Nobel Prize controversies

Since the first award in 1901, conferment of the Nobel Prize has occasionally engendered criticism[1] and controversy.[2] After his death in 1896, the will of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel established that an annual prize be awarded for service to humanity in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. Similarly, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is awarded along with the Nobel Prizes.

Nobel Prize
Awarded for	Outstanding contributions in physics, chemistry, literature, peace, and physiology or medicine. The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, identified with the Nobel Prize, is awarded for outstanding contributions in Economics.
Country	Sweden Norway
Presented by	Swedish Academy Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Karolinska Institutet Norwegian Nobel Committee
First awarded	1901 (1901)
Website	https://www.nobelprize.org/

Nobel sought to reward "those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind". One prize, he stated, should be given "to the person who shall have made the most important 'discovery' or 'invention' within the field of physics". Awards committees have historically rewarded discoveries over inventions: 77% of Nobel Prizes in physics have been given to discoveries, compared with only 23% to inventions.[3][4] In addition, the scientific prizes typically reward contributions over an entire career rather than a single year.

No Nobel Prize was established for mathematics and many other scientific and cultural fields.[5] An early theory that envy led Nobel to omit a prize to mathematician Gösta Mittag-Leffler[6][7] was refuted because of timing inaccuracies. Another possibility is that Nobel did not consider mathematics as a practical discipline.[8] Both the Fields Medal and the Abel Prize have been described as the "Nobel Prize of mathematics".[9][10]

The most notorious controversies have been over prizes for Literature,[11][12][13][14] Peace[15] and Economics.[16][17] Beyond disputes over which contributor's work was more worthy, critics most often discerned political bias and Eurocentrism in the result.[18][19][20][21] The interpretation of Nobel's original words concerning the Literature prize has also undergone repeated revisions.

A major controversies-generating factor for the more recent scientific prizes (Physics, Chemistry and Medicine) is the Nobel rule that each award can not be shared by more than two different researches and no more than three different individuals each year.[22] While this rule was adequate at the moment of the institution of the Prize, when most of the science research was carried by individual scientists working with their small group of assistants in relative isolation, in more recent times science research have increasingly become a matter of widespread international cooperation and exchange of ideas among different research groups, themselves composed by dozens or even hundreds of researchers. This has led to glaring omissions of key participants in awarded researches: as an example see below the case of the 2008 Nobel Prize for Physics, or the case of the Atlas/CMS Collaboration that produced the scientific papers that documented the Higgs boson discovery and included a list of researchers filling 15 single-spaced pages.[23][24][25]

Chemistry

2008

The 2008 prize was awarded to Osamu Shimomura, Martin Chalfie and Roger Y. Tsien for their work on green fluorescent protein or GFP. The fact that a fourth overlooked potential recipient, Douglas Prasher, the first to clone the GFP gene and suggested its use as a biological tracer, was working as a courtesy shuttle bus driver received considerable media coverage.[26][27] Lack of support for Prasher's work, and failure to get tenure at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts where he was employed, caused Prasher to leave this field of research in 1992, but not before he offered samples of the gene to any interested researchers, including Chalfie and Tsien.[28] Tsien noted the prize is usually awarded for "specific discoveries" and that he had put forward Shimomura and Prasher to the Nobel Committee in 2004. [29] Chalfie stated, "Douglas Prasher's work was critical and essential for the work we did in our lab. They could've easily given the prize to Douglas and the other two and left me out."[30] Roger Tsien had offered Prasher a job when his academic career stalled. Eventually, Prasher accepted the offer and moved in 2013 to UCSD to join Tsien's lab.[31]

2007

Gerhard Ertl, who received the entire 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his studies of the catalytic effects of metal surfaces, has expressed surprise[32] and disappointment[33] that Gábor Somorjai, a foundational pioneer in modern surface science and catalysis, did not share the prize. Somorjai and Ertl had previously shared the Wolf Prize for Chemistry in 1998. The Nobel Prize committee's decision to exclude Somorjai was criticized in the surface-science community[34] and remains mysterious.

1922 – 1946

From 1922 to 1946, Gilbert N. Lewis, who was widely known for covalent bond, electron pair, Lewis structure and other seminal contributions, was nominated 41 times for Nobel Prize in Chemistry but never won.[35][36] It has been speculated that while working in Walther Nernst's lab, Lewis apparently developed a lifelong enmity with Nernst. In the following years, Lewis started to criticize and denounce his former teacher on many occasions, calling Nernst's work on his heat theorem "a regrettable episode in the history of chemistry".[37] A friend of Nernst's, Wilhelm Palmær (Swedish), was a member of the Nobel Chemistry Committee. There is evidence that he used the Nobel nominating and reporting procedures to block a Nobel Prize for Lewis in thermodynamics by nominating Lewis for the prize three times, and then using his position as a committee member to write negative reports.[38]

Others

• Henry Eyring (1901–1981) allegedly failed to receive the prize because of his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[39] (It is also possible that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences did not understand Eyring's theory until it was too late to award him the Nobel; the academy awarded him the Berzelius Medal in 1977 as partial compensation.[40])
• Dmitri Mendeleyev, who originated the periodic table of the elements, never received a Nobel Prize. He completed his first periodic table in 1869. However, a year earlier, another chemist, Julius Lothar Meyer, had reported a somewhat similar table. In 1866, John Alexander Reina Newlands, presented a paper that first proposed a periodic law. However, none of these tables were correct—the 19th century tables arranged the elements in order of increasing atomic weight (or atomic mass). It was left to the English physicist Henry Moseley to base the periodic table on the atomic number (the number of protons). Mendeleyev died in 1907, six years after the first Nobel Prizes were awarded. He came within one vote of winning in 1906, but died the next year. Hargittai claimed that Mendeleyev's omission was due to behind-the-scenes machinations of one dissenter on the Nobel Committee who disagreed with his work.[41]

Economics

See also: Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences § Controversies and criticisms

Economics was not on Nobel's original list of prize disciplines. Sweden's central bank Sveriges Riksbank created the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1969. Although it is governed by the same rules as the others, many, including members of the Nobel family, criticized this prize for violating Nobel's intent. As of 2010, the faculty of the University of Chicago had garnered nine Prizes—far more than any other university. This led to claims of bias against alternative or heterodox economics.

2008

The 2008 prize went to economist Paul Krugman "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity". Krugman was a fierce critic of George W. Bush. The award produced charges of a left-wing bias, with headlines such as "Bush critic wins 2008 Nobel for economics", prompting the prize committee to deny "the committee has ever taken a political stance."[42]

1994

The 1994 prize to John Forbes Nash and others "for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games" caused controversy within the selection committee because of Nash's mental illness and alleged anti-Semitism.[43] The controversy resulted in a change to the governing committee: members served three year instead of unlimited terms[44] and the prize's scope expanded to include political science, psychology, and sociology.[44][45]

1976

The 1976 prize was awarded to Milton Friedman "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilisation policy". The award caused international protests, mostly by the radical left,[46] because of Friedman's association with Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. During March 1975, Friedman visited Chile and gave lectures on inflation, meeting with Pinochet and other government officials.[47]

Literature

The Prize in Literature has a history of controversial awards and notorious snubs. Many indisputably major authors have been ignored by the Nobel Committee, possibly for political or extra-literary reasons.[48]

From 1901 to 1912, the committee's work reflected an interpretation of the "ideal direction" stated in Nobel's will as "a lofty and sound idealism", which caused Leo Tolstoy, Henrik Ibsen, Émile Zola and Mark Twain to be rejected. Sweden's historic antipathy towards Russia was cited as the reason neither Tolstoy nor Anton Chekhov took the prize. During World War I and its immediate aftermath, the committee adopted a policy of neutrality, favouring writers from non-combatant countries.[49]

Another notable omission for the Prize is R. K. Narayan, an Indian writer known for his works set in the fictional South Indian town of Malgudi and the abridged versions of the Indian epics – The Ramayana and The Mahabharata. Despite being nominated and shortlisted for the Nobel Prize in Literature multiple times,[50] Narayan never won the honour. Graham Greene, who took it upon himself to work as Narayan's agent for his works, in the 60s expressed confidence that Narayan would one day win the Nobel Prize.[50] Agreeing with Greene's views, Lord Jeffrey Archer as much as recently, echoed that R. K. Narayan should have indeed won the Nobel Prize.[51] One of the jokes in the literary circles was that the Nobel Literary Committee ignored his books or was confused because of the misleading titles: many people supposedly thought that they were self-help books on various subjects – The Guide, The English Teacher, The Painter of Signs, The Vendor of Sweets, etc. Other humorous speculations on what might have tripped him, "His writing is too simple, and too readable, requiring no effort on the part of the reader. He has created a new map called Malgudi in which his characters live and die. Story after story is set in the same place, which is not progressive, a rather stagnant background."[52]

The heavy focus on European authors, and Swedes in particular, is the subject of mounting criticism, including from major Swedish newspapers.[53] The majority of the laureates have been European. Swedes have received more prizes than all of Asia. In 2008, Horace Engdahl, then the permanent secretary of the Academy, declared that "Europe still is the center of the literary world" and that "the US is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature."[54] In 2009, Engdahl's replacement, Peter Englund, rejected this sentiment ("In most language areas ... there are authors that really deserve and could get the Nobel Prize and that goes for the United States and the Americas, as well,") and acknowledged the Eurocentric bias of the selections, saying that, "I think that is a problem. We tend to relate more easily to literature written in Europe and in the European tradition."[55]

Orhan Pamuk, winner of the 2006 Nobel prize

2016

The 2016 prize awarded to Bob Dylan was controversial. This was the first time a songwriter musician had been awarded the prize. Many writers and commentators, mostly novelists, objected, feeling it cheapened the prize: "I'm a Dylan fan, but this is an ill conceived nostalgia award wrenched from the rancid prostates of senile, gibbering hippies."[56] (Scottish novelist Irvine Welsh). "Bob Dylan winning a Nobel in Literature is like Mrs Fields being awarded 3 Michelin stars."[57] (Lebanese novelist Rabih Alameddine). However others noted that poetry has long been recognized, focused on the underlying merit of Dylan's award, and speculated that the popularity of Dylan's work was behind those objecting. "To me, [the Nobel] is like pinning a medal on Mount Everest for being the highest mountain."[58] (songwriter Leonard Cohen). "I love that the novel committee opens up for other kinds of literature – lyrics and so on. I think that's brilliant."[59] (Norwegian writer Karl Ove Knausgård).

2010

The 2010 prize awarded to Mario Vargas Llosa stirred controversy, mainly due to his right-wing political views.[60] Vargas Llosa was even dubbed "king of controversies" for focusing more on politics than literature.[61]

2009

The 2009 prize awarded to Herta Müller was criticized because many US literary critics and professors had never heard of Müller before.[62] This reignited criticism that the committee was too Eurocentric.[63][64]

2005

The 2005 prize went to Harold Pinter "who in his plays uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms". The award was delayed for some days, apparently due to Knut Ahnlund's resignation. In turn, this renewed speculation about a "political element" existing in the Swedish Academy's awarding of the Prize.[65] Although poor health prevented him from giving his controversial Nobel Lecture, "Art, Truth and Politics", in person, he appeared on video, which was simultaneously transmitted on Britain's Channel Four.[66] The issue of "political stance" was also raised in response to Orhan Pamuk and Doris Lessing, prizewinners in 2006 and 2007, respectively.[67]

2004

The 2004 prize was awarded to Elfriede Jelinek. Academy member Knut Ahnlund, who had been inactive since 1996, resigned, alleging that selecting Jelinek had caused "irreparable damage" to the prize's reputation.[68][69]

1997

The 1997 prize went to Italian actor-playwright Dario Fo who was initially considered "rather lightweight" by some critics, as he was seen primarily as a performer and had previously been censured by the Roman Catholic Church.[70] Salman Rushdie and Arthur Miller had been favoured to receive the Prize, but a committee member was later quoted as saying that they would have been "too predictable, too popular."[71]

1974

The 1974 prize was denied to Graham Greene, Vladimir Nabokov and Saul Bellow in favour of a joint award for Swedish authors Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson: both Nobel judges and unknown outside their home country. Bellow won in 1976; neither Greene nor Nabokov were awarded the prize.[72]

1970

The 1970 prize was awarded to Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who did not attend the ceremony in Stockholm for fear that the Soviet Union would prevent his return. His works there were available only in samizdat-published, clandestine form. After the Swedish government refused to hold a public award ceremony and lecture at its Moscow embassy, Solzhenitsyn refused the award altogether, commenting that the conditions set by the Swedes (who preferred a private ceremony) were "an insult to the Nobel Prize itself." Solzhenitsyn later accepted the award on 10 December 1974, after the Soviet Union banished him.[73] Critics suggest that Solzhenitsyn was awarded the prize because of his political stance, not his writing.[74]

1902 – 1910

Leo Tolstoy was nominated for Nobel Prize in Literature every year from 1902 to 1906 but never won, and in the first year of 1901, he was not even nominated, resulting in a major controversy.[75][76] In the first year, the prize went to French poet Sully Prudhomme, the year after to German historian Theodor Mommsen. Reports suggest that Tolstoy did not receive the prize because of the jury's reservations towards his political and religious positions as well as Sweden's rocky relationship with Russia at the time.[77][78][79] In 1901, 42 Swedish writers, including August Strindberg wrote Tolstoy a letter following the announcement, expressing their dissatisfaction with the decision.[76][80]

Others

Czech writer Karel Čapek's War With the Newts was considered too offensive to the German government, and he declined to suggest a non-controversial publication that could be cited in its stead ("Thank you for the good will, but I have already written my doctoral dissertation").[81] He never received a prize.

French novelist and intellectual André Malraux was considered for the Literature prize in the 1950s, according to Swedish Academy archives studied by newspaper Le Monde on their opening in 2008. Malraux was competing with Albert Camus, but was rejected several times, especially in 1954 and 1955, "so long as he does not come back to novel", while Camus won the prize in 1957.[82]

Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges was nominated several times but never won. Edwin Williamson, Borges's biographer, stated that the author's support of Argentine and Chilean right-wing military dictators may have been a factor.[83] Borges' failure to win the Nobel Prize contrasts with awards to writers who openly supported left-wing dictatorships, including Joseph Stalin, in the case of Jean-Paul Sartre and Pablo Neruda, and Fidel Castro, in the case of Gabriel García Márquez.[84][85]

The academy's refusal to express support for Salman Rushdie in 1989, after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwā on his life led two Academy members to resign.[86][87]

Peace

Nobel Peace Prize controversies often reach beyond the academic community. Criticism that have been levelled against some of the awards include allegations that they were politically motivated, premature, or guided by a faulty definition of what constitutes work for peace.[88]

2012

The 2012 prize went to the European Union for "over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe". Among other objections, some former laureates disputed the award, claiming that the EU is "clearly not a champion of peace".[89]

2010

The 2010 prize went to Liu Xiaobo "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China". Liu was imprisoned at the time of the award and neither he nor his family were allowed to attend the ceremony. The Chinese government alleged that Liu did not promote "international friendship, disarmament, and peace meetings", the prize's stated goal.[90] They further alleged that Liu Xiaobo had participated in organizations that received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which they claimed brought his status and the prize itself into question. The award led to a diplomatic dispute between Norway and China. Relations were normalized in December 2016.[91]

Pro-Chinese government and state-controlled media had criticized Liu's selection due to his low profile and obscurity within China and among Chinese youth. Critics such as Tariq Ali, Barry Sautman, and Yan Hairong also criticized Liu's selection for his long support of American involvement in wars in other nations, particularly Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq.[92][93] A Chinese group responded by creating a rival award—the Confucius Peace Prize.

2009

The 2009 prize went to Barack Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". The award, given just nine months into Obama's first term as president, received criticism that it was undeserved, premature and politically motivated. Obama himself said that he felt "surprised" by the win and did not consider himself worthy of the award, but nonetheless accepted it.[94][95][96][97][98] Obama's peace prize was called a "stunning surprise" by The New York Times.[99] Much of the surprise arose from the fact that nominations for the award had been due by 1 February 2009, only 12 days after Obama took office.[100] In an October 2011 interview, Thorbjørn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, was asked whether Obama had lived up to the prize, and replied:[101]

Yes, I think so. I'm as convinced as I was when he got it that he deserved it for many reasons. During three months' time, he... paved the way for new negotiations with the Russian Federation about nuclear arms. If you look at the will of Alfred Nobel that goes directly to what he said that the prize should go to the person that has worked for—he called it reduction of standing armies but in today's terms it means arm control and disarmament. ... But, there are other things also, which we looked at, for instance, the fact that he started immediately to build bridges to the Muslim world throughout the time.

In 2015, Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute (who sat in on the committee's meetings but did not have a vote[102]), wrote in his memoir, Secretary of Peace, that he regretted giving the prize to Obama.[103] The committee "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this effect", Lundestad told the Associated Press, though he fell short of calling the award a mistake.[102] "In hindsight, we could say that the argument of giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct," Lundestad wrote.[102] Critics also argued that the award was a symbolic rejection of the George W. Bush Administration.[104]

2007

The 2007 prize went to Al Gore and the IPCC, "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". The award received criticism on the grounds of political motivation and because the winners' work was not directly related to ending conflict.[105]

2004

The 2004 prize went to Wangari Maathai "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". Controversially, she was reported by the Kenyan newspaper Standard and Radio Free Europe to have stated that HIV/AIDS was originally developed by Western scientists in order to depopulate Africa. She later denied these claims, although the Standard stood by its reporting.[106] Additionally, in a Time magazine interview, she hinted at HIV's non-natural origin, saying that someone knows where it came from and that it "...did not come from monkeys."[107]

2002

The 2002 prize went to Jimmy Carter for "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development." The announcement of the award came shortly after the US House and Senate authorized President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq in order to enforce UN Security Council resolutions requiring that Baghdad give up weapons of mass destruction. Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel Prize committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current US administration has taken on Iraq." Carter declined to comment on the remark in interviews, saying that he preferred to focus on the work of the Carter Center.[108]

2000

The 2000 prize went to Kim Dae-jung "for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular". Criticisms argued that Kim made a historical event in North Korea, which was tainted significantly by allegations that at least several hundred million dollars had been paid to Pyongyang. His Chief of Staff, Park Ji-won, was sentenced to twelve years in prison in 2003 for, among other charges, his role in the Hyundai payment to North Korea for the North–South summit.[109] Also in order to persuade North Korea to attend the summit, several "unconverted long-term prisoners" kept by South Korea were released and returned to North Korea.[110]

1994

The 1994 prize went to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East". Kåre Kristiansen, a Norwegian member of the Nobel Committee, resigned in protest at Arafat's award, citing his sponsorship of terrorism through the PLO and calling him the "world's most prominent terrorist". On the other hand, Edward Said was critical of Peres and Rabin and the entire Oslo Accords.[111]

1992

The 1992 prize went to Rigoberta Menchú for "her work for social justice and ethno-cultural reconciliation based on respect for the rights of indigenous peoples". The prize was controversial because the prize-winner's memoirs, which had brought her to fame, turned out to be partly fictitious.[112]

1989

The 1989 prize went to the 14th Dalai Lama. The committee's selection was opposed by the Chinese government, which opposes the Dalai Lama's activities regarding Tibet.

1978

The 1978 prize went to Anwar Sadat, the President of Egypt during the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel, and Menachem Begin, the Prime Minister of Israel "for the Camp David Agreement, which brought about a negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel". The prize was controversial because both had fought against British rule of their respective countries, and Begin was involved in a failed plot to assassinate German chancellor Konrad Adenauer.[113]

1973

The 1973 prize went to North Vietnamese communist leader Lê Đức Thọ and United States Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger "for the 1973 Paris Peace Accords intended to bring about a cease-fire in the Vietnam War and a withdrawal of the American forces". Thọ later declined the prize, on grounds that such "bourgeois sentimentalities" were not for him[114] and that the Paris Peace Accords were not being adhered to in full. Kissinger was also privately skeptical about sharing the prize, saying to Soviet ambassador Dobrynin "I figure it like Groucho Marx said 'any club that took him in he would not want to join.' I would say that anything Lê Đức Thọ is eligible for, there must be something wrong with it."[114]

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam in April 1975 and reunified the country whilst Lê Đức Thọ was still in government. Kissinger's history included the secret 1969–1975 bombing campaign against Khmer Rouge and North Vietnamese Army troops in Cambodia, the alleged U.S. complicity in Operation Condor—a mid-1970s campaign of kidnapping and murder coordinated among the intelligence and security services of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile (see details), Paraguay, and Uruguay—as well as the death of French nationals under the Chilean junta. He also supported the Turkish Intervention in Cyprus resulting in the de facto partition of the island.[115] According to Irwin Abrams in 2001, this prize was the most controversial to date. Two Norwegian Nobel Committee members resigned in protest.[116][117]

The American press also reacted with consternation to the award: the New York Times dubbed it the "Nobel War Prize";[114] the Washington Post quoted retired diplomat George Ball as saying that on the evidence "The Norwegians must have a sense of humour."[114] The well-known comedian and political satirist Tom Lehrer said: "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize."[118] When the award was announced, hostilities were continuing.[116][119][120]

Kissinger did not attend the award ceremony in Oslo over concern that it would be targeted by anti-war protest groups.[114] He requested that the prize money be donated to a scholarship fund for US servicemen killed or missing in Indochina.[114] In 1975, as Saigon fell to North Vietnamese forces he offered to return the medal, an offer not accepted by the Nobel Committee.[114]

1945

The 1945 prize went to Cordell Hull as "Former Secretary of State; Prominent participant in the originating of the UN". The prize was controversial because Hull was Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Secretary of State during the SS St. Louis Crisis. St. Louis sailed from Hamburg in the summer of 1939 carrying over 950 Jewish refugees, seeking asylum from Nazi persecution. Initially, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt showed some willingness to take in some of those on board, but Hull and Southern Democrats voiced vehement opposition, and some of them threatened to withhold their support of Roosevelt in the 1940 election. On 4 June 1939 Roosevelt denied entry to the ship, which was waiting in the Florida strait between Florida and Cuba. The passengers began negotiations with the Cuban government, but those broke down. Forced to return to Europe, over a quarter of its passengers subsequently were murdered in the Holocaust.[121][122][123]

1939

In a submission not intended to be taken seriously, antifascist member of the Swedish parliament Erik Gottfrid Christian Brandt nominated German dictator Adolf Hitler, but the nomination was cancelled.[124] No prize was awarded in 1939 to anyone for peace.[125]

1935

The prize of 1935 was retroactively awarded one year later to Carl von Ossietzky, a German pacifist who had been convicted of high treason and espionage for exposing German re-armament. In an unprecedented move, King Haakon VII of Norway was absent from the award ceremony, two committee members resigned in protest, and the Norwegian conservative press, including leading daily Aftenposten, condemned giving the award to a convicted criminal. Ossietzky, interned in the concentration camp Esterwegen and severely ill with tuberculosis, accepted the award by letter but was prevented from traveling to Oslo. The award led to Adolf Hitler's forbidding any German to receive any of the Nobel Prizes in the future, and Ossietzky's prize was not allowed to be mentioned in the German press.[126]

Mahatma Gandhi

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) – "a role model for the generations to come" (Albert Einstein on Gandhi)

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) never received the Nobel Peace Prize, although he was nominated five times[127] between 1937 and 1948. In 1948 Gandhi received six letters of nomination and was on the short list for the Peace Prize but he was assassinated on 30 January 1948, two days before the closing date for nominations. The Nobel Committee decided against awarding the prize, saying the laureate could only be awarded posthumously if he/she died after the Committee's decision had been made.[128] Decades later, a Nobel Committee publicly declared its regret for the omission. Geir Lundestad, Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee in 2006 said, "The greatest omission in our 106-year history is undoubtedly that Mahatma Gandhi never received the Nobel Peace prize. Gandhi could do without the Nobel Peace prize, [but] whether Nobel committee can do without Gandhi is the question".[129] In 1948 (the year of Gandhi's death) the Nobel Committee made no award, stating "there was no suitable living candidate".[128]

Physics

2017

The 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Reiner Weiss, Kip Thorne, and Barry Barish for their contribution to LIGO, which led to the detection of gravitational waves. Despite the contributions of the upwards of a thousand scientists and engineers in LIGO, the Nobel Committee continued its tradition of only awarding the prize to three physicists. All three winners commented saying that the prize belongs to the entire LIGO Collaboration (LSC). Thorne said "It is unfortunate that, due to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, the prize has to go to no more than three people, when our marvelous discovery is the work of more than a thousand."[130]

2014

The 2014 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded to Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura for the blue light-emitting diode, did not recognize the decades of incremental work in developing the LED by other pioneers such as Oleg Losev and Nick Holonyak,[131] and overlooked the inventor of the first blue LED: Herbert Paul Maruska.[132][133]

2010

The 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov of the University of Manchester "for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene". Several problems with the factual accuracy of the supporting documents issued by the Nobel committee have been pointed out, including that they seem to wrongly attribute the discovery of graphene to Geim and Novoselov, and they didn't take into account other contributions to graphene research.[134]

2009

The 2009 prize went to Willard Boyle and George E. Smith for developing the charge-coupled device. However, Eugene I. Gordon and Michael Francis Tompsett claimed that it should have been theirs for establishing that the technology could be used for imaging.[135]

2008

Half of the 2008 prize went to Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa for their 1972 work on quark mixing. This postulated the existence of three additional quarks beyond the three then known to exist and used this postulate to provide a possible mechanism for CP violation, which had been observed 8 years earlier.[136] Their work expanded and reinterpreted research by the Italian physicist Nicola Cabibbo, dating to 1963, before the quark model was even introduced. The resulting quark mixing matrix, which described probabilities of different quarks to turn into each other under the action of the weak force, is known as CKM matrix, after Cabibbo, Kobayashi, and Maskawa. Cabibbo arguably merited a share of the award.[137] The recipient of the other half of the 2008 prize was Yoichiro Nambu for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics.[138] The fundamental step in this field is the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model (NJL model), developed together with the Italian theoretical physicist Giovanni Jona-Lasinio, who was left out of the prize like Cabibbo. In recognition to his colleague's work, Nambu asked Jona-Lasinio to hold the Nobel Lecture at the Stockholm University in his place.[139] As the prize is awarded each year to at most three people for no more than two different research works, the committee was forced to skip one member each from both the CKM and the NJL workgroups (incidentally, both of them Italians).

2006

The 2006 prize was won by John C. Mather and George F. Smoot (leaders of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite experiment) for "discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)." However, in July 1983 an experiment[140] launched aboard the Prognoz 9[141] satellite, studied CMBR via a single frequency. In January 1992, Andrei A. Brukhanov presented a seminar at Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow, where he first reported on the discovery.

2005

Half of the 2005 prize went to Roy J. Glauber "for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence". This research involved E. C. George Sudarshan's relevant 1960 work in quantum optics, which was allegedly slighted in this award.[142] Glauber, who initially derided the former representations and later produced the same P-representation under a different name, namely, Sudarshan–Glauber representation (or Sudarshan diagonal representation) – became the winner instead. According to others, the deserving Leonard Mandel and Daniel Frank Walls were passed over because posthumous nominations are not accepted.[143]

1997

The 1997 prize went to Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and William Daniel Phillips "for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light." The award was disputed by Russian scientists[144] who questioned the awardees' priority in the acquired approach and techniques, which the Russians claimed to have carried out more than a decade before.[145]

1983

The 1983 prize went to William Alfred Fowler "for his theoretical and experimental studies of the nuclear reactions of importance in the formation of the chemical elements in the universe". Fowler acknowledged Fred Hoyle as the pioneer of the concept of stellar nucleosynthesis but that was not enough for Hoyle to receive a share. Hoyle's obituary in Physics Today notes that "Many of us felt that Hoyle should have shared Fowler's 1983 Nobel Prize in Physics, but the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences later made partial amends by awarding Hoyle, with Edwin Salpeter, its 1997 Crafoord Prize".[146]

1979

The 1979 prize went to Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg for the electroweak interaction unification theory. However, E. C. George Sudarshan and Robert Marshak were the first proponents of the successful V-A (vector minus axial vector, or left-handed) theory for weak interactions in 1957. It was essentially the same theory as that proposed by Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann in their "mathematical physics" paper on the structure of the weak interaction. Actually, Gell-Mann had been let in on the Sudarshan/Marshak work on Sudarshan's initiative,[147] but no acknowledgment appeared in the later paper, except for an informal allusion. The reason given was that the originators' work had not been published in a formal or 'reputable enough' science journal at the time. The theory is popularly known in the west as the Feynman-Gell-Mann theory.[148] The V-A theory for weak interactions was, in effect, a new Law of Nature. It was conceived in the face of a series of apparently contradictory experimental results, including several from Chien-Shiung Wu. It was also aided along by a sprinkling of other evidence, like the muon. Discovered in 1936, the muon had a curious and colorful history[149] all to itself and would itself lead on to a new revolution[150] in the 21st century.[151] This breakthrough has to date not yet won a Nobel Prize award. The V-A theory would form the foundation for the electroweak interaction theory later on. Sudarshan regarded the V-A theory as his finest work. The Sudarshan-Marshak (or V-A theory) – preferably and favourably assessed as "beautiful" by J. Robert Oppenheimer,[147] – was only to be disparaged later on as "less complete" and "inelegant" by John Gribbin.[152]

1978

The 1978 prize was awarded for the chanced "detection of Cosmic microwave background radiation". The joint winners, Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson, had their discovery elucidated by others. Many scientists felt that Ralph Alpher, who predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation and in 1948 worked out the underpinnings of the Big Bang theory, should have shared in the prize or received one independently. In 2005, Alpher received the National Medal of Science for his pioneering contributions to understanding of nucleosynthesis, the prediction of the relic radiation from the Big Bang, as well as for a model for the Big Bang.

1974

The 1974 prize went to Martin Ryle and Antony Hewish "for their pioneering research in radio astrophysics: Ryle for his observations and inventions, in particular of the aperture synthesis technique, and Hewish for his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars". Hewish was not the first to correctly explain pulsars, initially describing them as communications from "Little Green Men" (LGM-1) in outer space. David Staelin and Edward Reifenstein, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia, found a pulsar at the centre of the Crab Nebula. The notion that pulsars were neutron stars, leftovers from a supernova explosion, had been proposed in 1933. Soon after their 1967 discovery, Fred Hoyle and astronomer Thomas Gold correctly explained it as a rapidly spinning neutron star with a strong magnetic field, emitting radio waves. Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Hewish's graduate student, was not recognized, although she was the first to notice the stellar radio source that was later recognized as a pulsar.[153] While Hoyle argued that Bell should have been included in the prize, Bell said, "I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases, and I do not believe this is one of them."[154] Prize-winning research students include Louis de Broglie, Rudolf Mössbauer, Douglas Osheroff, Gerard 't Hooft, John Forbes Nash, Jr., John Robert Schrieffer and H. David Politzer.
Over four decades later, Bell Burnell was recognized with a three million dollar Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics of which she donated the entirety to assist female, minority, and refugee students in becoming physics researchers.[155]

1969

The 1969 prize was won by Murray Gell-Mann "for his contributions and discoveries concerning the classification of elementary particles and their interactions" (postulating the existence of quarks). George Zweig, then a PhD student at Caltech, independently espoused the physical existence of aces, essentially the same thing. Unfortunately, Zweig did not publish his results in a peer-reviewed journal, although his work was widely available as a CERN preprint.[156][157] Israeli physicist Yuval Ne'eman published the classification of hadrons through their SU(3) flavor symmetry independently of Gell-Mann in 1962,[158] and also felt that he had been unjustly deprived of the prize for the quark model.[159]

1956

The 1956 prize went to John Bardeen, Walter Houser Brattain and William Bradford Shockley "for their researches on semiconductors and their discovery of the transistor effect". However, the committee did not recognize numerous preceding patent applications. As early as 1928, Julius Edgar Lilienfeld patented several modern transistor types.[160] In 1934, Oskar Heil patented a field-effect transistor.[161] It is unclear whether Lilienfeld or Heil had built such devices, but they did cause later workers significant patent problems. Further, Herbert Mataré and Heinrich Welker, at Westinghouse Paris, applied for a patent in 1948 of an amplifier based on the minority carrier injection process. Mataré had first observed transconductance effects during the manufacture of germanium diodes for German radar equipment during World War II. Shockley was part of other controversies[162]—including his position as a corporate director and his self-promotion efforts.[163] Further, the original design Shockley presented to Brattain and Bardeen did not work. His share of the prize resulted from his development of the superior junction transistor, which became the basis of the electronics revolution.[163][164] He excluded Brattain and Bardeen from the proceeds of this process, even though the idea may have been theirs.[163] Another controversy associated with Shockley was his support of eugenics.[165] He regarded his published works on this topic as the most important work of his career.[166]

1950

The 1950 prize went to Cecil Powell for "his development of the photographic method of studying nuclear processes and his discoveries regarding mesons made with this method". However, Brazilian physicist César Lattes was the main researcher and the first author of the historical Nature journal article describing the subatomic particle meson pi (pion). Lattes was solely responsible for the improvement of the nuclear emulsion used by Powell (by asking Kodak Co. to add more boron to it—and in 1947, he made with them his great experimental discovery). This result was explained by the Nobel Committee policy (ended in 1960) to award the prize to the research group head only. Lattes calculated the pion's mass and, with USA physicist Eugene Gardner, demonstrated the existence of this particle after atomic collisions in a synchrotron. Gardner was denied a prize because he died soon thereafter.

1938

The 1938 prize went to Enrico Fermi in part for "his demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation". However, in this case, the award later appeared to be premature: Fermi thought he had created transuranic elements (specifically, hesperium), but had in fact unwittingly demonstrated nuclear fission (and had actually created only fission products—isotopes of much lighter elements than uranium). The fact that Fermi's interpretation was incorrect was discovered shortly after he received his prize.

1936

The 1936 prize went to Carl D. Anderson for the discovery of the positron. While a graduate student at Caltech in 1930, Chung-Yao Chao was the first to experimentally identify positrons through electron–positron annihilation, but did not realize what they were. Anderson, Chao's classmate at Caltech, used the same radioactive source, ²⁰⁸
Tl, as Chao. (Historically, ²⁰⁸
Tl was known as "thorium C double prime" or "ThC", see decay chains.) Fifty years later, Anderson admitted that Chao had inspired his discovery: Chao's research formed the foundation from which much of Anderson's own work developed. Chao died in 1998, without sharing in a Nobel Prize acknowledgment.[167]

1923

The 1923 prize went to Robert Millikan "for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect". Millikan might have won in 1920 but for Felix Ehrenhaft's incorrect claim to have measured a smaller charge. Some controversy, however, still seems to linger over Millikan's oil-drop procedure and experimental interpretation, over whether Millikan manipulated his data in the 1913 scientific paper measuring the electron charge. Allegedly, he did not report all his observations.[168]

1903

The 1903 prize went to Henri Becquerel (along with Pierre and Marie Curie) "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by his discovery of spontaneous radioactivity". However, critics alleged that Becquerel merely rediscovered a phenomenon first noticed and investigated decades earlier by the French scientist Abel Niepce de Saint-Victor.[169]

Other major unrecognized discoveries

None of the contributors to the discovery of nuclear fission won the prize for Physics. Instead, the prize for Chemistry was awarded to Otto Hahn for his discovery of fission in Berlin in 1938. Lise Meitner also contributed to the discovery of nuclear fission,[170] through her collaboration with Hahn. From the beginning, she had worked with Hahn on the neutron bombardment of Uranium, but left Germany for Sweden before fission was discovered. Working there with the experimental data supplied to her by Hahn, she managed, with Otto Robert Frisch's participation, to incorporate Niels Bohr's liquid drop model (first suggested by George Gamow)[171] into fission's theoretical foundation. She also predicted the possibility of chain reactions. In an earlier collaboration with Hahn, she had independently discovered a new chemical element (called protactinium). Bohr nominated both for this work, in addition to recommending the Chemistry prize for Hahn. Hahn's assistant, Fritz Strassmann, was not considered for the Physics prize.[172]

Chien-Shiung Wu disproved the law of the conservation of parity (1956) and was the first Wolf Prize winner in physics. She died in 1997 without receiving a Nobel. Wu assisted Tsung-Dao Lee personally in his parity laws development—with Chen-Ning Yang—by providing him in 1956 with a possible test method for beta decay that worked successfully.[167] Her book Beta Decay (1965) is still a sine qua non reference for nuclear physicists.

Satyendra Nath Bose in 1925

Bose–Einstein statistics

Several Nobel Prizes were awarded for research related to the concepts of the boson, Bose–Einstein statistics and Bose–Einstein condensate—the latest being the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics given for advancing the theory of Bose–Einstein condensates although Satyendra Nath Bose himself was not awarded the Nobel Prize. In his book The Scientific Edge, physicist Jayant Narlikar observed: "SN Bose's work on particle statistics (c.1922), which clarified the behavior of photons (the particles of light in an enclosure) and opened the door to new ideas on statistics of Microsystems that obey the rules of quantum theory, was one of the top ten achievements of 20th century Indian science and could be considered in the Nobel Prize class."[173] The work of other 20th century Indian scientists which Narlikar considered to be of Nobel Prize class were Srinivasa Ramanujan, Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman and Meghnad Saha. However, when asked about the omission, Bose himself said: "I have got all the recognition I deserve."[174] Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the director general of European organization for nuclear research CERN, commented in a scientific meet in Kolkata titled Frontiers of Science that "it is unfortunate that pioneering Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose did not win the Nobel Prize for work on quantum physics in the 1920s that provided the foundation of the Bose–Einstein statistics and the theory of the Bose–Einstein condensate".[175]

Einstein's annus mirabilis

Albert Einstein, awarded a single 1921 Prize out of numerous nominations.

Albert Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize Award mainly recognized his 1905 discovery of the mechanism of the photoelectric effect and "for his services to Theoretical Physics". The Nobel committee passed on several nominations for his many other seminal contributions, although these led to prizes for others who later applied more advanced technology to experimentally verify his work, most notably the 2017 prize awarded to the heads of LIGO. Many predictions of Einstein's theories have been verified as technology advances. Recent examples include the bending of light in a gravitational field, gravitational waves (detected by LIGO), gravitational lensing and black holes. It wasn't until 1993 that the first evidence for the existence of gravitational radiation came via the Nobel Prize-winning measurements of the Hulse–Taylor binary system.[176]

The committee also failed to recognize the other contributions of his Annus Mirabilis papers on Brownian motion and special relativity. Often these nominations for Special Relativity were for both Hendrik Lorentz and Einstein. Henri Poincaré was also nominated at least once for his work, including on Lorentz's relativity theory. However, Kaufmann's then-experimental results (incorrectly) cast doubt on Special Relativity. These doubts were not resolved until 1915. By this time, Einstein had progressed to his general theory of relativity, including his theory of gravitation. Empirical support—in this case the predicted spectral shift of sunlight—was in question for many decades. The only piece of original evidence was the consistency with the known perihelion precession of the planet Mercury. Some additional support was gained at the end of 1919, when the predicted deflection of starlight near the sun was confirmed by Arthur Eddington's Solar Eclipse Expedition, though here again the actual results were somewhat ambiguous. Conclusive proof of the gravitational light deflection prediction was not achieved until the 1970s.

Metal–oxide–silicon field-effect transistor (MOSFET)

The metal–oxide–silicon field-effect transistor (MOSFET, or MOS transistor) was invented by Mohamed M. Atalla and Dawon Kahng at Bell Labs in 1959, and went on to become the dominant semiconductor technology in the electronics industry.[177] MOS technology was also the basis for Nobel Prize winning breakthroughs such as the quantum Hall effect[178] and the charge-coupled device (CCD),[179] yet there was never any Nobel Prize given for the MOSFET itself.[177] In 2018, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences which awards the science Nobel Prizes acknowledged that the invention of the MOSFET by Atalla and Kahng was one of the most important inventions in microelectronics and in information and communications technology (ICT).[180]

Physiology or medicine

2011

The 2011 prize was awarded in part to Ralph Steinman, who died of cancer days before the award, a fact unknown to the Nobel committee at the time of the award. Committee rules prohibit posthumous awards, and Steinman's death created a dilemma unprecedented in the history of the award. The committee ruled that Steinman remained eligible for the award despite his death, under the rule that allows awardees to receive the award who die between being named and the awards ceremony.[181]

2010

The decision to award the 2010 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine to Robert Edwards for developing the technique of in vitro fertilisation was bitterly denounced by the Catholic Church,[182] which objects to all artificial methods of human conception and fertilization as well as to contraception. One Vatican official called the award "out of order",[183] and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations issued a statement saying that the use of human embryos, created and discarded "as experimental animals destined for destruction, has led to a culture where they are regarded as commodities rather than the precious individuals which they are."[184][185]

2008

The 2008 prize was awarded in part to Harald zur Hausen "for his discovery of human papilloma viruses (HPV) causing cervical cancer". The Swedish police anticorruption unit investigated charges of improper influence by AstraZeneca, which had a stake in two lucrative HPV vaccines. The company had agreed to sponsor Nobel Media and Nobel Web and had strong links with two senior figures in the process that chose zur Hausen.[186]

The other half of the 2008 prize was split between Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi "for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus". The omission of Robert Gallo was controversial: 106 scientists signed a letter to the journal Science stating that 'While these awardees fully deserve the award, it is equally important to recognize the contributions of Robert C. Gallo', which 'warrant equal recognition'.[187] Montagnier said that he was 'surprised' that the award had not been shared with Gallo.[188]

2006

The 2006 prize went to Andrew Fire and Craig C. Mello "for their discovery of RNA interference—gene silencing by double-stranded RNA". Many of the discoveries credited by the committee to Fire and Mello, who studied RNA interference in Caenorhabditis elegans, had been previously studied by plant biologists, and was suggested that at least one plant biologist, such as David Baulcombe, should have been awarded a share of the prize.[189]

2003

The 2003 prize was awarded to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield "for their discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging" (MRI). Two independent alternatives have been alleged.[190] Raymond Damadian first reported that NMR could distinguish in vitro between cancerous and non-cancerous tissues on the basis of different proton relaxation times. He later translated this into the first human scan. Damadian's original report prompted Lauterbur to develop NMR into the present method. Damadian took out large advertisements in an international newspapers protesting his exclusion.[191] Some researchers felt that Damadian's work deserved at least equal credit. Separately, Herman Y. Carr both pioneered the NMR gradient technique and demonstrated rudimentary MRI imaging in the 1950s. The Nobel prize winners had almost certainly seen Carr's work, but did not cite it. Consequently, the prize committee very likely was unaware of Carr's discoveries, a situation likely abetted by Damadian's campaign.[192][193][194] Mansfield said in his autobiography that "the person who really missed out" the prize was Erwin Hahn for his contribution to the principles of spin echoes.[195]

2000

The 2000 prize went to Arvid Carlsson, Paul Greengard, and Eric R. Kandel, "for their discoveries concerning signal transduction in the nervous system". The award caused many neuroscientists to protest that Oleh Hornykiewicz, who helped pioneer the dopamine replacement treatment for Parkinson's disease, was left out, and that Hornykiewicz's research provided a foundation for the honourees' success.

1998

The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded in 1998 to Robert Furchgott, Louis Ignarro and Ferid Murad "for their discoveries concerning nitric oxide as a signalling molecule in the cardiovascular system". There followed protest by the scientific community due to the omission of Salvador Moncada, who was internationally recognised as the major contributor to the discovery of this field together with Robert Furchgott.[196][197]

1997

The 1997 prize was awarded to Dr. Stanley B. Prusiner for his discovery of prions. This award caused a long stream of polemics. Critics attacked the validity of the work and questioned whether prions exist at all, which claim had been criticized by other researchers as not yet proven.[198] The existence of prions was not fully accepted by the scientific community for at least a decade after the awarding of the prize.[199]

1993

The 1993 prize went to Phillip Allen Sharp and Richard J. Roberts "for their discoveries of split genes" the discovery of introns in eukaryotic DNA and the mechanism of gene splicing. Several other scientists, such as Norman Davidson and James Watson, argued that Louise T. Chow, a China-born Taiwanese researcher[200] who collaborated with Roberts, should have had part of the prize.[201] In 1976, as Staff Investigator, Chow carried out the studies of the genomic origins and structures of adenovirus transcripts that led directly to the discovery of RNA splicing and alternative RNA processing at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island in 1977. Norman Davidson, (a Caltech expert in electron microscopy, under whom Chow apprenticed as a graduate student), affirmed that Chow operated the electron microscope through which the splicing process was observed, and was the crucial experiment's sole designer, using techniques she had developed.[202]

1975

The 1975 prize was awarded to David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Martin Temin "for their discoveries concerning the interaction between tumor viruses and the genetic material of the cell". It has been argued that Dulbecco was distantly, if at all, involved in this ground-breaking work.[203] Further, the award failed to recognize the contributions of Satoshi Mizutani, Temin's Japanese postdoctoral fellow.[204] Mizutani and Temin jointly discovered that the Rous sarcoma virus particle contained the enzyme reverse transcriptase. However, Mizutani was solely responsible for the original conception and design of the novel experiment that confirmed Temin's provirus hypothesis.[203] A second controversy implicated Baltimore in the "Imanishi-Kari" affair, involving charges that Thereza Imanishi-Kari, a researcher in his laboratory, had fabricated data. Imanishi-Kari was initially found to have committed scientific fraud by the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), following highly publicized and politicized hearings. However, in 1996, she was vindicated by an appeals panel of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which overturned the OSI's findings and criticized their investigation.[205] Baltimore's staunch defense of Imanishi-Kari initially drew substantial criticism and controversy; the case itself was often referred to as "The Baltimore Affair", and contributed to his resignation as president of Rockefeller University.[206] Following Imanishi-Kari's vindication, Baltimore's role was reassessed; The New York Times opined that "... the most notorious fraud case in recent scientific history has collapsed in embarrassment for the Federal Government and belated vindication for the accused scientist."[206]

1973

The 1973 prize went to Konrad Lorenz, Nikolaas Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch "for their discoveries concerning organization and elicitation of individual and social behaviour patterns". Von Frisch's contribution was the "dance language" of bees. However, controversy emerged over the lack of direct proof of the waggle dance—as exactly worded by von Frisch. A team of researchers from Rothamsted Research in 2005 settled the controversy by using radar to track bees as they flew to a food source.[207] It turns out that bees do, indeed, use the information contained in the waggle dance to find food sources.

1968

The 1968 prize went to Robert W. Holley, Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall W. Nirenberg "for their interpretation of the genetic code and its function in protein synthesis". However, Heinrich J. Matthaei broke the genetic code in 1961 with Nirenberg in their poly-U experiment at National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, paving the way for modern genetics. Matthaei was responsible for experimentally obtaining the first codon (nucleotide triple that usually specifies an amino acid) extract, while Nirenberg tampered with his initial, accurate results (due to his belief in 'less precise', 'more believable' data presentation).[203]

1962

The 1962 prize was awarded to James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material". It did not recognize critical contributions from Alec Stokes, Herbert Wilson, and Erwin Chargaff. In addition, Chargaff, Oswald Avery and Rosalind Franklin (whose key DNA X-ray crystallography work was the most detailed yet least acknowledged among the three) contributed directly to Watson and Crick's insight to solve the DNA molecule's structure. Avery's death in 1955, and Franklin's in 1958, eliminated them from eligibility.

1952

The 1952 prize was awarded solely to Selman Waksman "for his discovery of streptomycin, the first antibiotic effective against tuberculosis" and omitted recognition[208] due his co-discoverer Albert Schatz.[209] Schatz sued Waksman over the details and credit of the discovery. Schatz was awarded a substantial settlement, and, together with Waksman, Schatz was legally recognized as a co-discoverer.

1949

The 1949 prize was awarded to Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz "for his discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy (lobotomy) in certain psychoses". Soon after, Dr. Walter Freeman developed the transorbital lobotomy, which was easier to carry out. Criticism was raised because the procedure was often prescribed injudiciously and without regard for medical ethics. Popular acceptance of the procedure had been fostered by enthusiastic press coverage such as a 1938 New York Times report. Endorsed by such influential publications as The New England Journal of Medicine, in the three years following the Prize, some 5,000 lobotomies were performed in the United States alone, and many more throughout the world.[210][211] Joseph Kennedy, father of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, had his daughter Rosemary lobotomized when she was in her twenties. The procedure later fell into disrepute and was prohibited in many countries.[212]

1945

The 1945 prize was awarded to Ernst Boris Chain, Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming "for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases". Fleming accidentally stumbled upon the then-unidentified fungal mold. However, some critics pointed out that Fleming did not in fact discover penicillin, that it was technically a rediscovery; decades before Fleming, Sir John Scott Burdon-Sanderson, William Roberts (physician), John Tyndall and Ernest Duchesne[213] had already done studies[147] and research[214] on its useful properties and medicinal characteristics.[215] Moreover, according to Fleming himself, the first known reference to penicillin was from Psalm 51: "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean". Meanwhile, he had learned from mycologist Charles Thom (the same who helped Fleming establish the identity of the mysterious fungal mold)[216] that "Penicillium notatum" was first recognized by Per Richard Westling, a Swedish pharmacist, from a specimen of decayed hyssop. In this award, as it had been pointed out, several deserving contemporaneous contributors had been left out of the Prize altogether.

1926

In 1926, no prize was awarded because the works of the two nominees Johannes Andreas Grib Fibiger and Katsusaburo Yamagiwa were considered undeserving. Fibiger had demonstrated that he could induce stomach cancer in rats using a roundworm Gongylonema neoplasticum that he discovered (but which he preferred to call Spiroptera carcinoma). Yamagiwa followed suit and induced cancer in rabbit by applying coal tar on the rabbit's ears. Theirs were the first experimental induction of cancer.[217] One of the assessors Hilding Bergstrand concluded that "one cannot, at this point, find much support for the possibility that the work of Fibiger and Yamagiwa will have great importance in the solving of the riddle of cancer. Under such circumstances I do not consider these discoveries worthy of the Noble Prize."[218] In 1927, Fibiger was again nominated alongside Otto Heinrich Warburg and Julius Wagner-Jauregg; but Yamagiwa was excluded. The Nobel Committee decided to award the 1926 prize jointly to Fibiger and Warburg, and the 1927 prize to Wagner-Jauregg. But at the final selection, Karolinska Institute rejected Warburg. The 1926 prize went solely to Fibiger "for his discovery of the Spiroptera carcinoma." Fibiger's "finding" was discredited by other scientists shortly thereafter.[219][220][221][222][223] Particularly after the last major experiment in 1952, it was established that the roundworm is not carcinogenic, and that cancers developed in Fibiger's experiments were due to vitamin A deficiency.[224] Yamagiwa's exclusion was also criticised, because his experiment was a valid finding.[225] Coal tar (and substances containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs) are true carcinogens. Yamagiwa's work has become the primary basis for this line of research.[226] Encyclopædia Britannica's guide to Nobel Prizes in cancer research mentions Yamagiwa's work as a milestone without mentioning Fibiger.[227]

1923

The 1923 prize was awarded to Frederick Banting and John Macleod "for the discovery of insulin". Banting clearly deserved the prize, however, the choice of Macleod as co-winner was controversial. Banting felt that Charles Best was the proper corecipient, while Macleod had merely given them lab space at the University of Toronto while Macleod was away for the summer. However, on his return, Macleod pointed out some flaws in their experimental design and gave them advice about directions to work in. Banting's original method of isolating insulin required performing surgery on living dogs, which was too labor-intensive to produce insulin on a large scale. Best then set about finding a biochemical extraction method, while James Bertram Collip, a chemistry professor on sabbatical from the University of Alberta, joined Macleod's team and worked in parallel with Best. The two of them succeeded within days of each other. When Banting agreed to receive the prize, he decided to give half of his prize money to Best. Macleod, in turn, split his half of the prize money with Collip.[228]

Since the Toronto team had isolated insulin from the pancreas, many researchers who had worked with pancreatic extracts claimed to have discovered insulin before the Prize winners. These included George Ludwig Zuelzer (1906), E. L. Scott (1911), and Nicolae Paulescu (1921).[229][230] Israel Kleiner had also tested pancreatic extracts on dogs in 1915, but he made no claim to priority. In all of the earlier work, the injection of insufficiently pure pancreatic extracts resulted in fever and other side effects. The same problem had affected the Canadians' early tests on humans, but they continued their work until they reached a purity that was acceptable for use in humans.[228]

1921

Further information: Carlos Chagas § Nobel Prize controversy

No prize was awarded in 1921. Carlos Chagas, who had already been nominated in 1913 and was the recipient of several international awards at the time, was among the nominees.[231] His failure in receiving the award has generated controversy, especially in his homeland, Brazil. Chagas alone discovered a new infectious disease (Chagas disease) and its pathogen, vector, host, clinical manifestation, and epidemology. According to historian Sierra Iglesias,[232] the Nobel Assembly retrieved for Brazilian health authorities' advice as to Chagas's being worthy the award and received unfavourable answers. It is known that Chagas had several adversaries inside Brazilian governmental health organizations, mainly due to intellectual rivalries;[233] however, Iglesias offers no proof to her claims. It seems substantially more likely that Chagas's not receiving the award was due to the Nobel Committee inability in recognizing the value of Chagas's findings.

1906

Camillo Golgi and Santiago Ramón y Cajal were jointly awarded "in recognition of their work on the structure of the nervous system". However, their interpretation of discoveries were directly in opposition. Much as Golgi made significant contributions to the techniques in the study of nervous system in terms of actual structure, he made a completely erroneous conclusion that nervous system is nothing but a single continuous network, the notion called reticular theory. On the other hand, Ramón y Cajal described nervous system as composed of interlinking nerve cells or neurons as suggested by a theory called the neuron doctrine. Golgi strongly advocated the reticular theory such that even his Nobel lecture was a direct attack on Cajal's work and the neuron doctrine, and even depicted a diagram of continuous network which he claimed was "an exact reproduction after life".[234][235][236] Therefore, recognising a work on wrong conclusion is inappropriate. The controversy and rivalry between the two scientists lasted even after the award of the Nobel Prize.[237] The award is even dubbed as creating the "storm centre of histological controversy". Cajal even commented that: "What a cruel irony of fate of pair, like Siamese twins united by the shoulders, scientific adversaries of such contrasting character!".[238] The neuron doctrine turned out to be a more correct description, and Golgi was proved wrong with the development of electron microscopy in the 1950s by which it was clearly demonstrated that neurons are individual cells in the nervous system, and that they are interconnected through gaps called synapses.[239] Recent studies suggest that there are notable exceptions. Electrical synapses are more common in the central nervous system than previously thought. Thus, rather than functioning as individual units, in some parts of the brain large ensembles of neurons may be active simultaneously to process neural information.[240][241]

1902

Ronald Ross was awarded basically for his discovery of the life cycle of malarial parasite (as the citation goes: for his work on malaria, by which he has shown how it enters the organism...). In 1897, independent of Ross, Giovanni Battista Grassi, along with his Italian associates, had established the developmental stages of malaria parasites in anopheline mosquitoes; and they described the complete life cycles of P. falciparum, P. vivax and P. malariae the following year.[242][243] The initial opinion of the Nobel Committee was that the prize should be shared between Ross and Grassi. Then Ross made a defamatory campaign accusing Grassi of deliberate fraud. The weight of favour ultimately fell on Ross, largely upon the influences of Robert Koch, the appointed "neutral arbitrator" in the committee; as reported, "Koch threw the full weight of his considerable authority in insisting that Grassi did not deserve the honor".[244] The indelible irony was that Ross was definitely the first to show that malarial parasite was transmitted by the bite of infected mosquitoes, in his case the avian Plasmodium relictum. But Grassi's work was much more directly relevant to human health as he demonstrated that human malarial parasites were infected only by female Anopheles (Ross never identified the mosquito species, being not a zoologist, "grey mosquito with dappled wings" was all that he could offer). Grassi identified the species correctly, and in 1898 who first established the complete life cycle of P. falciparum, the first human malarial parasite for which the entire cycle was determined. By today's standard, they should have undoubtedly shared the Nobel.[245][246]

Others

Oswald Theodore Avery, best known for his 1944 demonstration that DNA is the cause of bacterial transformation and potentially the material of which genes are composed, never received a Nobel Prize, although two Nobel Laureates, Joshua Lederberg and Arne Tiselius, praised him and his work as a pioneering platform for further genetic research. According to John M. Barry, in his book The Great Influenza, the committee was preparing to award Avery, but declined to do so after the DNA findings were published, fearing that they would be endorsing findings that had not yet survived significant scrutiny.

Laureates who declined the prize

Forced refusals

Forced refusals under Nazi Germany

In 1936, the Nobel Foundation offended Adolf Hitler when it awarded the 1935 Nobel Peace Prize to Carl von Ossietzky, a German writer who publicly opposed Hitler and Nazism.[247] (The prize was awarded the following year.) Hitler reacted by issuing a decree on 31 January 1937 that forbade German nationals to accept any Nobel Prize. Awarding the peace prize to Ossietzky was itself considered controversial. While Fascism had few supporters outside Italy, Spain, and Germany, those who did not necessarily sympathize felt that it was wrong to (deliberately) offend Germany.[248][249]

Hitler's decree prevented three Germans from accepting their prizes: Gerhard Domagk (1939 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine), Richard Kuhn (1938 Nobel Prize in Chemistry), and Adolf Butenandt (1939 Nobel Prize in Chemistry). The three later received their certificates and medals, but not the prize money.[250]

On 19 October 1939, about a month and a half after World War II had started, the Nobel Committee of the Karolinska Institutet met to discuss the 1939 prize in physiology or medicine.[251] The majority favoured Domagk and someone leaked the news, which traveled to Berlin. The Ministry of Culture in Berlin replied with a telegram stating that a Nobel Prize to a German was "completely unwanted" (durchaus unerwünscht).[252] Despite the telegram, a large majority voted for Domagk on 26 October 1939.[253] Once he learned of the decision, hopeful that it only applied to the peace prize, Domagk sent a request to the Ministry of Education in Berlin asking permission to accept the prize.[254] Since he did not receive a reply after more than a week had passed, Domagk felt it would be impolite to wait any longer without responding, and on 3 November 1939 he wrote a letter to the Institute thanking them for the distinction, but added that he had to wait for the government's approval before he could accept the prize.[255]

Domagk was subsequently ordered to send a copy of his letter to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Berlin, and on 17 November 1939, was arrested by the Gestapo.[256][257] He was released after one week, then arrested again. On 28 November 1939, he was forced by the Ministry of Culture to sign a prepared letter, addressed to the Institute, declining the prize.[255][258] Since the Institute had already prepared his medal and diploma before the second letter arrived, they were able to award them to him later, during the 1947 Nobel festival. Domagk was the first to decline a prize. Due to his refusal, the procedures changed so that if a laureate declined the prize or failed to collect the prize award before 1 October of the following year, the money would not be awarded.[259]

On 9 November 1939, the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences awarded the 1938 Prize for Chemistry to Kuhn and half of the 1939 prize to Butenandt.[253][260] When notified of the decision, the German scientists were forced to decline by threats of violence.[260][261] Their refusal letters arrived in Stockholm after Domagk's refusal letter, helping to confirm suspicions that the German government had forced them to refuse the prize.[256][260][261] In 1948, they wrote to the Academy expressing their gratitude for the prizes and their regret for being forced to refuse them in 1939. They were awarded their medals and diplomas at a ceremony in July 1949.

Other forced refusals

Boris Pasternak at first accepted the 1958 Nobel Prize in Literature, but was forced by Soviet authorities to decline, because the prize was considered a "reward for the dissident political innuendo in his novel, Doctor Zhivago."[250][262] Pasternak died without ever receiving the prize. He was eventually honoured by the Nobel Foundation at a banquet in Stockholm on 9 December 1989, when they presented his medal to his son.

The 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Liu Xiaobo while he was serving a prison sentence for "subversion of the state", with the Chinese government not allowing him or his family members to attend the ceremony.

Voluntary refusals

Two laureates voluntarily declined the Nobel Prize. Jean-Paul Sartre declined the 1964 prize for Literature, stating, "A writer must refuse to allow himself to be transformed into an institution, even if it takes place in the most honourable form."[263][264] The second person who refused the prize is Lê Đức Thọ, who was awarded the 1973 Peace Prize for his role in the Paris Peace Accords. He declined, saying there was no actual peace in Vietnam.[263] The war resumed four months after he was declared the winner.

Nobel rumours

1915 saw a newspaper rumor[265] (starting with a 6 November Reuters report from London) along the lines that Nobel Prize in Physics was to be awarded to both Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. The story had gone to press in many publications before a 15 November Reuters story from Stockholm with the announcement that the prize that year was being awarded to William Henry Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg "for their services in the analysis of crystal structure by means of X-rays".[266][267][268] There were unsubstantiated rumors at the time that Tesla and Edison had won the prize and that the Nobel committee had changed recipients when Tesla and/or Edison refused the award (a claim also made many years later attributed Tesla).[269] The Nobel Foundation declined to comment on the rumours other than saying, "Any rumor that a person has not been given a Nobel Prize because he has made known his intention to refuse the reward is ridiculous", further stating a recipient could only decline a Nobel Prize after he is announced a winner.[269]

Otto Heinrich Warburg, a German national who won the 1931 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, was rumored to have been selected for the 1944 prize but forbidden to accept it. According to the Nobel Foundation, this story is not true.[270]

Other prizes

Prizes in non-Nobel domains

Multiple primary fields of human intellectual endeavor—such as mathematics, philosophy and social studies—were not included among the Nobel Prizes, because they were not part of Alfred Nobel's will. When Jakob von Uexkull approached the Nobel Foundation with a proposal to establish two new awards for the environment and for the lives of the poor, he was turned down. He then established the Right Livelihood Award.

In 2003 purportedly a new Nobel-equivalent Award was also created especially for mathematics, the Abel Prize, though the older Fields Medal is often considered as the mathematical Nobel equivalent.[271]

However, the Nobel Committee did allow the creation of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Many people have opposed this expansion, including the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandnephew of Alfred Nobel.[272] In his speech at the 1974 Nobel banquet, awardee Friedrich Hayek stated that had he been consulted whether to establish an economics prize, he would "have decidedly advised against it"[45][273] primarily because "the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally."[273]

The Kluge Prize, a $1 million prize given by the John W. Kluge Center at the Library of Congress, is awarded for lifetime achievement in fields of humanistic and social science studies that are not included in the Nobel Prizes, most notably history, philosophy, politics, psychology, anthropology, sociology, religious studies, linguistics, and criticism in the arts and humanities.

The Shaw Prize is awarded for achievements in the fields of astronomy and mathematical sciences besides life science and medicine.

The Tang Prize categories include areas of sustainable development and rule of law which are not included in Nobel Prize, and also include biopharmaceutical science and sinology. The panels of judges are convened by Academia Sinica, located in Taiwan, Republic of China.

Alternatives to the Nobel Prizes

Following the announcement of the award of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to incarcerated Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese tabloid Global Times created the Confucius Peace Prize. The award ceremony was deliberately organized to take place on 8 December, one day before the Nobel ceremony. Organizers said that the prize had no relation to the Chinese government, the Ministry of Culture or Beijing Normal University.[274]

The German National Prize for Art and Science was Hitler's alternative to the Nobel Prize.

The Ig Nobel Prize is an American parody of the Nobel Prize.

References

1. Nobel population 1901–50: anatomy of a scientific elite. 5 November 2001. physicsworld.com. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
2. "A Nobel calling: 100 years of controversy Archived 24 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine", The Independent, 14 October 2005.
3. Christoph Bartneck & Matthias Rauterberg (2007). "Physics Nobels should favour inventions". Nature. 448 (7154): 644. Bibcode:2007Natur.448..644B. doi:10.1038/448644c. PMID 17687300.
4. Christoph Bartneck & Matthias Rauterberg (2008). "The asymmetry between discoveries and inventions in the Nobel Prize in Physics" (PDF). Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research. 6 (1). doi:10.1386/tear.6.1.73/1.
5. John E. Morrill (1995). "A Nobel Prize in Mathematics". American Mathematical Monthly. 102 (10): 888–892. doi:10.2307/2975266. JSTOR 2975266.
6. "Fields Institute – Mittag-Leffler and Nobel". Fields Institute. 23 March 2010. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
7. "Magnus Gösta Mittag-Leffler" (PDF). Robert Knowlan. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 June 2016. Retrieved 21 January 2010. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
8. Lars Gårding & Lars Hörmander (1985). "Why is there no nobel prize in Mathematics?". The Mathematical Intelligencer. 7 (3): 73–74. doi:10.1007/BF03025815.
9. "Fields Medal – from Wolfram MathWorld". MathWorld. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
10. "Abel Prize Awarded: The Mathematicians' Nobel". Mathematical Association of America. April 2004. Archived from the original on 19 February 2007. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
11. Nasar 1998, pp. 368–369
12. Controversial Turkish Writer Wins Nobel Prize – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2011. Rferl.org (12 October 2006). Retrieved 20 March 2011.
13. First Arab Nobel Prize Winner in Literature Dies at 94 – International News|News of the World|Middle East News|Europe News. FOXNews.com (30 August 2006). Retrieved 20 March 2011.
14. Amartya Sen (28 August 2001) Tagore and His India. nobelprize.org
15. "Nobel Prize – Prizes". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Retrieved 15 January 2009. The Nobel Prizes for Physics, Chemistry, and Physiology or Medicine have generally been the least controversial, whereas those for Literature and Peace have been, by their very nature, the most exposed to critical differences. The Peace Prize has been the prize most frequently reserved or withheld.
16. Samuel Brittan (19 December 2003) "The not so noble Nobel Prize Archived 30 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine", Financial Times.
17. Burton Feldman (2000) The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy and Prestige, Arcade Publishing, ISBN 1-55970-537-X
18. Adam Kirsch (3 October 2008). "The Nobel Committee has no clue about American literature". Slate Magazine.
19. Irwin Abrams (2001). The Nobel Peace Prize and the laureates: an illustrated biographical history, 1901–2001. pp. xiv. ISBN 0-88135-388-4.
20. Burton Feldman (2001). The Nobel prize: a history of genius, controversy, and prestige. Arcade Pub. p. 65. ISBN 1-55970-537-X.
21. Anna Ringstrom, Sven Nordenstam & Jon Hurdle (13 October 2008). "Bush critic wins 2008 Nobel for economics". Reuters. Retrieved 31 March 2010.
22. §4 of the Statutes, see https://www.nobelprize.org/about/statutes-of-the-nobel-foundation/#par4
23. "Solve the Nobel Prize Dilemma". Scientific American. 307 (4): 12. 2012. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1012-12.
24. "The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science". 3 October 2017.
25. "Why Nobel prizes fail 21st-century science". The Guardian. 30 September 2018.
26. Grant, Bob (26 February 2013). "What Ever Happened to Douglas Prasher?". The Scientist.
27. Benderly, B. L. (2009). "Taken for Granted: The Man Who Wasn't There". Science. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a0900021.
28. "How Bad Luck & Bad Networking Cost Douglas Prasher a Nobel Prize". Discover Magazine.
29. Grant, Bob (26 February 2013). "What Ever Happened to Douglas Prasher?". The Scientist.
30. Aaron Gouveia (11 October 2008). "Shuttle driver reflects on Nobel snub". Cape Cod Times. Archived from the original on 11 October 2008. Retrieved 11 October 2008.
31. Grant, Bob (26 February 2013). "What Ever Happened to Douglas Prasher?". The Scientist.
32. Jacoby, Mitch. "Surface Science's Sage – April 7, 2008 Issue – Vol. 86 Issue 14 – Chemical & Engineering News". cen.acs.org.
33. "Birthday Boy Gets a Nobel". 10 October 2007.
34. "Surface chemistry wins Nobel Prize".
35. "Nomination Archive". NobelPrize.org. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
36. "Gilbert N. Lewis". Atomic Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
37. 10 Fierce (But Productive) Rivalries Between Dueling Scientists Radu Alexander. Website of Listverse Ltd. April 7th 2015. Retrieved 2016-03-24.
38. Coffey (2008): 195–207.
39. Matters of Conscience: Conversations With Sterling M. McMurrin on Philosophy, Education, and Religion by Sterling M. McMurrin & L. Jackson Newell, Signature Books, 1996
40. "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry: The Development of Modern Chemistry". Nobelprize.org. Retrieved 12 June 2010.
41. The Road to Stockholm: Nobel Prizes, Science, and Scientists (Hardcover). Brightsurf.com. 2002. ISBN 019850912X. Retrieved 18 October 2009.
42. Anna Ringstrom, Sven Nordenstam and Jon Hurdle (13 October 2008). "Bush critic wins 2008 Nobel for economics". Reuters.
43. Nasar, A Beautiful Mind, p. 356–373
44. Nasar, A Beautiful Mind, p. 372
45. Samuel Brittan (19 December 2003). "The not so noble Nobel Prize". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 30 June 2009. Retrieved 26 November 2009.
46. Burton Feldman (2000). "Chapter 9: The Economics Memorial Prize". The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige. New York: Arcade Publishing. p. 350. ISBN 1-55970-537-X.
47. Milton Friedman & Rose D. Friedman. "Two Lucky People: One Week in Stockholm". Hoover Digest: Research and Opinion on Public Policy. 1998 (4). Archived from the original on 14 March 2008.
48. Kehe, Marjorie (2 October 2008). "Are US Writers Unworthy of the Nobel Prize?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 15 March 2009.
49. Kjell Espmark (3 December 1999). "The Nobel Prize in Literature". Nobelprize.org. Archived from the original on 5 April 2006. Retrieved 14 August 2006.
50. "The Grand Old Man of Malgudi". The Tribune. 7 October 2000. Retrieved 26 August 2009.
51. "Jeffrey Archer: RK Narayan is my hero, he should have won the Nobel Prize". The Times of India. 25 November 2016. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
52. "R. K. Narayan – bunpeiris Literature".
53. Dagens Nyheter (8 October 2008)"Akademien väljer helst en europé (The Academy prefers to pick a European)". Archived from the original on 10 February 2009. Retrieved 12 February 2010.CS1 maint: unfit url (link) . dn.se
54. "Nobel Gas: The Nobel Committee has no clue about American literature". Slate.com. Retrieved 5 August 2013.
55. "Judge: Nobel literature prizes 'too Eurocentric'". The Guardian. UK. 6 October 2009. Retrieved 5 February 2010.
56. "Don't think twice, it's all right: Bob Dylan wins Nobel Lit". Associated Press. Yahoo! News. 13 October 2016. Retrieved 13 October 2016.
57. Bob Dylan winning a Nobel in Literature is like Mrs Fields being awarded 3 Michelin stars, Rabih Alameddine's Twitter page, 13 October 2016.
58. Leonard Cohen: giving Nobel to Bob Dylan like 'pinning medal on Everest', Guardian, 13 October 2016.
59. Karl Ove Knausgaard webchat – your questions answered on self-loathing, love and Jürgen Klopp, The Guardian, 17 October 2016.
60. "Mario Vargas Llosa: Why the 2010 Nobel Prize winner stirs controversy in Peru". Christian Science Monitor. 7 October 2010.
61. Corba, Lauren. "Mario Vargas Llosa, King of Controversies".
62. Jordan, Mary (9 October 2009). "Herta Mueller Wins Nobel Prize in Literature". The Washington Post. Retrieved 31 March 2010.
63. "NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: Herta Muller". Huffington Post. 8 October 2009. Retrieved 31 March 2010.
64. Jordan, Mary (9 October 2009). "Author's Nobel Stirs Shock-and-'Bah'". The Washington Post.
65. Neil Smith (13 October 2005). "'Political element' to Pinter Prize". BBC News. Retrieved 26 April 2008. Few people would deny Harold Pinter is a worthy recipient of the 2005 Nobel Prize for Literature. As a poet, screenwriter and author of more than 30 plays, he has dominated the English literary scene for half a century. However, his outspoken criticism of US foreign policy and opposition to the war in Iraq undoubtedly make him one of the more controversial figures to be awarded this prestigious honour. Indeed, the Nobel academy's decision can be read to have an inescapably political element. 'There is the view that the Nobel Literature Prize often goes to someone whose political stance is found to be sympathetic at a given moment,' said Alan Jenkins, deputy editor of the Times Literary Supplement. 'For the last 10 years he has been more angry and vituperative, and that cannot have failed to be noticed.' However, Mr Jenkins insists that, though Pinter's political views may have been a factor, the award is more than justified on artistic criteria alone. 'His dramatic and literary achievement is head and shoulders above any other British writer. He is far and away the most interesting, the best, the most powerful and most original of English playwrights.'
66. Harold Pinter –Nobel Lecture. Nobelprize.org (7 December 2005). Retrieved 20 March 2011.
67. Dan Kellum, "Lessing's Legacy of Political Literature: Skeptics Call It A Nonliterary Nobel Win, But Academy Saw Her Visionary Power", CBS News, rpt. from The Nation (column), 14 October 2007. Retrieved 17 October 2007.
68. "Who deserves Nobel prize? Judges don't agree-BOOKS". Today.com. 11 October 2005. Retrieved 31 March 2010.
69. "Nobel judge steps down in protest". BBC News. 11 October 2005. Retrieved 31 March 2010.
70. Julie Carroll, " 'Pope and Witch' Draws Catholic Protests" Archived 14 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine, The Catholic Spirit, 27 February 2007. Retrieved 13 October 2007.
71. "Nobel Stuns Italy's Left-wing Jester", The Times, 10 October 1997, rpt. in Archives of a list at hartford-hwp.com. Retrieved 17 October 2007.
72. Alex Duval Smith (14 October 2005). "A Nobel Calling: 100 Years of Controversy". The Independent. UK. Archived from the original on 24 December 2007. Retrieved 26 April 2008. Not many women, a weakness for Anglo-Saxon literature and an ostrich-like ability to resist popular or political pressure. Alex Duval Smith reports from Stockholm on the strange and secret world of the Swedish Academy.
73. Stig Fredrikson (22 February 2006)"How I Helped Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Smuggle His Nobel Lecture from the USSR". Archived from the original on 5 April 2006. Retrieved 12 February 2010., nobelprize.org.
74. Lennon, Peter (28 December 1980). "Why Graham Greene Hasn't Won A Nobel Prize and Solzhenitsyn Has".
75. "Nomination Database". old.nobelprize.org. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
76. "Proclamation sent to Leo Tolstoy after the 1901 year's presentation of Nobel Prizes". NobelPrize.org. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
77. "Übergangen: Wer den Nobelpreis verdient hätte und ihn nicht bekam" (in German). Die Presse. 30 September 2011. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
78. Cammann, Alexander (29 November 2017). "Theodor Mommsen: Gegen allen Fanatismus". Die Zeit (in German). Retrieved 11 September 2018.
79. Hedin, Naboth (October 1950). "Winning the Nobel Prize". The Atlantic (October 1950). Retrieved 11 September 2018.
80. "Leo Tolstoy – 10 great writers snubbed by the Nobel Prize". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 September 2018.
81. Peter Swirski (2005). From Lowbrow to Nobrow. McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 0-7735-2992-6.
82. Olivier Truc (28 December 2008) "Et Camus obtint enfin le prix Nobel". Le Monde.
83. Colm Tóibín (11 May 2006). "Don't Abandon Me". The London Review of Books. Retrieved 13 October 2007.
84. "New studies agree that Beauvoir is eclipsing Sartre as a philosopher and writer". Archived from the original on 4 February 2009. Retrieved 3 January 2009.CS1 maint: unfit url (link) The Independent 25 May 2008. Retrieved 4 January 2009.
85. Textos escondidos de Pablo Neruda Libros 14 April 2005. Retrieved 4 January 2009.
86. "Nobel Judge Steps Down in Protest". BBC News. 11 October 2005. Retrieved 13 October 2007.
87. Associated Press (11 October 2005). "Who Deserves Nobel Prize? Judges Don't Agree", MSNBC. Retrieved 13 October 2007.
88. Controversies and Criticisms. Nobelprize.org. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
89. Desmond Tutu, other Nobel Peace Prize laureates contest 2012 winner choice of EU, Associated Press story (30 November 2012)
90. Garnaut, John (9 October 2010). "China furious at Nobel's 'violation'". The Age. Australia. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
91. Chan, Sewell (19 December 2016). "Norway and China Restore Ties, 6 Years After Nobel Prize Dispute". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
92. Barry Sautman & Yan Hairong (15 December 2010). "Do supporters of Nobel winner Liu Xiaobo really know what he stands for? – Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong". The Guardian. London.
93. "Does Liu Xiaobo Really Deserve the Peace Prize? " Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names". Counterpunch. 13 December 2010. Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved 13 August 2012.
94. Sharon Otterman (9 October 2009). "World Reaction to a Nobel Surprise". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 October 2009.
95. "Obama Peace Prize win has Americans asking why?". Reuters. 9 October 2009. Retrieved 9 October 2009.
96. Obama: Nobel Peace Prize ‘a call to action’ – Politics – White House –nbcnews.com. NBC News (9 October 2009). Retrieved 10 December 2010.
97. "Obama is surprise winner of Nobel Peace Prize". Reuters. 9 October 2009. Retrieved 9 October 2009.
98. "Remarks by the President on Winning the Nobel Peace Prize" Archived 14 October 2009 at the Library of Congress Web Archives, 9 October 2009, retrieved same day
99. Steven Erlanger (10 October 2009). "Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
100. "Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is call to action". CNN. 9 October 2009. Archived from the original on 24 November 2011.
101. Amar C. Bakshi (7 October 2011). "Debate: Has President Obama lived up to his Nobel Peace Prize?". Global Public Square. CNN. Retrieved 10 October 2011. Yes, I think so. I'm as convinced as I was when he got it that he deserved it for many reasons. During three months' time, he, for instance and that's what's the main reason why he got the prize, namely that he paved the way for new negotiations with the Russian Federation about nuclear arms. If you look at the will of Alfred Nobel that goes directly to what he said that the prize should go to the person that has worked for—he called it reduction of standing armies but in today's terms it means arm control and disarmament. So President Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize because he paved the way for such negotiations... But, there are other things also, which we looked at, for instance, the fact that he started immediately to build bridges to the Muslim world throughout the time.
102. Diebel, Matthew (18 September 2015). "Former Nobel chief: Obama Peace Prize a failure". USA Today. Retrieved 19 September 2015.
103. "Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize". BBC. 17 September 2015.
104. Mitra, Mili (12 March 2016). "Not So Noble: The Politics Behind the Nobel Peace Prize". Brown Political Review.
105. Matt Spetalnick (12 October 2007). "ANALYSIS-Nobel is sweet revenge for Gore, blow to Bush". Reuters.
106. Sindelar, Daisy. (10 December 2004) World: Africa's First Female Nobel Peace Laureate Accepts Award Amid Controversy Over AIDS Remarks. Rferl.org. Retrieved on 2013-08-05.
107. 10 Questions: Wangari Maathai. TIME (10 October 2004). Retrieved 20 March 2011.
108. "Jimmy Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize". CNN. 11 October 2002. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
109. Ginsburg, Tom (2004). Legal Reform in Korea. Psychology Press. ISBN 9780203479384. Archived from the original on 5 July 2014. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
110. Ahn, Mi-young (5 September 2000). "Spies' repatriation causes unease in Seoul". Asia Times Online. Archived from the original on 2 December 2013. Retrieved 25 June 2010.
111. Edward Said (1996). Peace and Its Discontents: Essays on Palestine in the Middle East Peace Process. Vintage. ISBN 0-679-76725-8.
112. Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans, David Stoll, Westview Press, 1999
113. Luke Harding (15 June 2006). "Menachem Begin 'plotted to kill German chancellor'". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 30 August 2013. Retrieved 5 September 2011. Israel's former prime minister Menachem Begin was involved in a plot to blow up West Germany's first post-war chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, Germany's leading newspaper claimed yesterday.
114. Horne, Alistair. Kissinger's Year: 1973. p. 195.
115. Hitchens, Christopher (26 February 2001). "A Nation Betrayed." London: The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/feb/26/extract.features11
116. Irwin Abrams (2001). The Nobel Peace Prize and the laureates: an illustrated biographical history, 1901–2001. p. 219. ISBN 0-88135-388-4.
117. Burton Feldman (2001). The Nobel prize: a history of genius, controversy, and prestige. Arcade Pub. p. 16. ISBN 1-55970-537-X.
118. Purdom, Todd S. (31 July 2000). "When Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize, satire died". the Guardian.
119. Burton Feldman (2001). The Nobel prize: a history of genius, controversy, and prestige. Arcade Pub. p. 315. ISBN 1-55970-537-X.
120. Irwin Abrams (2001). The Nobel Peace Prize and the laureates: an illustrated biographical history, 1901–2001. p. 315. ISBN 0-88135-388-4.
121. Miller and Ogilvie, pp. 174–175.
122. Rosen, pp. 447, 567 citing Morgan-Witts and Thomas (1994) pp.8, 238
123. Robert Rosen (17 July 2006). Saving the Jews (Speech). Carter Center (Atlanta, Georgia). Retrieved 17 July 2007.
124. "Nomination Database". Nobelprize.org. Retrieved 11 April 2018.
125. "As A Bitter Joke, Adolf Hitler Was Nominated For The Nobel Peace Prize in 1939". War History Online. 17 June 2017. Retrieved 11 April 2018.
126. "Carl von Ossietzky – Biography". Nobelprize.org. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
127. Øyvind Tønnesson (1 December 1999). "Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate". Archived from the original on 5 April 2006.
128. Øyvind Tønnesson (1 December 1999). Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate. nobelprize.org
129. "Relevance of Gandhian Philosophy in the 21st Century" Archived 15 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Icrs.ugm.ac.id. Retrieved on 2013-08-05.
130. Guarino, Ben (3 October 2017). "Three Americans win Nobel Prize in physics for gravitational wave discovery". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
131. The Independent, Inventor of the red LED hits out at committee for 'overlooking' his seminal 1960s work. 8 October 2014, Retrieved 16 October 2016
132. "Nobel Shocker: RCA Had the First Blue LED in 1972". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Archived from the original on 7 July 2017. Retrieved 17 October 2018.
133. "Oregon tech CEO says Nobel Prize in Physics overlooks the actual inventors". OregonLive.com. Retrieved 17 October 2018.
134. Samuel Reich, Eugenie (2010). "Nobel document triggers debate". Nature. 468 (7323): 486. Bibcode:2010Natur.468..486R. doi:10.1038/468486a. PMID 21107397.
135. This page is available to GlobePlus subscribers. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
136. "2008 Nobel Prize in Physics – Scientific Background". Archived from the original on 5 April 2006. Retrieved 8 October 2009.. nobelprize.org
137. Physics Nobel snubs key researcher – physics-math – 7 October 2008. New Scientist. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
138. Yoichiro Nambu (2008). Karl Grandin (ed.). Les Prix Nobel. The Nobel Prizes 2008. Stockholm: The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 22 May 2012.
139. "Yoichiro Nambu – Nobel Lecture: Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Particle Physics: a Case of Cross Fertilization". Nobelprize.org. 8 December 2008. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
140. LAMBDA – Relikt Overview. Lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
141. The Prognoz 9 Mission. Heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
142. R. Pamachandran, "Elusive Recognition", FRONTLINE, Volume 22 – Issue 24, 19 Nov – 2 December 2005. http://www.frontline.in/navigation/?type=static&page=flonnet&rdurl=fl2224/stories/20051202002210000.htm
143. Luluzhou, Scientists Question Nobel, Crimson Staff Writer, 6 December 2005.
144. "Nobel Prize Challenged By Russians". Archived from the original on 27 January 2007. Retrieved 20 November 2006.CS1 maint: unfit url (link), The Moscow Times, 21 October 1997.
145. Bitte Roth (1997)"Americans again dominate in science". Archived from the original on 10 May 2007. Retrieved 20 November 2006.CS1 maint: unfit url (link), CNN.
146. "In Brief". Physics Today. 54 (11): 75. 2001. Bibcode:2001PhT....54k..75.. doi:10.1063/1.1428444.
147. Tony Rothman (2003) Everything's Relative and Other Fables from Science and Technology, Wiley, ISBN 0471202576.
148. Sudarshan: Seven Science Quests. ph.utexas.edu.
149. "The E821 Muon (g-2) Home Page".
150. William Morse; et al. (2003). "Precision Measurement of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon" (PDF). The Expanding Frontier of Atomic Physics. pp. 252–259. arXiv:hep-ex/0308064. Bibcode:2003efap.conf..252M. doi:10.1142/9789812705099_0026. ISBN 978-981-238-228-3.
151. "New g-2 Measurement Deviates Further From Standard Model".
152. Mary Gribbin and John Gribbin (1997) A Life in Science: Richard Feynman, Dutton Adult, ISBN 052594124X.
153. Sharon Bertsch McGrayne (1998) Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles and Momentous Discoveries, Carol Pub. Group, ISBN 0806520256.
154. "Cosmic Search Issue 01 Page 16 – S. Jocelyn Bell Burnell: Little Green Men, White Dwarfs or Pulsars?". Bigear.org. 5 September 2006. Retrieved 12 February 2010.
155. Kuruvilla, Carol (7 September 2018). "Scientist Whose Male Boss Won Nobel For Her Work Is Giving New $3 Million Prize Away" – via Huff Post.
156. G. Zweig, "An SU3 Model for Strong Interaction Symmetry and its Breaking," CERN Report 8182/Th. 401, unpublished (1964)
157. "Faces and places (page 3)", Cern Courier, Page 3 of 8. Article 22 of 24.
158. Y. Ne'eman (1961). "Derivation of strong interactions from a gauge invariance". Nuclear Physics. 26 (2): 222–229. Bibcode:1961NucPh..26..222N. doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90134-1.
159. Interview (Hebrew) with the journalist Ronen Bergman in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot 18 March 2005.
160. "Julius Edgar Lilienfeld". Archived from the original on 2 October 2006. Retrieved 1 March 2006.CS1 maint: unfit url (link). Institute of Chemistry, The Hebrew University (Israel).
161. GB 439457 Oskar Heil: "Improvements in or relating to electrical amplifiers and other control arrangements and devices" first filed in Germany 2 March 1934
162. Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen. pbs.org (ca. 1999)
163. Ronald Kessler (6 April 1997) "Absent at the Creation; How one scientist made off with the biggest invention since the light bulb Archived 24 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine", The Washington Post Magazine, p. 16.
164. Transistorized!, PBS, 1999
165. Roger Pearson (1992) Shockley on Eugenics and Race, Scott-Townsend Publishers, ISBN 1878465031.
166. Nicholas Agar (2004), Liberal Eugenics: In defence of human enhancement, Wiley Blackwell, ISBN 1-4051-2390-7
167. Cao, Cong (2004). "Chinese Science and the 'Nobel Prize Complex'" (PDF). Minerva. 42 (2): 151–172. doi:10.1023/b:mine.0000030020.28625.7e. ISSN 0026-4695.
168. "Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute" by G. Holton, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 1978, vol 9, pp. 166–224.
169. "Invisible Light: The Discovery of Radioactivity Archived 5 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine".
170. Bartusiak, Marcia. "The Woman Behind the Bomb" The Washington Post; 17 March 1996
171. Niels Bohr (1939). "Disintegration of Heavy Nuclei". Nature. 143 (3617): 330. Bibcode:1939Natur.143..330B. doi:10.1038/143330a0. Archived from the original on 24 March 2005.
172. Elisabeth Crawford; et al. (1997). "A Nobel Tale of Postwar Injustice" (PDF). Physics Today. 50 (9): 26. Bibcode:1997PhT....50i..26C. doi:10.1063/1.881933. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 June 2007.
173. Jayant V Narlikar (2003). The Scientific Edge: The Indian Scientist from Vedic to Modern Times. Penguin Books. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-14-303028-7.
174. Anvar Alikhan (16 July 2012). "The Spark in a Crowded Field". Outlook India. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
175. "Satyendra Nath Bose deserved Nobel, says CERN chief". The Times of India. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
176. "General Relativity Survives Gruelling Pulsar Test: Einstein At Least 99.95 Percent Right", Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council, 14 September 2006.
177. Woodall, Jerry M. (2010). Fundamentals of III-V Semiconductor MOSFETs. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 2. ISBN 9781441915474.
178. Lindley, David (15 May 2015). "Focus: Landmarks—Accidental Discovery Leads to Calibration Standard". Physics. 8. doi:10.1103/physics.8.46.
179. Williams, J. B. (2017). The Electronics Revolution: Inventing the Future. Springer. pp. 245, 249–50. ISBN 9783319490885.
180. "Advanced information on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2000" (PDF). Nobel Prize. June 2018. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
181. Stefanie Ilgenfritz (3 October 2011) A Posthumous Nobel for Medicine? Wall Street Journal.
182. Edwards' obituary in the New York Times
183. "IVF Nobel prize 'out of order': Vatican". 5 October 2010.
184. "Vatican health experts 'dismayed' by Nobel prize for IVF co-developer".
185. "Vatican official: Nobel Prize ignores ethics of IVF – Catholic Herald". 6 October 2010. Archived from the original on 13 October 2013. Retrieved 25 August 2014.
186. AstraZeneca row as corruption claims engulf Nobel prize, Times Online, 19 December 2008
187. Abbadessa, G.; Accolla, R.; Aiuti, F.; Albini, A.; Aldovini, A.; Alfano, M.; Antonelli, G.; Bartholomew, C.; Bentwich, Z.; Bertazzoni, U.; Berzofsky, J. A.; Biberfeld, P.; Boeri, E.; Buonaguro, L.; Buonaguro, F. M.; Bukrinsky, M.; Burny, A.; Caruso, A.; Cassol, S.; Chandra, P.; Ceccherini-Nelli, L.; Chieco-Bianchi, L.; Clerici, M.; Colombini-Hatch, S.; De Giuli Morghen, C.; De Maria, A.; De Rossi, A.; Dierich, M.; Della-Favera, R.; et al. (2009). "Unsung hero Robert C. Gallo". Science. 323 (5911): 206–207. doi:10.1126/science.323.5911.206. PMID 19131607.
188. Cohen, J.; Enserink, M. (2008). "HIV, HPV Researchers Honored, but One Scientist is Left Out". Science. 322 (5899): 174–175. doi:10.1126/science.322.5899.174. PMID 18845715.
189. M. Bots; et al. (2006). "RNAi Nobel ignores vital groundwork on plants". Nature. 443 (7114): 906. Bibcode:2006Natur.443..906B. doi:10.1038/443906a. PMID 17066009.
190. Aaron Filler (2009). "The History, Development and Impact of Computed Imaging in Neurological Diagnosis and Neurosurgery: CT, MRI, and DTI" (PDF). Nature Precedings. doi:10.1038/npre.2009.3267.5.
191. H. F. Judson, "No Nobel Prize for whining", The New York Times, 20 October 2003. Retrieved 2 November 2006.
192. Bitterness erupts in a Nobel pursuit. www.theage.com.au (17 October 2003). Retrieved 21 March 2011.
193. Kathleen E. Powderly (6 October 2003) 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine – Revisionist History?. Hnn.us. Retrieved 21 March 2011.
194. Herman Y. Carr (2004). "Field Gradients in Early MRI". Physics Today. 57 (7): 83. Bibcode:2004PhT....57g..83C. doi:10.1063/1.1784322.
195. Peter Mansfield (2013). The long road to Stockholm. The story of MRI. An autobiography. p. 217. ISBN 978-0-19-966454-2.
196. Howlett, R. (1998). "Nobel award stirs up debate on nitric oxide breakthrough". Nature. 395 (6703): 625–6. Bibcode:1998Natur.395Q.625H. doi:10.1038/27019. PMID 9790176.
197. SoRelle, Ruth (1998). "Nobel Prize Awarded to Scientists for Nitric Oxide Discoveries". Circulation. 98 (22): 2365–2366. doi:10.1161/01.cir.98.22.2365. PMID 9832478.
198. U.S. Scientist Wins Nobel Prize for Controversial Work Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine. Ou.edu (7 October 1997). Retrieved 21 March 2011.
199. Soto, C (2011). "Prion hypothesis: the end of the controversy?". Trends Biochem Sci. 36 (3): 151–8. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2010.11.001. PMC 3056934. PMID 21130657.
200. Chow Archived 3 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine. Main.uab.edu. Retrieved 21 March 2011.
201. Victor K. McElheny (2004). Watson and DNA: Making a Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basic Books. p. 211. ISBN 0-7382-0866-3.
202. Anthony Flint (5 November 1993). "Behind Nobel, A Struggle for Recognition Some Scientists Say Colleague of Beverly Researcher Deserved A Share of Medical Prize". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 6 June 2004. Retrieved 21 March 2011.CS1 maint: unfit url (link)
203. Judson, H. F. (2004), The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science, Orlando: Harcourt, ISBN 0-15-100877-9, OCLC 54694616
204. H. M. Temin & S. Mizutani (1970). "Viral RNA-dependent DNA polymerase in virions of Rous sarcoma virus" (PDF). Nature. 226 (5252): 1211–3. Bibcode:1970Natur.226.1211T. doi:10.1038/2261211a0. PMID 4316301.
205. "Thereza Imanishi-Kari, PhD, DAB No. 1582". U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. Retrieved 20 November 2009.
206. "The Fraud Case That Evaporated". The New York Times. 25 June 1996. Retrieved 20 November 2009.
207. Grossman, Wendy M. (13 May 2005). "Decoding Bees' Wild Waggle Dances", Wired.
208. Steve Ainsworth (25 February 2006). "Streptomycin: arrogance and anger" (PDF). The Pharmaceutical Journal. 276: 237. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 June 2007.
209. Milton Wainwright (2005). "A Response to William Kingston, "Streptomycin, Schatz versus Waksman, and the balance of credit for discovery"". Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. 60 (2): 218–20, discussion 221. doi:10.1093/jhmas/jri024. PMID 15737959.
210. Burton Feldman (2001). The Nobel prize: a history of genius, controversy, and prestige. Arcade Pub. pp. 286–289. ISBN 1-55970-537-X.
211. Elizabeth Day (13 January 2008). "He was bad, so they put an ice pick in his brain..." The Observer. UK. Retrieved 31 March 2010.
212. Feldman, Burton "The Nobel Prize", pp. 286–289, Arcade Publishing, 2000 ISBN 1-55970-537-X
213. Duchesne 1897, Antagonism between molds and bacteria. An English translation by Michael Witty. Fort Myers, 2013. ASIN B00E0KRZ0E and B00DZVXPIK.
214. Penicillin, The Wonder Drug. Botany.hawaii.edu. Retrieved 21 March 2011.
215. History of Penicillin – Alexander Fleming – John Sheehan – Andrew Moyer. Inventors.about.com. Retrieved 21 March 2011.
216. Charles Thom Papers. Sciweb.nybg.org (24 May 1956). Retrieved 21 March 2011.
217. Lalchhandama, K. (2017). "The making of oncology: The tales of false carcinogenic worms" (PDF). Science Vision. 17 (1): 33–52. doi:10.33493/scivis.17.01.06. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 April 2017. Retrieved 3 May 2017.
218. Stolt, C.-M.; Klein, G.; Jansson, A.T.R. (2004). "An Analysis of a Wrong Nobel Prize—Johannes Fibiger, 1926: A Study in the Nobel Archives". In Woude, G.F.V.; Klein, G. (eds.). Advances in cancer research. California (US): Elsevier Academic Press. pp. 1–13. ISBN 9780080522296.
219. Clemmesen J (1978). "Johannes Fibiger. Gongylonema and vitamin A in carcinogenesis". Acta Pathologica et Microbiologica Scandinavica. Suppl. 270 (270): 1–13. PMID 362817.
220. Stolley PD, Lasky T (1992). "Johannes Fibiger and his Nobel Prize for the hypothesis that a worm causes stomach cancer". Annals of Internal Medicine. 116 (9): 765–769. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-116-9-765. PMID 1558350.
221. Petithory JC, Théodoridès J, Brumpt L (1997). "A challenged Nobel Prize: Johannes Fibiger, 1926". Histoire des Sciences Médicales. 31 (1): 87–95. PMID 11625107.
222. I.M. Modlin; M. Kidd & T. Hinoue (2001). "Of Fibiger and fables: a cautionary tale of cockroaches and Helicobacter pylori". Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 33 (3): 177–179. doi:10.1097/00004836-200109000-00001. PMID 11500602.
223. Stolt CM, Klein G, Jansson AT (2004). An analysis of a wrong Nobel Prize-Johannes Fibiger, 1926: a study in the Nobel archives. Advances in Cancer Research. 92. pp. 1–12. doi:10.1016/S0065-230X(04)92001-5. ISBN 9780120066926. PMID 15530554.
224. Hitchcock, Claude R.; Bell, E. T. (1952). "Studies on the nematode parasite, Gongylonema Neoplasticum (Spiroptera Neoplasticum), and avitaminosis a in the forestomach of rats: Comparison with Fibiger's results". Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 12 (6): 1345–1387. doi:10.1093/jnci/12.6.1345.
225. Bartholomew, James R. "Katsusaburo Yamagiwa's Nobel candidacy: Physiology or medicine in the 1920s". explores the candidacy of Yamagiwa, who had developed the world's first efficient method for producing cancer artificially in the laboratory by swabbing coal tar on rabbits' ears, which had stimulated activity among cancer researchers worldwide. Johannes Fibiger of Denmark, who discovered how to use parasites to cause cancer in rats two years before Yamagiwa's achievement, received the prize, probably because nominations were often greatly influenced by acquaintanceship, geography, and the marginalization that distance from other centres imposed on the Japanese.
226. "Katsusaburo Yamagiwa (1863–1930)". CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 27 (3): 172–173. 1977. doi:10.3322/canjclin.27.3.172. PMID 406017. Yamagiwa, then Director of the Department of Pathology at Tokyo Imperial University Medical School, had theorized that repetition or continuation of chronic irritation caused precancerous alterations in previously normal epithelium. If the irritant continued its action, carcinoma could result. These data, publicly presented at a special meeting of the Tokyo Medical Society and reprinted below, focused attention on chemical carcinogenesis. Further more, his experimental method provided researchers with a means of producing cancer in the laboratory and anticipated investigation of specific carcinogenic agents and the precise way in which they acted. Within a decade, Keller and associates extracted a highly potent carcinogenic hydrocarbon from coal tar. Dr. Yamagiwa had begun a new era in cancer research.
227. Guide to Nobel Prize. Britannica.com. Retrieved on 25 September 2010.
228. Bliss, Michael (1982). The Discovery of Insulin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226058972.
229. Paulesco, N.C. (31 August 1921). "Recherche sur le rôle du pancréas dans l'assimilation nutritive". Archives Internationales de Physiologie. 17: 85–103.
230. C. Ionescu-Tirgoviste (1996). "Insulin, the Molecule of the Century". Archives of Physiology and Biochemistry. 104 (7): 807–13. doi:10.1076/apab.104.7.807.13106. PMID 9127675.
231. "Nobel Nomination Database". Retrieved 11 October 2016.
232. Salvador Mazza – su vida y su obra – redescobridor de la enfermedad de Chagas. J. P. Sierra-Iglesias. 1990. San Salvador de Jujuy, Universidad Nacional de Jujuy, 527 p
233. Coutinho, Marília (7 February 1999). "O Nobel perdido". Folha de S. Paulo (in Portuguese). Retrieved 17 September 2016.
234. Golgi, Camillo. "The Neuron Doctrine – Theory and Facts" (PDF). Nobel Media AB. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
235. Raviola, Elio; Mazzarello, Paolo (2011). "The diffuse nervous network of Camillo Golgi: Facts and fiction". Brain Research Reviews. 66 (1–2): 75–82. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010.09.005. PMID 20840856.
236. Bock, Ortwin (2013). "Cajal, Golgi, Nansen, Schäfer and the Neuron Doctrine". Endeavour. 37 (4): 228–234. doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2013.06.006. PMID 23870749.
237. Cimino, G (1999). "Reticular theory versus neuron theory in the work of Camillo Golgi". Physis. 36 (2): 431–72. PMID 11640243.
238. Chu, NS (2006). "Centennial of the nobel prize for Golgi and Cajal – founding of modern neuroscience and irony of discovery" (PDF). Acta Neurologica Taiwanica. 15 (3): 217–22. PMID 16995603.
239. Renato M.E. Sabbatini (2003). "Neurons and Synapses: The History of Its Discovery". Brain & Mind Magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2013.
240. Connors B, Long M (2004). "Electrical synapses in the mammalian brain". Annual Review of Neuroscience. 27 (1): 393–418. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.26.041002.131128. PMID 15217338.
241. Kruger L, Otis TS (2007). "Whither withered Golgi? A retrospective evaluation of reticularist and synaptic constructs". Brain Research Bulletin. 72 (4–6): 201–7. doi:10.1016/j.brainresbull.2006.11.016. PMID 17452282.
242. Baccetti B (2008). "History of the early dipteran systematics in Italy: from Lyncei to Battista Grassi". Parassitologia. 50 (3–4): 167–172. PMID 20055226.
243. Cox, Francis E.G. (2010). "History of the discovery of the malaria parasites and their vectors". Parasites & Vectors. 3 (1): 5. doi:10.1186/1756-3305-3-5. PMC 2825508. PMID 20205846.
244. Esch GW (2007). Parasites and Infectious Disease: Discovery by Serendipity and Otherwise. Cambridge University Press. pp. 137–138. ISBN 9781139464109.
245. Cook G (2007). Tropical Medicine: An Illustrated History of The Pioneers. Academic Press. pp. 93–97. ISBN 9780080559391.
246. Capanna E (2012). "Grassi versus Ross: who solved the riddle of malaria?". International Microbiology. 9 (1): 69–74. PMID 16636993.
247. Schück et al. 1972, pp. 562–566
248. Henrik Schück; et al. (1950). Nobel: The Man and His Prizes. Stockholm, Sweden: Nobel Foundation. ISBN 0-444-00117-4.
249. Henrik Schück; et al. (1972). Nobel Foundation (ed.). Nobel: The Man and His Prizes (3rd ed.). New York: Elsevier. ISBN 0-444-00117-4.
250. "Nobel Laureates Facts". Archived from the original on 5 April 2006. Retrieved 15 June 2010.. nobelprize.org
251. Schück et al. 1972, pp. 156–159
252. Schück et al. 1972, p. 157
253. Schück et al. 1950, p. 174
254. Schück et al. 1950, pp. 174–175
255. Schück et al. 1950, p. 172
256. Schück et al. 1950, p. 173
257. Hager 2006, p. 251
258. Ryan 1993, pp. 119–120
259. Schück et al. 1972, p. 158
260. Schück et al. 1972, p. 369
261. Schück et al. 1972, p. 388
262. Bishop 2003, pp. 18–19
263. Jason English (6 October 2009). "Odd facts about Nobel Prize winners". CNN. Retrieved 21 January 2010.
264. Jim Holt (22 September 2003). "Exit, Pursued by a Lobster". Slate. Retrieved 21 January 2010.
265. Peggy Saari, Stephen Allison, Marie C. Ellavich (1996) Scientists: P-Z, p. 895, ISBN 0787609625.
266. "The Nobel Prize in Physics 1915". nobelprize.org. Retrieved 29 July 2012.
267. Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time. Simon & Schuster. 2001. p. 245. ISBN 9780743215367.
268. Margaret Cheney, Robert Uth, Jim Glenn (1999) Tesla, master of lightning, Barnes & Noble Publishing, p. 120, ISBN 0760710058.
269. Margaret Cheney (2001) Tesla: Man Out of Time, p. 245 , Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0743215362.
270. Schück et al. 1972, p. 210
271. Kenneth Chang (12 March 2007). "Journeys to the Distant Fields of Prime". The New York Times.
272. "Nobel descendant slams Economics prize". The Local. 28 September 2005. Retrieved 31 August 2007.
273. Friedrich von Hayek (10 December 1974). "Friedrich von Hayek: Banquet Speech". Nobel Foundation. Archived from the original on 5 April 2006. Retrieved 27 November 2009.
274. Martina, Michael (9 December 2010). "China stood up by winner of "Confucius peace prize"". Reuters. Retrieved 6 January 2019.

Bibliography

• Bishop, J. Michael (2003). How to Win the Nobel Prize: An Unexpected Life in Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00880-4.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link).
• Hager, Thomas (2006). The Demon under the Microscope: from battlefield hospitals to Nazi labs, one doctor's heroic search for the world's first miracle drug. New York: Harmony Books. ISBN 1-4000-8213-7.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link).
• Nasar, Sylvia (1998). A Beautiful Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-81906-6.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link).
• Ryan, Frank (1993). The Forgotten Plague: How the Battle Against Tuberculosis Was Won – and Lost. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0-316-76380-2.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link). First published in the United Kingdom as Tuberculosis: The Greatest Story Never Told.
• Schück, Henrik; Sohlman, Ragnar; Österling, Anders; Liljestrand, Göran (1950). "Nobel: The Man and His Prizes". Stockholm, Sweden: Nobel Foundation. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: ref=harv (link).
• Schück, Henrik; Sohlman, Ragnar; Österling, Anders; Bernhard, Carl Gustaf (1972). Nobel Foundation; Odelberg, W. (eds.). Nobel: The Man and His Prizes (3rd ed.). New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 0-444-00117-4.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link).

External links

• Article on Why Was Gandhi Never Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
• BBC article on Nobel Peace Prize controversies
• Declined papers that won Nobel prizes at the Wayback Machine (archived 6 February 2007)
• Nobel Foundation official site