Nobel Prizes

[newmassdad]

<p>Interesting to note that no americans, and no one in the US, received either the Chemistry or Physics prizes this year. And one of the three medicine winners was a Brit.</p>

<p>Contrast that with last year. Americans won all three.</p>

<p>Europe certainly seems to be coming back w/r/t top science honors.</p>

<p>Coupled with the difficulties many foreign scientists and students have had getting visas the past few years, I wonder what this means for the future?</p>

[coureur]

<p>“Coming back” seems a little strong. To begin with, the Europeans never left – there is typically a European laureate or two nearly every year. But the big overall story in Nobel-land is the wholesale domination, year after year, by the Americans, particularly in the science and economics categories. This is especially remarkable given that the judges for these prizes are Europeans. So the Europeans had one fine year this year. Good for them. But it’s a little premature to declare a new trend.</p>

[drb]

<p>Much more problematic (with respect to life sciences) than prizes or visas is the dismal state of the NIH budget. Grant proposals to the NIH undergo peer review and then are funded based on a “pay line”, which varies between the different institutes. In a good year grants in the top 20-25th percentile get funded, in a bad year its the top 15th. It has been around the 10th percentile for the last couple of years, with no end in sight. Add 10-20% “administrative cuts” to the grants that are awarded, and you get one big demoralized professional workforce.</p>

<p>Addendum: the 2 Americans work at “big State U.” : Mario Capecchi at U. of Utah and Oliver Smithies at UNC.</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>It is also interesting to note that Capecchi is Italian by birth and Smithies a Brit.</p>

<p>so Coureur, it’s a total strike out for yanks in science this year. But look back in time. How much of the so called “domination” in past years was by immigrants to the US versus natives? What happens if that immigration dries up? Maybe it does not matter?</p>

[JHS]

<p>Capecchi is Italian by birth, but came here (as a war orphan) at age 7, and was raised in a Quaker community in Bucks County, PA. So at least his victory is a “win” for the American education system – I think he never went to school anywhere else.</p>

<p>The George School (where he went to school) is having quite a month. First, the daughter of alumnus David Dodd (of Graham & Dodd fame) essentially pledged $240 million for the school’s endowment, and now this.</p>

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>How much of the so called “domination” in past years was by immigrants to the US versus natives? <<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>Not that much. If this year’s shutout of the science prizes of native-born Americans somehow spells doom for the USA, then what does last year’s <em>sweep</em> of the science prizes by native-born Americans say?</p>

<p>2006 Nobel Prizes for Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine were shared by:</p>

<p>Craig Mello
Andrew Fire
John Mather
George Smoot
Roger Kornberg </p>

<p>Native-born Americans all. Zero immigrants. Zero Europeans.</p>

[BandW]

<p>Nobel Prizes in the sciences are usually awarded for work done a little while back (+/- 10 years?) . So I do not expect the effects of the NIH funding ‘freeze’ to show up in the prize winners list just yet. That said, I am concerned about the funding issue and its effect of the future of scientific research in the States. Has European research funding been going a similar trend?</p>

[VeryHappy]

<p>On a related sidebar, this is from the website <a href=“http://www.jinfo.org%5B/url%5D”>www.jinfo.org</a>.</p>

<p>

At least 173 Jews and persons of half-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize, accounting for 23% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2006, and constituting 37% of all US recipients during the same period. In the scientific research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, and Physics, the corresponding world and US percentages are 27% and 39%, respectively. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.25% of the world’s population and 2% of the US population.)

</p>

<p>I’ve always found this fascinating.</p>

[tsdad]

<p>Oliver Smithies did lots of his work here in Madison before he went off to Carolina.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Two of the 2005 Nobel winners in Chemistry are quite home-grown Americans, with undergraduate degrees from public universities.<br>

Richard R. Schrock obtained his B. A. degree in 1967 from the University of California at Riverside and his Ph. D. degree from Harvard University in 1971. He spent one year as an NSF postdoctoral fellow at Cambridge University followed by three years at the Central Research and Development Department of E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company. In 1975 he moved to M.I.T. where he became full professor in 1980 and the Frederick G. Keyes Professor of Chemistry in 1989.

<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/rrs/www/people.html[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/rrs/www/people.html&lt;/a&gt;

[Robert] Grubbs is a native of Kentucky who earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at the University of Florida. After completing his doctorate in chemistry at Columbia University, he spent a year at Stanford University as a postdoctoral fellow, and then joined the Michigan State University faculty in 1969. He came to Caltech in 1978 with full tenure as a professor, and has been the Victor and Elizabeth Atkins Professor of Chemistry since 1990.

<a href=“http://mr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12748.html[/url]”>News - www.caltech.edu;

<p>While I still see value in the more selective colleges, I think it’s important for students to see examples of academic success by those who attended less prestigious schools.</p>

[JHS]

<p>(I just looked up Capecchi’s bio, and I got a couple of things wrong above. First, his mother was American. Second, he was not orphaned in the war. His father was MIA and never returned, his mother was sent to Dachau by the Germans, and the farm family with whom he had been left abandoned him. But his mother survived the war and brought him to the U.S. Both of her brothers were well-known physicists.)</p>

<p>It’s a little sad, by the way. Where did Capecchi go to college? Antioch.</p>

[tsdad]

<p><a href=“http://www.news.wisc.edu/14268[/url]”>http://www.news.wisc.edu/14268&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Mudder_s_Mudder]

<p>

To begin with, the Europeans never left

Looking beyond national borders, MPG (chemistry this year) is one of the usual suspects. MPG (1948) + its predecessor KWG (1911) = more Nobel prizes than any other academic institution worldwide. The 1921 winner in physics, for example, was associated with KWG.</p>

<p><a href=“Homepage - Max Planck Society”>Homepage - Max Planck Society;

[tega]

<p>I am very surprise that a lot of Germans do not win the Nobel every year. I think they have the most advanced government backed research centers in the world. In Germany, unlike the US, research is not concentrated in the universities.</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Society[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Society&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[emeraldkity4]

<p>George Smoot</p>

<p>Cool! I can’t say I’ve read * all* his work, but I appreciate he does make a good bit of it accessible to those without an astrophysics degree.</p>

<p>The grandfather of a high school friend of Ds won a Noble in 2001- for work he had done years earlier.
I won’t be surprised if the father of another one of her high school friends wins for chemistry soon, he already goes to Sweden to advise on selection, but his work is equally important.</p>

[Mudder_s_Mudder]

<p>Close but no Swedish cigar for the American:
<a href=“Nobel winners’ discovery led to your iPod – The Mercury News”>Nobel winners’ discovery led to your iPod – The Mercury News;

<p>“Gruenberg and others credited American Stuart Parkin at IBM’s research labs in San Jose for translating the European scientists’ research into practical applications. Some had expected Parkin to share the Nobel with Fert and Gruenberg.”</p>

[barrons]

<p>I would be shocked to find some anti-American politics going on in the selection process. ;-)</p>

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>Looking beyond national borders, MPG (chemistry this year) is one of the usual suspects. MPG (1948) + its predecessor KWG (1911) = more Nobel prizes than any other academic institution worldwide<<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>Thirty two Nobels for MPG+KWG certainly is impressive but it’s behind the 43 Nobels that the Harvard faculty has won. Harvard’s total is even more if you count all affiliates including students who have won, but I’m not sure what that total is:
<a href=“http://www.hno.harvard.edu/guide/faculty/fac6.html[/url]”>http://www.hno.harvard.edu/guide/faculty/fac6.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Plus, the Univ.of Chicago claims 79 affiliates that have won Nobels:
<a href=“University of Chicago News”>University of Chicago News;

<p>And Cambridge has 82:
<a href=“http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/nobelprize.html[/url]”>http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/nobelprize.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[newmassdad]

<p>coureur, </p>

<p>when is the last time a Harvard faculty member won the Nobel? I think Dudley (Hirshback) must be getting lonely? Meanwhile, MIT’s had a pretty good record in recent year.</p>

<p>And much as I like U. Chi, (I’m an alum, and my D goes there!), I think they take great liberties in who the count: anyone who was ever a student, anyone who ever taught there and anyone who walked on the campus (just kidding on the latter!)</p>

<p>Places like Cambridge and Harvard won most of theirs when there was not a lot of competition years ago. In more recent years, the awards seem much more democratic: U. Mass, UTSW Medical School, U. MD, VCU and such.</p>

[Mudder_s_Mudder]

<p>Yeah, I knew that was coming, coureur. And I have only myself to blame. </p>

<p>Everybody wants a piece of that pie. From a quick scan, here’s the Foundation’s tally: HMS 5 + Harvard U 24 + labs 2; U of C 14 + lab 1; Cambridge 16 + labs 10, I think (?); MPIs 13 (incl. 2007) + KWIs 7 + 3 (Berlin) + 1 (Munich)… At that point I stopped counting the breakdown because I’m too lazy to do the page search over and over for names. The difference is the nature of the university/research relationship between them and us. A scientist may be attached to the faculty of the university that’s attached to the institute. Or not. <a href=“http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html[/url]”>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Point being that most Americans probably wouldn’t be surprised to find Cambridge on the most-awarded list – or Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Columbia, etc. – but don’t even know the MPIs exist.</p>

<p>I’m throwing in my cards now, before the discussion turns to unis v. labs v. med schools and who wins in science v. econ v. peace…</p>