有狼来遏制鹿群的发展，后者会把整个公园的植被都吃得一干二净。
潘恩博士于今年七月去世，享年83岁。让我们试想，如果他不是一个生态学家，而是一个物理学家或化学家，凭借如此影响深远的理论发现，足以为其赢得一枚诺贝尔奖。然而不幸的是，潘恩偏偏是个生态学家，而那么多诺贝尔奖中没有一个是“生态学奖”，于是便注定了无论生态学家作出多大成就，终其一生也无法获得“科学最高荣誉”诺贝尔奖。推而广之，地质学家、海洋学家、气象学家……他们研究的不是科学吗？然而他们却与诺贝尔奖无缘。
诺贝尔的遗嘱写于1895年，一百二十年沧桑变化，如今科学的领域划分大不同于以前。不再只是物理、化学、生物三分天下，而是发展出千万条分支，许多前人未曾料到的学科。“科学”变得丰富，而科学奖项的设立却没有与时俱进。某种程度上导致了今天诺贝尔奖失去了引得万众瞩目的吸引力。要想再对得起“科学界最高荣誉”这个称号，非升级无以他法。
诺贝尔奖当初根据瑞典工业家诺贝尔的遗嘱设立。由于没有直系继承人，瑞典富豪阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔（Alfred B. Nobel）在遗嘱中宣布利用自己遗产中的3100万瑞典克朗设立一个基金会，用来表彰那些“在前一年为人类做出卓越贡献的人”。根据当时的学科划分，诺贝尔拟定了“物理学”、“化学”、“生理学或医学”、“文学”、“和平”共五个奖项。（后来瑞典国家银行出资增设经济学奖，虽亦属诺贝尔奖之一，但并非诺式遗嘱所原有）在诺贝尔生活的年代（19世纪后半叶），物理、化学和生理学是当时最为人公认的三大学科，三个领域产生了一系列伟大发现。随后科学星火向前，诺贝尔奖也如立主所愿，陆续颁给了最伟大的科学成就：X光、物质放射性的发现、人造化肥以及核裂变研究等等。
然而在履行初心的同时，因其原始的奖项设立，诺贝尔奖错过了更多。比如生态学是十九世纪之后才兴起的一门学科，即便世界上最早的生态学组织“英国生态学会”在1913年才得以成立。1915年魏格纳提出板块漂移说，为地震和火山爆发等许多自然现象提供了解释。另一个学科，气象学更是在1950年才建立，而今面对岌岌可危的全球变暖和环境问题，气象学和生态学发挥着不可替代的作用。这些新兴领域一直在临危受命负责面对当今世界最为大众热议的问题：小到拯救濒危物种，大到对抗地震和台风。
而诺贝尔奖就是没有他们。
森林和海洋是维持地球环境可居住的关键要素，这些学科在解决人类生死攸关的问题，然而仅仅因为创立的晚，他们便被诺奖拒之门外。
偶有例外。农学家博洛格（Norman Borlaug）因其小麦育种的研究而获得了1970年的诺贝尔奖章。他的研究造福了亿万人，比所有物理学家和化学家“拯救”的生命都多。2007年，政府间气候变化专门委员会和戈尔也因在气候问题上的努力而被授予诺贝尔奖。不过让人唏嘘的是，他们获得的都是“诺贝尔和平奖”。
面对诺贝尔奖的这种因循旧势，有人认为老式分科才是“纯科学”，不过今天很多科学家包括一些诺奖获得者都表示诺贝尔奖守旧的科目划分已经不能适应当今的科学格局。
就在2009年，包括一名诺奖得主在内的十位科学家联名写了一封公开信，呼吁诺贝尔奖增设新学科奖项。他们以68年增设“诺贝尔经济学奖”为先例，说明与时俱进增设奖项并非破坏规矩，而是时务之必要。该请求最终遭拒。诺奖委员会认为现有奖项足以囊括当今世代文明的发展。
如此下去，诺贝尔奖实际上会在科学研究者中带来一种地位分化。只有少数领域能够获得诺奖意味着学科之间的不公正待遇。诺奖得主有机会得到更多的知名度和研究支持，与此同时另一些天才则只因为“选错了科”而只能看人新鲜。“坚守正统”的诺奖委员会恐怕不会想到，如此的“学科不公”不仅会挫伤那些漏选学科的发展，长此以往，对科学整体的进步亦是不利。
以上所说并非质疑诺奖评选的公正和得主成就，伟大的科学发现总是动人心弦。只不过，与物理、化学和生理医学上的成就相比，保护环境与拯救一个物种不是一样重要吗？诺奖委员会应该勇敢改革自身，更新那套传承自19世纪的陈旧观念，如此才能真正起到激励科学发展的作用。