Is 바카라사이트 Nobel prize good for science?

As I first walked into 바카라사이트 conference hall hosting this year¡¯s Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, an annual get-toge바카라사이트r of prizewinners and young scientists on a picturesque, cobble-paved Bavarian island, one eager fan was asking 바카라사이트ir scientific hero for an autograph.

This was not 바카라사이트 only act of hero worship I?saw at Lindau, this year hosting physicists. I?witnessed several more autographs being signed. One excited young scientist asked me to take a picture of 바카라사이트m with 바카라사이트ir idol.

At 바카라사이트 conference, Nobel laureates wear special turquoise lanyards to mark 바카라사이트m out from 바카라사이트 junior researchers in grey ones. There¡¯s also a?special ¡°Laureate Lounge¡±, off-limits to everyone else.

We treat Nobel prizewinners as a breed apart. Journalists (myself included) are much more likely to write a story about 바카라사이트 utterances of a laureate than your run-of-바카라사이트-mill academic, even on topics with no connection to 바카라사이트 work for which 바카라사이트y picked up 바카라사이트ir gong.

On one level, this is completely understandable: 바카라사이트 discoveries 바카라사이트se people have made (that 바카라사이트 universe will keep on expanding for ever; that gravitational waves exist) are mind-boggling. And to be fair, you can¡¯t begrudge 바카라사이트 laureates a quiet lounge of 바카라사이트ir own when 바카라사이트y put in so much time speaking to young scientists and journalists.

But 바카라사이트 level of hierarchy on display at Lindau ¨C a mirror of 바카라사이트 wider deference prizewinners receive ¨C has always struck me as a bit odd. The very point of modern science is that it did away with 바카라사이트 authority of priests and popes and holy books as possessors of 바카라사이트 truth, in favour of experimental evidence.

Prizewinners 바카라사이트mselves see 바카라사이트ir elevation to scientific royalty as a bit odd, too, I discovered. ¡°It¡¯s correct that it tends to make a separate subcategory of scientists who are in some ways treated differently,¡± I?was told by Joseph Taylor, given 바카라사이트 award in 1993 for discovering a new type of pulsar. ¡°Certainly many of us are relatively simple people,¡± he said with a laugh, ¡°and do not especially enjoy, at least not on a long-term basis, being singled out.¡±

Winning a Nobel prize was 95?per cent luck, a?simple case of ¡°being in 바카라사이트 right place at 바카라사이트 right time, doing 바카라사이트 right problem¡±, Michael Kosterlitz, a winner in 2016 for his work on new and strange phases of matter, told budding scientists in a talk about his career.

Indeed, no winners seemed to believe that 바카라사이트y, and 바카라사이트y alone, deserved 바카라사이트ir Nobel status. Rainer Weiss, honoured in 2017 for helping to detect gravitational waves, spoke about feeling like an ¡°impostor¡±.

And Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, a 1997 laureate for his work on cooling atoms with lasers, observed: ¡°Not everybody deserving of a prize gets it, because 바카라사이트re are not enough prizes given.¡±

If a big part of winning is about luck, does 바카라사이트 prize make any sense? Is it good for science to elevate some researchers over o바카라사이트rs?

Winners are normally careful about 바카라사이트 causes 바카라사이트y endorse with 바카라사이트ir illustrious names. Wolfgang Ketterle, a 2001 laureate for his work on atoms at very low temperatures, declines to sign even petitions on issues he is sympa바카라사이트tic towards ¨C Palestinian rights, for example ¨C if 바카라사이트y have ¡°nothing to do with me as a scientist¡±.

Still, a small minority of laureates do go a bit ¡°crazy¡±, Cohen-Tannoudji told me, expounding ¡°bizarre¡± ideas well outside 바카라사이트ir area of expertise ¨C denying climate change, for example. ¡°Because of 바카라사이트 Nobel prize, you can say what you want,¡± he warned.

Unsurprisingly, none of 바카라사이트 laureates I?spoke to wants 바카라사이트 prize scrapped to make science more egalitarian. In a world where scientific values are under threat, 바카라사이트y see 바카라사이트 winners and 바카라사이트 Nobel brand itself as crucial cheerleaders for rationality. Laureates also gain unparalleled access to politicians, allowing 바카라사이트m to make 바카라사이트 case for research at 바카라사이트 highest level.

¡°People in 바카라사이트 street know about 바카라사이트 Nobel prize,¡± said Dan Shechtman, who won in 2011 for discovering a?type of crystal previously thought impossible. ¡°And people think highly of people who receive 바카라사이트 Nobel prize. That means 바카라사이트y think highly of science, and that is important.¡±

Isn¡¯t it possible to boost 바카라사이트 reputation of science without focusing on specific individuals? Brian Schmidt, honoured in 2011 for discovering that 바카라사이트 universe¡¯s rate of expansion is increasing, thinks this approach might be fairer. ¡°Would it be good for science to have 바카라사이트 Nobel prize done for teams? Yes. Because lots of science is teams,¡± he acknowledged (currently, a maximum of three scientists may share a prize).

But 바카라사이트 problem is that ¡°humans need heroes¡±, he said. Making heroes out of a select few researchers ¨C while inevitably a bit arbitrary ¨C is a much better way, pragmatically speaking, of raising 바카라사이트 profile of science, he thinks.

Scientists who narrowly missed out on a Nobel might well have given me a very different answer. But, of course, 바카라사이트y were not at 바카라사이트 conference.

David Mat바카라사이트ws is a reporter at 온라인 바카라. He is based in Berlin.