should a creationist be allowed to win a nobel prize?

[treepig]

and if not, should he or she be annoyed? here's the story:

Fact #1: Raymond Damadian "invented" MRI

WHY DR. DAMADIAN’S DISCOVERY IS THE KEY
TO ALL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

“The initial concept for the medical application of NMR, as it was then called, originated with the discovery by Raymond Damadian in 1971 that certain mouse tumours displayed elevated relaxation times compared with normal tissues in vitro. This exciting discovery opened the door for a complete new way of imaging the human body where the potential contrast between tissues and diseases was many times greater than that offered by X-ray technology and ultrasound.” MRI From Picture To Proton, McRobbie, Moore, Graves and Prince, (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

In 1970, Raymond Damadian, M.D., made the seminal discovery that started MRI, namely that there is a marked difference in T1 and T2 relaxation times between normal and abnormal tissues of the same type, as well as between different types of normal tissues.(Science, 1971)

http://www.fonar.com/discovery.htm

Fact #2: the nobel prize in medicine was awarded for the development of MRI this year, by Dr. Damadian was not an awardee

reference - do a google search, you'll find plenty.

Hypothesis - Dr. Damadian was "overlooked" because he's a "creation nut":

Knox, along with Reason magazine's Ronald Bailey, suggested another reason Damadian may have been disregarded: He's a devout Christian (see this 1997 profile in Christianity Today sister publication Christian Reader) who believes in creationism. In fact, he's on the Technical Advisory Board for the Institute for Creation Research, and on the reference board for Answers in Genesis's upcoming Creation Museum.

"He's identified by many web sites as a prominent creation scientist," Knox said. "I have no first-hand knowledge of his beliefs, but it's fair to say that most scientists are not creationists and tend to look askance at scientists who believe that way, but it's really impossible to know if the Nobel Committee took that into account."

Bailey similarly writes, "I have no inside information, but I wonder if the committee was swayed by the fact that Damadian, although a brilliant inventor, is apparently a creation science nut. In ironic contrast, Lauterbur's current research is on the chemical origins of life."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/140/51.0.html


Analysis/discussion - if it's correct that Dr. Damadian was not given his share of the nobel prize because of his religious views, is that an outrage, or just desserts for clearly not having a clue?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Never attribute to malice...

That which is better explained by someone else's more important discovery.

[LibLabUK]

2. Hmm.. interesting

From The Nobel eMuseum:

Paul Lauterbur (born 1929), Urbana, Illinois, USA, discovered the possibility to create a two-dimensional picture by introducing gradients in the magnetic field. By analysis of the characteristics of the emitted radio waves, he could determine their origin. This made it possible to build up two-dimensional pictures of structures that could not be visualized with other methods.

Peter Mansfield (born 1933), Nottingham, England, further developed the utilization of gradients in the magnetic field. He showed how the signals could be mathematically analysed, which made it possible to develop a useful imaging technique. Mansfield also showed how extremely fast imaging could be achievable. This became technically possible within medicine a decade later.

Hmm.. seems to me that his discovery wasn't in the same league as the discoveries made by Sir Peter Mansfield and
Paul Lauterbur. So I think he was rightfully left out of the award.


I don't think it was his religious views that prevented his being awarded the prize, rather it was his not being involved with the actual development of the technique to the same degree.

It seems to me that the reason these people are claiming he's been left out is simply because of his religious views and his employment history. The creationists want a Nobel Laureate to give them some credibility, in the same way as the Libertarians use Milton Friedman's prize. The company wants the prize because it will look good in it's prospectus.

Should your religious views affect your potential to win a prize? I don't think they should, your science, economics, writing or humanitarian work shoudl stand up as the sole justification for your nomination for the prize.

[papau]

3. You are correct in my opinion - Damadian did not deserve any prize

NMR was around long before Damadian.

He did write a paper that suggested that NMR could be used to differentiate cancerous tissue from non cancerous tissue.

NMR equipement could not then do people sized living objects.

He gathered a dataset that seemed to show the two tissue types (cancer, non-canser) indeed had different "signatures" (emitted different radio resonance waves) but never verified the paper. Sadly, Damadian's original paper and results could not be duplicated.

The paper gave him a patent - and folks do say it got them thinking what if such a machine could be built - how would it be built.

But Ray couldn't get his machine to work very well - but he did chase GE Medical Systems through the courts and did get $100 million for that patent.

Do you get a Nobel for attempting an MRI - but with always getting a pretty much useless result? - indeed his original paper has been discredited by follow up research.

I agree with Ray as to a God as the head of the universe and I suspect Genesis does contain a literal cosmology, and we know that evolution has had to be modified so as to "explain" the stop and start nature of the data on changes. None of this means squat as to his deserving the Nobel. He does not.

But while T1/T2 had been around for decades, he was first to realize - albeit not really show - that they could be used for imaging. Indeed in the the patent suit, Lauderbur's notebook revealed that he had been directly inspired by Damadian.

But Ray never produced an "image" that could be used clinically until he adopted Lauderbur's magnetic gradient ideas.

We don't give credit for just a design that did not work.

[treepig]

5. "what, do they hand out nobel prizes for attempted chemistry?"

(an approximate quote from sideshow bob when finding out he was being charged with attempted murder)

anyhow, thanks to you and other posters for some perspective on this issue. i first saw it raised in the december 2003 issue of the Smithsonian magazine, which generally doesn't seem to have much of a political agenda, and would tend to a pro-science slant if anything. therefore, if they thought it was worth mentioning, i figured there might be something to this guy's persecution complex - glad to hear otherwise (although i suppose it will give the creationist crowd something to cry about for the next umpteenth years).

[Dudley_DUright]

4. This is bunk

There have been lots of very devout scientists of all religious backgrounds that have won Nobel prizes. This guy's contributions to the actual experimental technique of MRI imaging are not apparent from the material cited above. In any case, other Nobel winners have had some pretty wacky ideas. Brian Josephson in physics comes to mind.

<snip>

It's no surprise when entering the office of a physics professor to find that space is at a premium, with books and research papers piled high on every available surface. In that respect, the office of Brian Josephson on the top floor of the Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge is no exception. But it would be wrong to conclude that Josephson is a typical physicist, and a quick glance at those books reveals why. With titles such as Consciousness explained and Clairvoyant reality, it is apparent that he is interested in subjects well beyond the scope of the average physicist.

Josephson is best known for his pioneering theoretical work on superconductivity, which led to the invention of the Josephson junction and earned him a share of the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics. Josephson junctions are the key components in superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs). which are widely used to make extremely sensitive measurements of magnetic fields. But these days, Josephson is the director of the "Mind-matter unification project" at the Cavendish. He spends his time thinking about how the brain works, investigating topics such as language and consciousness, and pondering the fundamental connections between music and the mind. Most controversially, as far as physicists are concerned, he carries out speculative research on the nature of paranormal phenomena, a field known as parapsychology.

<snip>

more...

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/PWprofile.html

[NNadir]

6. According to a recent Chemical and Engineering News

Damadian held the first patent on an imagining scheme and published an earlier paper than Lauterbaur. However his paper was later shown to have errors. Lauterbaur had a note in one of his notebooks referring to Damadian's work, but this sort of thing isn't unprecedented in Nobel winning work.

Lise Meitner never won the Nobel Prize, though many argue she should have done so. Rosalind Franklin had a great deal to do with Watson and Crick's DNA prize; they may not have won it without her work. Some people also feel she was shafted.

Unorthodox opinions to not necessarily preclude Nobel Prizes if they are unrelated to the field. William Shockley, the American discoverer of the transistor, and a Nobel Laureate was a famous racist. Phillip Lenard and Johannes Stark were two German Nobel Laureates who were also active Nazis. Heisenberg's position in this Nazi business is still highly debated. It is true that the opinions of these three all came to be known after their prizes were won, but it is doubtful that there was any poll of their private opinions.

[treepig]

7. since Rosalind Franklin was dead when the DNA nobel prize

was awarded, she was not eligible - therefore it's probably not correct to say she was "shafted"

of course, there could be factors i'm not aware of - for example, if she was known to be in poor health, and the nobel committee deliberately delayed awarding the prize until she died - then the "shafting" characterization would indeed apply.

[NNadir]

8. You are right and I am wrong. I stand corrected.

She died in 1958 and the prize was in 1962. I remembered the story incorrectly as I knew she was estranged from those fellows.

Meitner was another matter.

[BrokenSegue]

9. Issues

The problem is more copmlex than his beliefs.
He was the original creator of the MRI system thus he should rightly get the Nobel under the Nobel guidelines. It becomes fuzzy after that because the men who did win made MRI useful and better quality so it has the applications it has today.

[NNadir]

10. Damadian apparently never built a workable system.

Lauterbur did.

So he is not the creator. Lauterbur did more than refine an existing system.