Nobel Prize controversies
1528075
226019170
2008-07-16T13:46:02Z
220.255.4.136
/* Physiology or medicine */ expression
{{Cleanup|date=December 2006}}
{{See main|Nobel Prize}}
The '''Nobel Prize controversies''' are [[controversy|contentious disputes]] regarding the [[Nobel Prize]].
==The Prize==
<!-- Deleted image removed: [[Image:Nobel prize medal.jpg|thumb|180px|Nobel Prize Medals (front and back). Original design ®© The Nobel Foundation.]] -->
The [[Nobel Prizes]] are a series of awards which were posthumously instituted by bequest of [[Alfred Nobel]] (1895). They are currently awarded to persons and organizations that have served humanity in the fields of [[Nobel Prize in Physics|physics]], [[Nobel Prize in Chemistry|chemistry]], [[Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine|physiology or medicine]], [[Nobel Prize in Literature|literature]], and [[Nobel Peace Prize|peace]]. Some important primary fields of human intellectual endeavor—such as [[mathematics]], [[philosophy]], [[social studies]] and [[theology]]—have been excluded from the Nobel Prizes. The [[Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel]] is related to the Nobel Prize. A new Nobel-equivalent Award created especially for mathematics, the [[Abel Prize]], came into effect in 2003.
Since the first [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded in [[1901]], the proceedings, nominations, awardees and exclusions have generated criticisms<ref name="NobelC">"[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/3432 Nobel population 1901-50: anatomy of a scientific elite]".</ref> and engendered controversies.<ref>"[http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article319509.ece A Nobel calling: 100 years of controversy]", The Independent, [[14 October]] [[2005]].</ref>
The development of a Nobel-equivalent Prize for [[economics]], the [[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences]], in 1969 has aroused more arguments over the validity, effectiveness, and applicability of the award than any other Nobel Prize category.<ref name="Nasar">{{Harvnb|Nasar|1998|pp=368-369}}</ref><ref name="Samuel">"[http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/nobel.htm The not so noble Nobel Prize]", Samuel Brittan, ''The Financial Times'', [[19 December]] [[2003]].</ref><ref>Burton Feldman, ''The [[Nobel Prize]]: A History of Genius, Controversy and Prestige'', Arcade Publishing, [[November 2]], [[2000]].</ref> Another Award, the [[Nobel Prize in Literature]], has also met<ref>"[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211137,00.html First Arab Nobel Prize Winner in Literature Dies at 94]".</ref> with its collections of controversial criticisms and delimiting issues<ref>"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/articles/sen/ Tagore and His India]".</ref><ref>"[http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/68ba47b5-1d39-4276-8838-4bdf06870b23.html Controversial Turkish Writer Wins Nobel Prize]".</ref> over the years, as the original words of Nobel himself in relation to the Nobel Prize Award in Literature have themselves undergone a series of purported revised interpretations.
==Controversial exclusions==
===Physics===
[[Image:Nikola Tesla.jpg|thumb|right|111px|Tesla greatly influenced life in the 20th and 21st century.]]
[[Image:Thomas Edison.jpg|thumb|right|111px|Edison applied "mass production" to the invention process.]]
[[Thomas Edison]] and [[Nikola Tesla]] were mentioned as potential laureates in 1915, but it is believed that due to their animosity toward each other neither was ever given the award, despite their enormous scientific contributions. There is some indication that each sought to minimize the other's achievements and right to win the award; that both refused to ever accept the award if the other received it first; and that both rejected any possibility of sharing it—as was rumored in the press at the time.<ref> "[http://www.jimloy.com/physics/edison.htm Edison and Tesla Win Nobel Prize in Physics]", Literary Digest, [[December 18]], [[1915]]. </ref><ref>Cheney, Margaret, ''Tesla: Man Out of Time'' , ISBN 0-13-906859-7.</ref><ref>Seifer, Marc J., ''Wizard, the Life and Times of Nikola Tesla'', ISBN 1-55972-329-7 (HC), ISBN 0-8065-1960-6 (SC). </ref><ref>O'Neill, John H., ''Prodigal Genius'', ISBN 0-914732-33-1. </ref> Tesla had a greater financial need for the award than Edison: in 1916, he filed for [[bankruptcy]].
[[Chung-Yao Chao]] was the first person to capture [[positron]]s through [[electron-positron annihilation]] while a graduate student at Caltech in 1930, but did not realize what they were. [[Carl D. Anderson]], who won the 1936 Nobel Physics Prize for his discovery of the positron, used the same [[radioactive]] source [[thorium carbide]] (ThC) as Chao. Late in his life, Anderson admitted that Chao had in fact inspired his discovery: Chao's research formed the foundational base from which much of Anderson's own work developed. Chao died in [[1998]], without the honor of sharing in a Nobel Prize acknowledgment.<ref name="Chinese">"[http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~chinaus/publications/Minerva-2004.pdf Chinese Science and the 'Nobel Prize Complex']".</ref>
[[Lise Meitner]] contributed directly to the discovery of [[nuclear fission]] in 1939 but received no Nobel recognition [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/lisemeitner.htm]. In fact it was not [[Otto Hahn]] but she who first figured out fission, after having the accumulated experimental data analysed and successfully incorporating Bohr's [[liquid drop model]] (first suggested by [[George Gamow]])<ref>"[http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Bohr-Fission-1939.html Disintegration of Heavy Nuclei]", Niels Bohr, Nature, vol. 143, p. 330, [[February 25]], [[1939]].</ref> at its theoretical base, with [[Otto Robert Frisch]]'s participation: [[Niels Bohr]] did in fact nominate both for the Nobel Prize in Physics for this work, besides his recommendation of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for Hahn. The case served up as an interesting contrast to that of [[Louis, 7th duc de Broglie]]'s Nobel deliberations (1929) (Prince de Broglie was regarded then as somewhat of a dilettante in physics)—in particular, of the ways the Nobel Committee gave weight and judged between male and female contributors and their work. Hahn and Meitner had also, in an earlier collaboration, independently discovered a new chemical element ([[protactinium]]). There was a third known junior contributor [[Fritz Strassmann]] who was not in the Prize.<ref>"[http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/brau/H182/Hahn%20reading/Wartime.pdf A Nobel Tale of Wartime Injustice]", Crawford, Elisabeth / Sime, Ruth Lewin / Walker, Mark, ''A Nobel Tale of Postwar Injustice'', Physics Today, 1997, Volume 50, Issue 9 (September), Page Numbers 26-32, ISSN 0031-9228.</ref> In his defense, Hahn was under strong pressure from the Nazis to minimize Meitner's role since she was Jewish. But he maintained this position even after the war.
Although the [[Brazil]]ian physicist [[César Lattes]] was the main researcher and the first author of the historical ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' journal article describing the [[subatomic particle]] [[meson]] pi ([[pion]]), his lab boss, [[Cecil Powell]], was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1950 for "his development of the photographic method of studying nuclear processes and his discoveries regarding [[meson]]s made with this method"; though it was actually Lattes himself who was solely responsible for the improvement on 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). The reason for this apparent neglect is that the Nobel Committee policy until 1960 was to award the Nobel Prize to the research group head only. Lattes was also responsible for calculating the pion's mass and, with USA physicist [[Eugene Gardner]], demonstrated the existence of this particle after atomic collisions in a [[synchrotron]]. Again, Gardner was denied a Nobel because he died soon thereafter, and [[Nobel prize#Nomination and selection|posthumous nominations]] for the Nobel Prize are not permitted.
The 1956 Prize was awarded to Bardeen, Shockley, and Brattain for the discovery of the transistor, because the Nobel committee did not recognize numerous preceding patent applications. As early as 1928, [[Julius Edgar Lilienfeld]] patented several modern transistor types.<ref>"[http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/lilienfeld.htm Lilienfeld Biodata]".</ref> In 1934, [[Oskar Heil]] patented a field-effect transistor.<ref>{{patent|GB|439457|Oskar Heil: "Improvements in or relating to electrical amplifiers and other control arrangements and devices" first filed in Germany [[March 2]], [[1934]]}}</ref> It is unclear whether either had really built such devices, but they did cause later workers significant patent problems. Further, Herbert F. Mataré and Heinrich Walker, at Westinghouse Paris, applied for a patent in 1948 on an amplifier based on the minority carrier injection process. Mataré had first observed transconductance effects during the manufacture of germanium duodiodes for German radar equipment during World War 2.
[[George Sudarshan]] and [[Robert Marshak]] came up first with the successful V-A (vector minus axial vector or left-handed) theory for weak interactions in 1957. Essentially, it is the same theory as that somewhat-worked-upon-later, essentially 'mathematical physics' paper—without the requisite raw experimental data backing—on the structure of the [[weak interaction]] by [[Richard Feynman]] and [[Murray Gell-Mann]]; both briefed on the former group's results before via informal sharings earlier on<ref name="Rothman"/> amongst themselves, without giving the theory originators any formal credits in their subsequent joint paper except for a cursory allusion. Now it is popularly known in the west as the Feynman-Gell-Mann theory only.<ref name="V-A">"[http://www.ph.utexas.edu/fogs/sudarshan_vminusa.html]".</ref> The V-A theory for weak interactions was in actuality a New Law of Nature discovered, conceived in the face of a string of apparently contradictory experimental results, including several of [[Chien-Shiung Wu]]'s, though helped along by a sprinkling of other evidences too, e.g. the [[muon]] (discovered in 1936, it had a colorful history<ref>"[http://www-phys.llnl.gov/Organization/NDivision/HEP/news/g2_nyt.html Tiniest of Particles Pokes Big Hole in Physics Theory]".</ref><ref>"[http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/ The E821 Muon (g-2) Home Page]".</ref>itself—and would lead on again to a new revolution<ref>"[http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~hrs/icap2002/proceedings/Morse.pdf William Morse]".</ref> in the 21st Century).<ref>"[http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1009159 New g-2 Measurement Deviates Further From Standard Model]".</ref> It was therefore all the more surprising that this breakthrough was passed up for a Nobel Award. The V-A theory would prove later on to lay the foundational base layer for the [[electroweak interaction]] theory. George Sudarshan himself regarded the V-A theory as his finest work to date. Later, it was subsumed under the electroweak interaction unification theory by [[Sheldon Glashow]], [[Abdus Salam]] and [[Steven Weinberg]] that would go on to clinch the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics subsequently for the three scientists. The Sudarshan-Marshak theory, or V-A theory, was to meet with another coda of curious fate and dubious honour later on again of being assessed, preferably and favourably—after the strangely tortuous, and, at times, 'funny' pedantic imbroglios, and it goes on and on—as "beautiful" by [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]];<ref name="Rothman">[[Tony Rothman]], ''Everything's Relative and Other Fables from Science and Technology''.</ref> and, suffering a complete reversal, like a last apparent 'twist', again, as it were, was given an exactly opposite assessment as "less complete", "inelegant" by John Gribbin.<ref name="Gribbin">Mary and [[John Gribbin]], ''A Life In Science: Richard Feynman''.</ref> George Sudarshan currently holds the record of the most nominated Nobel Prize candidate alive who has yet to receive any Nobel Prize {{Fact|date=September 2007}}.
[[Chien-Shiung Wu]] (nicknamed the "First Lady of Physics") disproved the law of the [[Parity (physics)|conservation of parity]] (1956) and was the first [[Wolf Prize]] winner in physics. She died in [[1997]] without receiving the Nobel [http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~chinaus/publications/Minerva-2004.pdf]. Wu assisted [[Tsung-Dao Lee]] personally in his parity laws development—with [[Chen Ning Yang]]—by providing him with a possible test method for beta decay in 1956 that worked successfully. She did not share their Nobel Prize—a fact widely blamed on sexism on the part of the selection committee. Her book Beta Decay (1965) is still a [[sine qua non]] reference for nuclear physicists.
In 1964, [[George Zweig]], then a PhD student at Caltech, espoused the physical existence of ''aces'' possessing several unorthodox attributes (essentially Gell-Mann's ''quarks'', though regarded expressly by the latter as only mere theoretical shorthand construct) at a time which was very 'anti-quark'. Zweig consequently suffered academic ostracism and career path blocks from the scientific community of 'mainstream orthodoxy'.<ref>"[http://www.megafoundation.org/Genius/GeniusHall.html George Zweig]", Mega International.</ref> Despite the 1969 Nobel Prize awarded for contributions in the classification of elementary particles and the 1990 Nobel Prize for the development and proof of the quark model, Zweig's true dimension and size of his original contributions to the quark model story have largely gone unrecognized.<ref>"[http://cerncourier.com/main/article/45/2/22/3 Faces and places (page 3)]", People, Cern Courier, Page 3 of 8. Article 22 of 24.</ref>
The [[1974]] prize was awarded to [[Martin Ryle]] and [[Antony Hewish]]'s pioneering research in radio [[astrophysics]]; Hewish was recognized for his decisive role in the discovery of [[pulsar]]s though he did not come up first with the correct explanation of pulsars: having described them as communications from "Little Green Men" ([[LGM-1]]) in outer space. An answer was given by David Staelin and Edward Reifenstein, of the National RadioAstronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia, who found a pulsar at the center of the Crab Nebula: that pulsars are [[neutron star]]s, leftovers from a [[supernova]] explosion had been proposed in 1933. Soon after the discovery of pulsars in 1968, [[Fred Hoyle]] and astronomer [[Thomas Gold]] came up with the correct explanation of a pulsar as a rapidly spinning a neutron star with a strong magnetic field, emitting radio waves much as a lighthouse did with its lamp. [[Jocelyn Bell Burnell]], Hewish's graduate student, was not recognized, although she was the first to notice the stellar radio source that was later recognised as a pulsar.<ref name="Sharon">Sharon Bertsch McGrayne, ''Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles and Momentous Discoveries''.</ref> Pulsars are a group of astronomical objects that provide scientists with the first signs of the possible existence of [[Gravitational wave|gravity waves]].<ref>"[http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/astron/Astronomynotes/relativb.htm Evidence of Warped Spacetime]"</ref> In addition, rotating binary pulsars are also found to be reliable sources for putting Einstein's relativity theories to the most stringent of tests.<ref>"[http://skytonight.com/news/3308446.html?page=1&c=y New Binary Neutron Star Will Test Einstein]", Robert Naeye, [[December 12]], [[2003]] Skytonight.com.</ref> While the astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] argued that Bell should have been included in the Prize, Bell herself countered, perhaps in wry typical British humour, that "(graduate) students don't win Nobel prizes": [[Louis-Victor de Broglie]], [[Rudolf Mössbauer]], [[Douglas Osheroff]], [[Gerard 't Hooft]], [[John Forbes Nash]], Jr. and [[H. David Politzer]] are all exceptions to this seeming maxim albeit 'males-only!' though. Another interesting case, acting like a perfect foil, surfaced in 1978. In that year, the Nobel Physics Prize winners [[Arno Allan Penzias]] and [[Robert Woodrow Wilson]] of 1978—awarded for the chanced "detection of [[Cosmic microwave background radiation]]"—themselves initially did not comprehend the "implications and the working out of the meanings behind" their findings, and, similarly, had to have their discovery fully elucidated to them. Many scientists felt that another scientist, [[Ralph Alpher]], who predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation and had worked out in 1948 the underpinnings of the Big Bang theory, should have shared in the prize, or independently received one. There are many theories, none proven, as to why his work was initially ignored and a Nobel withheld. In 2005, he was awarded the National Medal of Science for his pioneering contributions to our understanding of nucleosynthesis, the prediction of the relic radiation from the Big Bang, as well as for a model for the Big Bang theory.
[[Fred Hoyle]] did not receive a share of the Nobel Prize In Physics in [[1983]], although the winner [[William Alfred Fowler]] acknowledged Hoyle as the pioneer of the concept of [[stellar nucleosynthesis]] (1946). Hoyle's obituary in ''Physics Today'' [http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-11/p75b.html] 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 ".
Other arguably controversial exclusions include [[Kan-Chang Wang]]<ref>"[http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26369.htm Nuclear Physical Scientist – Wang Ganchang]".</ref><ref name="JINR">"[http://www.jinr.ru/JINR_50.htm JOINT INSTITUTE FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH]".</ref> (of anti-sigma minus [[hyperon]] (1959),<ref>"[http://www.csupomona.edu/~zywang/us-china.html U.S.-China Scientific Exchange]", Zuoyue Wang, University of California Press, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Fall 1999 v. 30, part 1, pp. 249-277.</ref> the first Paper for the Detection-of-[[Neutrino]] Experiment fame),<ref name="Chinese"/> [[Arnold Sommerfeld]], [[Satyendra Nath Bose]] ([[Bose–Einstein condensate]] (BEC) fame), [[George Gamow]], [[Ralph Alpher]] and [[Robert Herman]] (seminal (CBR) [[Cosmic microwave background radiation]] theorists) and [[Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov]], with A. G. Doroshkevich (author of the first Paper for the Possible Detection of CBR), [[Bruno Pontecorvo]]<ref name="JINR"/> ([[neutrino oscillation]]s hypothesis fame, among others)<ref>"[http://kamland.stanford.edu/Timeline/ A NEUTRINO TIMELINE]".</ref> and [[Robert Oppenheimer]] (first precursor Paper on the '[[quantum tunnelling]]' phenomenon (1927-28), first [[antimatter]] [[positron]]) existence prediction (1930),<ref>"[http://www.bookrags.com/Robert_Oppenheimer Robert Oppenheimer]".</ref> [[neutron star]]s, [[black hole]] breakthrough seminal studies, mentor and "father of the [[atomic bomb]]" fame, among others).<ref>Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Knopf, AMERICAN PROMETHEUS.</ref>
===Chemistry===
[[Dmitri Mendeleyev]], who originated the [[periodic table]] of the [[chemical element|elements]], never received a prize. His first periodic table was completed in 1869. Actually, a year earlier, another chemist, [[Julius Lothar Meyer]], had also come up with a somewhat similar table. Another scientist, [[John Alexander Reina Newlands]], had also presented a paper in 1866 that essentially credited him as the first to propose a periodic Law: in fact, none of the tables were correct—all the 19th century tables arranged the elements in order of increasing atomic weight (or [[atomic mass]]). It was left to [[Henry Moseley]] to correct the periodic table, basing it on the [[atomic number]] (the number of protons). Mendeleev died in [[1907]], six years after the first Nobel Prizes were awarded. He came within one vote of winning the prize in 1906, but died the next year. [http://www.brightsurf.com/item/019850912X/The_Road_to_Stockholm_Nobel_Prizes_Science_and_Scientists.html]
===Physiology or medicine===
In 1923 [[Frederick Banting]] and [[John James Richard Macleod|John Macleod]] received the Nobel Prize in Medicine. Banting initially refused to accept the prize with Macleod, alleging that Macleod had only been Banting's supervisor while Banting and [[Charles Best]] had done all the work, before changing his mind and agreeing to split his half of the prize money with Best. Macleod, in turn, split his half of the prize money with [[James Bertram Collip]], a member of the insulin research team with Banting and Best. Later, it became known that [[Nicolae Paulescu]], a Romanian professor, had been working on diabetes since 1916, and may have isolated insulin (which he called pancreatine) about a year before the Canadians.
[[Oswald Theodore Avery]], best known for his 1944 discovery that [[DNA]] is the material of which [[genes]] and [[chromosomes]] are composed, never received a Nobel Prize, although two Nobel Laureates [[Joshua Lederberg]] and [[Arne Tiselius]] praised him and his work as a veritable pioneering platform for further genetic research and advance.
The 1952 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded solely to [[Selman Waksman]] for his discovery of [[streptomycin]] had omitted recognition<ref>"[http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/articles/pj_20060225_streptomycin.pdf streptomycin: arrogance and anger]".</ref> due his co-discoverer [[Albert Schatz (scientist)|Albert Schatz]].<ref name="Wainwright">Wainwright, Milton ''"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 - Volume 60, Number 2, April 2005, pp. 218-220, Oxford University Press.</ref> There was a litigation brought by Schatz against Waksman over the details and credit of streptomycin discovery. The litigation result was such that Schatz was awarded a substantial settlement, and, together with Waksman, Schatz would be officially recognized as a co-discoverer of streptomycin.
[[Heinrich J. Matthaei]] broke the [[genetic code]] in 1961 with [[Marshall Warren Nirenberg]] in their poly-U experiment at NIH in Bethesda, Maryland, paving the way for modern [[genetics]]; but though Nirenberg became a much lauded Nobel Laureate in 1968, Matthaei, who was responsible for experimentally obtaining the first codon (genetic code) extract, and whose initial accurate results were tampered with by Nirenberg himself (due to the latter's belief in 'less precise', 'more believable' data presentation)<ref name="Judson">[[Horace Freeland Judson]], ''The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science'', 1st. Ed., 2004.</ref> did not get any recognition or any Prize.
The 1962 Prize awarded to [[James D. Watson]], [[Francis Crick]] and [[Maurice Wilkins]]—for their work on [[DNA]] structure and properties—did not recognize somewhat coordinate contributions from others, such as: [[Alec Stokes]], [[Herbert Wilson]], and [[Erwin Chargaff]]. In addition, [[Erwin 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 the ability of Watson and Crick to solve the structure of the DNA molecule—but Avery died in 1955, and Franklin in 1958 and [[Nobel prize#Nomination and selection|posthumous nominations]] for the Nobel Prize are not permitted.
The first successful synthesis of bovine [[insulin]].<ref>"[http://www.edu.cn/introduction_1510/20060323/t20060323_161567.shtml What are China's new "four great inventions"?]".</ref> a Nobel-like breakthrough which won world-wide recognition{{Fact|date=August 2007}}, was carried out between [[1958]] and [[1965]] by two scientists at Beijing University, Niu Jingyi<ref>"[http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/docsn/dag/rwzwy/ys152.htm Niu Jingyi]"</ref> and Wang Yinglai.<ref>"[http://www.cst.sh.cn/ys/english/swb/wangyl01.htm Wang Yinglai]"</ref> Insulin is now manufactured using [[protein]]-production [[biotechnology]]. Though there were repeated nominations and support from eminent scientists, as it turned out, due to a series of hindering political and other related contretemps, both were not to receive any Nobel Prize in the end.
The 1975 Prize was awarded to [[David Baltimore]], [[Renato Dulbecco]] and [[Howard Martin Temin]] "for describing how tumor viruses act on the genetic material of the cell". It has been argued that Dulbecco was distantly, if at all, involved in this groundbreaking work of discovery.<ref name="Judson"/> The award failed to recognize the contributions of Satoshi Mizutani, Temin's Japanese postdoctoral fellow.<ref name="Weiss">Weiss R.A., ''Viral RNA-dependent DNA polymerase in virions of Rous sarcoma virus'', Reviews in Medical Virology, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 3-11(9), January/March 1998.</ref> 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 confirming Temin's ''[[provirus]] hypothesis''.<ref name="Judson"/>
The discovery of [[HIV]] as the cause of [[AIDS]] is arguably a significant discovery worthy of a Nobel Prize. However, the notorious professional rivalry between [[Robert Gallo]] and [[Luc Montagnier]]—which resulted in litigation—apparently dissuaded the Nobel Committee from awarding a prize to either or both of them. (The rivalry between [[Thomas Alva Edison|Edison]] and [[Nicola Tesla|Tesla]] is instructive: neither received a Nobel.)
===Peace===
[[Mahatma Gandhi]] never received the Nobel Peace Prize, though he was nominated for it five times<ref name="Nobel">{{cite web | last =Tønnesson | first =Øyvind | title =Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate | date =1999-12-01
| url =http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html}}</ref> between 1937 and 1948. Decades later, though, the Nobel Committee publicly declared its regret for the omission. The Nobel Committee may have tacitly acknowledged its error, however, when in 1948 (the year of Gandhi's death), it made no award, stating "there was no suitable living candidate" though they awarded it posthumously to fellow Scandinavian [[Dag Hammarskjöld]] in 1961. Similarly, when the [[Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama|Dalai Lama]] was awarded the Peace Prize in 1989, the chairman of the committee said that this was "in part a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi". The official Nobel e-museum has an [http://nobelprize.org/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html article] discussing the issue.
===Modern alleged exclusions===
The '''1993 Nobel Prize In Physiology or Medicine''' for the discovery of [[introns]] in [[eukaryotic]] DNA and the mechanism of [[gene splicing]] – [[Philip Allen Sharp]] and [[Richard J. Roberts]] were the only two winners. Several other scientists, such as [[Norman Davidson]] and [[James D. Watson]], argued that Louise T. Chow, a China-born Taiwanese researcher and accomplished female scientist,<ref>(see [http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=15012 "Biography"])</ref> who collaborated with Roberts, should also have had part of the prize.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = McElheny
| first = Victor K.
| title = Watson and DNA: Making a Scientific Revolution
| publisher = Basic Books
| date = 2004
| location = Cambridge, MA
| pages = 211
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=gUkBMctzM2gC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=1993+nobel+prize+louise+t+chow&source=web&ots=_MeE6pE7wx&sig=Nj0hiFCa_is_Cm8-a4tkJmWvusk
| isbn = 0-7382-0866-3
}}</ref> In 1976, as Staff Investigator, she carried out the studies of the [[genomic]] origins and structures of [[adenovirus]] transcripts leading directly to the EM discovery of RNA splicing and alternative RNA processing at [[Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory]] on [[Long Island]] in 1977, the year the discovery was made. Norman Davidson, the Norman Chandler Professor of Chemical Biology, Emeritus, at Caltech (a well-known 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 herself developed in the previous two years at the lab.<ref name="Flint>Anthony Flint, ''Behind Nobel, A Struggle for Recognition Some Scientists Say Colleague of Beverly Researcher Deserved A Share of Medical Prize'', Globe Staff, Friday, [[November 5]], [[1993]].</ref>
The '''1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry''' credited winner [[Kary Mullis]] with the development of the [[polymerase chain reaction]] (PCR) method, a central technique in molecular biology which allows for the amplification of specified DNA sequences. However, others disputed that he 'invented' the technique:{{Fact|date=October 2007}} claiming that Norwegian scientist Kjell Kleppe, together with 1968 Nobel Prize laureate [[H. Gobind Khorana]], had an earlier and [[History of PCR|better claim]] to it in 1969.<ref name=Kleppe>Kleppe K, Ohtsuka E, Kleppe R, Molineux I, Khorana HG "Studies on polynucleotides. XCVI. Repair replications of short synthetic DNA's as catalyzed by DNA polymerases." J. Molec. Biol. vol. 56, pp. 341-61 (1971).</ref> His co-workers at that time also refuted the suggestion that Mullis was solely responsible for the idea of using [[Taq polymerase]] in the PCR process.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} In addition, a book on the history of the PCR method which [[Paul Rabinow]] (an anthropologist) wrote in 1996<ref name=Rabinow>Rabinow P "Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology" University of Chicago Press (1996) ISBN 0-226-70147-6</ref> raised the issue of whether or not Mullis "invented" PCR or "merely" came up with the concept of it. However, other scientists have said that "the full potential [of PCR] was not realized" until Mullis' work in 1983.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=dexRnDtLlWUC&pg=PA20&dq=%22kary+mullis%22+%2B+%22kjell+kleppe%22&sig=4aZnDD-PS1YmIvx-pfaV133xp3g ''Artificial DNA: Methods and Applications'' by Yury E. Khudyakov, Howard A. Fields]</ref>
The '''1997 Nobel Prize In Physics''' stirred up controversy soon as it was announced as Russian scientists disputed<ref>"[http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/1997/10/21/007.html Nobel Prize Challenged By Russians]", The Moscow Times.com, Tuesday, [[October 21]], [[1997]].</ref> the awardees' priority in the acquired approach and techniques to cool and trap atoms with laser light, whose work the Russians had reputedly carried out more than a decade before.<ref>"[http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/nobel.prize/stories/americans.sciences/ Americans again dominate in science]", Svenska CNN Writer Bitte Roth, CNN Interactive.</ref>
The '''1997 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine''', awarded singly to Dr. [[Stanley B. Prusiner]] for his discovery of [[prions]], had caused a ceaseless stream of academic polemics ever since: as regard the actual validity extent of his work—which had also been criticized by other researchers as not yet proven.<ref>"[http://www.ou.edu/cas/zoology/Courses/3333/prusiner.html U.S. Scientist Wins Nobel Prize for Controversial Work]"</ref>
The '''2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine''' awarded to three pioneering neuroscientists, [[Arvid Carlsson]], [[Paul Greengard]], and [[Eric R. Kandel]], "for their discoveries concerning signal transduction in the nervous system" had caused many neuroscientists to protest that Oleh Hornykiewicz, who helped pioneer the dopamine replacement treatment for Parkinson's disease, was left out of the prize, and claimed that Hornykiewicz's research provided a foundation for some of the scientific progress credited to the three scientists.
The '''2000 Nobel Prize In Chemistry'''–"For the Discovery and Development of Conductive polymers" [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2000/index.html] recognized passive high-conductivity in oxidized iodine-doped [[polyacetylene]] black and related materials (reported in 1977), as well as determining conduction mechanisms and developing devices, especially batteries. The citation alleges this work led to present-day "active" devices, where a voltage or current controls electron flow.
Subsequently, a letter to ''New Scientist''<ref>"Fantastic Plastic" New Scientist, [[November 4]], [[2000]], on-line edition</ref> pointed out that such an organic polymer electronic device was reported in a major journal (''Science'') [http://www.organicsemiconductors.com/amorphous.htm] three years ''before'' the Nobel prize winner's discovery. Further, the "ON" state of this device showed almost metallic conductivity. Moreover, 14 years before the Noble-prize-winning discovery, Weiss and coworkers in Australia had reported [http://www.organicsemiconductors.com/weiss.htm] equivalent high electrical conductivity in an almost identical compound—oxidized, iodine-doped [[polypyrrole]] black. Eventually, the Australian group achieved resistances as low as .03 ohm/cm [http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/51/paper/CH9650477.htm][http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/51/paper/CH9650487.htm]. This is roughly equivalent to present-day efforts. Likewise, this award ignored the even earlier (1955) discovery of highly-conductive organic [[Charge transfer complex]]es. Some of these are even superconductive.
The '''2003 Nobel Prize In Medicine and Physiology''' was awarded to [[Paul Lauterbur]] and Sir [[Peter Mansfield]] for developing [[magnetic resonance imaging]]. Two independent controversial exclusions have been alleged:
:[[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 MRI scan, but used a dead-end methodology. Meanwhile, Damadian's original report prompted Lauterbur to develop NMR into the presently-used method of generating MRI images. Damadian took out large advertisements in a number of international newspapers protesting his exclusion from the award. Many researchers felt that Damadian's work deserved at least equal credit.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}
:[[Herman Y. Carr]] both pioneered the present NMR gradient technique and demonstrated rudimentary MRI imaging in the 1950s, based on it. The Nobel prize winners had almost certainly seen Carr's work, but did not cite it. Consequently, the prize committee very likely did not become cognizant of Carr's discoveries,{{Fact|date=October 2007}} a situation likely abetted further by the high-profile distractions due to the unprecedented, drawn-out, persistent remonstrances<ref>"[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/16/1065917551009.html?from=storyrhs Bitterness erupts in a Nobel pursuit]"</ref> of Damadian in defense of his work regarding MRI.<ref name="Powderly">Kathleen E. Powderly's [http://hnn.us/articles/1789.html HNN article].</ref><ref name="Carr">Herman Carr's [http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p83a.html letter] to Physics Today.</ref>
[[Sidney R. Coleman]], an eminent [[theoretical physicist]], was not awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize In Physics Award. Instead, [[H. David Politzer]] alone, a graduate student of Sidney R. Coleman, was crowned one of the winners. Many felt the miss to be a shame.{{Fact|date=August 2007}} Politzer was recognized for his work in [[quantum chromodynamics]], a field in which Coleman was deeply involved and long acknowledged by all.
The '''2005 Nobel Prize In Physics''' controversy involved [[George Sudarshan]]'s relevant work in [[quantum optics]] (1960), which was considered by many to have been given the slight in this award.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} [[Roy J. Glauber]]—who initially derided the former theory representations and later produced the same [[Glauber P representation|P-representation]] under a different name, viz., Sudarshan-Glauber representation or Sudarshan diagonal representation—was the winner instead.<ref>Luluzhou, ''Scientists Question Nobel'', Crimson Staff Writer, [[December 6]], [[2005]].</ref> According to still others, there were two other seminal contributors, [[Leonard Mandel]] and [[Daniel Frank Walls]], who were passed over for the Prize because there was no posthumous Nobel Prize to be awarded.
The '''2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine''' was awarded to [[Andrew Fire]] and [[Craig C. Mello]] for their discovery of [[RNA interference]]. Many of the discoveries credited by the Nobel committee to Fire and Mello, who studied RNA interference in [[C. elegans]], had been previously studied by [[plant]] biologists, and it has been suggested that at least one plant biologist who was a pioneer in this field, such as [[Small interfering RNA|David Baulcombe]], should have also been awarded a share of the prize.<ref> Bots, M., Maughan, S. and Nieuwland, J. 2006. RNAi Nobel ignores vital groundwork on plants. Nature. 443:206. </ref>
The '''2006 Nobel Prize in Physics''' was won by [[John C. Mather]] and [[George F. Smoot]] (leaders of the COsmic Background Explorer ([[COBE]]) satellite experiment) "for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).". The Prize was thought by some to have precluded proper recognition due an earlier original discoverer of anistropy of the CMBR. In July 1983 an experiment Relikt,<ref>"[http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/relikt/ The Relikt Experiment]".</ref> launched aboard the Prognoz-9<ref>"[http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/prognoz9.html Prognoz9]".</ref> satellite, studied cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) via one frequency alone. In January of 1992, Andrei A. Brukhanov was known to have presented a seminar at Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow, where he first reported on the discovery of anistropy of CMBR. However, the Relikt team claimed only an upper limit, not a detection, in their 1987 results paper.<ref>"[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1987PAZh...13..259K&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=404a51e9ca06964 Klypin et al 1987, Limits on Mikrowave Background Anisotropies - the Relikt Experiment], Soviet Astronomy Letters, 13, 259 (1987)]"</ref>
==Controversial recipients==
===Physics===
[[Henri Becquerel]] was awarded the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics, with [[Pierre Curie|Pierre]] and [[Marie Curie]], "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by his discovery of spontaneous [[radioactivity]]". However, there existed a credible controversy at the time since some scientists claimed<ref>"[http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/niepce.html Invisible Light: The Discovery of Radioactivity]".</ref> that Becquerel had merely rediscovered a phenomenon first noticed and scientifically investigated by the forgotten French scientist [[Abel Niepce de Saint-Victor]] decades earlier.
[[Image:Philipp Lenard.png|thumb|111px|left|Physicist Philipp Lenard would later become an adviser to Hitler.]] [[Philipp Lenard]] was awarded the Nobel Prize In Physics in 1905 for his research on cathode rays and the discovery of many of their properties. An advisor to [[Adolf Hitler]], Lenard became "Chief of [[Deutsche Physik|Aryan Physics]]" under the Nazis. He propounded the idea that there is a race element in science (i.e.,'English Science', 'German Science', 'Jewish Science'), and referred to [[Albert Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]] as a "Jewish fraud". [[Johannes Stark]], who won the Physics Nobel in 1919, also participated in the racially-motivated rejection of the "Jewish ideas" of Einstein and the non-Jewish [[Werner Heisenberg]].
[[Image:Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumb|right|111px|Albert Einstein, though awarded a 1921 Prize, may have deserved a total of 4 Nobels.]]
[[Albert Einstein]]'s 1921 Nobel Prize award mainly recognized him for his explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 and "for his services to Theoretical Physics" — due to the often counter-intuitive concepts and advanced constructs of his relativity theory, some of which were far in advance of possible experimental verifications until only recently, e.g., bending of light, [[gravitational wave]]s, [[gravitational lensing]], [[black holes]]). It would be 1993 before the first evidence for the existence of gravitational radiation came via the Nobel Prize-winning measurements of the [[Hulse-Taylor binary]] system.<ref>"[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914094623.htm General Relativity Survives Gruelling Pulsar Test: Einstein At Least 99.95 Percent Right]", Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council, [[September 14]], [[2006]].</ref> His other significant contributions in the [[Annus Mirabilis Papers]], on [[Brownian motion]] and [[special relativity]], were not explicitly recognized by the Nobel Prize Committee, even though Einstein was nominated several times, beginning in 1910, for special relativity. Often these nominations for special relativity recommended awarding the prize jointly to Lorentz and Einstein. Henri Poincaré was also nominated at least once for his services to theoretical physics, including his work on Lorentz's relativity theory. However, Kaufmann's experimental results cast doubt on the correctness of special relativity, doubts which were not resolved until 1915, by which time Einstein had progressed to the general theory, including his theory of gravitation. Again the empirical support (in this case the predicted spectral shift of sunlight) was in question for many years, so the only 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 apparently confirmed by [[Arthur Stanley Eddington]]'s Solar Eclipse Expedition, although the actual results were somewhat ambiguous. Conclusive proof of the gravitational light deflection prediction was not achieved until the 1970s.
[[Robert Millikan]] is widely believed {{Fact|date=July 2008}} to have been denied the [[1920]] prize for physics owing to [[Felix Ehrenhaft]]'s claims to have measured charges smaller than Millikan's [[elementary charge]]. Ehrenhaft's claims were ultimately dismissed and Millikan was awarded the prize in [[1923]]. However, some controversy still seem to linger over Millikan's oil-drop procedure and experimental interpretation — regarding the validity and ethics of his false claim and data manipulation and selectivity, biased in his favour, in the 1913 scientific paper measuring the electron charge: in particular, that he had reported all his observations when in fact he had omitted a total of 82 drops of experimental data from his final report. {{Fact|date=July 2008}}
[[William Bradford Shockley]] was one of the winners of the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics award for the [[transistor]]. There was a well-documented controversy hanging over his win — backed up by corroborating accounts from his colleagues (the other two Nobelists in the Prize), and historical facts as well — which critics characterized as due mainly to Shockley's then-directorship position and self-promotion efforts (Shockley's original, self-designed 'transistor' did not work at all). A notable change was seen to have come over Shockley's character soon after the Nobel award.<ref>"[http://www1.hollins.edu/faculty/richter/327/AbsentCreation.htm Absent at the Creation; How one scientist made off with the biggest invention since the light bulb]", Ronald Kessler, The Washington Post Magazine, [[April 6]], [[1997]], Pg. 16.</ref> Later, he strongly and seriously espoused [[eugenics]],<ref>Dr. Roger Pearson, ''Shockley on Eugenics and Race''.</ref> regarding his published works on this topic as the most important work of his career. His ideas are largely based on the research of [[Cyril Burt]], whose research itself was later generally accepted to be fraudulent. He is the only [[Nobel Laureate]] who publicly admitted to donating sperm to the [[Repository for Germinal Choice]], a [[sperm bank]] founded (1980) by eugenicist [[Robert Klark Graham]] in the hopes of passing down humanity's best genes. The Repository was shut down in 1999.
===Physiology or medicine===
[[Alexander Fleming]], though he accidentally stumbled upon the then-unidentified fungi mold that was to bring penicillin to the attention of the world as medicine, was often credited as the discoverer of [[penicillin]] and shared the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine with [[Ernst Boris Chain]] and [[Howard Florey]]. However, some critics pointed out that Fleming did not 'discover' penicillin, that in fact it was technically a 'rediscovery', and that decades before Fleming, there had been significant others (notably Sir [[John Scott Burdon-Sanderson]], [[William Roberts (physician)]], [[John Tyndall]] and [[Ernest Duchesne]]) who had already done studies<ref name="Rothman"/> and research<ref>"[http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/BOT135/Lect21b.htm Penicillin]".</ref> on its useful properties and medicinal characteristics.<ref>"[http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/Penicillin.htm The History of Penicillin]".</ref> Moreover, according to Fleming himself, the first known reference to penicillin he could recall to mind was from Psalm 51: "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean": he had learnt meanwhile from the famous American [[mycologist]] Charles Thom's book (the same who helped Fleming establish the identity of the mysterious fungi mold)<ref>"[http://sciweb.nybg.org/science2/libr/finding_guide/thom3.asp Biographical Note]".</ref> that [[penicillium notatum]] was first recognised by Westling, a Swedish chemist, from a specimen of decayed [[hyssop]]. It was pointed out too, that, in this award, several deserving contemporaneous coordinate research contributors had been left out of the Prize altogether(see also [[discovery of penicillin]]).
The Portuguese neurologist [[Antonio Egas Moniz]] received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in [[1949]] for his development of [[prefrontal leucotomy]]. In the United States, a modified version of this procedure, often referred to as the "ice pick [[lobotomy]]", was instituted in a highly [[medical ethics|unethical]] manner, and was performed somewhat indiscriminately. It was Dr. [[Walter Freeman]], Moniz' American disciple, who gave it the name of lobotomy popularized in the press as far back as 1938 when ''[[The New York Times]]'' ran a headline "Surgery used on the Soul-Sick; Relief of Obsessions is Reported". Even [[Joseph Kennedy]], the father of U.S. President [[John F. Kennedy]], had his daughter Rosemary lobotomized when she was in her twenties. Dr. Walter Freeman, the American authority on the subject, performed the operation after having performed more than four thousand lobotomies. By the time Moniz was awarded the Prize in 1949, with the New York Times and [[The New England Journal of Medicine]] on his side, lobotomy had become quite popular so that from 1949 to 1952 around five thousand lobotomies are said to have been performed in the United States alone. Moniz died in 1955 as his medical procedure faded into disuse. The procedure has fallen into disrepute and was later prohibited in many countries. It is rarely performed now.<ref>Feldman, Burton ''The Nobel Prize'', pp. 286-289, Arcade Publishing, 2000 ISBN 1-55970-537-X</ref>
[[Karl von Frisch]] shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1973 involving the explanation of the "dance language" of bees. However, much controversy was engendered over the years due to the lack of direct scientific proofs of the [[waggle dance]] of the bees as exactly worded, postulated by Karl von Frisch. Though the controversy was finally put to rest by a team of researchers from [[Rothamsted Research]] in 2005—who tracked the bees by radar as they flew to a food source—the experimental results turn out not to exactly support Karl von Frisch's original formulation,<ref>"[http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67494,00.html Decoding Bees' Wild Waggle Dances]", Wendy M. Grossman, Wired News, May, 13, 2005.</ref> but, in fact, support part of his opponent Adrian Wenner's theory<ref>"[http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/ Dr Adrian M. Wenner]"</ref> that states that bees are basically guided to the food source by odor; after the general direction and distance (specific and relative to the transmitting bees) had been communicated (a still unknown mysterious mechanism) via the waggle dance—as originally postulated by the 1973 Nobelist.
[[David Baltimore]], who shared the 1975 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, was implicated in "The Baltimore affair" or "Imanishi-Kari affair", a landmark science-fraud scandal case<ref>Sarasohn, Judy, ''Science on Trial: The Whistle-blower, the Accused, and the Nobel Laureate'', St. Martin's Press, New York, 1993.</ref> (with [[Howard Temin]] and [[James Dewey Watson]] pinning the error and fault on him): involving a scandal over fabricated data in a 1986 scientific paper on [[immunology]] with [[Thereza Imanishi-Kari]] and others<ref>Fackelmann, Kathy A, ''"Regrets, Countercharges mark fraud dispute (David Baltimore admits he was wrong to dispute Margot O'Toole's allegations that Thereza Imanishi-Kari fabricated data in science fraud case)"'', Science News, [[May 11]], [[1991]].</ref> that is still debated today:<ref name="Jeremy">Bernstein, Jeremy, ''Science, Fraud & the Baltimore Case'', Commentary, Volume: 106, Issue: 6, December 1998, Page Number: 40.</ref><ref>D. J. Kevles, ''The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character'', [[January 13]], [[2000]], (SC).</ref> it brought about too an unprecedented sense of disquiet amongst the many eminent and knowing scientists: as to how scientific adjudication, at a high level, by an admixture of self-interest(s)-delimited university officials and several disparate contentious prosecuting groups from the government to match<ref name="Judson"/>(lacking requisite experience,<ref>"[http://www.im.microbios.org/08december99/12%20Shashok%20(P).pdf The Baltimore Affair: A Different View]".</ref> suitable scientific credentials proper and clear purpose, in the assessment of many reputable scientists<ref>Resnik, D. B., ''The Ethics of Science: An Introduction (The Baltimore Affair)'', Routledge, 1998.</ref>), somehow allowed into a position of such overwhelming institutional, bureaucratic influence and power, has devolved and acquiesced into a seemingly endless, unnecessary labyrinth of roundabout obfuscations, contretemps, etiolated muddles and a high toll of runaway civic costs: from what it clearly and simply is.<ref>"[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17563 Dishonesty in Science]".</ref>
Another earlier and equally famous (or infamous, and comparable) dispute, handled by the same [[NIH]] appeals panel as handled the Baltimore Affair, is the [[Robert Gallo]]<ref>"[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MV/Views/Exhibit/narrative/aids.html The Harold Varmus Papers:
AIDS and HIV: Science, Politics, and Controversy, 1981-1993]".</ref> vs [[Luc Montagnier]]:<ref>Hal Hellman, ''Great Feuds in Medicine: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever'', Wiley, Copyright 2001, 256 pages, ISBN 0-471-20833-7, (HC).</ref> HTLV-III/LAV Priority Controversy Case.<ref name="Judson"/><ref name="Jeremy"/><ref>"[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/432083?srcmp=id-051002 Book Reviews: Great Feuds in Medicine: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever]", reviewed by George Biro, MD, [[May 7]], [[2002]].</ref> The name [[HIV]] was a compromise by US and French negotiators to allow a co-discovery of the AIDS virus to be claimed. Incidentally, the claim that Francoise Barré-Sinoussi was generally credited as the discoverer of HIV while working in Montagnier's lab has also been disputed—in an article that disputes the generally-accepted conclusion that [[HIV]] causes [[AIDS]].<ref>"[http://www.oikos.org/aids/lankaartefact.htm HIV; Reality or Artefact?]".</ref>
===Peace===
{{Refimprove|date=September 2007}}
{{weasel}}
President [[Theodore Roosevelt]]—the 26th President of the United States—received the [[Nobel Peace Prize]] in 1905 for helping negotiate an end to the [[Russo-Japanese War]]. However, he played a role in the suppression of a revolt in the [[Phillipine-American War|Philippines]].
[[Cordell Hull]] was awarded the Nobel Prize in Peace in 1945 in recognition of his efforts for peace and understanding in the Western Hemisphere, his trade agreements, and his work to establish the [[United Nations]]. Hull was [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]'s [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] during the [[SS St. Louis]] Crisis. The St. Louis sailed out of [[Hamburg]] into the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the summer of 1939 carrying over 950 [[Jewish]] refugees, mostly wealthy, seeking asylum from Nazi persecution just before World War II. The ship's voyage caused great controversy in the [[United States]]: Initially President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt showed modest willingness to take in some of those on board, but vehement opposition by Hull and from Southern Democrats—some of whom went so far as to threaten to withhold their support of Roosevelt in the 1940 Presidential election if this occurred. On [[4 June]] [[1939]] Roosevelt issued an order to deny entry to the ship, which was waiting in the Caribbean Sea between Florida and Cuba. The passengers began negotiations with the Cuban government, but those broke down at the last minute. Forced to return to Europe, many of its passengers died in Nazi concentration camps.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}
The [[United States Secretary of State]] [[Henry A. Kissinger]] received the Nobel Peace Prize in [[1973]] for his work on the [[Vietnam]] Peace Accords, despite having instituted the secret [[1969]]–[[1975]] campaign of bombing against infiltraiting NVA in [[Cambodia]], the alleged U.S. involvement in [[Operation Condor]]—a mid-1970s campaign of kidnapping and murder coordinated among the intelligence and security services of [[Argentina]], [[Bolivia]], [[Brazil]], [[Chile]], [[Paraguay]], and [[Uruguay]]—as well as the death of French nationals under the Chilean junta. He also supported the Turkish invasion in Cyprus resulting in approximately 1/3 of the island being occupied by foreign troops since 1974.
Both [[Anwar Sadat]], president of Egypt during a war against Israel in [[1973]], the [[Yom Kippur War]], and, [[Menachem Begin]]—who was later to reclaim a nationalist agenda which escalated into a full-fledged [[war]] with southern [[Lebanon]] in 1982—were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978 for their contributions to the successful closure to the [[Camp David Accords]] in the same year. Begin had also previously been a member of militant Zionist group [[Irgun]], which is often regarded as a [[terrorism|terrorist]] organisation and had been responsible for the [[King David Hotel bombing]] in [[1946]].<ref>[http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm The bombing of the King David Hotel] at [http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ Irgun Site]</ref>
[[Rigoberta Menchú]] won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992, in part for her autobiography I, Rigoberta Menchu. In 1999 she was accused by [[David Stoll]] of having fabricated events in her family history in the book to further the guerilla cause. See [[Rigoberta Menchú]] for details.
[[Yasser Arafat]], [[Shimon Peres]], and [[Yitzhak Rabin]] were winners of the [[1994]] [[Nobel Peace Prize]]. Arafat was regarded by critics as a [[terrorist]] leader for many years. His critics often described him as an unrepentant terrorist with a long legacy of promoting violence.{{Fact|date=March 2008}} [[Kåre Kristiansen]], a Norwegian member of the Nobel Committee, resigned in 1994 in protest at the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat, whom he labelled a "terrorist". Rabin, while in the Israeli military, had ordered the expulsion of Arabs, from areas captured by Israel during the [[1948 Arab-Israeli War|1948 War]].{{Fact|date=March 2008}} He had also been responsible for the aggressive Israeli crackdown of the [[First Intifada]] while [[Defense Minister of Israel|Defense Minister]]. Rabin also continued to authorise the construction of settlements in the [[Israeli-occupied territories|occupied territories]] despite the peace agreement. Peres was responsible for developing Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal, and was later blamed for the [[Qana Massacre]].
[[Jimmy Carter]] was awarded the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, for the "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 U.S. House and Senate gave President George W. Bush authorization to use military force against Iraq in order to enforce U.N. 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 committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. 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.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/11/carter.nobel/index.html CNN.com - Jimmy Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize - [[October 11]], [[2002]]<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
[[Wangari Maathai]], 2004 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was reported by the [[Kenya]]n newspaper [[The Standard (Kenya)|Standard]] and [[Radio Free Europe]] to have stated that AIDS was originally developed by Western scientists in order to depopulate. She later denied these claims, though the Standard stands by its reporting.<ref>[http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/12/bf4adbd1-fba8-4ae6-b68b-fa5bcb171f1a.html World: Africa's First Female Nobel Peace Laureate Accepts Award Amid Controversy Over AIDS Remarks]</ref> Additionally, in a [[Time magazine]] interview, she hinted at its non-natural origin, saying that someone knows where it came from and that it "...did not come from monkeys."<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901041018-713166,00.html 10 Questions: Wangari Maathai, Time]</ref>
===[[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences|Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economics]]===
See ''[[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences#Controversies and criticism]]''
==Laureates who declined the prize==
===Involuntary refusals===
In 1936, [[Adolf Hitler]] was offended with the Nobel Foundation when the 1935 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to [[Carl von Ossietzky]], a German writer who publicly opposed Hitler and [[Nazism]].<ref name="Nobel-1972_562">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Bernhard|1972|pp=562-566}}</ref> (At that time, the prize was awarded the following year.) Hitler reacted by issuing a decree on [[31 January]] [[1937]] that forbade German nationals from accepting any Nobel Prize in the future. Awarding the peace prize to Ossietzky was itself considered controversial. While [[fascism]] had few supporters outside of Italy and Germany, those who did not necessarily sympathize with fascism felt that it was wrong to offend Germany by awarding the prize to someone opposed to the current German regime.
Hitler's decree made it forbidden for three subsequent German nationals to accept the Nobel Prize: [[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 diplomas and medals, but not the prize money.<ref name ="Nobel Laureates Facts"/>
On [[19 October]] [[1939]], about a month and a half after [[World War II]] had started, the Nobel Committee of the [[Karolinska Institute]] met to discuss who would be the 1939 Nobel Laureate in physiology and medicine.<ref name="Nobel-1972_156">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Bernhard|1972|pp=156-159}}</ref> The majority of the professors at the Institute were in favor of giving the prize to Domagk and someone leaked the news, which was then passed on to Berlin. The Kulturministerium in Berlin replied with a telegram stating that a Nobel Prize to a German was "completely unwanted" (''durchaus unerwünscht'').<ref name="Nobel-1972_157">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Bernhard|1972|p=157}}</ref> Despite the telegram, a large majority of the Institute voted to give the prize to Domagk on [[26 October]] [[1939]]. Domagk received the news later that day by phone and telegram.<ref name="Nobel-1950_174">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Lijestrand|1950|p=174}}</ref> Being aware of Hitler's decree but unsure if it only applied to the peace prize or all of the Nobel Prizes, Domagk sent a request to the Ministry of Education in Berlin asking if it would be possible to accept the prize.<ref name="Nobel-1950_174-175">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Lijestrand|1950|pp=174-175}}</ref> Since he didn't receive a reply after more than a week had passed, he felt it would be impolite to wait any longer with 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.<ref name="Nobel-1950_172">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Lijestrand|1950|p=172}}</ref> He 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 and taken by the [[Gestapo]] to police headquarters.<ref name="Nobel-1950_173">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Lijestrand|1950|p=173}}</ref><ref name="Hager-251">{{Harvnb|Hager|2006|p=251}}</ref> He was released after one week only to be arrested again. On [[28 November]] [[1939]], he was forced by the Kulturministerium to sign a prepared letter, addressed to the Institute, declining the prize.<ref name="Nobel-1950_172" /><ref name="Ryan_119-120">{{Harvnb|Ryan|1993|pp=119-120}}</ref> 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's forced refusal of the prize was the first time the prize was declined. Due to his refusal, the statutes for the Nobel Prizes were changed so that if a laureate declined the prize or failed to collect the prize award before [[October 1]] of the following year, the money would be allocated back to the funds.<ref name="Nobel-1972_158">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Bernhard|1972|p=158}}</ref>
On [[9 November]] [[1939]], the [[Royal Academy of Sciences]] awarded the 1938 Prize for Chemistry to Kuhn and half of the 1939 prize to Butenandt.<ref name="Nobel-1950_174" /><ref name="Nobel-1972_369">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Bernhard|1972|p=369}}</ref> When notified of the decision, the German scientists were forced to refuse the prizes by threats of violence from the German government.<ref name="Nobel-1950_388">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Bernhard|1972|p=388}}</ref><ref name="Nobel-1972_369" /> 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.<ref name="Nobel-1950_173" /><ref name="Nobel-1950_388" /><ref name="Nobel-1972_369" /> After World War II in 1948, they wrote a letter 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.
[[Otto Heinrich Warburg]], a German national that won the 1931 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, is rumored to have been selected for a second Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1944, but was forbidden to accept it due to Hitler's decree. According to the Nobel Foundation, this story is not true.<ref name="Nobel-1972_210">{{Harvnb|Schück|Sohlman|Österling|Bernhard|1972|p=210}}</ref> (See [[Otto Heinrich Warburg]] for details.)
[[Boris Pasternak]] at first accepted the 1958 Nobel Prize in Literature, but was forced by the authorities in the USSR to decline it because the prize was considered a "reward for the dissident political innuendo in his novel, ''[[Doctor Zhivago]]''."<ref name ="Nobel Laureates Facts"/><ref name="Bishop-invol">{{Harvnb|Bishop|2003|pp=18-19}}</ref> Pasternak died without ever receiving the prize. He was eventually honored by the Nobel Foundation at a banquet in Stockholm on [[9 December]] [[1989]], when they presented his medal to his son. [[Mstislav Rostropovitch]], a renowned Russian cellist and close friend of Boris Pasternak, played a [[Bach]] suite in his memory at the banquet.
===Voluntary refusals===
*[[Jean-Paul Sartre]] declined the 1964 Prize in Literature, because he always refused official honors.<ref name ="Nobel Laureates Facts"> [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nobelprize_facts.html Nobel Laureates Facts]</ref>
*[[Le Duc Tho]] declined the 1973 Peace Prize—jointly awarded to him and [[Henry Kissinger]]—because [[Vietnam war|Vietnam was not yet at peace]].<ref name ="Nobel Laureates Facts"/>
==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}
==Sources==
<div class="references-small">
* {{Citation
| last = Bishop
| first = J. Michael
| author-link = J. Michael Bishop
| title = How to Win the Nobel Prize: An Unexpected Life in Science
| publisher = [[Harvard University Press]]
| year = 2003
| location = Cambridge, MA
| isbn = 0-674-00880-4
}}.
* {{Citation
| last = Hager
| first = Thomas
| title = The Demon under the Microscope: from battlefield hospitals to Nazi labs, one doctor's heroic search for the world's first miracle drug
| publisher = Harmony Books
| year = 2006
| location = New York
| isbn = 1-4000-8213-7
}}.
* {{Citation
| last = Nasar
| first = Sylvia
| author-link = Sylvia Nasar
| title = [[A Beautiful Mind (book)|A Beautiful Mind]]
| publisher = [[Simon & Schuster]]
| year = 1998
| location = New York, NY
| isbn = 0-684-81906-6
}}.
* {{Citation
| last = Ryan
| first = Frank
| title = The Forgotten Plague: How the Battle Against Tuberculosis Was Won — and Lost
| place = Boston, MA
| publisher = [[Little, Brown and Company]]
| year = 1993
| isbn = 0-316-76380-2
}}. First published in the United Kingdom as ''Tuberculosis: The Greatest Story Never Told''.
* {{Citation
| last = Schück
| first = Henrik
| author-link = Henrik Schück
| last2 = Sohlman
| first2 = Ragnar
| last3 = Österling
| first3 = Anders
| last4 = Liljestrand
| first4 = Göran
| title = Nobel: The Man and His Prizes
| place = Stockholm, Sweden
| publisher = [[Nobel Foundation]]
| year = 1950
}}.
* {{Citation
| last = Schück
| first = Henrik
| author-link = Henrik Schück
| last2 = Sohlman
| first2 = Ragnar
| last3 = Österling
| first3 = Anders
| last4 = Bernhard
| first4 = Carl Gustaf
| editor-last = Nobel Foundation
| editor-link = Nobel Foundation
| editor2-last = Odelberg
| editor2-first = W.
| title = Nobel: The Man and His Prizes
| place = New York, NY
| publisher = American [[Elsevier]] Publishing Company, Inc
| year = 1972
| edition = 3rd
| isbn = 0-444-00117-4
}}.
</div>
==External links==
*[http://www.thepicky.com/popular/why-was-gandhi-never-awarded-the-nobel-peace-prize/ Article on Why Was Gandhi Never Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?]
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3724734.stm BBC article on Nobel Peace Prize controversies]
*[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/nobel.100/overview.html CNN overview of Nobel prizes]
*[http://www2.uah.es/jmc/nobel.html Declined papers that won Nobel prizes]
*[http://nobelprize.org/ Nobel Foundation official site]
<!--Categories-->
[[Category:Nobel Prize|Controversies]]
[[Category:Discovery and invention controversies]]
<!--Other languages-->