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...)
- Log in to post comments
Hey, I wasn't gloating. I was just making an observation with no emotional investment at all.
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'?
"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.
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.