Now on ScienceBlogs: "Investigative science journalism" and books I like to read [All of My Faults Are Stress Related]

Seed Media Group

The Week In ScienceBlogs: Sign up for our newsletter.

Uncertain Principles

Physics, Politics, Pop Culture

Search

Profile

"Uncertain Principles" features the miscellaneous ramblings of a physicist at a small liberal arts college. Physics, politics, pop culture, and occasional conversations with his dog.

You've read the blog, now try the book: How to Teach Physics to Your Dog will be published December 22nd by Scribner.

Chad Orzel "Prof. Orzel gives the impression of an everyday guy who just happens to have a vast but hidden knowledge of physics." (anonymous student evaluation comment)

Emmy, the Queen of Niskayuna Emmy is a German Shepherd mix, and the Queen of Niskayuna. She likes treats, walks, chasing bunnies, and quantum physics.

Donors Choose challenge link

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Greatest Hits

Chateau Steelypips

Blogroll

Scientists

Academics

Interesting People

Books

Punditry

Categories

Archives

« Taxes, Death, and Trouble With Physics | Main | Baghdad Update: Media Culpa »

Chemistry: The Overflow Category

Category: In the News
Posted on: October 5, 2006 8:43 AM, by Chad Orzel

The announcement of a distinctly bio-flavored Nobel Prize in Chemistry has a lot of science-blogging folks either gloating (see also here) or bemoaning the use of Chemistry as an overflow category for prizes awarded to work in other disciplines.

Of course, it must be noted that this is not a new state of affairs. After all, Lord Rutherford, the man famous for saying "In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting" won the 1908 Nobel Prize in... Chemistry.

So, there's a long and distinguished tradition of chemistry as the overflow category for smart people from other fields. You might even say it's the natural state of the field...

(Actually, I wouldn't really say that-- I mostly agree with the sensible things said in Janet's quick post and Derek's follow-up post. But I don't want to let such a perfect opportunity to tweak chemists slip past...)

Comments

Hey, I wasn't gloating. I was just making an observation with no emotional investment at all.

Posted by: coturnix | October 5, 2006 9:01 AM

When the Greek etiology of physics = "nature" is considered, then of course Rutherford is correct in the broadest interpretation.

Modern physics has a apparently aquired a more narrow definition which in one word might be 'electro-mechanics'?

Posted by: Doug | October 5, 2006 9:44 AM

"You might even say it's the natural state of the field..."

There's gotta be a "ground state" joke in there somewhere.

It probably involves coffee.

Posted by: Ross Smith | October 5, 2006 4:56 PM

Biology is a form of chemistry and why not expect the prize if it is earned then surely it should be noted and yes you was gloating come on admit it, i would gloat that is.

Posted by: Science Fair Ideas | November 15, 2006 10:19 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Advertisement

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM