There's been a bunch of talk about the apparent European dominance in Nobel Prizes this year, and whether it means that American science is in decline, blah, blah, blah. I'm a little surprised at this-- nobody took last year's abundance of American laureates as a sign of the collapse of European science, after all-- but then, there seem to be large numbers of people who will seize on anything at all to be evidence of the end of American dominance in whatever area.
In some ways, the proper reaction to the whole thing is probably the reaction of a colleague of mine in Economics. I asked him who he thought was going to win the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and his response was (paraphrased slightly):
Oh, I don't know. It doesn't matter anyway, it's always to boring old stuff that was done twenty years ago.
I would dispute that a little, at least in physics-- the recent prizes to work in AMO physics have all been stuff that was done relatively recently (the '97 prize for laser cooling was for work done in the mid-to-late 80's, the '01 prize for BEC for work in '95 and later, the '05 quantum optics prize for experiments done in the late 90's). But it's true in a general sense-- the Nobels reward work whose significance is well established, not the real cutting-edge stuff that is the true indicator of the health of a field.
More broadly, though, I'm not sure why I should really care if European science is catching up to American science. What matters is that quality science is being done, not where it's being done. If European science-- or Asian science, African science, South American Science, Antipodean science, whatever-- is improving, then that's great news. Science is not zero-sum.
It might be a bad sign if the Europeans were catching up due to an active collapse of American scientific activity, but aside from the apocalyptic noises coming from the high-energy physics crowd, I don't see any sign of that in physics. Physics in general continues to advance, and there are new groups and new results coming from the US all the time. Any decline in American physics is a relative one only, a matter of making progress less quickly than physicists in Europe and Asia.
So, really, I don't see what the fuss is about.
Education & Careers
Politics
Comments
It is a big deal for the Europeans.
It is a sign that European science has finally uncollapsed, as it were.
It does also make some difference where the science is done, both economically and politically, if not so much scientifically.
Posted by: Steinn Sigurdsson | October 12, 2007 10:30 AM
For the most part, I agree. I'm pretty sure that last year all 5 winners of the 3 science prizes were born and educated in the US and were recognized for work done in the US.
This year all the winners were born in Europe, but two were recognized for work done in the US. One of those was even largely raised and educated in the US (here since he was 9 or so).
While there may be reasons to worry about the state of US science, recent Nobels are certainly not one of them.
Posted by: Colst | October 12, 2007 10:45 AM
But it's true in a general sense-- the Nobels reward work whose significance is well established, not the real cutting-edge stuff that is the true indicator of the health of a field.
'course then we have the funny case with theoretical physics Nobels, which seem to have the tendency to get awarded to stuff which is THEORETICALLY old hat but EXPERIMENTALLY bleeding edge-- i.e. since they don't give out the Nobel until it's experimentally confirmed, but that may be decades after the theory was put forward. (Experimentalists who get Nobels, on the other hand, have to wait until the idea is "time-tested" in other ways, which in Fert and Grunsberg's cases took what, 20 years...?)
It's kind of funny to think that SOMEBODY in theoretical physics is very likely to get a Nobel Prize triggered once the LHC results come out, but we can't predict who right now-- since the award, if there is one, will not necessarily go to the person with the most brilliant theoretical work, but the person whose theoretical work just happened to line up with reality...
Posted by: Coin | October 12, 2007 4:29 PM
"since the award, if there is one, will not necessarily go to the person with the most brilliant theoretical work, but the person whose theoretical work just happened to line up with reality..."
If your theory doesn't line up with reality, it is not brilliant.
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski | October 14, 2007 6:03 AM