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."

Comments

value?

[phrostie]

Noble prizes no longer have any value or worth.
it's a social club, that is all

Re:value?

[levicivita]

You may well be referring to several categories of Nobel prizes (e.g. peace prize, or economics) which indeed have become (or have always been?) an avenue for the Nobel Committee to make political and cultural statements. That is rather transparent to any reader willing to go beyond CNN's coverage of the matter. However, the hard sciences' Nobel prizes are highly credible and are taken quite seriously. It is reasonable for people to expect a high standard, in my opinion. Factual inaccuracies in rendering the decisions cast an undesirable cloud on the decision making process.

Re:value?

[CheshireCatCO]

Nobel prizes (e.g. peace prize, or economics) which indeed have become (or have always been?) an avenue for the Nobel Committee to make political and cultural statements

The Nobel committee doesn't hand out the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economics. It's difficult to see how they'd then be using it to make statements.

However, the hard sciences' Nobel prizes are highly credible and are taken quite seriously.

The science Nobels have always been just as tentative and flawed as the Peace Prize. Einstein never was acknowledged for Relativity, for example. (He basically won it for the photoelectric effect work he did.) If you know many people in the sciences, you'll encounter more than a few with strong opinions about who should have gotten/shared/never received a prize.

Re:value?

[clarkkent09]

But why do they have to taint the science prizes by being so ridiculous with the peace prize? Kissinger, Mother Theresa, Arafat, Peres, Al Gore, Obama... Don't they realize that it seriously devalues the entire institution, not just the peace prize. I understand that it is given out by a different (Norvegian?) committee but Swedish Academy should separate itself from it or make them rename it or something.

Re:value?

[Chris Burke]

I realize all that, which is exactly why I mentioned the Oscars, and winning a prize for something other than what the prize is technically being awarded for. So I think you are missing my point, which is:

In this instance, the thing that the Nobel Prize was technically awarded for was in fact deserving of a Nobel Prize.

When that happens in, say, the Oscars, people aren't complaining, they are nodding in agreement with the Committee's decision. An award that is both fully deserved for the specific accomplishment mentioned, and that is also a nod to further contributions, is doubly deserved and in that case does the opposite of degrade the award.

Your point, that this and other less defensible decisions by the Nobel Committee are all the result of fallible human standards is so uninteresting as to not even be worth mentioning. As if there could be an award for "the most important discovery or invention within the field of physic" that doesn't involve fallible human standards. What, you think there's an objective universal method of measuring "importance"? I doubt you do, so what's the beef? You think they could do better? Of course. What fallible human organization couldn't?

I think it's still the case that they have done better at awarding deserved prizes in science than the non-science prizes, and the Einstein example only demonstrates this (while this case may be a counter-example). If you're equating the two simply because they involve fallible human standards, then your problem is with the concept of a prize for "best" science.

Re:value?

[Jalfro]

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.

Difficulties with science

[toQDuj]

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...

Layman's summary

[vsage3]

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.

Re:Layman's summary

[oldhack]

I'm no physicist, but I'mma assume your post is of substance. And I hope others in-the-know corraborate/add to it.

This is sorta thing that make slashdot more than buncha geeks posting loads of nonsense.

Re:Layman's summary

[DMiax]

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.

Re:Layman's summary

[mathfeel]

The "magic" in this case is not graphene, but rather good old Silicon Oxide. And that's why de Heer's work on SiC is not recognized and he is not credited for being first to isolate graphene. Let me explain

People make graphene all the time as long as they are working with carbon. Trouble is, it is impossible to distinguish a single layer from a double layer from a triple layer when they are so tiny. You can probably use an expensive AFM to map the topography, but that's a pricy and time consuming proporsition. On SiC, you chemically etch away a some Si atoms on the surface layers, leaving you with one, two, or probably three layers of graphene. But it is difficult to control chemistry. How do you know WHERE your 1, 2, 3 layers are even if you have made them?

That's where SiO2 comes in. In the case of prize winner, they were working with SiO2 substrate. Due to certain dielectric property turn out to have an interference effect with VISIBLE light that the reflected light from 0, 1, 2, 3 layers of graphene on top of it become distinguishable enough in color that the naked eye that a train graduate student can just look under an inexpensive microscopy and says here's a monolayer, here's a bilayer, and so on. (Beyond 4 layers it's hard to tell from bulk graphite). You cannot do that with SiC. Yes, the "scotch tape" method produced crappy graphene as far as electronic properties is concern (yet they still observer QHE at room temperature. That tells you how good a conductor graphene is), but that's why this method is not used any more pass 2006. But the discovery here is not graphene per se, but how to cheaply and easily identify it and as a result, the explosion of researches following their work.

So I suppose you can say these guys got lucky caz they were working with the right substrate. But that's science discovery for ya

REF: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0705.0091

Re:Einstein

[CheshireCatCO]

Einstein never did the experiment, though. He just explained the well-known, mysterious result. Just like he did with Relativity.

It's true that the Nobels were intended to go to thinks that helped mankind, but it's also true that Einstein's work (to that point) hadn't really done a lot in that direction. Nor had Bohr's (Nobel that next year). On the other hand, Relativity seemed like it might still be wrong if you were conservative with your physics and didn't trust data much.

Even More

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nobel committee doesn't hand out the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economics. It's difficult to see how they'd then be using it to make statements.

The Swedish Nobel committee does not hand out the Peace Prize either, that's the Norwegian Nobel committee.

Clearly Valuable

[andersh]

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.

Not uncommon

[geogob]

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.

Thoughts from graphene reseacher

[631i41]

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?

Duality of human actions

[ediron2]

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.