"Dr. Paine coined a term to describe the starfish’s outsize influence: keystone species. Keystone species have since been identified in forests, in grasslands, in the ocean and even in the human gut. The concept has become one of ecology’s guiding theoretical principles, and it has had a profound impact, inspiring, among other things, the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone, where they help control elk that can otherwise overgraze aspen and willow trees.
If Dr. Paine, who passed away in June, had been a physicist, chemist or cell biologist, such a fundamental, broadly applicable and hugely influential paradigm would probably have put him in contention for a Nobel Prize. But Paine was an ecologist, so he had no shot at the prestige, power and wealth that the Nobels bestow. The same can be said for the world’s top geologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, climatologists, crop scientists, botanists, entomologists and practitioners of many other fields...
Some argue that the Nobel disciplines are still the “purest” sciences, and as such deserve extra recognition. But many scientists and even some Nobel laureates say that much of today’s most exciting and important science resides at the borders of traditional disciplines or in ones that don’t have a dedicated prize."
It's really true.
It's also interesting to think critically about how and why the Nobel became what it is, and the importance of these kinds of awards. It would be easy to superciliously declare that these awards are ultimately meaningless, entertaining, arbitrary - but they obviously aren't, they are obviously full of meaning and worldwide inspiration and the seeming arbitrariness reflects history and value systems.
The Nobel Prize wasn't designed to fit the role it now has, but given its role, does the Nobel Prize Committee have responsibility to be dynamic and remold it as our world changes? Or do we need to institute a ew prize system with more appropriate designs?
I would say yes to the first question, and I would encourage long-term consideration of the second.
No comments:
Post a Comment