Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Nobel Prize in Medicine Contested 100

Posted by michael from the me-too dept.
GeoGreg writes "The AP is reporting that Dr. Raymond Damadian is asking the Nobel committee to add him to the list of recipients of this year's prize in medicine. His company claims that he made the key discovery leading to MRI, and that the two recipients (Paul Laterbur and Peter Mansfield) made technological improvements. This link indicates that Damadian showed that magnetic resonance could distinguish between types of tissue, while Laterbur and Mansfield showed that images could be formed using magnetic resonance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nobel Prize in Medicine Contested More

Nobel Prize in Medicine Contested

Comments Filter:

  • Well (Score:2)

    by MBCook ( 132727 )
    Well, I've got to say that from that summary, it does sound as if he has been overlooked and deserves to be recognised.

    • Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 )
      If he's been overlooked, that's too bad, and maybe the Nobel Committee screwed up. But they're not going to change their minds, and by whining about it, he just makes himself look bitter. He's exactly right -- they are "above the law and accountable to no one." And that means they can give their prize to whomever they damn well choose.

      Right now, even though there are other awards that have a higher monetary value, the Nobel is the most prestigious because of its name and history. If they have a few spe
      • I agree. It's their choice, and it's their right to say "Sorry". And I'm glad that the Nobel commite isn't in the US or they'd probably be sued every year.

        That said, I still think is sounds like he deserves to be recognised. Just a simple "he helped", "he contributed", or the guys who got it could say "we couldn't have done it if we didn't know what he found out". But I agree, they shouldn't be forced to give the prize to him too or anything.

    • I heard an interview on NPR with one of the scientists who DID win, and either he or the reporter noted that one of the things that had held up the awarding of a prize for MRI for many years was the dispute over whether this third guy got included or not. I didn't get any impression from the scientist that he particularly cared. Which means that it was up to the Nobel committee, and they made their decision after apparently looking at the question of whether he should be included or not many times over th
      • The other way the story is being told is that the guy wouldn't accept if Dr D was on it too. They had a long and bitter fight over priority which Dr D won.
    • The Nobel prize committee can only choose between those people who are noiminated, they can't nominate people themselves. So he shouldn't bitch to the Nobel committee that they didn't choose him -- they didn't have the option to. He should be bitching to the people who didn't nominate him with the others.

      In either case, bitching and whining about not wining a prize is bad form. (I know a similar case where someone's collaborators won the Nobel, but he wasn't nominated. He wasn't happy about it, but hi

  • it's ludicrous to think that the nobel committee
    would give the award to an avowed creationist.
    it really doesn't matter that he invented
    the process. to give this man a nobel would
    bring the prize into disrepute.
    • Oh, christ, get over over the whole creationist thing already. It's one of those beliefs that people don't just change, so there's no point in berating them about it.

      The fact that he's a creationist (which I haven't even checked for validity) has nothing to do with whether or not he invented the MRI idea.

    • What on earth makes you think that a person's religious beliefs have anything at all to do with whether or not they are eligible for the Nobel Prize?

      "Oh, I'm sorry, you believe in Thor, so we can't possible give you this honor, but we would have given it to you if you didn't... I don't suppose you could stop believing in him for a couple of weeks, could you?"

      --

      Man, I can't believe I responded to a Troll.


      • > What on earth makes you think that a person's religious beliefs have anything at all to do with whether or not they are eligible for the Nobel Prize?

        Would you give a prestigious scientific award to, say, a chemist who believed the world was flat and the heavenly bodies rotated around it, regardless of his contributions to chemistry?

        • They gave one to a guy who's best friend was a figment of his imagination [abeautifulmind.com], didn't they?

          If Watson & Crick had believed the world sat on the back of a giant turtle, they still discovered DNA, and that's still a Nobel-worthy achievement.

          For pete's sake, Alfred Nobel himself believed that if he created a destructive enough weapon, it would end mankind's penchant for war!

          Ergo, the Nobel Prize signifies ACHIEVEMENT, not BELIEF.
          • Wasn't that schizophrenia? Creation science is a willing belief. I may think people who go all out to prove dinosaurs are just a 'mystery' put down by God are a little bit nuts, but it's not a mental illness.
            • Anyone who thinks anything is put on earth as just a 'mystery' is a bit silly.. Even the Church goers I'm friends with believe everything has a place and a reason, but anyway... If you're taught something is true from birth.. and you actually feel bound to it for the rest of your life, how is that different? I mean, most Christians I know don't go oh.. I have no idea if God is real, but I'm going to believe in him anyway. Being religious or not is not as simple as deciding whether you'd rather have a ca
          • No. There is no Nobel for mathematics. You're
            thinking of the Fields medal.

            Why no math Nobel? Something to do with Mrs.
            Nobel and one Mr. Gauss.

        • Why on earth not? If your wife thinks she looks good in a bright pink dress, but you know she doesn't.. Does that mean you shouldn't be married? ;) One thing has nothing to do with another.. The Nobel Prize doesn't seem to have anything to do with your overall views. Just look at who else they've given other prizes to (especially look at the peace prizes)..
          • I don't know how religious is that guy, but if he is hardcore, then I can certainly understand why not give the prize to him. One thing is to believe that a higher being created this universe 14bn years ago and another is to believe in everything that is written in the bible.
            • What does that have to do with his contributions to society? Just because he believes something you don't, I don't understand why that makes him ineligable..

              It amuses me when people become more ignorant than the people they believe are ignorant, if that makes sense.
              • First, we do not know if his beliefs had any effect whasoever in the decision of the Nobel Committee and the Academy. But if it had, I would support that reasoning. A creationist does not deserve the main scientific award. This does not negate his achievements, but he is simply not worthy of it, just like Yasser Arafat is not eligible of the Peace Prize. :) Another important issue is that giving the prize to a creationist would simply give too great a weapon to them. Of course, his research doesn't have any
                • It just seems to me that this is just like what the catholic church used to do.. You don't believe in our beliefs? Well screw you ;) This is just basically.. You believe in something we don't? Screw you.

                  Complete ignorance on everyone's part.
                  • Well, this is often the most logical way for an organisation to behave. If you want your organisation survive and your set of beliefs to propagate, the best way to do like the catholic church did. Look, the church is almost 2 thousand years old and the science is only a few centuries old. There are certainly some things to learn from the church. :)

                    Of course, to be serious, the principle is not that simple. It is more like "The propagation of your beliefs is a danger to our own goals. -> Screw you." Why
      • A great example of it is the fact that the pope John Paul II didn't get the Peace prize this year. His 25-year papacy did a lot for peace, with his strong opposition to dictatorships (like in Cuba or the pre-1989 communist eastern Europe bloc), usually traveling to those places to bring more attention to his views, to the war in Iraq etc. Maybe more important were his apologies for the misdeeds of the Roman church in the past (including the long overdue apology to Galileo) and reapproximations to Jewish and
    • ...after which [almaz.com] this is kind of like asking "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?"

      He did actually invent MRI; Paul Lauterbur made a refinement in imaging technique and Peter Mansfield made improvements to the analysis of the raw data [about.com], so the absence of his name is indeed singular. More so because Damadian actually built the first working scanner, holds the patent on MRI (and 39 other patents too), and built the first commercial MRI scanner.

      Perhaps even more striking and demonstrating that he was
      • FYI, the Peace Nobel is given by a separate (Norwegian) body from the Medicine Nobel.

        According to this link [man.ac.uk], Damadian intended to use MRI for tissue characterization, not imaging. It was Laterbur that first used MRI to make a 2-dimensional image. If you look at Damadian's patent [uspto.gov], there is no mention made of imaging. Rather, it covers two methods specifically designed to detect the presence of cancerous tissue (either in a sample or in the body). No imaging is implied. So, while he may have been impor

        • Damadian intended to use MRI for tissue characterization, not imaging

          Damadian did build the first MRI table, is still in the business, is still innovating, and as at now builds the best (or at least most impressive) MRI scanner available.

          The other germane point is that the two awardees simply refined his invention (and then he turned around in the best GPLish style and refined theirs, and built the first working one), they did not do the original research that made the whole process possible. The beanh

          • Well, as someone in the imaging business (geophysical, not medical), my understanding of what the other guys did is that it's more than details. They used back-projection to solve equations related to the gradient. Not my area of expertise, but it's complicated. It's not just taking a bunch of individual readings and painting them on a pixmap. It requires the solution of systems of equations. Did Damadian do any work with the magnetic field gradient? That seems to have been the key insight in being ab
            • It seems to me that if Mansfield and Lauterbur deserve a solo (well, duo) Nobel, then a local lad who was recently killed in a light-plane crash (Harry Protoolis of Nautronix) deserves one for his work in sonar, which has carried the field forward as far as M&L's work carried NMR forward.

              Not saying that their work was other than excellent, just that it was developmental rather than revolutionary. Radar and sonar had already covered a lot of the ground they needed.

              It would also startle me if Damadian h

  • That's just . . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CheshireCatCO ( 185193 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @07:28PM (#7186688) Homepage
    .... sad.

    History is full of examples of people who were overlooked for the Nobel Prize. (Rosalind Franklin, anyone? Heck, Einstein was never recognized with that award for his really major works: special and general relativity.) The prize isn't something people "earn" and it's not something that you're entitled to. It's something that one particular group of people decide to bestow upon you because you've done significant work in their view.

    I personally know at least one person fairly well who was overlooked for a Nobel. (This in the view of most of his collegues. Having read the work in question, I tend to agree.) He's very mellow about it, rather praising his friends who did win the prize. To take out ads to bitch makes me suspect that this guy is stuck in the 4-year-old emotional stage. (Or he's greedy and he wants a cut of the $1 million. Either way, pathetic.)

    • Re:That's just . . . . (Score:3, Informative)

      by crmartin ( 98227 )
      You'd have done better to have stopped at the first dot. "That's just." Rosalind Franklin is an excellent example -- someone needs to keep the Nobel Committee's feet to the fire.

      In this case, the guy made the seminal discovery, he's on the patents, and he's been associated with it from the start. To be left off the Prize is ... well, questionable at best, and if (as has been suggested) it's because the poor guy became religious, it's despicable.
      • Why does someone have to keep their feet to the fire? It's private money bestowed upon people by a private organization. They can honor whomever they choose for any research they want to. If they want to leave someone out, well, that's their call. Why do you feel that you need to keep them on track?

        Donate enough money to endow your own prize, then you can give it out in your own way. And you can get all the lovely complaints by loudmouts who feel that they are entitled to your money.
        • Because the Nobel Committee makes such a thing about their high-minded moral purpose.
          • And they evidently think that they're doing the right thing, morally speaking. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that they're necessarily wrong and that we should all listen to you.

            So I ask you again, where do you get off telling them what to do with their prizes?
            • Just because they think they're right doesn't mean they are. Where do you get off telling me what I should say?
              • I'm not. I'm saying you should consider that their point of view might be every bit as valid as yours and that you aren't the final arbiter of what is morally correct and what isn't.
                • ... by telling me that you are the final arbiter of what is correct and what isn't?

                  Can't have it both ways, pup.
                  • Wow, you're argumentative. Cool off.

                    No, I'm saying that you need to respect other people's opinions about what is right or wrong and not assume that you have the sole window on morality.

                    The folks in Sweden have been asked to award the Nobels each year. Someone not only invested them with the power to decide, but trusted them to decide wisely. Unfortunately, given the paucity of awards, it will always be unfair to many people who don't get Nobel Prizes. However, I'd cut them some slack and give them t
      • if (as has been suggested) it's because the poor guy became religious, it's despicable.

        Despicable like the boy scouts (another private organization) excluding people simply for being gay?

      • Actually, the reason Dr. Damadian was left out was because his version of the MRI barely worked. When it passed the first engineering test, he hyped his (then incomplete) machine, and eventually his company abandoned his own design in order to use Lauterbur and Mansfield's method. He may have made the breakthrough in the first iteration of MRI, but L+M made it reliable and accurate.
        • And your point would be? Damadian had the first insight, and (after some battles) the patents list him as among the inventors. In theory, the Nobel is awarded for the scientific advance, rather than the engineering refinement of the idea.
        • Absolutely. In fact, Lauterbur suggested using NMR for imaging before Damadian did. Damadian's 1971 paper made no reference to imaging, but claimed to be able to identify cancerous tissue by relaxation time measurement -- a claim that has turned out to be incorrect except for a few special cases. A good summary is given in Donald P. Hollis's book Abusing Cancer Science (1987, ISBN 0942033159). Damadian's claim to deserve a Nobel Prize is, as far as I can see, utter nonsense.
    • The Nobel Prizes tend to be awarded for research of an applied nature, or related to such phenomena. The photoelectric effect has rather widespread (now) applications in solar panels and PMTs, whereas relativity, while being rather more significant theoretically, doesn't much factor into our daily existences. This is related to the reason why there is no Nobel Prize in mathematics --- pure math tends not to have many practical applications! It's not a big deal, though. We have the Fields Medal for math, the
      • And yet many physicists have recieved Nobels for quantum mechanics or related areas (one of which was handed to Neils Bohr at the same ceremony where Albert got his for the photoelectric effect), which have even less application that relativity.

        For that matter, the discovery of pulsars netted a Nobel for Hewish and Bell. Show me the application of *that* little beauty. And next, show me how detecting pulsar orbital decay (confirming general relativity) is applicable. And why *that* is more important tha
    • Rosalind Franklin passed away [accessexcellence.org] by the time they got the idea of giving Nobel prize for DNA structure [almaz.com]. The rules of Noble prize forbid awarding it posthumously [nobel.se].
      • Yeah, my fault. I'd forgotten about that. Which absolves the academy for not awarding her. However, it raises another point: is it fair to ignore people who have had the misfortune to die (especially those that died young) before someone got around to nominating them for a Nobel? Granted, the money does them little good, but they could still be awarded. It would probably mean a lot to their families and collegues. (There are other cases of people dying before they should have gotten a Nobel. Henry Mo
        • If you started awarding posthumous Nobel prizes you would probably have to start by giving the next 4-6 to Albert Einsteing (Special Relativity, General Relativity, Brownian Motian, Expantion of the universe etc). The rules say you have to be living, and for good reasons. How far back would you like to go giving them out. It gets kind of silly after a while.
          • Yeah, there's a limit to how far you want to go with it. But certainly when you give the prize to a team with a now-deceased member it seems fitting that that person still be recognized. And there is no reason why someone who died recently before s/he could be awarded shouldn't be allowed to be honored. It would be up to the committee to decide how far to go with it, just like it is up to them who they want to honor out of the many, many worth scientists/writers/activists/etc.

    • > History is full of examples of people who were overlooked for the Nobel Prize. [...] The prize isn't something people "earn" and it's not something that you're entitled to. It's something that one particular group of people decide to bestow upon you because you've done significant work in their view.

      Various scientists quoted in the biomedcentral [biomedcentral.com] article suggest that the decision may be very legit, even if controversial:

      So why did the Nobel committee disagree? Primarily, some leading scientists say,

    • Rosalind Franklin was dead when the Nobel for DNA was given. Only living people may receive the Nobel prize.
    • Rosalind Franklin was not overlooked by the Nobel committee. They never got the chance. She was dead. The rules do not allow posthumous awards.
    • Of course, Einstein didn't get the Nobel prize for the relativity theories, because these theories - contrary to popular belief - aren't his. The formula's for special relativity were discovered by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (and Fitzgerald), the principle of special relativity was introduced by Henri Poincare. We own general relativity to Paul Gerber and David Hilbert. Albert Einstein has received the Nobel Prize for his work on photons.
      • If you know enough science history to know those names, you should know enough to know that your conclusion simply isn't true. Other had bandied about some of the ideas of SR before Einstein made his entry to the scene. (Hell, even Maxwell's equations implicitly include SR in them.) But Einstein was the first to really integrate it all together and get all of the necessary pieces in place. Einstein was never remotely shy about giving credit to those who proceeded him, but it's still agreed that the theo
        • Thanks for your reply, CheshireCatCO.
          I admit that the case of GR is fuzzy (What was the input of Einstein's wife, for instance?), but about SR: what did Einstein add that was not yet there in the work of Lorentz (the formula's) and Poincare (the principle & the interpretation of Lorentz's formula's)?
          • I don't think Mileva had a lot of effect on GR. She and Albert divorced in 1914 (a year before GR was finally published) and their relationship was on the rocks for a while before that. It's possible that she had some effect, but I've never heard of any definate mention of it. (If she did provide input, Albert was likely the only one who knew. It's not very like him to not give due credit, but it's still possible that she helped.)

            As to SR, Einstein was the first person to really cast off Newtonian phys
            • On special relativity:

              We do not have to wait until Poincare's 1904 speech at the International Congress of Arts & Siences in St. Louis (USA) to find evidence of his relativity principle. He was working on it since the 1880s. In 1889 he's quoted to have said "we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals." ( website of the Nobel Committee [nobel.se])

              In "La Science et l'hypothese" (Flammarion, Paris, 1902), we read in chapter VI on "space" (p. 111-112): "1. Il n'y a pas d'espace abso
              • Poincare's "we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals" quote is from 1898, not 1889. But I do know Poincare was working on this since the 1880s, I'm still looking for a correct reference.

              • The English translation of Poincare's "Science & Hypothesis" can be found here [brocku.ca].
  • Good thing there is a Nobel Prize to keep scientists researching!

  • he said excluded (Score:3, Informative)

    by mOoZik ( 698544 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @07:58PM (#7186802) Homepage
    This means he was possibly not nominated at all. If that is the case, then shame on the them. The article says, "He declined to say whether Damadian had been nominated. Names of nominees are kept secret for 50 years." But seeing that he is taking action, one would deduce that he hadn't been nominated or considered (even though he invented MRI, while the other two made improvements (as per the patent)).
    • No, all it means is that he wasn't among the honorees, and seeing the action he is taking he wants the prize very, very much. Nothing more can be drawn from this. Someone in the running for the prize might hear rumors that they've been nominated for the Nobel, but they never actually know until it's been awarded...or they find out 50 years later when the names of the nominees are revealed. But most people are long dead by then so it's a moot point.
      • What exactly are you smoking? To be nominated for the Nobel, you are made aware of the fact generally, and not 50 years later either. For example, Governor George Ryan of Illinois was nominated for the Peace Prize for his moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois and his work to have a moratorium imposed nation wide. He didn't win, but many people knew about it; certainly he did.
        • From the Nobel wesite [nobel.se]

          "Q. Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize? Where do I find a list of Nobel Prize nominees?

          A. According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, nominators must not make public the names of the nominees nor inform nominees privately of the proposals. Even invitations to propose names are confidential. Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize may not be divulged. The names of the nominees

  • IIRC, there is historical precedence for this. Nobels are occasionally awarded for improvements or modifications of a theory without recognizing the original work. Nothing to see here except whining.

  • ... and for being a capitalist. Dr. Damadian is a firm believer in creationism and has been heading a successful company that has profited from MRI. That company has also sued a lot of companies which have tried to enter the MRI space. All of these things probably had some influence on the selection process.

    Personally, I think Nobel Committee has set a pretty dangerous precedent that pretty much punishes researches who have views which deviate from majority's point of view.

    Would Nobel Committee award a

    • Believing God created the universe and everything in it is creationism. What Damadian believes is not creationism but creation science. Instead of using science to prove their point, Creation Scientists use religion to fill the gaps with God. That eye is too darned complex, ergo Goddidit.
    • wow. such a dangerous precedent. indeed, goodness knows what would happen if, say, groups of people created laws which prevent you from acting on your belief that every last bird on the planet should be dead. what a tragedy. what would we do? oh, wait, we'd ignore you.

      we can't go around sulking, nor turning everyone into a martyr. did they do it for religious reasons? i don't know, maybe they didn't like the way he tied his shoelaces or perhaps -gasp- he wears velcro shoes. will we hear no end from propone
    • Despite plenty of examples, I'm always surprised by people who are both good scientists and firm believers in creationism.

      Creationism, at least some forms of it, are deliberately anti-scientific and anti-rationalistic. It proposes non-falsifiable hypotheses with zero explanatory power. At least according to the link, this guy appears to be of that sort.

      Plenty of people have a casual belief in a Higher Power that comforts them and (while they're at it) also fills in some of the gaps in origins theories.
  • From the first link: "In an interview Friday, Damadian said that without his work 'MRI wouldn't exist.'"

    This is just not so. While Mozart's music would not have been made without Mozart, we're talking about a scientific discovery that's just waiting for somebody to pick up on. You can replace one scientist for another and the advance of human knowledge will continue. It may be slightly faster or slower, require more or less people and/or resources, but it will continue--and I say that as a someone who
    • Credit is given to those who do it FIRST. Damadian did it first, yet the other two are getting recognized for making improvements on what HE did. Can't you see the difference?
      • Awarding of a Nobel, as another poster has already mentioned, is not necessarily awarded to the first person who came up with an idea--a Nobel and being credited with being first are simply not the same. My beefs with Damadian are that he falsely claims that MRI wouldn't exist without him, indeed Lauterbur's 1973 paper doesn't even mention Damadian's work and even Damadian's supporters must conceed that the idea of MRI was conceived independently by Damadian and Lauterbur. Also it isn't up to Damadian whe
    • Ahh... you don't know your Spider Robinson, then.
      Pick up "By Any Other Name" (Baen 2001). It's an anthology of short stories, one of which deals with copyright law. In it, he suggests that music is just a combonation of numbers in a random order. Out of the myriad permutations available, most will sound like crap, but some will sound good. Copyright needs to expire, because there's still a finite number of possible combonations of numbers within a given time period, and eventually we will simply run out of
      • Actually, I tried to work that out once. (I think I did it on my own rather than after reading the story you mention, but I no longer recall.) While the space of all possible tunes is, indeed, finite, the fact that we use chords and chord progressions, and that there are 14 different durations (quaver, semiquaver, etc, and the triplet variations), along with different keys, accidentals, and so on make the space extremely large.
  • As someone who stands on the sholders of this years winners and is working under someone who worked for someone who is constantly slighted by this "Nobel" group I have to say that the prize is nothing more than winning the lottery. Maybe sometimes the right guy wins and like Gangreen and the "Rock and Roll Rumble" the right guy is in the right place at the right time... Most often then not the guy who wins stood on the sholders of many underlings who gave their heart and soul for nothing more then the lov
  • He's a business person, and in the eyes of intellectuals, this makes him less than worthy.

  • From http://www.nobel.se/nobel/nobel-foundation/finan- m anag.html [nobel.se]

    On November 27, 1895, a year before his death, Alfred Nobel signed the famous will which would implement some of the goals to which he had devoted so much of his life. Nobel stipulated in his will that most of his estate, more than SEK 31 million (today approximately SEK 1,500 million) should be converted into a fund and invested in "safe securities."

    The income from the investments was to be "distributed annually in the form of prizes to
  • Once the prize has been given out, the only persons who can alter the recipent list are the recipents, who can deny to recieve the prize. But that's about it.
  • An NPR story said that even the MRI machines made by his company use the tech invented by the people who won the Nobel, since his ideas were'nt up to the job in the end. Anyway, these creationism apologists always give off aan unpleasant combo of terrorist and car-salesman vibes. Who wants to reward that?
  • We could just solve this like everything else--whoever has the biggest lawyer wins. /cynic

    I also am reminded of an appropraite life's not fair quote from the princess bride

    "Life is pain...anything who says otherwise is selling something"
  • I did some more looking around the Nobel website while responding to some posts and found this gem in the Statues of the Nobel Foundation [nobel.se]:
    " 10. No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize.

    Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. Should divergent opinions have been expressed in connection with the decision of a prize-awarding body concerning the award of

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close