Latest / Art of the Question / The Controversial History of The Nobel Prize - Prof. Robert Marc Friedman - #62

Transcript

The Controversial History of The Nobel Prize - Prof. Robert Marc Friedman - #62 · Art of the Question

• Julius Moorman: Robert Mark, thank you so much for coming on the show on such a short notice. I really wanted to do an episode about the somewhat controversial history about the Nobel Prize. But the idea for the episode came to me quite late as the awards were already being handed out again this week. So I thought I was too late. But it so happens that you were able to Make some time for me and have this discussion with me on a very short notice. So I I really appreciate that. you are a historian and you've written a book, among other things, an historian. And you've written a book called The Politics of Excellence, where you went into the archives of the Nobel Prize and found that politics, personal taste, and rivalries play a much bigger role than many people may know. So I really want to get into all of that, but I could continue to try and introduce you, but I thought it would make sense for you to perhaps introduce yourself a little bit more, because I think you'd be much better equipped to do so than than I am. Okay, thank you. It's a pleasure to be able to contribute and be part of your your your podcast. a as I've told you, unfortunately I was not well this past night, so I hope your audience will forgive me if at times I'm trying to find something to say that's, you know, not not coming out just right. I have been professor of history of science at University of California, San Diego, and then I moved back to Norway and became professor here at University of Oslo. I am an historian of science and I as you probably hear, although I'm a Norwegian citizen, I'm originally from the United States. I have a Bachelor of Science with physics and meteorology background and theater from New York University, way, way, way back. And I have a PhD in history of science from the Johns Hopkins University. that was on the Hambjerkness and the breakthroughs in modern meteorology that was accomplished in in in Bergen, Norway, at the end of World War One, the early nineteen twenties. I mentioned that only because that's what brought me to Scandinavia and doing research on Bjerkness, who had been in Stockholm for the beginning of his career, put me in touch with studying the physics community in Sweden in beginning of the twentieth century. When the Nobel Foundation changed the statutes in the late nineteen se seventies to allow scholars access to the official archives for material more than fifty years old, I was one of the only people who knew anything about So anyway, I I was invited in and I began researching on on the Nobel prices. And I Mike mentioned that the my earliest research. how I got into publishing and really getting in into this is an interesting story. I'd begun my research. I also, as an historian of science, know that you have to assess your documents. You know, that the the truth about the Nobel Prize is is not a translation away from the Swedish. the You you realize these documents, you know the official re reports, evaluation reports, the the act of writing at the very end, as in any committee, you know, is an act of erasing all of the subjectivities, the conflicts, horse trading, etc. So it's essential if you're going to make sense of of what's going on here, to also understand who the guys were, their backgrounds, their networks, find private correspondence, yeah. among committee members, academy members, and with with foreign scholars where some people keep their mum the whole time, others just you know the re the well an e an example if if if I may. the type of thing that makes an historian of science very happy. I'm in Helsinki looking at the correspondence of a member of the chemistry committee to a Finnish colleague. And at the end of his letters, he writes with colored this is the very beginning of this hand with colored pencil in Swedish, burn the letter. Burn the letter. Because he's giv giving the insight of gossip and what what's going on. And Edvard Yelt did not burn the letters. So so that gives you you know resources to break this very polished veneer of objectivity, impartiality, you've a and and also that those reports are written for one main reason. It's not to give an historical record to allow journalists and to jump in to here's the reason why X got it's to convince the full academy that the committee's recommendation is the only legitimate choice for for for that year. And you know, it's written originally to especially in the early period to be secret forever. And it's not a repository of all the discussions, all the the and I'm not saying it's completely useless and that they're lying and deceiving, but you you just have to recognize the limitations of reading these these documents. Yeah, no, and and we'll get into some more specific examples of some very well known historical figures who got a prize, who should have gotten a prize perhaps, but didn't But before we get into this, and I wanna emphasize this is not the main topic of our conversation today, but I think it would make sense for listeners who have n don't really understand properly w who Alfred Nobel was and why this prize even came about. I briefly wanna touch on it because I think it's relevant for for the rest of of the discussion. So please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that Alfred Nobel was a Swedish chemist who invented dynamite. And there's this famous story going around, and I'm not sure whether this is true or not. It's it's also quite contested, I believe. But he got very rich, and then one day he opened a newspaper and he saw an obituary about himself. And He thought that was strange because on the one hand he's still alive, of course, so they thought he was dead, but also they described him as this merchant of death. And some people say that this may have inspired him to start the Nobel Prize because he wanted to kind of clear his name from this negative connotation that people had with him. Apparently people were seeing him as this merchant of death, and that's Why he may or may not have decided to start the Nobel Prize, to do something noble, if you will, and yeah, clear his name and award some of the fortunes that he racked up over his life and give them to to science and in this way incentivize scientists to keep the field moving forward. How how much can we say about the accuracy of those claims? I I confess, as far as Albert Nobel's biography, I have there's been a a number of more re relatively more recent books. I've heard exact the same mythology. I really cannot say whether it's the truth. I he I'm sure he also has inspiration that the other fabulously wealthy capitalists in the late nineteenth century to clear their names and have a a much more pleasant legacy gave huge fortunes for humanitarian and the research purposes, whether Carnegie, Rockefeller and and and and so and so forth. there's also, of course, the the the story why there's no prize for for mathematics and and so forth and so on. I I confess I I focus primarily on the from the testament when it becomes public onwards and I I will say one thing. We know that he lived for rather rather modestly for somebody with such extreme wealth and An important part of the Nobel's story and why so successful is the when his very brief testament, which is you know was questioned and contested by family and whether it's even a legal doc document, in transforming that into a formal set of statutes and an institution, shall we say. They came up with this idea of this festivity. I mean, it essentially all all Nobel seems to have wanted is to give lots of money to brilliant young persons. And and in a draft he writes men and women, after which he just changed it to to persons, to help them realize their dreams and and ideas. And also in early drafts we know he had considered that most of the money would go to establishing huge model laboratories in Stockholm and winners would not get so much money but they'd be able to spend a large part of their time in these laquatories giving them giving them opportunities to develop their their their ideas. But lo and behold, we suddenly have this you know massive festivity, celebration. at first the Swedish king did not attend the first award ceremony. They're a little unsure about all of this, but it became such a big hit. Because you have the diplomats praising the beauties of Sweden and the great intellectual traditions and the Swedish members of the Academy s singing beautiful songs and descriptions of the of the winners and their country and their scientific traditions. And then you have, you might say, pomp defined the circumstances and in the context. Of late 19th, early 20th century. We'll forget the Olympics had just been and what's often fi left out in the little descriptions of Olympic history. This it was couched in the social Darwinistic racial theories of the time that were very prevalent, and it was seen as a way for. the different nations, the different races, to compete peacefully to show which of them is more evolved and and and fit. And the announcement of the Nobel Prizes was seen that this was going to be an Olympics of of culture and and science. And science especially is important because what differentiated European culture and civilization and and racial fitness from the natives of Africa and in the jungles of South America. And that would be Christianity and science and advanced technology. And so d it was seen that the the Nobel Prizes would be a level playing field where the different, even the the different advanced nations can compete to see who who is more fit. And nobody could be more fit to judge than North European Scandinavic Nordics, because you all all of the North European male upper class and the bourgeois professors would say Who's on the top of the evolutionary list? People like themselves. So you know Sweden was considered to be biologic Swedes, Swedish men, biologically more capable of objectivity than say an Italian woman or or a Spanish man i i in in the thinking of the time. And of course, the massive amount of money was of of great significance. And as the Swedish mathematician Jesda Mittag Lefler s made a snide comment that it's bourgeois nobility bourgeois mentality equates largest amount of money with the greatest honor. And just also A little extra footnote. Some of the members of the committee, especially particular the head of the chemistry committee, was very moral, yeah, good person, I sort of he he expressed I think it may have been around nineteen ten, just the shock of how the popularity and the interest in the prize has just grown. well beyond anything they had ever imagined. And and he writes in a private letter that there are many other honors that are probably more significant than a Nobel Prize, yet the even at that point, there's no stopping the the Nobel mania, I shall say. Yeah, that's well that's that's I I didn't know that and that's a fascinating piece of background and I think very relevant for the rest of of the conversation because you mentioned earlier br briefly that the committees that decide who wins the prices, this used to be closed off and it was shielded from the public and and no one could really have a look. However, at a certain point in time they change the rules about this, and now all of a sudden people are allowed, maybe not everyone, but it is possible to actually have a look inside of these documents, go into the archives, and you were one of the people that did and yes, studied these extensively, which eventually culminated into into your book The Politics of Excellence. I I just wanna understand. So this this becomes possible. how how did you go about going into these archives and what what did you find? I know it's a very broad question, but I think it might be a good starting point before we go into some of the more specific examples. Sure. I was actually invited. I was one of the first ones invited. The I think it was the Swedish sociologist living in Paris, Elizabeth Crawford, who with the historian of science Roy McLeod, who were asked if I'm not mistaken, in in in the seventies to review the materials, you know, the the types of materials in the archives and write a report about what they can be used for and and and and so forth and so on. And then I believe there was a plan to have a they call it a Nobel symposium, which is who you think on an historical topic. It was gonna be, I think, science, technology and medicine at the time of Alfred Nobel and and they wanted a session on using the the archives. So I think I I was invited at at that point. Again, the excellent tradition of Swedish history of science and I and and history of ideas had at that point been largely kept to maybe the mid-19th century. The big professor in Urpsel University who said said should not go beyond eighteen fifties or whatever. So they had not done very much research on at that point We're now in the early 1980s, the twentieth century Swedish physics and and chemistry. And after I began r researching yeah I n noticed I thought it was called to my attention, the science, the internationally prominent science magazine, Nature. the editor had a open editorial to with questions to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences about the Nobel Physics Prize. You know, there's the question of is astrophysics part of physics or not? And a whole series of questions. And as usual, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences responded with complete silence. So I wrote to John Maddox and I told him about my research and what I've already had had begun finding. and he invited me to submit a manuscript for publication. I received six pages in nature, which is quite unusual. And among the the immediate things that that C came of course it's it's that in number one, the committees are of course had been always Swedish. There's nothing in the statutes that say that. And i in that first fifty years that I had studied, there was one or two occasions that look in the late nineteen twenties they wanted some of the physicists on the committee wanted to bring Niels Bohr in to push out one of their own who was always a bit of a went against the the c the sa the majority cho cho choices, but the Academy felt when it voted that you need to be loyal to their own. So so that it's it is a Swedish institution. It's a Swedish prerogative, who gets the prize. You know, if that and that the nominator but also the belief that the nominators really decide. There's but there's a lot of research policy nonsense written that tries to predict who's going to get the prize and looking at PASSP and saying if you know we have they're going to find some Kabbalistic formula, you know, by looking at the statistics over how many years, by why what type of nominator, et cetera, et cetera. And that the point is that the committee does what it wants to do. And there have been people who've received prizes based on one nomination alone. And in the early period, you you you know, there's of often, especially say in chemistry, almost never a consensus for the no nominators. So it has to be the choice of the committee. And as in any other committee, there's f five five members of the committee. Yeah. Not everybody is equal. You know, that there's a some people are more pushy. some people have much greater knowledge, some people have greater rhetorical skills, some have allies in the academy that they can rely on. so that so that that so that was one an important point. And the other is that the definition of physics, and especially f and chemistry, is not defined and it's up. you know, chemistry at nineteen nineteen one is already fragmented into subdisciplines that semi orthopotonomous inorganic, organic, physical chemistry and and and so forth. Physics was largely experimental physics. And at first they had a broad umbrella what's you know, de definition. One of the first members of the committee was a professor of meteorology. So In nineteen twenty-three, for local Swedish reasons, primarily, it was decided to eliminate astrophysics and geophysical sciences from from from from physics. that year, George Ellery Hale at Caltech was lined up for his work in solar physics. been declared worthy of the prize. I won't go into all the reasons, but show that there is plasticity in the interpreting the statutes. And and and in fact, the history of the prize is also should be a history of interpreting the statutes. And and it it's not just me saying this, one of the s the strong men in the interwar years, Carl Wilhelm Hussein, writes in a private letter that you know if you try to be faithful to one of the statutes, it'll conflict with with another. What do we mean by in the past year or recently, what do we mean by a discovery, especially what got in theoretical physics? What is or in chemistry, when you have elaboration of a chemical synthetic process over years, it's not a yeah, the Newton and the apple hitting our on the head. And so in the end it's if if you have a consensus among the committee on where the borders are, there's nothing in the statutes that prevents it. And we know that more recently, with cosmology and astrophysics becoming more and more very popular with the public and you know excit exciting. there has been a change and it is being included, whereas in the say interwar years and early forties and so but yeah, Hubble was eliminated yeah, would be expanded. a a major one of the great important discoveries of the twentieth century. so and and then also I pointed out and I'm sure we'll and and and that meteorology was also not excluded, and pointing out that there was something fishy, shall we say, with the Einstein white not relativity, that the person who had main responsibility, Alvad Ulstrand, had was quoted in a private conversation with that Mittag Lefler mentioned, who had these very detailed diaries, he said that Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize. Yeah. And and and and and and and that is from Gustavan saying that I am going to prove Einstein was wrong with relativity. And the the the f won't go into but essentially pointing out there's a lot of interesting things going on here. And if you go into details with that. The reaction w what I did not know that year, this was it came out in August nineteen eighty-one, and this is interesting in terms of reactions. The secretary of the Mogophysics Committee went berserk and they call it Skandal Artikelan. Yeah, the scandalous article. And What I did not know is at that year there was an attempt to get a prize for the founders of numerical weather forecasting, especially Jules Charney, who was dying. And and again, just as when there was an effort to try to get a prize to Wilhelm Bjarkins and his collaborators in the late thirties, this fulfills Nobel's wishes to a great extent because No but who has benefited mankind and you know a and you know, when you have something that's both a major advance in knowledge and able to directly help humanity as in better weather forecasting, you know, that's should be taken into account. So I I and then Also that the Kai Siegman, the son of one of the strong men in the committee in in the interwar and into the early fifties, Mana Siegbahn, he was very much pushing to get a Nobel Prize because Niels Bohr's son, Augabor, had gotten the prize. So I mean this is what I've been I've been told. And and suddenly he does get it that year, and just when I say it's a Swedish it's a Swedish prize. And at a at that Nobel Symposium, the so-called permanent secretary of the Academy, said you know because the nature article I th I think it was a preprint that was circulated. Also to meteorology. And Benk Nazel, I saw this. he slammed this eld against the wall and told him, you know, to shut his mouth and you know he doesn't know what he's talking about. And Then he th through through the third party, you know, writes essentially said that, you know, the article is terrible. I I do not know Swedish, I do not know physics, and my hyperactive imagination would be better used for writing fiction than than history. And and and primarily because of the analysis of the Einstein Prize. And the crux here is that in a brilliant maneuver that Hossein, who enters the committee, Brook nominates the only person who nominates Einstein for his discovery of the so-called law of the photoelectric effect, and not the theory of the photoelectric effect, which is a very that that's where the idea of Write Quamta and it was very controversial even at that point. And and and so doing he also opened up for a price Benil Spoer, because the committee had been is even at this point completely very hostile to quantum theory in any form. And it was noted by people physicists who visited Sweden. So Usain says forget the We don't know what's behind the law, but it's empirically derived and proven. Robert Billikan tried to disprove it in nineteen sixteen and ended up confirming it. And since Bohr's quantum model of the atom rests on that law, the photoelectric effect, Bohr can also get the tries. That's why Einstein gets the reserve nineteen twenty-one prize in nineteen twenty-two and bohr the nineteen twenty-two prize. So Benk Nazel, the Secretary, he says, This is ridiculous. how can you separate the law from the theory? But that's exactly what was being done at the time. It's not until two, two, three years later, Arthur Compton with the so-called the Compton effect, does some experiments that confirms and certainly says, Gosh, Einstein was was was was right. So historically he gets it completely wrong. And he also then conspires, and I think I can use the word conspire with the physicist, biographer Abraham Pice, who and one of the what the physicists like as a biography, yeah, how Einstein got the prize. And there they just say that Gulstand made a mistake in his evaluation of that. There they're simply a mathematical get gets something wrong, so they couldn't give the prize for relativity, and that the theory of the photoelectric effect is actually more radical and you know shows, you know that's so it's completely wrong. And I Well, let's just say There were personal reasons I did not want to attack Nago in public and said that he has gotten this completely wrong. And in twenty twenty two I picked up the whole issue again. I mean I've re I wrote I wrote plenty you know and and everything is gradually pointing to the fact that the plain and simple Gulstan and and evaluates relativity in nineteen twenty one and nineteen twenty two. In nineteen twenty, Spunkta Aranius, who I think some listeners may associate him with the greenhouse effect that he was also he was on the physics committee. He would work worked for a while in what was called cosmical physics, an attempt to have the macro world the environmental and near space, physics. So he he had he had written the first valuation. And both of them leaned very heavily on the German anti-Einstein anti relativity literature that popped up especially after the German defeat in World One by reactionary physicists and and other reactionary scientists who were claiming basically that relativity is a hoax, fraud, Einstein is a charlatan, and it's a Bolshevik Jewish conspiracy to undermine solid common sense German science Physics. And and in fact, a close reading of Gustran's fifty page nineteen twenty-one evaluation and confirm twenty-two, it's written from a perspective that Einstein cannot be right. And they bring in every piece of information, you know, literature, That shows it's wrong, you know, even things that are very, very dubious. Gruesern rights, I mean even in the before that Einstein's you know, there's this coterie of Einstein supporters who you just can't trust them. And of course, also the belief that the Jewish-owned Berlin media speaks. help spread this, you know, the genius Einstein, et cetera, et cetera. And an Aranius, who had been before the war rather progressive and much earlier as I'd consider a radical, he he becomes quite reactionary in in a way. I think the fear of Bolshevism is is is quite strong and you know Why he does what he did that's just a very short review of the status of the confirmation or refute refutations of Einstein's predictions based on general relativity. And he takes the most dubious reactionary w German works and that's what he bases it on. And he has references to articles In the extreme right wing German newspapers, written by people who, you know, d just off the radar screen, you normally do not include references to newspaper articles in a in in in these things. Whether he was doing this because the rest of the committee just wanted to eliminate Einstein for a number of reasons in nineteen twenty. But regardless of the goose down who He studied the optics of the eye, and also was a consultant for Zeiss, optical, making better eyeglasses, especially for as astigmatism. And An example of the worst kind of arrogance that seems I think I have this expression in the book, which I'm sure I've found a lot of people in in Sweden very annoyed, but you know, in terms of this especially in Uppsala with its several hundred-year-old traditions, being somewhat isolated, but you know, arrogance like mold in a damp cellar t tends tends to grow. And That he insisted what he received in nineteen eleven, or was in nineteen twelve, they guess, his medic medical prize, pretty much with I get by with a little help my friends, because he's not nominated by non-Swedes, and that his professorship be defined also as physics. And he also insisted, since he does a a form of mathematical ph physics in analyzing the the optics of the eye, that he'd be a member of the physics committee. And then that he decides that he is going to evaluate relativity and that he would take a year to study it and and show that it's wrong. And in fact that Mitsad Left there, you know, in that same diary entry when Gulstrand is visiting, he suggests that maybe the committee you know the committee is allowed to ask for a spe a a special evaluation for noncommittee members, which they do more re more often in recent decades than in those days. And and he suggested a number of foreign physicists who somewhat who you can trust and goos down Absolutely s said said no, which and yeah, so f so for years and dec the of official Nobel yeah on the websites and that why didn't Einstein get the prize for relativity and says because Gulschrunt made a mistake. And you could it'd say if he just made a mistake and in fact We know from correspondence and diary entries that there was a little bit of di a debate and people sh showed that Gustrand made a mistake. And if you see the amount of nominations Einstein had gotten, there's nothing that prevents the Academy from overturning Gustrand's recommendation that the full committee had accepted. But there again You need to know more than just reading documents, the culture of the academy, the Swedish academic culture at at the time, for the academy to go against Gustrald would be Yeah, a slap in the face. And he's one of the the most prominent Swedish scientists. And you just don't do things like that. So, you know, th there's just layers and layers th to to explore. But you th th there's th th this in it's strange irony. I don't know irony what's the word I'm looking for, is situation that Why trust a scientist who has no historical background, who has not really studied in detail, you know, year after year, year past Nobel you know, that automatically that person has to you know ace spades over anything a qualified historian of science and I I don't want to boast, but I did receive over the years three very major research grants from the National Science Foundation i in America, with the 11 for 12 referees each time. And in most cases, nine or ten of them saying excellent, and whatever. And and the same thing with journalists. The there a few years after that mature article came out, there was a piece in the New York Times about do the best always get the prize. And of course, they don't contact me, even though they discuss the and the head of the Nobel Foundation, you know, the the the who told me in private at that Nobel symposium he was happy that I wrote that article in Nature because the physics committee members are so arrogant. and but they says, well, you know, Friedman did a selective reading of of of of of the documents. And if anybody was selected, it's the it's th those people, you know, like Nogal and and others. And similarly for for many other efforts, interviews that I've seen with scientists or or or past Nobel Prize winners, why are they privileged in any which way to speak about The history of the internal workings of on the prize. They might and certainly better than I can comment on the choices made, you know, k in in recent times, and shouldn't X have shared in that prize with Y, et cetera, et cetera. I I I'd make it my business not to comment or know about the present. in part because I was accused by Nago and others of trying to influence them back in nineteen eighty-one, as far as the prize for Jewel Charney in numerical weather forecasting, which I it was just by chance on on a a flight, I think, from New York to Stockholm, I was sitting next to a Lund professor of physics, and and and he he shared this with me and And also that I then found out about the Siegbahnman price and and and and and and and so forth. So and but all also if if I may s yeah, I'm I'm I'm I'm showing the I mean there are elements in in the Nobel establishment as I met it back in the eighties and the nineties so forth. but there's another side For example, in Gothenburg, the physicists there, the I I should mention I've written a play about the Liesa Meitner Price or lack of the prize. And they and then they also read read the book. And they established a prize to honor Lisa Meitner because of what they learned from the play and and and the book and gave the first of the prizes to me, even though it's defied for the advancement of physics, because they also recognize history of science, history of physics does contribute to the culture of of of of physics. But they said that they're actually embarrassed by the fact that the Stockholm Uppsala cliques and so forth had never invited me to present my findings, you know, have a discussion, that maybe they even can learn something. and yeah, I mean, so I I would say there is a history of the prize is is also there is a history of an arrogance built in. And again, Some of the members, in fact, the person who promoted that play and and and in fact commissioned it, so to speak, b became finally chair of the physics committee, and I'm sure he did a a fabulous job in terms of fairness and openness. And and I just maybe this is a point just to to make a very important point. and I can quote a a committee member in the nineteen seventies in private letter saying something that should be obvious and others have also said this, but in in any given year there can be several persons who very much deserve the prize and there's no objective standard of how to select one over the other. And it has to be committee proclivities and you know all all sorts of things. And and and and and and in chemistry this was clearer much, much earlier when you can have great fabulous work done in completely different parts of chemistry. So how do you but something in, you know, b biochemistry, chemical theory, synthetic organic chemistry, that you know really shaped up e each of those s set set disciplines and either any of them are deserving. And and and similarly it that same in that one one of those letters from this committee member in the beginning of the nineteen fifties and into the seventies wrote that w it's a it's a nice little story if I just but you know the there was a in in the developments of theoretical particle physics and particle physics in general, there are lots of individuals who contribute and in nineteen sixty nine when they wanted to give a prize they were gonna give to Barry Gilman and who sh who should share it with him. There were just so many contenders that they decided just to give it to him alone. They could they couldn't you know again that problem you can only divide a prize in three three three parts. And How you deal with that when there's discoveries that involves more than three people, it it is a problem, remains a problem. Sometimes important contributions have just been left out because they couldn't find a fair way of doing it. Other times there's horrendous injustices done by cutting out people. But one of the persons, apparently it was the Japanese physicist Sakata. And he was being nominated a after that. And there's a letter from the Japanese Nobel Prize winner from nineteen forty-nine who to this committee member, they're very close, so and said you know that he's he's dying. Yeah, please, this could be the last chance. And then he dies. And he then writes to It says it would bring great relief to my colleagues to know what did the Nobel Committee members think of Sakata's work. And in reply, he said that look, Sakata was greatly respected around the whole world, the world of physics, held in high esteem. and why should it matter so much? to you and your caliber, what five Swedish physicists think of him. Now it's beautifully fair. But we know what the answer is, because had he gotten the cries, the Japanese media, you know I mean that that would bring lots of resources to Japanese particle physics and and so forth. And you know this whole The word that popped up in my mind, game, because it almost seem seems that way, the the way the fixation on these prices is just unreflected. And I think I I think I use it back in the book. This it's like a glacier. You know, what's you know, the momentum, you you just can't stop it. And no matter what I write, it's not going to change that that very much, you know, but it's this. this flea and Oslo writing that. But the belief of Nobel institutions, and I see this especially with the Peace Prize, where it's even more laughable, that says the prestige of the prize is because of the committees and the institutions choosing so so well. You know, that the choices are just are so right. I said, Well, show me. W w w what what what's your proof of that? You're supposed to be critically thinking im individuals. Cause what I've seen again and again is that the will to believe was there from the start. You know, they said that whole earlier the before there's any Okay, the very first prizes were to very prominent scientists, so you know that that certainly helped. But their letters, you know, which did one letter to Iranius, one of his early disciples in Germany, in physical chemistry, that with so much at stake. We we know that only the the noblest intentions will go into you know the process of of of of a warning the the prizes. And so, you know, in in nineteen five, there's a German sweep of of science prizes. And the British newspapers, there's no no Brita Britain's again the prize had the usual is this proof further proof of the degeneration of the Anglo Saxon race and and the Minister of Culture in Prussia, then starts asking one of the prize winners who gets it on very dubious grounds with but suddenly he's being asked to who should receive the the the empty professorate at you know this prestigious university. And at the end of World War One with the defeat of of of of Germany, the fact that In nineteen nineteen there's a German sweep of the prize. It's not by accident. And then they could say that here's proof that elite German science is still the top ha has not been defeated. We are still still the best in the world. Robert Milliken at Caltech gets prize in 1923. the local press and boosters that here is proof. That the pure Anglo-Saxon genius in in America is now moved to Southern the vast remaining enclave to Southern California was back in the East. You have all those immigrants and mixing of races and who knows what. And when Berkeley starts getting prizes, his proof that public universities can compete with the old elite priv private ones. and and Yeah, I I think a a great example, the French press in the early twenties complaining again and again why no Nobel Prizes to France and say that you know the s Swedish Swedes do not understand Gallic culture. Uppsala is a suburb of Berlin, etc. And then Anatol France gets surprised in in the literature that Hurrah hurrah. And then against the committee's wishes in 1926, who are declared Jean Perrin not qualified for the prize in a rebellion, and occasionally there are these rebellions that the full academy goes against the committee recommendation, gives him the prize, and and the committee members are writing, no, no, you cannot, let's not. Certainly, the French newspapers, yeah. France is on top. You know, the an intern an impartial, an objective international jury says France is the best, you know, a a a et cetera. And of course, Peran is received as a, you know, a great d all those committee members who are saying that he must not get it, because we declared him not eligible, inviting him, you must come when you come to Stockholm, you must come to dinner. at my house had a reception for you et cetera, et cetera. But the you know, there's just and with America, it's first much later that the Nobel fever breaks and you know, part of Cold War pro propaganda that liberal democracy is better than communism for advancing science, which I b would like to believe is the case, but Yeah. Comment on what's happening in the world world of of science today. Yeah. So yeah. We'll go back to the conversation in just a second, but first I have an important announcement to make. If you've made it this far, I'm going to assume that you're enjoying the show. If you want to support the show, you can do so by leaving a like or a comment if you're watching on YouTube, or by rating the episode if you're listening on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. However, the single biggest thing you can do to support the show is by sharing it with someone you think might enjoy this episode. This could be a friend, it could be a family member, it could be a colleague. It doesn't really matter. If everyone who's currently listening to this episode would share it with just one person, the show would blow up in no time. Which also means that I could go full time. That means more episodes, it means better episodes, and it also means a happy host. So Please consider sharing the episode. It really helps me a lot. And I thank you. Now let's get back to talking. Yeah, no, I mean that that's that's it it paints such an interesting picture, right? Because as at least as far as we're talking about those those early days, I think d the Nobel Prize is supposed to be a meritocracy. It's supposed to be the best science wins, the best inventions. But when you start looking into it, There seems to be a lot of ambiguity about first of all what consider what is what should be considered an invention, which what should be considered something new to be even eligible for the price. Then there's the categories. So which categories do we classify as physics, for example, which parts of physics should we include? Which parts of physics should we exclude? And those all seem to be those distinctions seem to be made not based on any definitions that we can read, but pretty vague and ambiguous interpretations of it. And then also when handing out these prices, when you're talking about certain sweeps in in in the different years, there seems to be a lot of Personal bias and and also people perhaps noticing some bias in there are afraid to speak up because of some very prominent figures that are involved, which makes it even more difficult to even criticize it or speak up against. of course d this does not say anything about the Current state of the Nobel Prize. I mean, we've discussed the fact that all of these archives are are locked up for 50 years and then they are released for for people to to look into them. but is it is it your your understanding that some of these issues may persist even today? And if there's anything you could change about how the Nobel tries is being handed out, what would that be? Okay, well, I'll I'll preface this by say that the a more recent secretary, the physics committee, who is like more open and interested in discussing. this must be back in the nineteen nineties. I had a seminar in in in Uppsala and he said to, Okay, fine, you have all of your messiness, you know, in the pre-World War Two peri period. that was like you know a bumpy runway to get, you know, the play. But after nineteen forty five, you know, or or so, you know, finally lift off, you know, into the smooth stratosphere of impartiality, objectivity, etc. And I said, well, I have some letters I found, you know, in archives from the nineteen seventies and even early nineteen eighties, you know, that would indicate that that's not the case. You know, that there is there was one that that As long as this particular person is is on the committee, theoretical particle physics will have a very hard time getting to it 'cause he just you know, he and and others, you know, th this tradition of experimentalism, not just experimental, but the belief that progress in physics comes through precision measurement and experiment and theory should not be have this which was I guess the nineteen nineteen eighties. and and several other letters of of this sort sh s showing, you know, that there's if if if I support this but particular person, will you finally support th that that that one? And he said, gosh, you know, it it didn't occur to he said, Well, when the committee meets, there's never any you know Harsh debate or or whatever. We said, well, maybe it's because they do all the politics beforehand in the corridor, on the telephone, it it's etc. Yeah, how are we going to deal with this? And you know, it it was sort of like the the light bulb, you know, boom, you know that I I just didn't didn't didn't think of that. and I I I do know Yeah, yeah, I'm I'm sure it it happens. You know, there are people you know that the the the because a committee wants to be unanimous. You know, if w way back one of the chemistry committee amendments said in unity there's strength. You know, if you if there's dissension in the committee, it makes it easier in the academy to have a rebellion or or or or or or qu questioning. but th there's They have made many reforms, in including the the willingness to get outside experts to write reports on major developments that there's not sufficient expertise on the committee. I believe also you did not mention there's an intermediary level of the selection process, and that is the Academy has different sections, you know, and and there's the section for physics and section and the committee report and recommend there goes to the physics section and the chemistry section where they can discuss and approve or come up with a a different proposal, then goes to the full academy. And I believe there's a lot more authority given to the sections now. I think also that there are if I recall limitations on how long a committee member can remain on the committee. in the old days, your people there like the chemistry committee in the nineteen twenties, they're largely in their seventies and eighties, you know, a age, and they just do not understand what's going on in especially theoretical a advances. there there is I yeah as I said, I I keep my nose out of the the the the the present because I was accused of trying to to influence them. not that I wish be well I could influence by letting them understand their own history and why certain interpretive traditions are there that they may not understand wh why they do things the way they do. the I'm sure in the old days the chemistry committee would not those who are allowed to nominate, you know, there's the permanent members, you know, all members of the Academy, foreign and and and and Swedish, members of the Physics and Chemistry Committee, past prize winners in those sciences, Holders of physics chairs at Nordic universities and institutions in that that were there in the 1900. Then there's the year-to-year changes, and they can invite at least six, and now it's many, many, many more universities to to nominate, and then individuals as individuals. And the chemistry committee would not use that last statutory opening to get opinions because such as in the physics there are really important physicists who are not at a university, they might be at a national laboratory. So they need to be invited, or plus people who they f felt have broad knowledge of what's going on and good networks and seem to be somewhat impartial. but The n the net the number of universities and individuals invited, you know, it has you know but at the same time, since say the beginning of the Cold War at post-World War two, the number of scientists out there in these fields grows exponentially, and the number of subfields. and and that's also why I I'm I'm go I'm trying to want to write a short history of of of the crisis and yeah I I stopped at nineteen fifty when I w wrote the book, it came out unfortunately it came out the day after the nine eleven a attack and a number of other things it with the publishing that the book just So we say got buried in part under the rebel of the World World Trade Trade Center. And and I want to, of course, go beyond 1950, but I know that to do a comparable year-by-year study of the evaluation reports i is almost impossible because well, first, the the technical detail and the number of research fields is beyond my my understanding. But because you the you have less and less correspondence, fewer, fewer letters being exchanged as we get into more recent times. We have people pick up the phone, they they meet at conferences. and and also one thing that helped immensely in in the early decades Is access to early drafts of the evaluation reports. And occasionally you'll see pencil marks written or or crossovers, such such as that example with the with the Einstein with the the the law of the photoelectric effect versus theory of the photoelectric effect. In some of the early drafts, they would write the theory and it was crossed over and says, you know. Yeah, only the law. so I mean I mean n if Nagel, you know, the one who would had just even looked at the documents, he would see that that it's not f for for the beer. But they sort of were the time, but by the nineteen forties the even the rough drafts seemed to be edited and just not as revealing of process of cross you want to see a process. Yes. And a lot of people still make the mistake of especially scientists, especially Swedish scientists who occasionally look at a particular price decision and they think that here is is the truth of the matter. So for for example, the case of parity Of parody and and it's not not being concerned, the woman who did the experimental proof of the you know the theoretical breakthroughs, it's been excluded. and the Sweden Science wrote somewhat recently an article about the and It it it's you know, i I think it it it it's a almost a parody of how how how to how to to study. I mean it assumes that the committee members are not individuals, you know, they're just these AI well maybe I I even has more personality and and and we know you catch it. But you know, this the these perfect impartial objective machines that that that evaluate and just doesn't get the point that is written after the facts. And you're not going to see in these reports that we Yeah w w w w what whatever i is is going w going on. and so so I want to write this book in in part I want to include a chapter on the reception of the first book a and and my work another historical work. And also, you know, again, you know, to put it, I'm not gonna say be between you and me and and the audience, would you buy a used car from these people? I mean, the the the misinformation about the Einstein prize and similarly with Lisa Lisa Meitner, you w w we're a a An apology, you know, an admission that a wrong has been done. What would be so terrible if the most prestigious scientific institution in the world can admit that the evaluation report on Leitner and the way sh her the the nominations of her beginning of nineteen forty onward broke with standard their own standards of how to d deal with things. completely ignore important information and is dead wrong. I think I I in one or two lectures I'd have I said that the the final physics committee report in in f 46, if this was handed in to me by a a student, you know, you know question describe the process of the discovery of nuclear fission. because I'm a nice guy, I'd probably give a D minus. Although F yeah, F would be, you know, f I suggest you either Edic Houtain, who wrote that brief report, not not Lama Krutain, who's another Hutain comes comes later, either he is not qualified to to write to write the report, or it's just it's it's you know, as all evidence ports deliberate. effort to to bury her her her candidacy. And the the amount of errors, I mean essentially fr from very early on, there's this desire to say that when Mike Meitner was forced to leave Berlin and her chemical partner Otto Hahn continued, that that was the start of a new research program rather than the culmination I mean it it's yeah unfortunately we're probably running out of time, but the excellent work that Ruth Syme, chemist and historian of science, in her I think 1996 biography of of Weitner, just br brilliant work of going through all the Hahn's diaries, her diaries, the correspondence and so forth, sets the stage, you know, that there's no question It was her research program beginning in nineteen thirty-four that bring ha on on to that Hahn did not understand what was going on w with you know when they discuss the you know, as essentially, you know, they they're bombarding uranium nuclei with s slow neutrons. And at first it was thoughts Enrico Fermi and his group in Rome in nineteen thirty-four think that Since uranium is the heaviest atom, and the these recipe transguranic, you know, new new man-made, human-made elements. But the chemistry made no sense, the physics made no sense, and a few research groups, you know, was trying to make sense of it. And and Otto Hahn in one of the articles he writes alone without Mike Miren think there was 37. In German chemical. There can be no doubt about the reality of these transuranic elements. And it's Meitner who pushes him and the third member team, Fritz Rassmann, to redo Prussi experiments again and again. But you know, in in the reports, it's always as if Meitner is the one who. believed in the transuranics, and in fact even making it appear as if she was the only person to do that. and that same because it was very all all nuclear physicists assume that the transuranics were seemed to be real, but just things aren't making sense. And that Edicuta, he wrote the re evaluation report on Enrico Fermi, who gets a prize in 38. I mean if Fermi has so many brilliant discoveries and contributions, but they chose in part to give it to him for the discovery of the transuranic elements. And Houtain pushed for that in the report. And so he, in a way, you might say, wants to leave Meitner holding the bag of the transuranics. but you know again. Several Nobel Prize winners, like Niels Bohr, Arthur Compton, James Franck, to try to set the the story straight for the Swedes because during Hahn was not a member of the Nazi Party. He was at at risk. He cannot say that he was in contact with Meitner, who was although she had converted to Christianity, became Protestant in nineteen eight when she came to Berlin. She was biologically Jewish as far as the Nazis were concerned, and she escaped illegally. So for him to be in contact with her, yeah, she understood that. So, you know, the idea was they should publish separately. But no, I think I w the point I I was trying to make. But he well, you know, he just well, as far as profiles and courage and lack of courage, Han never admitted that he would she he he didn't understand vision. She was the one who understood it and corrected his mistakes. Yeah, and th those who nominated told what really happened behind the scenes in their letters of nomination, but they refused to to listen to to to any of that. no, it it it every time I've gone back and reread the the protocol and evaluations of Hahn and Meitner, I see more and more of this is just disgrace draw. Yeah. And and they w when when the play about this, Remembering Miss Meitner had its first performance in Gothenburg at science festival, there were commentators by a disciple of Mana Mana Siegma, who's the main strongman on the physics committee, who it was to his laboratory that she came. He was Niels Bohr and others pr pressured him to accept her as a refugee. And again, you'd say, here's a gift. He wants to get into nuclear physics. She's one of the world's leading ones, but the chemistry between them Did not work out. she was certainly used to being the boss in her own lab, given the fact she's in Berlin. She's you know one of the top nuclear physicists. She's invited to the big important Solvay conferences, not Siegband or any of his c c colleagues. but the yeah, so so afterwards the secretary the a different secretary of the physics committee was, well, at that time it wasn't they weren't used to dividing prices. He said, Well, hold it, let's let's take a look here. They were dividing prices, and regardless, Hang could have gotten it with for chemistry and Gi for physics. James Frank writes the Nuclear fission is the most important discovery in physics and for physics in the past decade. Whereas and then each time she's nominated to the physics prize, Siegbahn is say and with the committee behind him, that well, the chemists are evaluating relativity. We we're not going to bother with that. Knowing full well that the chemists already by nineteen forty say that fission was a purely chemical discovery, which it wasn't. And because in part the strong man on the chemistry committee, Tays Fedberg, he wants nuclear chemistry to be developed. You know, at that I mean he's several times he was the one behind the the physicists, Julio and Julio Perry got a chemistry prize in nineteen thirty five, remember that f for artificial for artificially induced radioactivity. Yeah, he's behind that. He he he wants nuclear chemistry to be developed and he wants to have his own big cyclotron to play to play with. but the yeah again and again, it it it's just one of many injustices i in in the history of the prices. And so so yeah, so Varani said that we don't divide weren't dividing the prices, and then the dis d a disciple of Sigband said, well, you know, there are these feminists and Zionists who are trying to promote promo Meitner. you know Yeah give give me a break. And he and he is writ written became one of the typical scientists writing history showing that you know Meitner never really deserves the prize and Dr. said that pro that the prize The Siegbahn was very justified. my Nana Siegbahn gets guards in 1925. And it was very controversial. In fact, the stat you know, it it did not fulfill the statutory requirements, but I get why with a little help from my friends in Uppsala. so again, you know, now because especially through Ruth Syme's wonderful work, you know, my and I would say in part also my s small contributions. the the the play was fairly recently had used in Valencia in Spain, for a a a big project on women and science that you know the the s school classes were brought to the play. Normal people would come in the evening, but there would be conferences and school activities about Women in science, discrimination in in general, it in in in in science, and mm f fabulous response. But the the actual reasons why she did not get the prize is often forgotten. And it has a lot to do with the very you know, they say, well, because of anti-Semitism or that she was a woman. both myself and with You you have you cannot find any concrete specific, you know, proof you know, proof of fact. But what you can certainly say is that being a woman, being considered, you know, ju Jewish, it was easier to marginalize her, especially an el an el elderly woman who wom who ha has her self respect and is not going to publicly, you know f fight f fight fight back. but the now my lack of sleep is getting to me a thicker like the the point I was I was trying trying to to to make the that yeah so so the thing is who is going to have authority in Sweden on nuclear matters at a time when Sweden is going nuclear? The I mean Siegmann had Mana Siegmann had been for years trying to do what most Swedish physics professors would not do, have alliances with industry, have alliances with the military. Then comes the atomic bomb. Meitner is wrongfully called the the mother or grandmother of the bomb, even though she was completely sh I mean the point is she was completely against military use of of of physics and and and and her physics. And the Swedish government sets up an atomic committee on, you know, doing nuclear power for peaceful purposes and plans for a Swedish atomic bomb. And both Svetbag and and the Siegbahn and and and Huten quite aware of my disposition. There is efforts by younger Swedish physicists with the backing of Niels Bohr, and and some very influential people in politics to break Siegmann's monopoly. He has the he has the big cyclotron, and his group has the monopoly on nuclear physics. Siegmann is expecting to be to rack in lots of money and be in control of things. And you know, again, he's not a nuclear physicist. And if she were to get a Nobel Prize, you know, you know, what's at stake? You know, you know, people just ask, what is at stake? Why couldn't they give a prize to her? You know, w it and again, you know, given the underlayer, you know, there there there is discrimination against women in in Swedish science at the time. And in especially in the a academy, it's been said. but Again, what what is what what are the stakes? You know, I think that always needs to to to to be to be asked. who's especially after the war what becomes an issue, unspoken, but you can clearly see the patent. Who would be given authority in the post war expansion of of sciences? who were to be the leaders of the growing armies of of researchers? out out there and and not the least in Sweden itself. And you know the what's almost in November, was it 45 or 46, what if we foot right after Leitner is once again ignored for for the prize, there's a I think even the New York Times quotes you know this article from a Swedish newspaper that Mana Siegmann promises he can deliver an atomic bomb to Sweden in two months if he gets enough money, which shows he doesn't understand what what's involved. The thing is, Sweden had low grade uranium bore that it was thought would be very useful, that they could u use that. and yeah, it it has it boils down to conferring authority and prestige and with withholding it to to to a great extent. And you know I guess she there's also the issue how how do you deal with that kind of injustice, that kind of slap in the face and which most of us experience at one time or another. And I think she chose n not to attack Otto Hahn who who comes to Stockholm to pick up his his prize and calls her his it gives the Swedish press the impression that she's his assistant and and not coming clean and and saying, you know, at that point he certainly could could have and keeping her dignity and holding on to her diaries and letters and getting it to archived and people at Root Seim coming along and and and myself and others who unravel what happened in the past and say it's it's time to redress an injustice And I think the silence of the Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Nobel establishment speaks for itself. I'm sure they have their reasons, perhaps I don't understand, but I I think it would be applauded if they and if it would be to their advantage if you break down this especially the mass media belief of this. relatively perfect system of choosing the the best. And because the pressure on the committee members and the is is incredible. You know, that to make a mistake, to be accused of ignoring that listen Professor Blog there was actually, you know, much, much, you know, of as important as as those who who get the prize. it's a human institution and full of human frailties. And there's nothing wrong with that. And you know, when you have countries defining research policy based on, you know, to bring a Nobel prize to our country, you know, within ten years, that that doesn't sound right because there are many very important sciences that are not included in the Nobel cat categories or universities, you know I mean My own University University of Oslo, you know. You know, on the our Nobel Prize winners. And the most important the the the one who got it in chemistry, Od Hassel, when he got it, he said, No, no, no, no. Victor Maritz Goldschmidt, who was then dead over it, he should have gotten it. He was a genius. I was just, you know, as a a smart guy. And and you have Great contributions to environmental sciences, oceanography and meet meat meteorology, that are just not not not included. So it in in a way, I guess it's makes it easy for information officers at universities and research councils and science journalists to try to define. excellence. But excellence is much, much broader and deeper than the the no the Nobel Prizes. And I I think it does injustice to to science and to the accomplishments of of so many. yeah let's you know definitely celebrate and applause for for those who who do receive it. But just like the Oscars, you know and and the melody gradu the you know, it's a ritual. You come back year after year, even as you say, How the heck could they give, you know, the the prize? But you still still put buy in buy into it. I think would the imp but but I mean I believe art and and film art is of great importance, but science is of extraordinary importance. And i i and those who devote themselves deserve more than you know the this obsession and fixation on the prize. Yeah, and the the number of encyclopedias and dictionaries and Nobel Prize winners, yeah and and Yeah. Well when the Nobel Foundation itself starts publishing Nobel the Man and His Prizes And they have committee members writing about each prize. Marna Siegban writes the fur I think the first or second edition. The history of physics, you know, the 20th century up to this point, this way either can be written as the history of the Nobel Prize winners. There are many important memes. And and also progress doesn't happen that way. You know, the And it gives a false and many many commentators and critics have said it gives a false impression of how science works and how progress in science and comes about. Yeah, and and and and not the least you know, when you have these massive laboratory experiments which dependent on huge teams, give it to to the institution at at least. yeah, so. Yeah, no, I I completely agree. And what I think you mentioned the Oscars there. What there's g always going to be some controversy when it comes to people judging other people, right? People we are all biased, we all have our our i ideas, our our politics, our views. So no not a single human on this entire planet is completely unbiased and and completely can judge something from a blank slate. It's it's just impossible. However, the the big difference with a price like the Oscars is that movies are something that are very accessible to the general public, right? Everyone can go to the cinema and they can see, I like the new James Bond movie. Well I like the Spider Man movie better. People are able to form opinions On movies and they can debate about it. However, when it comes to science, at least in view of the general public, it's much harder to keep track of what everyone is doing. For most people, the only thing they really hear about scientific discoveries is either when something big is in the news regarding space, for example, and the Nobel Prize. And that's a shame because there are so many scientists. Who do incredible work, but somehow the focus seems to be entirely on the Nobel Prize. And many very important work seems to be, I wouldn't say dismissed, but very underappreciated because of something like it. But I agree. I mean, the people winning the prizes, especially this week, I mean, they're all fantastic scientists and they do incredibly important work. But I think It was part of the reason why I wanted to do this episode to also emphasize that it is still people involved and people are by their nature biased. So we can never get a perfect meritocracy where the best scientist also always wins the prize because people will be people. Yes, I agree completely. Yeah. And and there's nothing wrong with that. And and to to use the word bias i is not meant to be Prajority, you know, it just that's the way we are. We had limited insights, knowledge. we we might prefer you know, e even if it's a a f a branch of physics or chemistry that is not mine, you can appreciate wow. That just appeals to my aesthetic sense, you know, because science is not just facts and numbers. You know, there's the the beauty of of a particular experiment and how it was set up and conceived and and and and and pr pr pr brought into existence, you know, and and conducted. and all these things put play in. And yeah, I mean and and and what what what I certainly s saw in in my studies is that there were committee members who really endeavored to overcome their own biases, their own limitations, you know, of of specialization. whereas others c came in, you know, to the committee room with the axes of self interest, you know, to to promote a particular specialty, to promote the network of colleagues, and and and so forth. So it's it's a combination. And and I I think it's simply a matter of there's a kaleidoscope of human factors in involved here and we need to respect that. We know you know university, you know, committees t to hire professors. Yeah, lots of things can happen. And and and all all prizes. I've been on prize committees and and even though I I know how yeah pri Prizes are are are as you say, they're they're very human. and yet I when I have received p a prize, yeah, I'm really pleased and and you know that it it helps you, it it does advance your yeah your agendas and so forth. I I I guess there's no no no getting around that. But and if if if people with good sense and I would include science journalists, you know, realize that and and and university administrators and politicians that it's is an imperf imperfect system. I yeah, I I've thought of you know the you know China had been quite I think in the nineteen nineties changed research policy to try to get no Nobel Prize. And it occurred to me, you know, what if China, especially now, yeah, with the resources and you know that that they they're they are becoming the world's leading science nation. certainly getting the pressure of being able to compete for that. And United States, well, no need to go into that. But let's say you have a school of seismology in China or or another country that yeah Japan that makes major breakthroughs in re understanding Play tectonics. And and through that new understanding of how you know these with the earth's mantle is being moving around and the able to predict earthquakes in i in a serious manner. You know, that it's b it enables predictions of of earthquake that would be a major scientific contribution and a major benefit on mankind. Humankind, the correct Nobel's language. a and a great achievement, you know, both saving god knows how many lives and so forth and and great understanding of how the earth's mapped crust and geophysical properties function. But that would not be eligible for a Nobel Prize. Wha w what what what is is that physics? I mean, they the physics committee might because get bend the boundaries of physics to to to include it, but you would have a a major breakthrough that any nation, any institute would be extremely proud of, and yet not Nobel Prize winning. the same thing, I mean they they've you know was what would that numerical weather forecasting, the theoretical. basis of to make numerical weather forecasting, that is an an extraordinary s significant cont contribution. And you know it was assume you know that's not that's not physics. so yeah, so I think the it it's a greater challenge to I mean i in in in in film in the world of film we do know and and people who know enough about that Yeah, the Oscars and Litney K yeah, that th the other prizes are more important, you know, yeah, to to get what are really creative, innovative b films. We need more of those sorts of people in the world of of science. And think maybe I don't I don't wanna make a general statement about science journalism, because they'll they'll kill me. and but I have seen things that really made me scratch my head, you know, the the lack of understanding of history of science, of how with history or or of how how to think about excellence and w what to report. I I I do think for those who are interested of I mean nature and science and now have weekly updates you know of things that are happening and the New York Times science or also And it's a lot easier, I think, to see and follow the wonderful developments happening in in science. But in the end, you know the ministers of science in higher education in different countries, you know, the politicians, the heads of universities, they need to get their heads screwed on right also as far as these things. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Well that I think that's a good way to end it. yeah, again, Robert Mark, I think you've wrote an entire book about it, you've wrote a p paper about it, you're planning to write another book about it. So there's so much to discuss, but I think the general takeaway is is pretty clear. before we w wrap it up today, if people are interested in perhaps reading your book or or finding some more of your work, the writing that you have done, is there a place where they could go? The the book has been out of print for quite a while. And I think there are some pirate editions. I I would say well I I think our the the Einstein Chris is analyzed in an open on online edition of an Annalen der Physik, but I think Wiley. has a popular science site. I think it's called science. I forget the name. I'll look it up. I'll look it up. I mean because that that that'll I think that that will give a good impression of the Einstein which will s say a lot. The I have a number of a good number of articles, but I s I stopped publishing quite a while back and the tragedy with the politics of excellence you know sort of I I I just turned to other other things and I got pulled into other projects. But I had the for those who read Spanish or or Catalan or Italian, the the play about Meitner with a little historical background are available. I don't have it's gonna hold up one of the that nice book book covers of of of them. let's just hope that I get the I I maybe by next year at this time we'll be ready to publish I think my tentative title is Rethinking Nobel Excellence. And and it's going to be not as dense, you know, this is the I I I I unfortunately had a major back problem the last month so I was going to edit it down the book. It's v it's very comprehensive, seventy pages of end notes, but I think a reader-friendly book that makes the arguments, gives the examples, without the amount of detail that that I had there w will will be coming so Let's hope. Yeah, perfect. I'll be on the lookout for it. Let me know when it's out. I'm I'm happy to to spread the word and yeah we're trying to get an agent. And and I mean I haven't haven't tried yet. I I mean because they're gonna be a new Chinese edition of Politics of Excellence. cool. And and I and that's coming out in December. And I've last I heard. And I reread the book for the first time after twenty twenty-five years. And I said, my God, this is really impressive. I yeah, I I you know I'm it's open acceptable, I'm not full of myself. there's a good deal of research and thought in in in involved and and it's just tragic that Two months before publication with W. H. Freeman, the van Holt Spring group shut down the trade list at Fringman and gave the book to Henry Holt, which was alre already finished with its full lineup and publicity and everything. They didn't know what to do with it. And then without an agent and without an editor, the World Trade Center the attacks, nine eleven attacks on the US. And you know, if it just Yeah, I I I had to send out review copies to and and it received laudatory, very laudatory re re reviews, but it there was no marketing, no publicity, yeah, and it was just w w word word of mouth and I think it was supposed to be I I know one National Science Foundation referee wrote the entire world is waiting for this book. Well, look at that. W wait a bit a bit longer. And I just was so devastated by what happened after so many years of of of of work and feeling so ho because Henry Hulk does not deal with authors, they they deal with agents and I did and I was asked not to have an agent by the editor with whom I signed up with with Freeman and who left Freeman very soon thereafter. So I I it I made every mistake an author pick can make. And I just it was too painful to go back actually and p pick it up again. And but I then Yeah, I also have a play about Einstein at Five Stance Nobel Prize and the whole context, which I'm hoping will be workshopped in London next year and go to to a production. and w what what's interesting, the s some members of the Nobel establishment would not comment anything about the book or the nature article other than privately. But the play, you know the play makes people talk and if and It's not the way to reach young people. well, on on the other hand, what we saw in Valencia, the whole Valencia province and in a a few other cities in Spain where the excellent actors and theater group took it. There was in in Santander, a huge theater, and it they had a matinee filled up over a thousand seats with secondary school. students and the head of the theater told me in the evening she couldn't believe it not a single smartphone was turned on and that they were actually listening because the young people are concerned about injustices. At least I assume they still are, but this was twenty twenty-one, twenty twenty-two. And and I've seen on YouTube secondary school kid writing rock songs about Lisa Mike. Yeah, you know, and playing pla pla playing music. And yeah, there's a could be a way of combining stage play with other ways of of of of of wit reaching out. I'm thinking of a graphic novel about that Norwegian side, that Victor Maritz Goldschmidt, who also should have gotten a Nobel Prize for his work in crystal chemistry and geochemistry. and and but among other things. So yeah the that I say my sleeves are rolled up and it's not it's never too late to get to work for a good word. I think being pro science, you know p you know some w people think I'm against X you know, let's do one of these radicals. I I'm radically against Stupidity and provincialism. But I think there are plenty of young people who should be going into science, who had the headport, who are turned off by extreme competition. And you know, the Nobel Prize certainly is oil on the fire of ex existing high comp high highly competitive research environments. And There was that in fact an another reason I decided to return was that book a few years ago losing the Nobel Prize. I think Brian Keating, cosmologist who this big competition to make this pro major discovery that was expected in cosmology. And because he he and all the people giving him loads of money wanted that Nobel Prize. And he thinks he makes the discovery, does what a good scientist should not do, holding a press conference before it's been peer-reviewed and announces the discovery. And it turns out he overlooked a source of error and a major embarrassment. And w wrote the book, you know, against these hyper competitive cultures in in in in in in science and also calling for reforms there were prices. And it occurred to me, first of all, it's disgusting, you know, that kind of competition and all the money involved. Of course there needs to be money, but can it be done in a a different way? But he had no historical perspective on competition in science, you know, yeah, how it's developed, you know, and and why it's gotten this way. And his insight into the workings of the Nobel Science prize is very very, very slender. So I imagine it was call for the Academy to make reforms was dead on arrival because you know he doesn't even understand the basics, but because the book won prices, prices and etcetera, etcetera, may maybe there has been some follow up. But who knows. We shall see. Yeah, we shall see. Let's stay touch about it. rubber mark, thanks again. And I and I'm going to follow your podcast. Yeah, well you have. So you have one one additional and I'm not one who does that, but I I think there there there are there's many interesting topics on there. There's the science, there's technology, and yeah, there's there's some philosophy going on there, psychology, while history sometimes now. So it's but it's but yeah it's mostly su it's pretty science heavy. So you you you might enjoy it. But thank you so much for for coming on on on such a short notice, Robert Mark. You you you're fantastic and you're so knowledgeable about it all. So yeah, I I really appreciate it and let's let's stay in touch. Okay. And I appreciate your patience. as I said, I no more than three and a half hours of sleep and I can't belief that we've gone two hours. And and I think some of what I've said might even be coherent. It was, it was for sure. But that's impressive, right? We went two hours there almost as long as you've slept.