I applaud it. The winner developed in vitro fertilization, which has helped millions of parents. In contrast to last year’s prize for telomere research, which has helped no one. Notice what in vitro fertilization is not: It is not taking a powerful poorly-tested drug for the rest of your life — the drug industry’s preferred answer to all problems. It is not expensive (given the benefits). Unlike health care in general. It is not dangerous, unlike many drugs and surgeries. It is not molecular biology. It is barely science (uncovering cause and effect). If the prize were given for research like this year after year, many biologists who now dream of winning a Nobel Prize would stop dreaming. It is not a typical Nobel Prize. They waited so long to award it that the winner became demented. Above all, the prize-winning work was not mainstream medical research. The winner and his collaborator endured “an unremitting barrage of criticism”, unlike almost any other medical researcher.
The award is unflattering to medical ethicists, who did a lot to try to prevent the prize-winning work.
There’s no better sign that a technological advance has been useful than the fact that it was opposed for decades by those who dedicated their lives to telling others how they ought to feel.
Sounds like your complaints about the past winners were heard in Stockholm
John, that’s a good point. And it raises an interesting question: how did those medical ethicists manage to convince other people to pay them — to give them a full-time job! — to tell the rest of us how to feel? In particular, when to feel bad. Quite an achievement. Other academic jobs have at least a vague connection with improving people’s lives.
I don’t think the Noble prize should be held in such reverence any longer. It results in stupid competition amongst scientists. Nassim Taleb has rightly criticized the “Nobel” prize in economics. It is perhaps time to evaluate whether the Nobel prize should be held in such high regards due to it is clearly a subjective and flawed way of selecting. Though it does bring attention to science amongst the general public.
Can’t say it isn’t dangerous. In vitro paves the way for: Octomoms, 70-year old moms who die from cancer after being exposed to all the hormones needed to maintain pregnancy, …eugenics. There’s pluses and minuses with everything.