Tag: nobel

Alfred Nobel: Dynamite Inventor and Father of the Nobel Prize
In modern times, Alfred Bernhard Nobel (1833-1896) is remembered mostly as the man who established the Nobel Prizes, widely regarded as the most prestigious scientific honor. However, who was Alfred Nobel in the first place? How did the man who discovered dynamite end up giving his money to promote world peace and science?
The invention of dynamite, which has practical and lethal applications, launched Alfred Nobel’s career and made him wealthy. By using it, Nobel was able to convert nitroglycerin, a very dangerous explosive, into a more manageable and portable form for the first time. The invention of dynamite made possible the completion of the Gotthard Tunnel, one of the world’s most complex and challenging engineering projects. However, Alfred Nobel’s discovery was not without flaws. Rapidly becoming a dangerous weapon due to its explosive potential.
Success in selling his “Nobel’s Safety Powder” brought Nobel a wealth, which he used to create the Nobel Prize in order to recognize those who have made significant contributions to humankind. Every time the Nobel Prizes are handed out, the scientific community takes a moment to reflect on the life and legacy of its namesake, the brilliant scientist and businessman Alfred Nobel.
The Apprenticeship Years
When Alfred Nobel was a boy.
On October 21, 1833, into a family of engineers, Alfred Nobel was born in Stockholm. However, the Nobel family only remained in Sweden for a brief time after the birth of their son. They eventually settled in St. Petersburg. They lost everything in the construction business and decided to start again in Russia, where they had more luck.
Father Immanuel quickly established his own engineering works and foundry, eventually hiring over a thousand people at once. He had a prodigious capacity for innovation, which he put to good use by rapidly creating new devices, particularly for use in battle. Immanuel Nobel and his family prospered as a result of the company’s success and the Tsar’s court’s approval.
Traveling From Lab to Lab for Research Purposes
The thriving firm made it possible for Alfred and his brothers to have a solid education. The boys’ private teachers had them proficient in Russian, English, French, and German in addition to Swedish. In fact, Alfred considered taking up writing since he had such a deep and abiding love for reading.
While music was his first love, technology and chemistry were close seconds, and his father’s enthusiasm for the latter was a major influence. He immediately began to provide the young kid with specialized instruction, with an initial concentration on the discipline of chemistry. As early as age 17, he sent young Alfred on a two-year educational excursion around the United States, Germany, and France. The first trip was to the Parisian labs of the famous scientist Théophile-Jules Pelouze.
An Unforgettable Run-in
Invention of nitroglycerin credited to Ascanio Sobrero.
Here, Alfred Nobel met the Italian Ascanio Sobrero, an important person on his journey toward the big discovery that would make him renowned. The scientist had created nitroglycerin, the first liquid explosive, a few years previously. Sobrero’s face was badly injured in the explosion caused by mixing glycerin, sulfuric acid, and nitric acid. It seemed the explosive was too risky to be used in any meaningful way.
Upon hearing about nitroglycerin for the first time, Nobel thought about how it might be better managed, even back in Paris. However, when he got back to St. Petersburg in 1852, this wasn’t a factor at first. Nobel had a lot on his plate at the family company during the following four years. The development of armaments during the Crimean War resulted in huge revenues for the “Fonderies & Ateliers Mécaniques Nobel & Fils.”
But there is a tragic aspect to this success story: the end of the war meant no more orders. As a family, they faced some cash problems. They were on the brink of financial ruin and returned to Sweden in 1859. In light of the current economic crisis, Alfred Nobel’s chemistry tutor highlighted the unrealized potential of this substance.
Nobel made a quick decision to do what Sorbrero had not done, fearing the deadly potential of his invention. He hoped that by making the explosive marketable, he could save his family from their plight.
An Innovation With Potential to Explode
Alfred Nobel.
Alfred Nobel founded a family business in Stockholm with his father Immanuel and brother Oskar-Emil, experimenting with nitroglycerin. Not surprisingly, dealing with such a potentially dangerous substance was a difficult task. But the Nobels had their first taste of success in 1861 when they successfully mass-produced their “explosive oil”.
But the fundamental problem remained: the metastable material could explode at the slightest vibration or impact. It was therefore extremely dangerous to transport it by standard means, such as freight trains or horse-drawn carriages. Furthermore, detonators could not be used to detonate the liquid as simply as with black powder.
To detonate, nitroglycerin just needed a quick spark. However, how would one safely set off such a massive explosion? As the explosion was about to fizzle out, Nobel had an idea that set it off. He created a tiny container, filled it with black powder and nitroglycerin, and hanged it in a blast hole.
Nobel devised the first ignition, a chemical that could be exploded with a fuse and then causes the nitroglycerin underneath it to explode due to the pressure wave created. His first description of his package was a “patent detonator.” Subsequently, he reformulated the device to utilize fulminated mercury instead of black powder and dubbed it a detonator.
What a Horrible Accident
One of the first dynamite was created by Nobel using diatomaceous earth and nitroglycerin. Source: NobelPrize.org
Yet nitroglycerin was still sensitive to impacts. Nobel learned painfully how dangerous this property could be. A sizable explosion shook residents in the southern part of Stockholm one morning in September 1864. A laboratory facility containing 125 kilograms of explosives derailed at the Nobel estate. The explosion killed five people, including Nobel’s younger brother.
Nobel eventually perfected the Kieselguhr method, a type of diatomaceous earth, to stabilize the dynamite. Even after this terrible disaster, the scientist worked relentlessly to improve his method and eventually spread it to Germany. The mining industry was growing and new railroad lines were being rapidly built, creating ideal conditions for the marketing of Nobel’s explosive oil.
The Long-Awaited Breakthrough
Nobel constructed an industrial facility in Krümmel’s Geesthacht neighborhood despite the lack of a satisfactory answer to the transportation issue. However, in May of 1866, a horrific explosion took place there, as well. Not long ago, a vessel off the coast of Panama carrying the deadly cargo exploded. Public opinion and legislative pressure were rising. The nitroglycerine’s destructive potential must be brought under control.
During the same time period, Alfred Nobel made a groundbreaking discovery. He discovered that by combining nitroglycerin with diatomaceous earth, a powder derived from the shells of microscopic sea animals, the liquid could be shaped into a manageable bulk and carried with relative ease. Some say he made the finding by sheer happenstance. However, Alfred Nobel himself denied these claims.
From Dynamite to Explosive Gelatin
To be sure, in 1867, Nobel sought patents in several countries on his new explosive, which he termed dynamite (from the Greek for “power”). An enormous amount of money was made from the new material. However, Nobel was not content just yet. With the addition of diatomaceous earth, he succeeded in making nitroglycerin less dangerous. However, it was now only about five times as potent as black powder and had lost part of its explosive strength over time.
In 1876, Nobel developed a workable alternative to diatomaceous earth by combining nitroglycerin with collodion wool. As a consequence, they came up with blasting gelatine, a dynamite explosive that was both stable under pressure and highly explosive. This improved variant of the original dynamite remained one of the most potent commercial explosives available today.
Progress and Death Hand in Hand with Nobel’s Dynamite
It didn’t take long for Nobel’s dynamite to become the industry standard worldwide.
Black powder has been the sole kind of explosive known to mankind for almost a thousand years. However, the material is not powerful enough for widespread explosions. Explosives like Nobel’s dynamite ushered in a new age since they were the first chemicals to significantly outperform black powder while being relatively safe to use (though mishaps using dynamite are unfortunately common).
Shortly after its introduction, Nobel’s invention quickly became the most popular explosive in the world. Tunnels, canals, and mines could all be carved out of the earth with its aid. With the advent of dynamite, construction workers could finally realize their wildest dreams.
1 Million Pounds (lbs) Of Dynamite Used in a Tunnel Construction
Major projects, like the 15-kilometer Gotthard Tunnel that snaked its way through the summits of the same-named mountain range in Switzerland, demonstrated the efficacy of the new explosives. Engineers drilled into the mountain to a depth of around a meter before using dynamite for blasting. Construction of the Panama Canal also made use of the explosive.
However, the invention of dynamite resulted in not only a powerful industrial explosive but also a terrifying weapon. The brutal use of dynamite dates back to the Franco-Prussian War, long before Alfred Nobel improved his explosive by combining it with blasting gelatine to make it even more destructive.
In addition, dynamite was crucial to a wave of terrorist assaults that swept over Europe at the close of the 19th century. So many working-class revolutionaries and anarchists used dynamite to strike the ruling class and wreak widespread destruction.
The Russian Tsar Alexander II was their most recognizable victim. While on a carriage trip through St. Petersburg, he was murdered by a dynamite device. After that, many European countries restricted access to dynamite and other explosives due to widespread abuse of the substance.
In 1884, for instance, the German Reich discoureged the “criminal and murderous use of explosives” by passing the so-called Dynamite Law. Despite Nobel’s best intentions, his technology was increasingly being put to lethal use. His creation was a mixed gift and a curse.
The Nobel Prize
Nobel’s will with a surprise.
Alfred Nobel made a fortune and left a legacy by commercializing his innovation on a global scale. The name of the Swedish scientist and businessman was still widely connected with more than just dynamite. His enduring financial legacy was also a perennial newsmaker. After all, it’s the basis for the Nobel Prize, the highest honor in the scientific and social fields.
Acts of Generosity
Nobel, who died childless in 1895, left most of his riches (around 31 million Swedish crowns) to a fund in his testament. The inventor stipulated in his will that the interest accrued be split into five equal parts and “given as rewards to those who have made the greatest contribution to humanity in the last year.”
The prize would be awarded for exceptional work in physics and chemistry, the two scientific disciplines that inspired Alfred Nobel’s idea. The scientist, on the other hand, also saw medicine as a legitimate academic field. Additionally, Alfred Nobel, who wrote numerous short stories and poems himself, included an award for literature in his testament. Also, the fifth portion of the award was meant to recognize “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations.”
Winners of the Very First Nobel Prizes
The first Nobel Prizes were awarded in December 1901.
After Nobel’s death on December 10, 1896, his will was finalized three and a half years later. The proposal for the Nobel Foundation’s founding laws was approved by the Swedish Government in June 1900. Once the five months passed, the management of the foundation assumed charge of the money. The first Nobel Prize was given out on the fifth anniversary of Alfred Nobel’s death.
Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, who discovered the radiation we now know as X-rays, was awarded the first Nobel Prize in Physics. Both Dutchman Jacobus van ‘t Hoff, who discovered the rules of chemical dynamics and osmotic pressure in solutions, and German military doctor Emil von Behring, who discovered a treatment for diphtheria, won the first prizes in the Nobel chemistry category. Frédéric Passy, known across the globe as the “Apostle of Peace,” and humanist Henry Dunant will forever be remembered as the first recipients of the Nobel Prizes in Literature and Peace, respectively.
Others followed in their footsteps as Nobel laureates. With the exception of a few years, particularly during times of war, when the award was not presented, the Nobel laureates are announced annually around the beginning of October, and the Nobel Prizes are awarded on December 10. The award money is still paid out of the interest and revenue from the inventor of dynamite’s inheritance. Each winner gets eight million Swedish kronor (now equivalent to roughly 700,000 dollars).
“Merchant of Death” or Advocate for World Peace?
There was widespread surprise when news of Alfred Nobel’s donation of a peace award emerged after his death. After all, people tended to identify the name “Nobel” with explosives and other advances that could be used in conflict, but not with nonviolent causes. In fact, in an erroneous obituary, journalists even referred to the scientist as a “merchant of death.”
Is it possible that the scientist had mixed feelings about the impact of his work in the armaments business, and that he hoped to use the money from the award to atone for the “evil side” of his inventions? It’s impossible to know for sure from where we stand now. It is evident, however, that Alfred Nobel was essentially running in parallel on issues of war and peace throughout his lifetime.
Deadly Inventions
However, he seemed endowed with a lifelong fascination with the science of guns and explosives. His father was also an engineer with a deep interest in this field; he helped create rapid-fire guns and naval mines used in the Crimean War. Dynamite, Nobel’s own great innovation, was also used in war despite its original intention.
And it wasn’t only dynamite; far into his senior years, the brilliant scientist continued to work on a wide range of technologies with the potential to be used as weapons. A patent applicant, he sought protection for a wide range of armaments, including rockets, cannons, and novel formulations of gunpowder.
Alfred Nobel: The War Resister
In contrast, Nobel cared deeply about topics related to world peace. Thus, he became quite close with the pacifist Bertha von Suttner via letters. At the tail end of the nineteenth century, the Austrian was one of the primary proponents of the peace movement that was gaining momentum throughout Europe.
Inspired by her, Nobel became a member of the Austrian Peace Society and donated money to its cause. It is likely that von Suttner was also responsible for the rich businessman’s decision to endow a peace award with a portion of his estate.
Alfred Nobel does not seem to find any inconsistency between his work in the arms business and his desire to promote world peace. Instead, he seems to subscribe to the view, widespread in the 19th century, that a scientist is not responsible for the application of his research.
Each new scientific finding, in this perspective, is apolitical at first, but has the potential to be used for either good or evil. Alfred Nobel had a similar nave belief in the possibility of good coming from his arsenal of explosive weapons. In 1963, the “Nobelium” element was named for Alfred Nobel.
Military for Peace
His letter to von Suttner from 1892 reads, “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops.”
In Nobel’s view, only the military might can guarantee lasting peace. He believed that with the appropriate weapon, the idea of deterrence might one day render conflicts inconceivable. Since he passed away so soon, he never got to see the First World War or realize how wrong he was.
Bibliography
1. “Alfred Nobel’s Will”. The Norwegian Nobel Committee.
2. “Alfred Nobel’s life and work”. NobelPrize.org.
3. “Nobelium”. Royal Society of Chemistry.
4. “Alfred Nobel’s Fortune”. The Norwegian Nobel Committee.
October 15, 2022
Nobel Prize Winners Whose Findings Turned Out to Be Wrong
Although it has happened rarely in the history of Nobel prizes for natural sciences, there have been a few instances of laureates whose results were later shown to be incorrect or at least off by a small margin. Some of these caused significant discoveries to be realized far later than they otherwise would have. However, scientific findings are seldom unquestionable. During the course of scientific history, there have been several shifts in the accepted theories, methodologies, and underlying beliefs about what is correct. The full worth of a piece of study can only be judged in hindsight, when everything is crystal clear.
Perhaps more surprising is the fact that just a handful of Nobel laureates in the natural sciences have ever made critical mistakes. Of course, they didn’t always get it right; occasionally, they saw the correct phenomenon but concluded the incorrect idea.
Johannes Fibiger and the Roundworm
Johannes Fibiger at work in his lab.
The Nobel Prize in Medicine given to the Danish researcher Johannes Fibiger is the most egregious example of a Nobel committee’s misguided decision. The Nobel Committee agreed that Fibiger deserved the prize in 1926 for discovering the worm Spiroptera carcinoma and demonstrating that it caused cancer in rats. The discovery caused quite a stir at a time when researchers were racing to identify the causes of cancer.
Malnourishment, Rather Than Cancer
However, after some time passed, it became obvious that the parasite theory was bunk. His rats did not really acquire cancer, despite the widespread coverage of the disease. As a matter of fact, these were benign tumors of the kind that sometimes manifest themselves in cases of acute vitamin A insufficiency. The reason for this is clear: Fibiger gave his animals a diet of white bread and water, which isn’t exactly species-appropriate.
Because the researcher did not have a non-infected control group close to the rats infected with the nematode, Fibiger did not observe that this may lead to deficient symptoms. In the early 20th century, controlled trials like this were still very uncommon. As a consequence, Fibiger incorrectly diagnosed the tumors as cancer brought on by nematodes.
A New Age Has Begun
Stomach cancer in a rat, the result of a parasite. Credit: Johannes Fibiger
Despite the fact that Fibiger’s purported discoveries have been disproven for decades, he is still included on the roll call of medical Nobel laureates. No one has ever acknowledged that Fibiger was incorrect. Instead, there is the original award speech, which includes the following: “Fibiger’s discovery marks the beginning of a new era, a new epoch in the history of cancer… Fibiger was a pioneer in the difficult field of cancer research and will remain so.”
Not until 2004 did the Swedish Karolinska Institute, which had previously been in charge of award selection, admit that Fibiger’s findings were wrong. The nematode that started the whole thing is now known as Gongylonema neoplasticum; the word “carcinoma” has been dropped from the nomenclature.
It’s True, Infections Can Cause Cancer
Cervical cancer is linked to the human papillomavirus (HPV). Credit: NCI
Although, Fibiger’s idea about parasites was totally off base. Our understanding of the role of viruses and bacteria in cancer development has expanded. Even in a self-experiment conducted in the 1980s, Australian researcher Barry Marshall demonstrated that Helicobacter pylori is the causative agent of stomach ulcers.
The human papillomavirus (HPV) may cause cervical cancer, as identified by German researcher Harald zur Hausen. With this finding, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2008. Nowadays, this cancer-causing virus is vaccinated against in order to protect young women from getting it in many nations. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) for nasopharyngeal cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma; hepatitis viruses B and C for liver cancer; and human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8) as a trigger for Kaposi’s sarcoma are just a few of the other viruses that have been shown to promote cancer.
Egas Moniz, Lobotomy Pioneer
Lisbon’s monument to Antonio Egas Moniz. Source: Himetop (wikidot.com)
Some treatments that have received Nobel Prizes in medicine are very controversial, particularly from an ethical standpoint. Even though they helped some people, they really made many others more miserable when they might have helped them less. This means that, from our vantage point now, they are only partially deserving of a great award.
Healing Through Destruction
Antonio Egas Moniz, a Portuguese physician and neurologist, gained notoriety in 1949 when he claimed to have discovered that lobotomies might alleviate some psychoses. The severing of the frontal lobe’s connections to the thalamus is the primary goal of this operation. Much of the prefrontal cortex and other white matter in the brain are damaged or destroyed.
According to Moniz, the “sticky” nerve connections seen in schizophrenia and other mental disorders are to blame for the patient’s inflexible thoughts and unwavering convictions. Because of this, he thought that cutting them off was the most effective way to help people feel better. As a matter of fact, Moniz’s first patient seemed to be improving as well; she was less disturbed and paranoid than before, yet she was also more lethargic and quiet.
“Every Patient Loses Something”
Coworkers Walter Freeman and James Watts debate the merits of lobotomy. In 1941, this image was included in a newspaper story that was quite positive about the new approach.
U.S. psychiatrist Walter Freeman, a leading lobotomy advocate in the 1940s and 1950s, eventually admitted that his patients lost part of their individuality as a result of the operation. “Every patient loses something from this surgery,” he noted; “some spontaneity, some of the radiance, some of the flavor of personality.”
Although Freeman and Moniz before him both agreed that the benefits of alleviating their patients’ psychotic symptoms far exceeded the drawbacks of this approach, Freeman in particular emphasized the importance of preserving patients’ quality of life.
The Nobel Prize Committee agreed, awarding Moniz for this treatment. Bengt Jansson of the Karolinska Institute, who was on the committee, subsequently commented on the matter, writing, “In my opinion there is no doubt that Moniz deserved the Nobel Prize at the time.” Simply said, “Because back then there were no alternatives and the lobotomy actually made life more bearable for some patients and those around them.”
Treatment of Everything With a Lobotomy
The finding by Moniz, and its subsequent public broadcast by Freeman and others, proved catastrophic, however. It caused a flurry of new lobotomies. The “minimally intrusive” treatment that Freeman refined was nearly worshipped as a miracle cure, especially in the United States. He treated people by disrupting their neurological connections by thrusting a sharp device into their brains via their eye sockets, sometimes without anesthetic.
Tens of thousands of patients in the United States alone had this “ice pick” technique, which was touted as a panacea for anything from melancholy and anxiety to schizophrenia and “hysteria.” It was even believed in the 1950s that it might end homophobia, Communism, and violence.
Rosemary Kennedy
In this 1931 family photo of the Kennedys, Rosemary Kennedy may be seen in the first row, far right. She was rendered severely crippled after a lobotomy in 1941. Credit: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum
The operation wasn’t considered a last measure, but rather an easy way to silence annoying relatives. Rosemary Kennedy, the sister of the late President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, is one of the most well-known victims of this kind of abuse. Rosemary, who was born in 1918, was dyslexic and may have had slight mental retardation. In spite of this, she was able to complete her degree in Montessori education and, at first, live a rather typical life.
However, Rosemary’s father had her lobotomized in 1941 because she was deemed difficult to control and had a short fuse. The treatment was widely hailed as effective for reducing “excessive urges” at the time. The result was tragically devastating for the young lady. She became incontinent, babbled like a toddler, and was largely confined to a wheelchair after the lobotomy, and she spent the remainder of her life in a sanatorium.
Despite mounting skepticism and criticism, lobotomies were nevertheless often performed in the United States up until the late 1960s. At least 40,000 individuals there had the surgery done, many of them against their will and without understanding the full ramifications. For whatever reason, the Soviet Union was the first country to outlaw lobotomy in 1950, citing concerns that the procedure “contradicted the principles of humanity.” Next came Germany, then Japan.
Physics Blunders and “Half-Measures”
The number of Nobel Prizes awarded to physicists proves that the field deserves its reputation as a precise science. Why? Because the winners virtually never got it totally wrong. But there is at least one example of a right approach leading to the incorrect result, and a father and son who are oddly complementary to one another.
The Element Hesperium, Discovered by Fermi
Enrico Fermi, a scientist specializing in nuclear energy, during the 1940s. Credit: Department of Energy
Famous scientist Enrico Fermi is one such example; he helped create the first atomic weapon. In 1938, his work showing that new radioactive elements may be generated by bombarding heavy atoms with neutrons won him the Nobel Prize in Physics.
In theory, that is correct. This is due to the fact that the bombardment results in nuclear fission, which in turn results in lighter decay products, such as those formed from uranium. Fermi, on the other hand, thought he had created brand-new, heavier elements. The new element “hesperium,” with atomic number 94, was discovered by him and his colleagues at the University of Rome in 1934. Hesperium was created by bombarding thorium and uranium with neutrons.
Unfortunately, he was dead wrong; plutonium, element 94, was found a few years after his prediction. However, Fermi’s experiments did not result in the creation of this element. Lighter elements like barium and the noble gas krypton were all that could be extracted from his neutron bombardment. Fermi acknowledged the error during his Nobel acceptance speech, but he was still awarded the prize.
Wave or Particle
True neutron bombardment results in decay rather than the creation of a new element.
Two members of the same family, father and son, Joseph John and George Thomson, won Nobel Prizes in physics. The first subatomic particle, the electron, was discovered by Joseph Thomson, the father, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1906. Even as far back as the 1830s, scientists recognized that tiny, charged particles were responsible for transmitting electricity. Thomson’s research with electrically charged gases supported the particle nature of these units.
George Paget Thomson, his son, won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for seemingly doing the reverse, demonstrating that electrons behave like waves rather than particles. He and Clinton Davisson performed an experiment showing how electron beams are diffracted by a crystal lattice, an effect that is common in radiation. Because of wave-particle duality, we now know that electrons may act as both particles and waves.
Meredith Stanley, Tobacco Mosaic Virus
Wendell Meredith Stanley, a Nobel Laureate.
The blunder of a Nobel winner may have even slowed the progress of a pivotal breakthrough. That’s because his alleged proof had everyone convinced for almost a decade that proteins, not RNA or DNA, contained the essential code of life.
What Are Viruses Made Of?
During the 1930s, many biochemists were obsessed with answering the following question: Where is the secret to life hidden? This code would guarantee that offspring would look like their parents and that bacteria would always have similar structures. Meanwhile, doctors were left wondering whether the newly found viruses were indeed alive despite their microscopic size. Maybe they were just molecules after all.
U.S. scientist Wendell Meredith Stanley said in his 1946 Nobel talk that the enigma surrounding viruses was compounded by the fact that their sizes overlapped with those of both biological creatures and chemical molecules. They may have been inorganic, formed of hydrocarbons or carbohydrates, fatty, protein-rich, or even biological in nature; nobody knew.
Infectious Crystals of Protein
Tabaco mosaic virus crystals.
Because of this, Stanley began looking for ways to determine how viruses are put together. In the middle of the 1930s, he was able to crystallize tobacco mosaic viruses (TMVs). The crystals, in Stanley’s opinion, were composed entirely of viral protein. The crystals caused the mosaic disease to spread when a scientist infected tobacco plants with them.
The crystalline substance “contained all the viral activity contained in the infected fluid,” Stanley added. This was a huge step forward since it indicated that viruses are composed of proteins and that the instructions for their reproduction and possible alterations are encoded within those proteins.
The First Steps in Molecular Biology
For his work on the characteristics of the crystalline tobacco mosaic virus, Stanley was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1946. Forty years later, scientist Lily Kay of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore said, “His discovery has been viewed – with some justification – as the symbolic beginning of molecular biology.”
Stanley had done an excellent job of disproving the conventional wisdom of his day, which held that only live creatures like bacteria could cause disease. His ability to crystallize viruses and precisely describe their characteristics established beyond a reasonable doubt that viruses are not living cells. Therefore, molecular constructs have the potential to spread disease.
However, There Are a Few Small Issues
Kay argues that “nevertheless, Stanley’s work was fraught with technical errors and fallacies.” What Stanley didn’t realize was that his viral crystal samples were anything but pure. They carried the genetic information of the tobacco mosaic virus thanks to the 6% viral RNA they contained. However, Stanley was unaware of this and therefore assumed that proteins were the determining factors in infectivity and viral activity.
It was not until the 1950s that DNA was shown to be the actual bearer of genetic information.
Since then, proteins have been the primary focus of those looking for the life code. Canadian doctor Oswald Avery’s 1944 experiment demonstrating that bacteria transfer genetic information through DNA was originally unsuccessful in overturning the accepted wisdom. Not until Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase showed in the early 1950s that bacteriophages replicate inside their host organisms through DNA did this begin to alter.
Thus, it became evident that the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, and not proteins, must be the vehicles for the genetic information of many viruses and all other species. The DNA era officially began with James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 descriptions of the molecule’s structure.
Biochemical Confusions
Several Nobel laureates, including Stanley himself, have been proven inaccurate or very slightly off base in their understanding of biological macromolecules. In particular, enzymes were a source of consternation since it was not always obvious whether they facilitated synthesis or encouraged degradation.
The structure of the enzyme polynucleotide phosphorylase is determined via crystallization.
The Faulty RNA Enzyme
The biosynthesis of RNA and DNA was recognized with the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1959, shared by Severo Ochoa and Arthur Kornberg. A few years before, Ochoa had isolated the enzyme polynucleotide phosphorylase from a bacterium. The ability of this enzyme to construct RNA from its constituent parts was shown in vitro.
Based on this reasoning, Ochoa thought it to be pivotal in “transcribing” DNA’s blueprints into mRNA. It was likely that polynucleotide phosphorylase was involved in the production of RNA because of its extensive prevalence in nature, as he stated in his Nobel talk.
In a Cell, They Do Things a Little Bit Differently
What Ochoa didn’t know, and what the Nobel Committee didn’t know at the time, is that the findings from the lab are not directly applicable to what occurs in live cells. Ochoa won the Nobel Prize for work that, under normal conditions, involves the degradation of RNA in cells rather than its synthesis. This is because polynucleotide phosphorylase normally acts in this way.
It was subsequently discovered that the enzyme RNA polymerase is responsible for RNA synthesis in cells. Biochemist Roger Kornberg of the United States was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2006 for his work correcting Ochoa and elucidating RNA production in great detail.
Repairing as Opposed to Building From Scratch
Arthur Kornberg, in 1959
Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg’s enzyme theory was somewhat more sound than Ochoa’s. Specifically, he had isolated a type of the enzyme DNA polymerase, which is responsible for making copies of DNA. The fact that this is only successful when a whole DNA strand is available as a model was first noticed by him. Adding the enzyme to the DNA building blocks alone has no effect.
In his Nobel talk, Kornberg said, “The enzyme we are studying is unique in that it accepts instructions from a template.” The fundamental mechanism by which our DNA is replicated was thus uncovered by him. But Kornberg wrongly thought that this process would also generate additional chromosomes in the cell. His discovery of DNA polymerase I helps solely to repair chromosomal DNA damage. DNA polymerase and its variations are essential synthesis enzymes, but they weren’t discovered until his son Thomas Kronberg’s research.
References
“Johannes Fibiger – Biography”. Nobelprize.org. 30 January 1928.
Bengt Jansson. “Controversial Psychosurgery Resulted in a Nobel Prize”. Nobelprize.org.
Jenell Johnson, 2014. American Lobotomy: A Rhetorical History. University of Michigan Press.
Lawrence K. Altman, 2007. “Arthur Kornberg, Biochemist, Dies at 89”. The New York Times.
October 15, 2022
2022 Nobel Prize in Medicine for pioneer of paleogenetics: Svante Pääbo
Svante Pääbo, a pioneer in the field of paleogenetics, will receive the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2022 for his contributions to the field. He and his team deciphered the Neandertal and Denisovan ancestors’ DNA, revealing previously unknown details about the origins of these ancient human species and their connections to our own. Only because of him do we know for sure that we all have a trace amount of Neandertal DNA.
Human history is more like a gnarled stump than a sturdily grown tree. Because the exact relationship of many ancient people to our forefathers remains unclear to this day. This was true for a very long time, even for Neandertals, and much more so for the savage Denisova-Man, of whom just a few tiny finger knuckles have been discovered.
- Timeline of human history: From 8 million years ago to 3000 BC
Evidently impossible task
New discoveries about our family tree and the connections between our ancestors and their contemporaries are owed in large part to Svante Pääbo, winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine. He has made groundbreaking contributions to the field of paleogenetics, and he and his team were the first to successfully isolate and decipher the genetic material of extinct human populations.
The reason is that after thousands of years in the ground, bacteria and yeasts have colonized Neanderthal teeth to the point where up to 99.9 percent of the DNA found in these teeth is microbiological in origin. In addition, the few amounts of Neandertaler-DNA that have been recovered so far are only available in small fragments that must be pieced together like a colossal puzzle. Many researchers concluded that this problem could never be solved.
From Egyptian mummies to Neanderthals
In any case, Pääbo and his crew set sail for new techniques. In his doctoral dissertation at Sweden’s Uppsala University, the researcher had already shown that Egyptian mummies may preserve DNA for centuries. In so doing, he established the field of paleoanthropology. Pääbo and his team were able to decipher, for the first time, a short segment of the mitochondrial DNA of a Neandertal around the middle of the 1990s. This segment is located not in the cell nucleus but in the cellular power plants.
So how exactly did the Neanderthal fit into our family tree?
The mitochondrial DNA of Neandertals was clearly distinguishable from that of modern humans. This proves that Neandertals couldn’t have been our ancestors in the strict sense. So how exactly did the Neanderthal fit into our family tree? To figure it out, researchers had to decode Neandertal cellular DNA, which is even less well preserved than mitochondrial DNA and far more complex than a simple jigsaw puzzle.
Pääbo joined the newly formed Max-Planck-Institute for evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig in 1997 as one of five Directors, where he and his team searched for techniques to isolate and sequence the fragmented, heavily contaminated DNA of early humans. They did this by using complex computer programs to piece together the DNA fragments and compare them to reference genomes from chimpanzees and humans, as well as by improving extraction methods to increase Neandertal-DNA yields.
Neanderthal genome decoded
In 2010, Svante Pääbo and colleagues were able to reconstruct an early version of the Neandertal genome from skeletal remains. Studies comparing the Neandertal genome to current human genomes have shown that most people living in Europe and Asia have around 2% of Neandertal DNA. That, in turn, meant that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals must have interbred sometime after Homo sapiens left Africa.
Indeed, researchers have uncovered the fossil remains of many ancient people who are the direct descendants of Neanderthals and modern humans. In addition, the comparison of Neandertal and modern human genes revealed which genes we inherited from our ancient ancestors and demonstrated that these genes continue to shape our immune system, skin and hair color, and metabolism even now. Even the risk of some infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, may be influenced by Neanderthal genes, as is now known.
In 2014, a group led by Pääbo at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology came close to fully deciphering the Neandertal genome. This allowed for a more precise assessment of how ancient and modern human genetic resources compare. According to Pääbo, “We have found around 30,000 positions in which the genomes of almost all modern humans differ from those of Neanderthals and great apes. They answer what makes anatomically modern humans ‘modern’ in the genetic sense as well.”
A divergence from the Neanderthal and contemporary human lineages about 800,000 years ago.
Denisova man, a mysterious figure
Pääbo and his colleagues had made another important discovery two years earlier, when they sequenced the genome of a tiny bone discovered in Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains of western Siberia. Based on genetic evidence, it is clear that this Denisova man belonged to a branch of the human evolutionary tree that diverged from the Neanderthal and contemporary human lineages about 800,000 years ago.
In addition, modern-day Papua New Guineans, Australian Aborigines, and members of other Oceanic populations were found to possess up to 5% Denisova DNA, according to the results of genetic investigations. In addition, subsequent DNA research of additional fossil findings revealed evidence that Denisova people and Neanderthals interbred often.
Findings that provide light on our ancient past
Thus, Svante Pääbo and his study have shown that the evolution of humans included a lot of crossover and offshoots and that we still have the genetic code of multiple near ancestors of Homo sapiens. President of the Max Planck Society Martin Stratmann said that “His work has revolutionized our understanding of the evolutionary history of modern humans.”
Scientists are presently developing novel approaches to rebuild even more degraded and scarce DNA fragments. The hope is to open the door to the study of much ancient DNA, as well as genetic material from regions of the globe where DNA survival is even more unusual owing to hot and humid temperatures.
October 6, 2022
2022 Physics Nobel Prize for quantum entanglement and teleportation
Three scientists who have made seminal contributions to the experimental study of quantum entanglement and its applications share the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022. Scientists John Clauser of the United States and Alain Aspect of France devised a method to definitively detect entanglement between photons. Quantum communication relies on entanglement, which was first successfully transmitted by Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna.
The technologies of the future include quantum computing and quantum communication. Because they allow for rapid resolution of difficult problems and the use of “unbreakable” encrypted data. Particles like photons, ions, and atoms act under quantum physical phenomena like superposition and entanglement. Due to these occurrences, quantum computers can process vast amounts of data in a short amount of time, and quantum signals can be “teleported” almost instantly.
The mystery of “spooky action at distance”
Quantum entanglement has been described as “spooky action at a distance” by Albert Einstein and as the most crucial aspect of quantum physics by Erwin Schrödinger. Up until the measurement of the state of one of the entangled particles, the other remains in a superposition state, not knowing which of the two it is. Only then does the second one decide on its state simultaneously.
All current quantum technologies are reliant on the observation of quantum entanglement.
One analogy for quantum entanglement is that of two balls, one white and one black, whose superposition in midair renders them gray. The ultimate color of each ball is revealed only when one of them is captured. Simultaneously, it becomes obvious that the second ball is the opposite color. However, this raises the issue of how the balls determine which color they need to take on. Are their colors coincidental or do they potentially contain information that foretells the color they’ll show up in advance?
Physicist John Stewart Bell suggested a theoretical potential in the 1960s for empirically clarifying this issue. According to this, a real entanglement without hidden variables would have to exhibit a specific degree of correlation when the measurements are repeated numerous times. But how to assess this in a realistic manner remained uncertain.
John Clauser and Alain Aspect: The Bell test becomes practical

The Bell test was first put into experimental practice by John Clauser and Alain Aspect. (Credit: Nobel Foundation)
The first prize winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was the American physicist John Clauser for his work in this area. For the first time, he devised an experiment to prove that quantum entanglement is really possible and that Bell’s inequality could be broken. The scientist accomplished this by generating polarization-entangled pairs of photons. Clauser found out how frequently each combination happened by passing these photons through various polarization filters.
As a result, it was clear that the entangled photons did disprove Bell’s inequality. There was no way to predict or account for the strength of the relationships. Instead, it was a “spooky action at distance” effect in which the measurement of one particle determines the state of another, nullifying the superposition.
Clauser and his team’s experiment was exceedingly inefficient, however, since only a tiny percentage of the created photons were traceable through the filters and hence measurable. French physicist Alain Aspect, who came in second for the 2022 Physics Nobel Prize, decided to interfere here. He refined the experiment by separating the entangled photons and measuring them after they passed through two polarizers.
Anton Zeilinger: Quantum teleportation and quantum amplification
When sending optical information over long distances, for example via a fiber-optic cable, the light signal degrades, limiting the range; this is the issue that Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna addressed, and it is strongly connected to quantum entanglement. Over a distance of 6 miles (10 kilometers), about one photon is lost per second. Standard optical transmissions include intermediate amplifiers that account for this.
Unfortunately, this cannot be done with entangled photons; the amplifier’s need to read out the signal before boosting it would destroy the quantum signal by canceling the entanglement. In 1998, Zeilinger and his group solved the problem using quantum teleportation. This stems from the discovery that one entangled pair of photons may impart that entanglement to another.
As a result, all a quantum amplifier has to do to transport the entanglement and the quantum information it carries from one pair of photons to another is to guarantee that the two pairs make contact with each other under the correct conditions. This finding paves the way for the use of fiber optic cables to carry quantum communications across significant distances. Photons from the sun have also been “entangled” by scientists.
Early adopters of quantum technology
The three physicists who shared the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics have thereby provided the groundwork for the eventual practicality of quantum technology. Their research on entangled states is groundbreaking. The Nobel Foundation explains that this is because “their results have cleared the way for new technology based upon quantum information.”
October 6, 2022
2022 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for “Click Chemistry”
Three scientists will share the 2022 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for developing “click chemistry,” a modular synthesis in which standardized reactions can produce practically any organic compound from basic starting ingredients. It was American scientist Barry Sharpless who initially proposed the concept of click chemistry; Danish chemist Morten Meldal created one of the nuclear reactions for it, and American chemist Carolyn Bertozzi refined the techniques for application in live cells.
Thanks to the efforts of these two men and one woman, “click chemistry” can be used to synthesize organic compounds in a modular fashion.
Different molecules can be obtained by combining the elements of the periodic table through chemical reactions and chemical bonding. However, chemical synthesis, especially of complex compounds and active substances, frequently needs a series of consecutive reaction stages, each of which must be accomplished under certain circumstances. Because of this, many chemicals were produced way too slowly and inefficiently for a long time.
Three organic chemists will share the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2022 for their ground-breaking work in the field that has significantly streamlined chemical synthesis.
Barry Sharpless and molecule construction
To connect the starting molecules, a “click reaction” occurs when two molecules containing azine and alkyne react with one other.
A U.S. scientist named Barry Sharpless, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2001, is considered to be the catalyst for this whole endeavor. He was on the lookout for ways to streamline the molecular synthesis process at the time. His theory was that via modular synthesis, a large range of products might be obtained from basic starting ingredients. This could be accomplished by using a set of simple, generally applicable reactions as tools.
You might think of this method as being similar to Ikea’s, where you get a set of pre-fabricated, standardized parts along with some basic tools and put them together to make whatever shelves or cabinets you need. Sharpless and his colleagues characterized this concept in a 2001 technical publication as “clicking” modules together. That’s how Sharpless started the whole “Click Chemistry” thing.
In order to make their modular synthesis method as broadly applicable as possible, Sharpless and his team also established criteria for the reactions and starting materials involved. Specifically, they instructed chemical reactions to be occured in the presence of oxygen and water, and without the use of any special solvents. Further, the input and output materials should be conveniently accessible and separate as well. Theoretically, scientists have already suggested the first reactions that can be used in click chemistry.
Morten Meldal: The single most useful response mechanism for “clicking”
Second-place winner of the 2022 Chemistry Nobel Prize, Morten Meldal of Denmark presented one of the reactions mentioned by Sharpless and his colleagues at a conference the same year. Meldal discovered that the addition of copper to the azide-alkyne cycloaddition reaction in organic chemistry greatly improved its efficiency, eliminating the need for high temperatures while allowing the reaction to continue almost autonomously and with high yields.
The azine and alkyne groups in this copper-involved azide-alkyne cycloaddition combine like their click analogs. When attached to any organic molecule, they allow for the “clicking” of ever more complicated molecular structures.
buy tirzepatide online http://bywoodeast.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/tirzepatide.html no prescription pharmacy

This reaction is now the cornerstone of chemical synthesis, which is employed in the creation of innumerable useful products in technology, medicine, and science, including medicines, plastics, and more.
buy amoxil online http://bywoodeast.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/amoxil.html no prescription pharmacy

Cellular click chemistry by Carolyn Bertozzi
These glycan sugars on the surfaces of cells were coupled to a green fluorene marker using a modified azide-alkyne reaction.
(Bertoni et al. / PNAS 2007)
U.S. scientist Carolyn Bertozzi, who came in third place for the 2022 Chemistry Nobel Prize, expanded the use of this fundamental click chemical reaction to live cells, where it can be utilized to bind fluorescent marker proteins to biological components. However, copper is poisonous to cells, so she had to come up with a version of the azide-alkyne cycloaddition that works without this catalyst but still doesn’t need any more energy to proceed.
buy celexa online http://bywoodeast.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/celexa.html no prescription pharmacy

The chemist accomplished this by using an alkyne version with a ring structure.
As an additional step, Bertozzi improved upon a well-established synthesis process called the Staudinger reaction to the point that it, too, could be used to “click together” the molecules in a cellular setting. This cellularly relevant click chemistry was dubbed “bioorthogonal reactions” by the chemist. She defines them as the interactions of functional groups that are sufficiently selective of each other that they may bind molecules together even in a highly dynamic and complicated biological context.
“The achievements and discoveries of Carolyn R. Bertozzi, Morten Meldal, and K. Barry Sharpless have had enormous influence on our society,” the Nobel Foundation stated. “Through the development of inspirational new concepts and highly efficient methods, the laureates have enhanced our capabilities and considerably deepened and widened our knowledge and understanding. Their remarkable accomplishments have increased our means to improve our world and better our lives, truly to the benefit of humankind.”
October 5, 2022
Famous Scientists Whose Breakthroughs Never Won a Nobel Prize
In science, the Nobel Prizes are the ultimate distinction, yet not every great mind has been recognized. Dmitri Mendeleev, Ludwig Boltzmann, Edwin Hubble, Lise Meitner, and Stephen Hawking are just a few of the notable scientists who never won a Nobel Prize. But why haven’t we given a Nobel Prize to every excellent scientist? What were the excuses for them? Let’s take a look at the famous whose breakthroughs never won a Nobel Prize.
Alfred Nobel, the creator of dynamite, established the Nobel Prizes in 1901 to recognize exceptional scientific contributions in the fields of physics, chemistry, and medicine. He was preoccupied with publicizing and fostering a widespread appreciation for significant human accomplishments. Numerous well-known scientists, whose work has had a lasting impact on our understanding of the world, earned a place on the extensive list of Nobel Prize winners.
But the absence of some of science’s most illustrious figures is all the more glaring for it. From the master of black holes to the discoverer of Archaea to the inventor of the Big Bang, there are many famous people who have contributed to our understanding of the universe. However, it is puzzling that these scientific pioneers have been overlooked for the Nobel Prize.
Between the suggestion and the awarding of the Nobel
From nominations to the ceremony, a look at the Nobel Prize procedure. (Image: N. Elmehed/NobelPrize.org)
The circumstances surrounding a nomination and the actual awarding of the Nobel Prize are both crucial in determining whether or not that nominee will be honored. Despite the excellence of certain individuals, they have been denied receiving the Nobel Prize due to the strict requirements set out in Alfred Nobel’s will and also in the rules of the Nobel Foundation.
For a Nobel to be awarded, the method requires the nominee to be put forth by other people. A year or more in advance, the Nobel Committee sends out anonymous nomination forms to specific scientists and academic institutions. Based on these recommendations, the committee makes its nominations in February. Only the prize winners’ identities are revealed; the nominees are kept hidden for 50 years.
The Nobel Committee members are then advised by experts who have reviewed the work of the applicants. Over the course of the next several months, the committee of six members conducts many rounds of selection before casting their final decision at the beginning of October. Each of the six members of this committee is a specialist in either chemistry, physics, or medicine/physiology for the three distinct prizes, and all the members are chosen by the Swedish Academy of Sciences to serve staggered three-year terms.
When the Nobel Prizes were initially established in 1901, the selection committees adhered more strictly to the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will than they do now. Many prominent researchers missed out on a Nobel Prize because of this.
Mendeleev and the periodic table
Dmitri Mendeleev.
Dmitri Mendeleev, who developed the periodic table, was one of these scientists who was never awarded a Nobel. In the middle of the 19th century, he and the German scientist Lothar Meyer independently constructed systems to account for the seemingly irrational “relationships” between some chemical components. In contrast to Meyer, Mendeleev understood that the resultant table was incomplete; it seemed that several elements had yet to be identified.
When Dmitri Mendeleev presented his periodic table in 1869, he was initially met with skepticism and ignorance. However, several elements were found during the subsequent 15 years that filled in the blanks in Mendeleev’s table. Since then, chemistry has always relied on the periodic table of elements, and today, the colorful atomic table may be seen hanging in almost every school.
But for no real reason at all, the Russian scientist was never awarded the Nobel Prize. Alfred Nobel specified in his will that the annual prize be given to the person or people who had done the most that year to improve human life. In the first years of the Nobel Prize, only recently active scientists were selected. Unfortunately, Mendeleev did not make the cut in this aspect.
It’s true that a few committee members challenged the antiquity of his periodic table’s underlying findings. However, they failed to secure a majority. The man credited as the inventor of the periodic table passed away in obscurity in 1907. The norm now is to honor scientists even after decades of their discovery. Therefore, the criteria of “timeliness” are virtually irrelevant to the Nobel Prizes of today.
This is the reason why a lot of early researchers didn’t win a Nobel Prize. They made ground-breaking findings, yet their colleagues and contemporaries didn’t believe them at first. They often had to wait decades for the validity of their breakthrough to be acknowledged. This is what happened to numerous scientists who were worthy of the Nobel Prize, including Alfred Wegener with his plate tectonics theory.
Oswald Avery and his breakthrough in DNA
Oswald Avery’s research established DNA as the material carrier of genetic information.
A striking example is a Canadian physician, Oswald Avery, who discovered that the DNA molecule stores our genetic information. Medical professionals and biochemists alike had a firm belief in the central role of proteins in cells as the primary agents of inheritance until the 1950s. Through his tests on pneumococci, Oswald Avery found that a threadlike white material seemed to be essential for genetic inheritance.
Examination at a higher resolution revealed that the substance in question was not a protein but rather a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Based on his research, Avery concluded that this molecule must serve as a vector for transmitting genetic information. In 1944, he released his results to the public, although they were poorly received at first. Protein theorists balked at the idea that the genetic code could be stored in DNA, which has only four different bases. Many still believed that the proteins were still present in the DNA, but this was not the case.
Despite being nominated for the Nobel Prize 38 times, Oswald Avers was never awarded the prestigious prize. When it was finally realized in the 1950s that Avery was correct in his assessment of DNA as a hereditary molecule, it was too late for the doctor: Avery passed away in 1955, missing out on both the Nobel Prize and the celebration of James Watson and Francis Crick’s deciphering of the DNA code.
Georges Lemaitre and the Big Bang
Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic priest and a physicist.
Georges Lemaitre, the “Father” of the Big Bang, was another scientist who was centuries ahead of his time. In 1927, a Belgian priest and scientist realized the implications of the expanding universe. If one could rewind time, one would find that the whole cosmos was once concentrated in a single spot, a kind of “primordial nucleus” of the universe.
However, when Lemaitre presented this theory to his fellow physicists, he was greeted with intense opposition. For the simple reason that conventional wisdom at the time held that the cosmos was static for all of eternity. Even to Albert Einstein, the notion that the universe may have emerged from some kind of “big bang” seemed practically inconceivable. When the Big Bang’s afterglow, known as “cosmic background radiation,” was detected in 1964, it provided further confirmation of Lemaitre’s Big Bang theory. Unfortunately, he passed away in 1966, so he never had the chance to accept the honor, if there was one.
For Robert Brout, the discovery of the Higgs boson came too late
“File:Robert Brout.jpg” by Pnicolet, CC BY-SA 3.0.
It is hardly surprising that theorists, a subset of scientists, have been mostly overlooked for the Nobel Prize. In most cases, it wasn’t enough that their discoveries were ground-breaking and crucial. No one has ever won a Nobel Prize for a theory, including the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein. Instead, in 1921, Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his work describing the photoelectric effect, which is the result of light’s interaction with matter.
The Nobel Prize Committee’s preference for experimental breakthroughs may have a role in this; such feats are more intuitive and straightforward to categorize in terms of their significance. Many theoretical predictions and models are not accepted as valid until they have been verified experimentally.
The 2016 detection of gravitational waves by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations is the most recent illustration of this phenomenon. Although Albert Einstein had predicted these space-time shocks and their production processes a century earlier, the Nobel Prize wasn’t given out until they were actually observed.
Like the Higgs boson, the topic of what gives basic particles their mass has been debated by scientists since at least the 1960s. Then in 1964, Peter Higgs, Robert Brout, and Francois Englert reached the same conclusion: there must be a previously undiscovered sort of field with which these particles interact and, in turn, gain their mass. If this “Higgs field” did really exist, then it must also have a corresponding particle.
However, the Higgs boson was first thought of as a theoretical particle. In 2012, researchers at the CERN research facility finally managed to identify the particle in the LHC particle accelerator. With this discovery, the three scientists who found the Higgs mechanism were theoretically also deserving of a Nobel Prize. However, for Robert Brout, the proof came too late since he died in 2011. That’s why the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics went to only two of his colleagues who are still alive.
Hawking: Revolutionary, but without a Nobel Prize
Also, Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, was unfortunate to win the Nobel Prize. The late British scientist was widely regarded as a leading figure in the fields of cosmology and physics. We owe him crucial insights into the nature and behavior of black holes, as well as important theories on the quantum-physical foundation of the Big Bang and cosmic inflation.
Hawking theorized that black holes release some kind of radiation. Quantum fluctuations continually produce pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles, which give birth to this Hawking Radiation. While they normally cancel out in space, when one of these particles is beyond the event horizon, the outer particle is illuminated. As per Hawking’s theory, even tiny black holes may eventually evaporate into nothing but radiation if exposed to enough of it.
Even though Hawking’s work is now central to cosmological and astrophysical understanding, he, too, was not awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Recent studies have provided indirect proof of Hawking Radiation, although many of his theories still require astronomical or experimental support. Now that Hawking is dead, this possibility has disappeared since Nobel Prizes are not awarded if the person is dead.
Some of the early pioneers of theoretical physics, like Arnold Sommerfeld, one of the inventors of quantum theory, and Satyendra Nath Bose, for whom bosons are named today, met a similar fate. Though Stephen Hawking was nominated for the Nobel Prize 74 times, he was never awarded one.
Edwin Hubble and the Redshift
Edwin Hubble
Working in a different scientific field prevented several scientists from missing out on the Nobel Prize. It wasn’t until fairly recently that scientists from closely related fields began receiving the Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and medicine alongside their more-traditional counterparts. This resulted in many frustrated astronomers, biologists, and overly mathematical physicists.
The American astronomer Edwin Hubble serves as a prime example of someone who did not receive a Nobel Prize. The Andromeda nebula, which could be seen in the sky even before his discovery, turned out to be a neighboring galaxy, not part of our Milky Way. Then, in 1929, he determined that the redder the wavelength of light from distant cosmic objects, the further away they are. Therefore, faraway things move away from us at a greater rate than those closer to us. Distance and redshift have a linear relationship.
Hubble’s discoveries led to the revelation that the universe is continually expanding, which in turn provided the foundation for innumerable key insights about the evolution of the cosmos. His results provide the basis for the Hubble constant, which measures the expansion rate of the universe and thus bears his name.
These ground-breaking results would easily warrant a Nobel Prize today. During Hubble’s lifetime, however, the Nobel Prize in Physics committee had a very limited view of his discipline and did not consider astronomy for a Nobel. Even though Hubble’s contributions influenced the cosmic perspective and, by extension, physics, he was not even considered for the Nobel Prize for decades. He had been passed over for the honor until the last days of his life in 1953, when three scientists finally thought to nominate him.
Carl Woese and the Tree of Life
Carl Woese. (Don Hamerman, CC BY 3.0)
The American molecular scientist Carl Woese is another “victim” of the limited scope of the Nobel Prize. He was the one who first noticed that there are really three major branches in the family tree of existence. The archaea are the third major group of organisms on Earth after bacteria and eukaryotes. These one-celled creatures were at first classified as a subset of bacteria due to their shared lack of a nucleus and superficial resemblance to bacteria.
But Carl Woese found important genetic variations in ribosomes, an ancient component of all organisms. These protein-producing factories inside cells house RNA molecules that exhibit species-related variation. Carl Woese discovered Archaea in the 1970s by meticulously examining the ribosomal RNA of different bacteria and other species.
Phylogenetic Tree of Life based on the rRNA analysis by Woese. (Credit: Maulucioni, CC BY-SA 3.0)
Additionally, Woese noticed that rRNA reflected the whole development of life, not just microbial classification. The results of Woese’s study shook up the fields of microbiology and evolution. Molecular phylogeny is still grounded in the comparison of ribosomal RNA. Yet, Woese did not get a Nobel Prize, and he passed away in 2012. His discoveries were overlooked by the Nobel Committee since they could not be classified within the fields of medicine, biomedicine, or chemistry.
Lise Meitner and the discovery of nuclear fission
Women researchers are another underrepresented group that has been overlooked for Nobel Prizes despite their merit. In the early years of the Nobel Prize, there were very few women in science, and those that did exist typically had to settle for working alongside their male counterparts. Many of them were not even considered for faculty positions or other academic leadership roles.
Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn in 1913.
Lise Meitner is one of the most infamous women who was denied a Nobel Prize. She was the first to detect the mechanisms underlying the nuclear fission of atoms, which presented crucial wisdom to her colleague Otto Hahn; she was born in 1878 and studied under Ludwig Boltzmann. As the first female physics professor in Berlin, Germany, Lise Meitner made history in 1926. However, her career was cut short in 1933 when, due to her Jewish heritage, she was fired and forced to depart the country.
She worked and kept in touch with Hahn even while living in exile in Sweden. After doing an experiment with uranium in December 1938, he excitedly reported to her that no heavier nuclei but smaller ones had been produced by the experiment. Hahn remarked, “Perhaps you can come up with some sort of fantastic explanation. We knew ourselves that [uranium] can’t actually burst apart into [barium].”
Then, Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch set out to find a theoretical explanation, which they did. They concluded that the uranium atom had been split by a barrage of neutrons.
Thus, both the possibility and the mechanism of nuclear fission became evident. In 1944, Otto Hahn received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in discovering nuclear fission and providing radiochemical confirmation of its existence. However, neither Lise Meitner nor Otto Frisch received a Nobel. The reason for this was obvious: Lise Meitner had a poor hand with the Nobel Prize Committee since she was a woman and also a Jew who was expelled from Germany.
Rosalind Franklin and the structure of DNA
Rosalind Franklin in Paris. (Credit: CSHL, CC BY)
One of Lise Meitner’s colleagues, the British biophysicist Rosalind Franklin, had a very similar incident when it came to not receiving a Nobel Prize. There is a good chance that James Watson and Francis Crick would not have successfully rebuilt the double helix structure of the hereditary molecule DNA without Rosalind. Because at the time, they and many of their peers believed DNA had to consist of three strands. Watson and Crick finally grasped what to look for only after obtaining Franklin’s X-ray DNA crystallography.
The two scientists gained international renown in 1953 for their model of DNA’s double helix structure in the journal Nature. While Rosalind Franklin and her coworker Maurice Wilkins also submitted their data in the same journal issue, the model developed by Watson and Crick stood out the most. The discovery of DNA’s structure earned Crick, Watson, and Wilkins the Nobel Prize in 1962. Rosalind Franklin, whose contributions were crucial to this groundbreaking finding, was unfortunately ignored.
Jocelyn Bell and the pulsars
There are instances of underappreciated female scientists in the field of astronomy, as well. There is Jocelyn Bell Burnell, the British radio astronomer who found the first pulsar. She was analyzing data from a brand-new radio telescope as part of her dissertation research at the University of Cambridge for her doctorate. In August of 1967, she discovered unexplainable radio signals inside it that followed an extremely regular pattern.
Anthony Hewish, Bell Burnell’s dissertation advisor, first doubted that the signals had a natural origin because of their regularity. He humorously gave them the designation LGM-1, which stands for “Little Green Men.” However, Burnell discovered more pulsing radio signals that, like the stars, traveled across the sky. Bell Burnell eventually identified pulsars, which turned out to be the radio emissions from fast-spinning neutron stars.
Her results were published in 1968 along with those of Hewish. The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Anthony Hewish in 1974, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell was not included.
Bibliography
1. Featured Image: Photo by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas, CC BY 3.0, enhanced from original.
2. “All Nobel Prizes”. NobelPrize.org.
3. “Nobel prize winners”. University of Cambridge. 2013.
4. Alfred Nobel’s will – The establishment of the Nobel Prize”.
October 1, 2022