Dr. Raymond Damadian has taken out full page ads in several papers protesting his failure to be included among Nobel winners for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). I thought his breastbeating over “this shameful wrong” was very strange; this sort of thing happens often in science, and no one has ever made such a public stink as far as I can recall. Then I found sites claiming Damadian was excluded because he is an advocate of “creation science.” Are these claims just silly, or was Damadian robbed? How focused is the Nobel committee to the general scientific outlook of a researcher, as opposed to their specific achievements? Any MRI experts out there also believe this is a “shameful wrong”?
Yes, I knew about the 50 years of secrecy shrouding the deliberations. I was hoping someone would know of previous situations where a scientist has failed to win because, or won in spite of, their unpalatable politico-religious beliefs.
This is the paragraph which (IMO) supports my contention that Damadian was more on the bidnis end. Also, please note that I do not believe his snotty behavior (turning away from Lauterbur when he went to shake his hand at the award ceremony w/ Reagan, etc.) affects the quality of his work, nor should his religion. I am asking if belief in creationism could have been a factor in the decision of the Nobel committee.
IMO, a person holding Creationism as true is not a scientist for Creationism is not science. Full stop. Its underlying philosophy runs completely contrary to that of science.
Except that’s not really relevant because the mandate of the Nobel Committee is to give the prize to the individual who makes the most important contribution to medicine or physiology, not the scientist who does so. Perhaps if he was unethical or unscientific in his approach that would be grounds for striking him out, but it doesn’t seem fair to exclude him on the basis of his other beliefs (assuming that’s what happened).
There is no such thing as the Nobel Committee. The prizes in different categories are awarded by several different bodies (although some of them might have something called a Nobel committee).
And now for something completely different. I heard a discussion in the radio about why Damadian wasn’t included. The reason, if I remember correctly, is that what Lauterbur and Mansfield got the prize for is only partly related to Damadian’s work and he is just one of several people that they had based their work on, so all in all it was in order that he wasn’t mentioned.
When I saw this thread title, I thought it was proposing that the Nobel committee impose fines on creationists because of their retardation of scientific progress. That might not be such a bad idea.
A number of Nobel laureates for the Peace prize have been religious figures (Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu) and were/are presumably creationists; I don’t think there’s a Nobel requirement that nominees toe some “Secular Humanist” line. I guess when Creation Science comes through with a breakthrough in its own field on the level of decoding the human genome or something (Maybe they could debunk Cell Pathology in a manner that stands up to peer review?), we’ll know if they were really robbed at the ceremony.
Until then, they’re free to institute and award their own prizes at their own discretion and expense.
“Our first fine for the significant retardation of science goes to… Ken Ham!”
BTW check out this creationist article on “Super Scientist Damadian,” in which he says international violations of his MRI patent are “a symptom of a more widespread disease afflicting our society,” i.e., it is not Christy enough. :rolleyes:
I’m not all that familiar with Nobel nominating and selection procedure, but do they view conspicuous lobbying for the prize by the proposed beneficiary as tactless? One of the press releases on Dr. Damadian’s site refers to his version of the history having been provided to the Nobel Committee. If he or his company was providing that information in a transparent effort to lobby for inclusion on the prize, could that have been held against him? I could see where that might be the case, but I’m not sure to what extent personal lobbying is actually done or not done.
The reasons stated by those in the know for Damadian not being included are perfectly rational and make a lot of sense even if you don’t agree that he should have been excluded. Making up a reason (his belief in creationism) that has no actual evidence does not make sense.
Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. Usually, even.
Why should we think Mother Teresa or Desmond Tutu were creationists in the evolution-rejecting sense? Neither the Catholic church nor the Anglican have any issues with modern science.
