Slashdot Mirror
Graphene Nobel Prize Committee Criticized For Inaccuracies
An anonymous reader writes "A leading researcher in the field of graphene has published a letter to the Nobel committee asking them to address significant problems with the factual accuracy of the supporting documents that laid the case for awarding Andrei Geim and Konstantin Novoselov the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics. Nature talks with letter author Walt de Heer about his claims that, aside from factual inaccuracies, the document diminishes the role of other groups and 'reads like a nomination letter.' At least one change has already been made by the committee."
Noble prizes no longer have any value or worth.
it's a social club, that is all
Well, this is an understandable result of trying to hand out science nobel prizes. The science these days is more the effort of many groups competing and collaborating than that of a single individual. Picking out an individual therefore, worthy of the Nobel Prize, is bound to be inaccurate. The prizes should be given to groups instead...
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
I guess since IAAP (Physicist), I can try to translate some of the physics-ese. Here is the basic argument of the letter:
1. One of the reasons Geim got the Nobel was that he "discovered" graphene. However, the paper the committee is using to establish the date he discovered it (2004) in fact has no reference to graphene but rather graphite, it's well-known cousin. This is an important distinction because a few other groups have graphene papers around the same time.
2. Geim uses a method for creating graphene that is not commercially viable, yet has been credited with a revolution in electronics technology.
3. One of Geim's collaborators goes almost completely uncited although his data is used in the document and appears credited to Geim.
I had heard that with Einstein's prize, for some reason they weren't giving it out for theoretical physics at the time, so they found that experimental work to be a good enough reason to get Einstein something.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The Swedish Nobel committee does not hand out the Peace Prize either, that's the Norwegian Nobel committee.
That is clearly just your [rather meaningless] opinion, and it's not representative of the world's view of the Nobel prizes.
Even the world's most populous nation, China, clearly believes the Nobel Peace prize is meaningful to the point of doing everything in its power to remove the stain on their nation's record!
What is your problem with the prize? Is it that you don't like Kenyan, Muslim heads of state (end of sarcasm)?
You present no arguments why the prizes have no value or worth, yet I can present any number of arguments, cases and quotes. Nobel Peace prize winners have gained the security and access they needed to further their work. From Wangari Maathai in Kenya to the recently released Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.
The "Nobel Backgrounder" is not a peer-directed scholarly review but a short popular-level summary of the research awarded the prize. Trying to make it cover all the related research that did not qualify for the prize this year might soothe injured feelings but would also require a lot more length and complexity. De Heer and Kim did excellent work on graphene. The fact that the backgrounder centers instead on the work by the two scientists who got the prize this year does not mean that the Nobel Committee did not realize that much work in graphene preceded, contributed to, and coincided with their work.
As Klitzing points out in the Nature article cited, the Nobel Committee was so interested in informing themselves about graphene that they sponsored a symposium on the topic, which many Nobel Committee members and Nobel-nominators attended. Kim was a speaker there, so was de Heer. Their work was not deemed to deserve a Nobel Prize this year.
The kind of things that are pointed out in the letter are very common in the academic and scientific world. We see these kind of 'inaccuracies' all the time in scientific papers and talk, regardless of whether they have been peer reviewed or not. In this context, I even wonder why someone would be surprised to see this arise in Nobel prize nominations.
First, the nominations are based on sources themselves having such 'inaccuracies'. Second, the Nobel committee is just another form of peer review and is also prone to make such 'inaccuracies'.
Finally, I've read other post stating that politics are important in some other Nobel prizes (eg. Nobel peace prize) but, God forbid, not in Physics and similar. 'Politics' are always important -- not necessarily international politics or politics as most people mean it, but academic politics. It would be illusory to think otherwise.
I have worked with graphene for about a year now (I know, I joined the party a bit late) and have heard Walt speak a few times. It seems that Walt has always been a little bitter about this. Is his bitterness warranted? I think that he makes a strong case for himself and I am truly disappointed by the inaccuracies he has pointed out (they are substantial and valid in my estimation as novice scientist *see de Heer's letter*). There are a few things I'd like to add to the discussion. I do not doubt the merits of either Geim and Novoselov's or de Heer and Berger's work, both groups have made significant contributions regarding graphene and perform excellent work. The core conflict at hand, whether Geim and Novoselov deserve the prize, is a difficult one. And as so many others have said before, this is a process that is inherently human and susceptible to error. But should we not strive to be most scrutinizing and fair in deliberating the outcome? I know that Walt feels that he deserves just as much credit as Geim and Novoselov for his work; and I think that severely hurts his case (as others mentioned) by tainting it with a tinge of jealousy or bitterness. But the fact remains that he makes many very important observations about the inaccuracies, failures, and "hype" (for lack of better terminology) of the Sci. Bckgd. document which is (we assume) to be held to the highest standards. It is really sad to see this happen. It makes me wonder the true value of the Nobel Prize. Shouldn't our work itself, as scientists, stand alone as a testament to our efforts and value?
Some would argue Einstein wasn't the first to discover relativity.
By all means, feel free to explain how the individuals you list are *ridiculous* candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize. I'd conceed that this list has names that are contestable, controversial, politically-charged... but ridiculous? The world is nowhere near that black and white, and a human life never fits one definition.
I disagree with one name, I've heard counterarguments that I don't immediately toss aside (due to the source) on a few others... but I also can see how each of them has, for reasons stated by the Nobel Committee's award, impacted the world and our prospects for peace by *some* of their actions.
You claiming devaluation before we agree that the choices are ridiculous is a fallacy. And demanding that a candidate be lily-white is your (wrongheaded) standard, not the Nobel's. FFS, the prize itself comes from a man whose life epitomizes that there can be profound duality in everything we do and every day's acts.
No, that is where you are to narrow minded and simplistic. The [Norwegian] Nobel committee has a much wider view of what ultimately leads to peace.
The typical prize is handed out for past accomplishments, and typically many Americans don't understand this aspect of the Nobel Peace prize. I suppose it's a logical trap due to your culture and society, from my point of view you hand out prizes for anything quantifiable.
The Nobel Peace prize has been handed out to a number of controversial figures during the last two decades due to a modern and informed intepretation of the root causes of conflict and war. Where there is war, and a leading figure actively creates peace, it is easy to single out a worthy recipient.
However in a modern age of few world consuming wars, more long-lasting conflicts, resolving and preempting conflicts is more interesting.
Where Americans see an unworthy recipient in Barack Obama, for lack of accomplishments, the Norwegian Nobel committee sees the potential to actively aid, lead and pressure the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet, its allies, friends and enemies.
We also cheered his election as a sign that the American people were able to overcome their past in a democratic fashion. In terms of social justice and peace it was a great example to the world as a whole! African nations rejoiced, and perhaps reflected on their own bitter tribal/racial disputes during their elections.
It is not a question of simply influcing the man in question, the nation he leads or his people, but also the people directly opposed to his nation. Where the enemy sees America as the "Great Satan", the prize can project the image of a country, and a leader, with positive sides causing the enemy to question their attitudes.
The committee's hope is that the prize can give the recipients the security, access, influence and opportunity to do great things that leads to increased security, stability and peace!
To create peace you have to be the right man, at the right time, and the Nobel prize is the opportunity. The momentum given might not break down the "barriers" immediately, however this should be seen through the lens of the long term perspective. This is just the flap of the butterfly's wings.
To give you another example that you probably didn't understand either; Wangari Maathai of Kenya received the Peace prize for her "contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". She didn't play a role in ending any present conflict, but she understood that conflicts would arise in the future if [we] did not prevent the conditions that would create fertile ground for it. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Actually you are a bit wrong here (on many counts)! Exfoliated graphene from HOPG has, actually, phenomenal electronic properties. On the other hand for example, epitaxial graphene (sublimation of Si from SiC), which I work with, is typically less pristine than exfoliated (scotch tape method) due to either a buffer layer between the graphene and SiC (when grown on the Si-face) or a difficult to control and poorly understand growth morphology (when grown on the C-face). There are other details here that I omit for sake of the "layman's summary". More and more avenues of fabrication are being investigated/discovered/perfected as the years and months go on many of which produce graphene, but none of which produce as pristine graphene as the Scotch tape method. Graphene on SiC is prepared by subliming silicon from the furnace in an inert ambient NOT chemically etching the Si away. It is highly controllable on the Si-face, less so on the C-face although progress is being made. You say that exfoliation is not used any more to fabricate graphene. In fact it is one of the most common techniques. It is certainly not scalable to production levels but is consistent in producing PRISTINE and CHEAP graphene. AFM will likely NOT be able to tell you the number of layers you have due to the exceedingly thin material. In fact, its even quite difficult to use TEM due to the highly destructive sample preparation process. There are several ways to identify layer thickness but many are contested. Some include, elipsometery, Raman spectroscopy, TEM, electrical measurements, ARPES, etc etc. You may be right that the discovery "is not graphene," I think that the discovery is "realizing the usefulness of graphene." Moreover, de Heer emphasizes that graphene was known of before 2004, but it was not realized until, he says, his work in the 90's that such a material could be used for interesting/novel/high performance electronics. I think the Nobel Prize was given to recognize Novoselov and Geim's instrumentality in realizing this utility of the material, but maybe you are correct and that it should not be in recognition of "their discovery."