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."
Well the peace prize is inevitably going to be more subjective than the science ones. Essentially it is a politics prize, though they did apparently draw the line at giving it to Churchill for his war efforts (they gave him a Literature prize instead!). But there are strong reasons for the awards you mention: Kissinger for making peace with China (though ignoring his subversive activities against Chile); Arafat and Peres for their attempt to resolve the Middle East problem. The problem here is that they were a bit premature, as with Obama's prize, which he himself expressed doubts about. You might say it was the equivalent of giving Einstein a prize for 'what we think he'll discover next', but it also has to be seen as the expression of a kind of global sigh of relief at the exit of George Bush. Al Gore's prize was obviously for the ideas, rather than the man, while for Mother Theresa it was just the opposite.
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.
I am a physicist too and want to add a piece of info. The complainer purports that he had already obtained those results in graphene in 2004 but "did not realize it".
This claim is what makes me throw away his claims altogether. Even taking the statement at face value if he did not realize the contribution to the subject is exactly zero, or maybe even misleading.
I say this as one who was told "we basically did the same thing before you" about one of my papers when, in fact, they did not.
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.