Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “NOBEL PRIZE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Behavioral science and the Nobel Prize: a history.

The Nobel Prizes began a little over a century ago, established by the last will and testament of Alfred Nobel to recognize those individuals "who. shall have conferred the greatest benefits on mankind" (R. M. Friedman, 2001, p. 13). No social science prizes were established among the original five categories, consequently behavioral research has received little recognition. Using archival records from several locations, particularly the Nobel committee records from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, which selects the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, this article provides a history of the scientists whose work was related to psychology and who won or lost the attempt for Nobel fame. It concludes with a discussion of the importance of behavioral science in the 21st century in the context of the subject domains of the Nobel Prizes.

Behavioral Sciences↗

[Women in natural sciences--Nobel Prize winners].

Alfred Bernhard Nobel was the founder of the Nobel Foundation, which has been awarding world-known scientists since 1901, for their contribution to the welfare of mankind. The life and accomplishments of Alfred Bernhard Nobel are described as well as scientific achivements of 11 women, Nobel prize winners in the field of physics, chemistry, physiology and/or medicine. They are Marie Sklodowska Curie, Maria Goeppert Mayer, Irene Joliot-Curie, Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, Gerty Theresa Radnitz Cori, Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Barbara McClintock, Rita Levi-Montalcini, Gertrude Elion, Christine Nusslein-Volhard and Linda B. Buck.

Female↗

The mystery of angiography and the "unawarded" Nobel Prize: Egas Moniz and Hans Christian Jacobaeus.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the circumstances surrounding why Egas Moniz was not awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution of angiography, provide a synopsis of Moniz's political and medical careers, and present a biographical sketch of Hans Christian Jacobaeus, the neurologist who evaluated Moniz's Nobel Prize nominations, as well as to dispel long-standing misconceptions concerning Moniz's recognition and to acknowledge the contributions of other researchers. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: In 1936, António Caetano de Abreu Freire Egas Moniz published the results of a radical treatment for mental illness, a surgical procedure he termed prefrontal leucotomy. Moniz achieved such remarkable results with mental patients who suffered from conditions previously deemed incurable that many physicians throughout the world immediately embraced the procedure. In 1949, the Nobel Prize Committee recognized Moniz's contribution with the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Why Moniz's earlier major contribution to medicine, the discovery and development of angiography, was not acknowledged in like fashion has remained a mystery. Nobel Prize documents reveal that Moniz was nominated for the award on two separate occasions; both times, Jacobaeus, Chairman of the Department of Neurology at Karolinska Institute and a member of the Nobel Prize Committee, evaluated the nominations and recommended against awarding Moniz the prize. CONCLUSION: The development of imaging techniques was not isolated to any one individual's contribution. Several persons, including Walter Dandy and Jacobaeus, were leading figures.

Angiography↗

[The Nobel Prize for nitric oxide. The unjust exclusion of Dr. Salvador Moncada].

The 1998 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine has been awarded jointly to North-American scientists, Dr Robert F. Furchgott, Louis J. Ignarro and Ferid Murad, for their discoveries in relation to "nitric oxide as a signalling molecule in the cardiovascular system". This has raised an important polemic because of the exclusion the South-American scientist, now nationalized British, Dr. Salvador Moncada. This short historical review examines some of the fundamental contributions to the knowledge in this field. It shows the sequence of the discoveries and the communication of them to the scientific community by the rewarded scientists and by Dr. Moncada. It is based on some fundamental publications in order to better understand this story, which does not coincide with the writing in 1996 by the Lasker Prize Committee, and which in 1998 was re-written again by the Nobel Committee of the Swedish Academy. More than 90 universities, academies and societies have acknowledged Dr. Moncada up to now with priority in the discovery of the fact that nitric oxide is released by endothelial cells, and the revealing of its metabolic way. More than 20,000 citations of their fundamental papers endorse in the scientific community his primacy in this field. Even Robert Furchgott, author of the brilliant discovery of the endothelium derived relaxing factor, that opened this field to the science, declared about the award of the 1998 Nobel Prize: "I feel that the Nobel Prize Committee could have made an exception this year and chosen a fourth person, Salvador Moncada (to share the prize)".

Animals↗

Arrhenius vs. Ehrlich on immunochemistry: decisions about scientific progress in the context of the Nobel Prize.

This study forms part of a larger research project examining the election process for the Nobel prizes for Physiology or Medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and the role and function of the prizes in early 20th century Swedish and international medicine. The purpose of the study is to clarify the decision-making process which led to the Nobel prize for Paul Ehrlich in 1908, 'for work on immunity'. His award was preceded by the most dramatic conflict within the prize authority concerning any prizewinner prior to World War I, and thus is apt to illuminate both the implicit and explicit criteria and the strategies used in the prize deliberations. Ehrlich's chemical ideas on the immune response were criticized by the physical chemist Svante Arrhenius who recommended the application of his disciplines's methods and principles on immunological problems. This criticisms were brought into the Nobel prize debate by J.E. Johansson, a physiologist who asserted that Ehrlich's research was of little scientific value and therefore not worthy of a prize. Yet the majority of the Institute, led by its chairman, the chemist K.A.H. Mörner, succeeded in awarding Ehrlich. An analysis of the controversy shows it to be primarily based upon (1) a difference of scientific styles between the antagonists, resulting in incongruous definitions of immunology as a research field, and of the proper aims and methods of immunological studies. Other factors influencing the final decision were (2) the Institute's negative reaction to what was considered an intrusion in medical Nobel prize matters by a chemist, (3) Arrhenius' and Johansson's diverging views on what kind of work should be awarded a prize, and (4) Johansson's position as a non-conformist at the Karolinska.

Decision Making, Organizational↗

[Posthumous nomination for Medicine Nobel Prizes. I. The Romantic Era (1800-1848)].

In the centennial of Alfred Nobel's death, the author proposes the nomination of great physicians of XIX century for a posthumous Medicine Nobel Prize. The valorization given by medical historians such as Garrison, Lavastine, Castiglioni, Lain Entralgo and Guerra, was used to select the best candidates. One to three names were assigned per year, from 1800 to 1848. Four categories of "Romantic Nobel Prizes" are assigned: a) Founders of basic disciplines (anatomy, chemistry, physiology etc); b) Masters of clinical and surgical medicine, pathology and specialties; c) Discoverers of transcendental diseases that are eponyms and d) Other great inventors or discoverers. A total of 66 nominees for the Nobel Prize, equally distributed between French, German and English physician, are presented. The omissions and limitation of this proposals are discussed.

Europe↗

[Centenary of the Nobel Prize for medicine and physiology].

A centenary of the first presentation of the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology has been the reason to make a survey of all those who had been given this prestigious award and their scientific contributions. The Nobel Foundation and the Nobel Museum with their Internet presentations have been the major source of information in this paper, providing a complete survey of anything related to the Nobel Prize. The following Internet address is a very useful source of information about all the laureates of the Nobel Prize for Medicine: www.almaz.comlnobe/medicine/medicine.

History, 20th Century↗

A long time in the making--the Nobel Prize for RNA polymerase.

The 2006 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to Roger Kornberg for elucidating the molecular basis of eukaryotic transcription. The prize caps a decades-long quest to unlock one of the central mysteries of molecular biology-how RNA transcripts are assembled.

Chemistry↗

From nerves and hormones to bacteria in the stomach; Nobel prize for achievements in gastrology during last century.

Rapid progress in gastroenterological research, during past century, was initiated by the discovery by W. Prout in early 18th century of the presence of inorganic, hydrochloric acid in the stomach and by I.P. Pavlov at the end of 19th century of neuro-reflex stimulation of secretion of this acid that was awarded by Nobel prize in 1904. Then, J. W. Black, who followed L. Popielski's concept of histamine involvement in the stimulation of this secretion, was awarded second Nobel prize in gastrology within the same century for the identification of histamine H2-receptor (H2-R) antagonists, potent gastric acid inhibitors, accelerating ulcer healing. The concept of H2-R interaction with other receptors such as muscarinic receptors (M3-R), mediating the action of acetylocholine released from local cholinergic nerves, and those mediating the action of gastrin (CCK2-R) on parietal cells, has been confirmed both in vivo studies and in vitro isolated parietal cells. The discovery of H2-R antagonists by Black and their usefulness in control of gastric secretion and ulcer healing, were considered as real breakthrough both in elucidation of gastric secretory mechanisms and in ulcer therapy. Discovery of even more powerful gastric acid inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPI), also highly effective in acceleration of ulcer healing was, however, not awarded Nobel prize. Unexpectedly, two Australian clinical researchers, R.J. Warren and B.J. Marshall, who discovered in the stomach spiral bacteria, named Helicobacter pylori, received the third in past century Nobel prize in gastrology for the finding that this bacterium, is related to the pathogenesis of gastritis and peptic ulcer. They documented that eradication of H. pylori from the stomach, using antibiotics and potent gastric inhibitors, not only accelerates healing of ulcer but also prevents its recurrence, the finding considered as greatest discovery in practical gastrology during last century. Thus, the outstanding achievements in gastroenterology during last century have been awarded by three Nobel prizes and appreciated by millions of ulcer patients all over the world.

Acetylcholine↗

The proliferation of prizes: Nobel complements and Nobel surrogates in the reward system of science.

In the last two decades, prizes in the sciences have proliferated and, in particular, rich prizes with large honoraria. These developments raise several questions: Why have rich prizes proliferated? Have they greatly changed the reward system of science? What effects will such prizes have on scientists and on science? The proliferation of such prizes derives from marked limitations on the numbers and types of scientists eligible for Nobel prizes and consequent increases in the number of uncrowned laureate-equivalents. These would-be surrogates for Nobel prizes extend the reward system of science in its upper reaches but this change is not fundamental. The spread of rich prizes to new fields provides added incentives to potential winners, which has its own disutilities; it reinforces competitiveness, concern for priority and attendant secrecy, all this amplifying ambivalence toward the reward system in science. There may also be modest positive effects of such new awards in the form of heightened popular esteem for science and interest in it.

Awards and Prizes↗

[Centennial of the nobel prize for Golgi and Cajal--founding of modern neuroscience and irony of discovery].

In 1906, Golgi and Ramón y Cajal shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "in recognition of their work on the structure of the nervous system". However, it was an unusual occasion in the history of Nobel Prize award because their views on the structure of the nervous system were not only different but even opposite, creating the "storm center of histological controversy". Furthermore, the new staining method Cajal had employed to study the nervous system was developed by Golgi, creating an irony of discovery. In 1873, Golgi revolutionized the histological study of the nervous system by developing a new staining method, "la reazione nera" or black reaction, which allowed good visualization of axons, dendrites and glia. But because his stain was so selective, staining only about 3 percent of neurons, he was unable to see clearly how the neuronal processes ended as they approached other neurons. Consequently, he embraced the popular belief that neuronal processes physically fuse with each other--the "reticular theory". On the other hand, Cajal was incidentally introduced to the Golgi stain 14 years after its discovery and immediately realized its beauty. He found that better results could be produced by staining more intensely and cutting thicker sections. He further observed that the Golgi stain worked best on non-myelinated axons. The search for brains containing non-myelinated axons led him to study birds and very young mammals, including embryos. Cajal obtained fascinating results by modifying the Golgi stain and by studying avian and young mammalian brains. From those studies, Cajal was able to infer that axons and dendrites ended freely and did not physically anastomose. Therefore, he strongly advocated the "neuron theory". Golgi seemed to be too headstrong and too conservative to relinquish his belief that neurons constitute a network which reacts as a whole. On the other hand, Cajal's hard work using the Golgi stain led to new understanding on the structure and function of the nervous system, and earned him "the founder of modern neuroscience". This centennial occasion may be further impressed by Cajal's comment on the shared Nobel Prize that "what a cruel irony of fate of pair, like Siamese twins united by the shoulders, scientific adversaries of such contrasting character!".

History, 19th Century↗

An elusive honor: psychology, behavior, and the Nobel Prize.

Apart from economics, the human sciences have not generally been rewarded with high honors from the world community. Psychology has been awarded the distinction of a Nobel Prize only when it has served a role in explicating human behavior in relation to economics. Yet psychological science has played no small part in the work of a number of Nobel Prize winners. This section addresses a selection of that work. Some of the winners of the Nobel Prize in the field of psychology are briefly reviewed. In addition, this selection introduces the papers in this issue.

Behavioral Sciences↗

[Posthumous nomination for Medicine Nobel Prizes II. The positivism era (1849-1899)].

The author proposes the nomination of great physicians of the second half of the XIX century for a posthumous Medicine Nobel Prize. The valorization given by medical historians Garrison, Lavastine, Castiglioni, Lain Entralgo and Guerra, is used to select the better candidates. One to three names are assigned by year from 1849 to 1899. Four categories of Nobel prizes are assigned: a) Basic biological disciplines, b) Clinical and surgical medicine, pathology and specialties, c) Discoverers of transcendental diseases that are eponyms and d) New medical technologies. A total of 84 nominees for the Nobel Prize are presented. These lists are presented as preliminary and tentative to allow an extensive debate about the history of medicine during the nineteenth century.

History, 19th Century↗

Revisiting the 1981 Nobel Prize to Roger Sperry, David Hubel, and Torsten Wiesel on the occasion of the centennial of the Prize to Golgi and Cajal.

In 1981 the Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology was awarded to Roger Sperry for his work on the functional specialization of the cerebral hemispheres, and to David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel for their work on information processing in the visual system. The present paper points to some important links between the work of Sperry and that of Hubel and Wiesel and to their influences on neuroscience in the best tradition going back to Cajal.

Golgi Apparatus↗