Lobotomies, Nobel Prizes and a budget of questions

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Have you heard about the campaign to repeal the Nobel Prize awarded to Egaz Moniz, pioneer of the frontal lobotomy? An organisation consisting of relatives of patients who have been permanently incapacitated by this now mostly discredited procedure is pressurising the Nobel Foundation to posthumusly strip Moniz of his Nobel Prize. The Nobel Foundation has no provisions for such an act, and as a matter of policy does not pay attention to objections to their awards, such as the controversial Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat.

Do you think that this may raise questions over the value of the Nobels Prizes? Should they be subject to outside opinions, or does that open them up to becoming mere popularity contests? In scientific fields, where new discoveries can supersede existing theories rapidly, does it make sense to retroactively strip once-pioneers of their recognition, just because their ideas have now been superceded? Can't it be argued they provided an important step in the ongoing scientific quest, much as Newton's physics helped contribute to an understanding of the universe that in turn lead to Einstein's insights?

Or is this a special case - when a contribution like Moniz' has had such a negative human fallout, does he deserve to be a Nobel Laureate? What about Madame Curie?

What d'you think?

Here's an article on this: http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050714_lobotomy.html

(In a rather grisly side-bar, Moniz was shot and aparalysed by a dissatisfied lobotomy patient in 1939 and beaten to death in 1955 - by another dissatisfied lobotomee.)

 

[dwndrgn]

They should not posthumously strip his award. That prize was given to who/what they felt was the 'winner' at the time. Just as you've said, science is riddled with new theories debunking old ones...that's the whole nature of it. Regardless of whether his procedure is seen as good or bad, he no doubt furthered scientific exploration. That is more in line with what I feel is the spirit of the Nobel prizes anyway. Not necessarily because someone did something wonderful, but continue to do wonderful things and thereby encouraging others to do so as well.

 

[Leto]

I don't know about lobotomy as I don't have enough medical knowledge from it. But in Pierre and Marie Curie case, their discovery led to nuke bomb true, but also to radiographic medical displays. And the latter helped save more lives than the former ended. Science discoveries can be used badly or good. Science Nobel prize only award the discovery, not the uses done with it. Hence he shouldn't be stripped of it, although I doubt he cares now he's dead.

Not sure if I am clear, not enough sleep recently.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

I'm not sure what actual "benefit" being a nobel laureate brings?
Fame? - I certainly couldn't name many of the winners
Respect of their peers? - Surely they already have it to have been considered for nomination in the first place?

That being said, I'm not exactly chuffed to bits to hear that the 'pioneer' of Lobotomies got one. Quack medicine more in common with drilling holes in the head to release evil spirits IMO

I suppose my feeling is that he shouldn't have been awarded it in the first place, but can you strip an award given many, many years after the fact? Considering he's long dead, and his ideas are no longer thought acceptable.

Mind you, I can think of a few Oscar winners I would love to do that to

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I'm not sure what actual "benefit" being a nobel laureate brings?
Fame? - I certainly couldn't name many of the winners

Personally, I can name several, but that's something that varies depending on how interested you actually are. One benefit of being a Nobel laureate is that it's the only award for scientific or academic achievements that the general public is aware of, and even if you can't name the winners, being told that so-and-so is a Laureate probably makes the average person think 'oh, they must be a smart cookie then', and is probably helpful in seeking funding for new research or for any institution a laureate is associated with.

 

[Foxbat]

I don't think he should be stripped of his award but perhaps the whole choice process needs to be amended. A 'Provisional Laureate' perhaps. Only after much research and, maybe, a set period of time - in which the recipient's work can be seen to be beneficial could the award then be finalised (or removed - although I suppose the cash benefit would have to remain).

Just Brainstorming