Buzz
Securing a Nobel Prize is regarded as the pinnacle of achievement for a scientist. However, the prize comes with certain stipulations that sometimes lead to deserving individuals being overlooked. Notably, the Nobel can only be awarded to living scientists at the time of presentation, and no more than three recipients can share a single prize. As a result, some scientists who made significant contributions to their fields were never recognized with this prestigious honor. While this list is open to interpretation, I will present strong arguments that the following individuals were indeed worthy of a Nobel Prize.
10. Andrew Benson Pioneering Research on Carbon Fixation in Plants
Every biology student eventually learns about the Calvin cycle—the set of biochemical reactions in plants that enable carbon dioxide fixation. These processes, taking place within chloroplasts, are the foundation of plant energy. Gaining insight into the mechanism of carbon fixation is crucial for understanding the very essence of life on our planet.
The Calvin cycle was clarified using radioactive molecules, which enabled researchers to trace the steps of the cycle. By introducing carbon-14 labeled carbon dioxide, scientists were able to follow the path of carbon from the atmosphere to the final carbohydrate products. This groundbreaking work was carried out by Melvin Calvin, Andrew Benson (shown – right), and James Bassham. However, when the Nobel Prize was awarded for this exceptional achievement in 1961, it was only given to Calvin. Tensions seem to have arisen between Calvin and Benson, as Calvin's autobiography notably omits any mention of Benson, despite acknowledging numerous other collaborators. There is ample evidence of Benson’s contribution, making the omission difficult to justify. To acknowledge Benson’s role, some researchers refer to the cycle as the Benson-Calvin cycle. Today, the cycle is most commonly known as the C3 cycle—an elegant title for an elegant process.
9. Dmitri Mendeleev Creator of the Periodic Table of Elements
While Mendeleev wasn’t the first to organize the elements or to propose a periodicity in their chemical properties, his accomplishment was in defining this periodicity and arranging the elements accordingly. His table accurately predicted future discoveries. Earlier attempts to organize the elements included all known ones, but they were flawed, as they left no room for undiscovered elements. Mendeleev’s table, on the other hand, had gaps where these unknown elements should be placed. From these gaps, predictions about their properties were made based on the established periodicity. This periodic law forms a cornerstone of both chemistry and physics.
Mendeleev lived until 1907, leaving plenty of time for him to be honored with a Nobel Prize for his work. In fact, he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1906, and many believed he would win. However, Arrhenius, who was thought to have a personal rivalry with Mendeleev, campaigned for the award to go to Henri Moissan for his work with fluorine. Whether or not a grudge existed between the two men, Mendeleev passed away in 1907, making him ineligible for the Prize.
It’s worth mentioning that another scientist, Julius Lothar Meyer, should also be credited with developing a periodic table of elements. Meyer’s table, created just a few months after Mendeleev’s, was nearly identical to the Russian’s version. At the time, many acknowledged Meyer’s achievement as being almost on par with Mendeleev’s. However, Meyer passed away in 1895, which meant he was never eligible for the Nobel Prize.
8. Fred Hoyle Pioneer in Stellar Nucleosynthesis
Fred Hoyle is perhaps best remembered for coining the term 'Big Bang' to describe the origin of the universe. Interestingly, Hoyle initially used the term in a mocking manner, intending to poke fun at those who believed the universe had a definitive beginning with a 'big bang.' Beyond this, Hoyle made significant contributions to understanding the formation of heavier elements in the universe. He proposed that hydrogen and helium are transformed into heavier elements within stars, where nuclear fusion provides the necessary energy. Hoyle's groundbreaking paper, 'Synthesis of the Elements in Stars,' laid the foundation for the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. He coauthored the paper with Margaret Burbidge, Geoffrey Burbidge, and William Fowler. In 1983, Fowler was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, alongside Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, for their work on element formation through stellar fusion.
Various theories have been proposed to explain why Hoyle was overlooked for the Nobel Prize. As an early advocate for stellar nucleosynthesis, he made substantial contributions to the theoretical work, making his exclusion puzzling. Hoyle was known for supporting controversial theories, which may have hindered his chances of being selected. His rejection of the Big Bang theory, which he mockingly named, likely played a role in his absence from the Nobel Prize. Additionally, Hoyle’s opposition to the idea of chemical evolution as a mechanism for the origin of life, a central concept in evolutionary theory, contributed to his reputation within certain intellectual circles, particularly those aligned with intelligent design.
7. Jocelyn Bell Burnell Discoverer of Pulsars
The discovery of pulsars was an accidental breakthrough made while studying radio emissions from stars, originally to examine scintillation caused by solar wind. The research required the use of a large radio telescope, which Jocelyn Bell, as a PhD student, helped build on four acres of land using a thousand posts and over 120 miles of wire. Bell’s work involved sifting through vast amounts of data for scintillating radio signals. While reviewing this data, she spotted an anomaly that she felt warranted further investigation. Upon closer examination, this anomaly revealed a consistent pulse occurring every 1.3 seconds. When Bell showed her findings to her supervisor, Antony Hewish, they were initially dismissed as man-made interference, since a 1.3-second interval was considered too short for something as large as a star to produce such a signal. The signal was humorously named LGM-1 (Little Green Men–1). However, as more similar pulses were discovered across the sky, it became clear these were natural phenomena, which were then named pulsars, short for pulsating stars.
In recognition of his work in radio astronomy and, specifically, 'his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars,' Antony Hewish was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1974. He shared the prize with another radio astronomer, yet Jocelyn Bell, who played a crucial role in the discovery and tirelessly pursued the anomalous signal, was not included in the award, despite having identified the first four pulsars. While many believe Bell was overlooked, she has expressed support for the Nobel committee's decision.
6. Nikola Tesla Pioneer of Radio Communication
In 1909, the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to Guglielmo Marconi for his pioneering work in radio communication. There is no denying Marconi’s significant contributions to the field, including his development of a law that linked the height of a radio antenna to the range it could broadcast. Marconi is often hailed as the father of long-distance radio communication. However, there is a strong argument that the prize should have been shared with Nikola Tesla.
Nikola Tesla has achieved a near-mythical status, with numerous strange and eccentric stories surrounding his life. Tesla began lecturing on the potential of radio communication as early as 1891 and soon began demonstrating wireless telegraphy devices. Between 1898 and 1903, Tesla was granted several patents for his inventions related to radio. Due to the complex nature of patent law, it wasn't until the 1940s that U.S. courts recognized that Tesla's work on radio predated that of Marconi. Given this, Tesla has a strong case for being included in the 1909 Nobel Prize, which was awarded to Marconi.
Tesla's work spanned numerous fields where he might have been eligible for a Nobel Prize. He is best remembered for his role in developing alternating current (AC) and its transmission via high-voltage dynamos. Tesla’s main rival was Thomas Edison, who championed direct current (DC). It is often claimed, though it remains difficult to verify, that the fierce rivalry between the two men led to both being denied a Nobel Prize. Neither would accept the prize if the other was awarded first, and neither would ever share one, resulting in both men ultimately being overlooked.
5. Albert Schatz Discoverer of Streptomycin
At one time, tuberculosis (TB) was one of the deadliest infectious diseases affecting humankind. When penicillin was discovered in the 1940s, it appeared that the era of bacterial infections was coming to an end. Unfortunately, penicillin does not work against the bacterium responsible for TB. This is due to a distinction in bacteria based on their cell wall structure: Gram-positive bacteria (those with thick walls) and Gram-negative bacteria (those with thin walls). Penicillin is effective on Gram-positive bacteria but not Gram-negative ones like TB. An antibiotic was needed to target these bacteria. This was the challenge that Schatz, as a young researcher, set out to solve. Schatz cultivated numerous strains of Streptomyces bacteria and tested them for antibiotic properties against Gram-negative bacteria. After only a few months, Schatz discovered streptomycin, an antibiotic that would prove to be effective against TB and other penicillin-resistant bacteria.
In 1952, Schatz’s supervisor, Selman Waksman, was awarded the Nobel Prize 'for his discovery of Streptomycin.' Although some have argued that the award was based on Waksman’s broader scientific work, the official commendation specifies otherwise. Schatz was persuaded to relinquish his rights to the Streptomycin patent, and in the media, Waksman took all the credit. Schatz later took legal action for his share of the royalties from Streptomycin and was eventually recognized as a co-discoverer. However, despite this, he was still excluded from the Nobel Prize.
4. Chien-Shiung Wu Discovery of Parity Violation
For many years, the law of parity in quantum mechanics was considered a fundamental truth. Simply put, the law states that physical systems which are mirror images of each other should behave in the same way. This law was thought to apply to three of the fundamental forces: electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong nuclear force. However, Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang proposed that the law of conservation of parity might not hold for the weak nuclear force.
In recognition of their work in disproving the law of parity for the weak nuclear force, Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1957. The experimental verification of their theory was carried out by Chien-Shiung Wu, who designed and conducted the beta-decay experiments that demonstrated parity is not conserved in the weak nuclear force. Despite Wu’s crucial role in proving the theory of parity violation, it was strange that she did not share in the Nobel Prize awarded for the proof.
3. Lise Meitner Discovery of Nuclear Fission
Nuclear fission involves the splitting of an atomic nucleus into lighter nuclei, often releasing neutrons in the process. This reaction can trigger a chain reaction, where the neutrons from one splitting nucleus cause additional nuclei to split, continuing the process. The energy released in fission reactions is significant, and this energy can be harnessed for electricity generation in nuclear power plants or used in the creation of atomic bombs. The phenomenon of fission, caused by bombarding nuclei with neutrons, was first discovered in 1938 by Otto Hahn, who found that the fission of uranium produced barium. This finding revealed that the products of nuclear fission were lighter than the original atom.
Lise Meitner, who was living in Sweden due to the anti-Jewish laws in Germany, along with her nephew Otto Frisch, provided an explanation for the missing mass in nuclear fission, revealing that it was converted into energy. According to Einstein’s renowned equation, a small amount of mass can be converted into a tremendous amount of energy. For her crucial theoretical work and for interpreting the results of Otto Hahn’s experiments, it is widely believed that Meitner deserved to share the Nobel Prize that Hahn received in 1944.
2. Douglas Prasher Discovery of Green Fluorescent Protein
Bioluminescence occurs in many organisms, but it is the jellyfish Aequorea victoria that has had the greatest impact on biology. In protein biochemistry, understanding the location of specific proteins within a cell is often crucial. The green fluorescent protein (GFP) isolated from A. victoria has enabled researchers to visualize cells and observe the location of proteins using simple methods. GFP is particularly valuable because it is stable, works within living cells, and serves as a straightforward test for confirming the success of genetic manipulation – if your sample glows when exposed to a certain wavelength of light, the experiment has worked. Douglas Prasher was responsible for cloning GFP and determining its DNA sequence in 1992, and since then, GFP has become an indispensable tool in biological research.
In 2008, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to three scientists who had made significant advancements in using GFP as a biochemical tool. By that time, Prasher had left academia and was working as a bus driver. All three laureates acknowledged Prasher’s essential contribution to their work and expressed their gratitude in their Nobel speeches. They even covered the costs for Prasher and his wife to attend the Nobel ceremony. Prasher has since returned to academia.
1. Oswald Avery Heritability through DNA
It is impossible to imagine modern biology without considering DNA and genetics. Today, we understand their inseparable relationship, but at the dawn of the twentieth century, scientists believed that the molecule responsible for transmitting inherited traits was likely a protein. Others had speculated on the nature of this inheritance molecule, and evidence existed that it could be influenced by X-rays, but the identity remained unknown until the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment. This experiment demonstrated that a substance from heat-killed bacteria could be transferred to living bacteria, leading to their transformation. This breakthrough provided the means to isolate the molecule responsible for inheritance, which was identified as DNA. This was the first time a molecule was definitively shown to play a role in heredity.
Some science historians have questioned the significance of Avery’s work in hindsight, noting that DNA was not conclusively proven to be the universal molecule of inheritance for all life. The publication did not cause a major academic uproar, but it was well-received and seems to have inspired future research. Even if Avery’s findings were restricted to the transmission of lethal traits between bacteria, his work certainly deserved consideration for the Nobel Prize in Medicine. His contribution stands on its own merits, rather than simply being overlooked in favor of later DNA-related Nobel prizes.
+ Ralph Steinman Awarded Nobel posthumously
This year, Ralph Steinman was awarded half of the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his groundbreaking discovery regarding the function of dendritic cells in the body’s adaptive immune system. These cells play a crucial role in regulating the immune response by capturing and presenting antigens from invading pathogens to white blood cells. They also help prevent the immune system from attacking the body itself. Steinman's research has had profound implications for fields such as organ transplantation, autoimmune diseases, and vaccine development. His work was undoubtedly deserving of the prestigious recognition.
Tragically, Professor Steinman passed away three days prior to the announcement of the Nobel Prize. The Nobel Committee, unaware of his death at the time of the award, had to quickly reevaluate the situation. After careful consideration, it was decided that since the award had been given in good faith, based on the understanding that Steinman was still alive, the prize would remain valid.
It is likely that some of the treatments Professor Steinman was receiving for the pancreatic cancer that ultimately claimed his life were influenced by his own research, helping to extend his life just long enough to meet the eligibility for the Nobel Prize.
