Slashdot Mirror


Nobel Prize for Medicine For MRI

andy1307 writes "American Paul C. Lauterbur and Briton Sir Peter Mansfield have won the Nobel prize for medicine for discoveries leading to MRI. Worldwide, more than 60 million investigations with MRI are performed each year, and the technique is ``a breakthrough in medical diagnostics and research,'' the Assembly said. The work was done on the 1970s. Lauterbur is at the Biomedical Magnetic Resonance Laboratory at the University of Illinois in Urbana and Mansfield is at the University of Nottingham in Britain. "

11 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finally! That's good. He had considerable opposition when he was developing the technology. Nuclear magnetic resonance didn't seem a good technology to make into a scanning system. His department chair cut off his funding at one point.

  2. Not to sound superficial or whiny, but... by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Monday's prize honors pioneering work done in the 1970s that laid the groundwork for making MRI a useful method, the assembly said.

    Heck, the first whole-body MRI scanner was finished in 1977 -- and the Nobel Prize is being awarded just now? What am I missing on how long it takes for the committee to conclude that something has been revolutionary? I realize that Nobel Prizes must be awarded in hindsight, and that belated high-stature recognition is of course better than none at all, but the time gap still seems a little excessive to me.

    1. Re:Not to sound superficial or whiny, but... by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I realize that Nobel Prizes must be awarded in hindsight

      Well, one of the criterias is that the discovery has benefitted the mankind.

      To my mind, one or two decades is an absolute minimum for such a conclusion. I'd rather see the honour bestowed posthumously - these professors don't do anything with the money they get (at least in the large-scale experimental physics the prize is peanuts compared to the real yearly budgets) and they're too old to really benefit from the fame too.

    2. Re:Not to sound superficial or whiny, but... by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd rather see the honour bestowed posthumously

      Whoa! A scientist who's worked hard enough to win the Nobel Prize should at the very least live to see it, and enjoy the peer acclaim of having gotten one, if not for the monetary commendation.

      And yes, if they've done enough to contribute so much to society, you cannot spare a few hundred thousand dollars to them just because they're old?

      Remember, age is not a deterrent to feel accomplished -- and this is something that should not be taken away. They deserve atleast this much.

    3. Re:Not to sound superficial or whiny, but... by Mononoke · · Score: 3, Insightful
      A scientist who's worked hard enough to win the Nobel Prize should at the very least live to see it...
      Any scientist who's worked hard enough to win wasn't attempting to win anything.

      The unrestricted 'grant' money is quite nice, though.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  3. why such a delay? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why are the Nobel Prizes always awarded so long after the prize-winning research has taken place? Is it part of the charter to make sure that the advance that's being rewarded is truly beneficial?

    1. Re:why such a delay? by HardCase · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why are the Nobel Prizes always awarded so long after the prize-winning research has taken place? Is it part of the charter to make sure that the advance that's being rewarded is truly beneficial?


      It's so that they know that the advance that is being rewarded is really an advance and not a mistake. For example, up until Michelson's experiments, the prevailing theory was that outer space was not a vacuum, but rather space filled with some sort of aether that allowed electromagnetic radiation to propagate. After all, there has to be some kind of medium for waves to propagate in, right?


      -h-

  4. 'Tis not uncommon by SiMac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look at the list of previous winners. It's usually a long time before a Nobel prize is awarded.

  5. Nobel has always been that way by bluGill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Nobel prize has traditionally been very slow to make awards. They are based not on scientifi merit, but significant scientifi merit. The committe has been burned a few times in the past when the awarded a prize for something that seemed revolutionary and worth a prize today, only to have significant flaws develope meaning the work that seemed for revlutionary is insignificant in 20 years. This work may have seemed cool 20 years ago (though other posters dispute that), but it has since shown lasting value to sciencie.

    Remember, Nobel himself was interested in science for the sake of improving people's life. Science for science sake didn't really interest him. (More in the math FAQ on why there isn't a math award) Nobel himself wouldn't have wanted this award given in the '70s just in case it didn't pan out.

    One other point, the committe takes into account personal background. If you deserve an award, but they feel your personaly life would lead you to "wasting" it, they will give the award to someone else. Turn your life around, and you may suddenly get an award at 60 for something you did when you were 25.

    Of course the nobel committies are political. Some awards are given far too soon, and others are ignored for less achivements of "lesser" merit. Overall though, they do a fairly good job.

  6. Re:exaggeration by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thanks to the insane lawsuit culture in the US, people get MRI's for just about anything. Complain to a doctor about a heachache, ear pain or something similar and a referral for an MRI will be right behind the amoxicillin prescription.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  7. Re:No need to register, here's the text! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just a quick point for anyone since your leaving a link to your website. The claim that these injections build up muscle tissue in not supported well by research. From website

    "This proliferant solution causes an irritation that brings a blood flow into these areas allowing them to rebuild and finally heal the damaged soft tissues"

    While a step above healing magnets this process does indeed operate by the same principal. Ie increased bloodflow leads to increased healing.

    I hope your not mad for me pointing this out, but at the same time it's important for people who are in pain to have all the facts.

    I'm glad your were able to help some people but I encourage everyone to do their own research as well.

    One last thing I do agree about unneccessary back surgeries. That should be the VERY LAST step. Many times it will leave you much worse then you were before!