mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Scientists and Intellectuals are supposed to be above petty politics and popularity contests, right? Nope. Here are a few bright bulbs that never got the fancy Nobel gold medallion (or the millions of Swedish krona that go with it). And you thought the Oscars were bad.
1. Joan Robinson, Economics
Great Britain’s Joan Robinson may be one of the most exciting figures in the history of “the Dismal Science.” An acolyte of the great John Maynard Keynes, her work covered a wide range of economic topics, from neoclassicism to Keynes’s general theory to Marxian theory. Not to mention, her notion of imperfect competition still shows up in every Econ 101 class. Add to that the fact that Robinson’s greatest work, The Accumulation of Capital, was published way back in 1956 but is still widely used as an economics textbook. So why no Nobel? Some say it’s because she’s a female, and no female has ever won the Nobel in Economics. Others say that Robinson’s work over her career was too eclectic, rather than hyperfocused like that of so many other laureates. Still others claim that she was undesirable as a laureate because of her vocal praise for the Chinese Cultural Revolution, a fairly anti-intellectual enterprise.
2. Dmitri Mendeleev, Chemistry
Why would this guy deserve a Nobel Prize for chemistry? After all, his only achievement was to devise the entire periodic table of elements, the miracle of organization and inference on which all of modern chemistry is based. Mendeleev’s table was so good, it even predicted the existence of elements that hadn’t yet been discovered. But here’s where politics rears its ugly head. In 1906, Mendeleev was selected by the prize committee to win the honor, but the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences stepped in and overturned the decision. Why? The intervention was spearheaded by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who had himself won the prize in 1903 for his theory of electrolytic dissociation. Mendeleev had been an outspoken critic of the theory, and Arrhenius seized the opportunity as the perfect chance to squeeze a few sour grapes.
3. Mahatma Gandhi, Peace
The Susan Lucci of Nobel Peace Prize contenders, Mohandas “Mahatma” (Great-Souled) Gandhi was nominated like crazy: 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, and 1948.
More after the jump...
He certainly deserved it, as his nonviolent methods helped kick the British out of India and became the model for future Peace Prize laureates like Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi’s final nomination came in 1948, and he was the odds-on favorite to win it that year. However, the “Mahatma” was assassinated just a few days before the deadline. Since the Nobel Prize is never awarded posthumously, the prize for peace went unawarded that year on the grounds that there was “no suitable living candidate.” The decision was also motivated by the fact that Gandhi left no heirs or foundations to which his prize money could go.
4. James Joyce and 5. Marcel Proust, Literature
One wrote Ulysses and Finnegan’s Wake, almost universally regarded as two of the most brilliant works of the 20th century (in the case of Ulysses, the most brilliant). And the other is, well, Marcel Proust. Proust’s towering work, A La Recherche du Temps Perdu (In Search of Lost Time, or, sometimes, Remembrance of Things Past) is considered one of the greatest literary achievements ever, combining seven novels and 2,000 characters for a celebration of life, consciousness, and sexuality spanning 3,200 pages. James Joyce’s works and stream-of- consciousness style are the basis of countless college courses, doctoral theses, and poetic ruminations. But the writings of Proust and Joyce were probably just too controversial and “out there” for the more conservative Nobel committees of their day. And Nobel’s stricture against posthumous awards hasn’t exactly helped, especially since the influence of these two artists has continued to grow long after their deaths. Most ironic, Proust and Joyce have been major influences on many writers who went on to win Nobels themselves, like Saul Bellow, Samuel Beckett, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Hermann Hesse. Other literary giants who have gotten the Nobel shaft? Evelyn Waugh, Jorge Luis Borges, Bertold Brecht, Graham Greene, Henry James, Vladimir Nabokov, and Simone de Beauvoir, to name a few.
6. Jules-Henri Poincaré, Physics
Although Poincaré was a mathematician, his genius was too universal to be confined to one category. Sure, he came up with all sorts of mathematical theories with crazy names: algebraic topology, abelian functions, and Diophantine equations. But he was into physics, too. Poincaré laid the foundation for modern chaos theory and even beat Einstein to the punch on certain facets of the theory of special relativity. And one of his math problems, the Poincaré conjecture, even remained unsolved for nearly 100 years! So why was Henri overlooked for the Big One? Due to Alfred Nobel’s stipulation that his prizes go to those whose discoveries have been of practical benefit to mankind, the Nobel committees have often been accused of rewarding experimental discoveries over purely theoretical advances. Poincaré’s work in physics seems to be a victim of that prejudice.
7. Raymond Damadian, Medicine
Lots of deserving folks have been passed over for the Nobel, but few were as vocal about it as 2003 runner-up Raymond V. Damadian. He was the brain behind the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a technique that completely revolutionized the detection and treatment of cancer. But the 2003 Prize for Medicine went to Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield, two scientists who expanded on Damadian’s discovery. Enraged at the slight, Damadian ran full-page ads in the New York Times and Washington Post featuring a photo of the Nobel Prize medal upside down and the headline “The Shameful Wrong That Must Be Righted.” The ad featured quotes from other scientists backing up Damadian’s claim, even a letter of protest to be cut out, signed, and mailed to the Nobel Committee. Some claim Damadian was slighted because his fundamentalist Christian belief in creationism made him anathema to the scientific community. Others say it was because his discovery wasn’t really useful in medicine until Lauterbur and Mansfield improved upon it. Either way, 2003 left the poor scientist Nobel-less.
8. Oh, and Anybody in Mathematics
When dynamite inventor (that’s not a comment on his abilities; he really did invent dynamite) Alfred Nobel stipulated in his will that his fortune be used to establish a fund to award five annual prizes, he famously left out mathematics. All kinds of theories have popped up to explain the omission, the most salacious of which claim that Nobel hated all mathematicians because his wife was schtupping one on the side. Nope. The most likely reasons for Nobel’s ditching math are (1) He simply didn’t like math all that much, and (2) Sweden already had a big, fancy prize for mathematics, bestowed by the journal Acta Mathematica. Although math is still a Nobel bridesmaid, a prize for economics was added in 1968, thereby giving the extremely boring sciences their due.
[Ed. note: this list was taken from Forbidden Knowledge]
Previously on mental_floss:
• 15 Award-Winning Facts About The Nobel Prize
• 10 Awful Words & The People They’re Named For
• Ten Crazy Facebook Groups
• 14 Stories You Might Not Know About Bobby Kennedy
• Quiz: Match The Drug To Its Scary Warning Label
Comments (47)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
I read somehwere that Gandhi was actually actually violent with his family. I think he disowned his son for some reason and used to beat up his wife. Is there any shred of truth to this?
posted by GTT on 11-23-2007 at 10:49 am
I heard one time Gandhi walked into this club and beat up three guys with a pool cue for absolutely no reason. They say he sucker punched this one guy, and then scissor-kicked him right in the back of the neck. And then that guy could only eat out of a straw for the rest of his life. Is any of that true?
posted by Robert V on 11-23-2007 at 1:30 pm
Ghandhi’s autobiography talks a great deal about these types of things, and shows that he knew his limitations, weaknesses and failings. But he had a lot of good thing to say as well. Like the rest of us, he was human being.
posted by Benton on 11-23-2007 at 1:33 pm
I have heard it argued that,Ghandhi in shaming Great Britain to leave India earlier than they were planning (and they were planning to leave anyway) his actions directly lead to huge lose of life in partion…
posted by jon on 11-23-2007 at 2:58 pm
Gandhi pulled him onto the bar and was setting him up for a tombstone piledriver when someone smashed a chair over his back.
posted by Robert V on 11-23-2007 at 4:25 pm
There is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics because Alfred Nobel wanted his prizes to praise those who had positively affected humanity. Only applications of mathematics – not general theory or proofs – affect mankind, hence the prizes for Physics and Economics.
posted by J Head on 11-23-2007 at 5:40 pm
Gandhi didn’t win the Nobel Prize because (little known fact) he lead a band of guerrilla warriors into London and razed the city. He also threw a man out of a window for commenting on his appearance. True story.
posted by Graham on 11-23-2007 at 8:08 pm
Yeah, it’s frankly criminal that a lot of these people never won, but especially Proust, Joyce, Borges, and Nabokov. There’s no excuse for that.
posted by doug on 11-24-2007 at 3:55 am
Attention there is NO such thing as a Noel prize for economics. In fact it is the bank of sweden prize in honor of Alfred Nobel. The nobel academy has no saying in this prize
posted by munhonga on 11-24-2007 at 11:20 am
Tesla is the most under appreciated scientist of the Noble era – the father of alternating current which makes our civiliztion possible and also of radio (the patent was taken away from Marconi who was Tesla’s protegee’)
posted by bob on 11-24-2007 at 11:38 am
Gandhi was all about rabbit punches. Just when you thought a fight was over he’d punch someone in the back of the head and then dish out mule kicks. I’ll see if I can find a link.
posted by Robert V on 11-24-2007 at 11:41 am
Dean Kamen, anyone?
posted by Robert on 11-24-2007 at 11:48 am
Gandhi is actually Chuck Norris’s dad.
posted by dude on 11-24-2007 at 11:51 am
We say gandhi was all for the poor and peace. He might have been. He would travel on train in the 3rd class compartment showing that he lives like his poor country men. But that very compartment in which gandhi were to travel would be washed clean and only the selected people be allowed to travel with him( some disguised as poor). These are facts and can be found in many books.
posted by Jasra on 11-24-2007 at 12:11 pm
Thomas Pynchon, anyone? Although he would never appear to receive a nobel prize for literature.
posted by El.Zombo on 11-24-2007 at 12:17 pm
There is a nobel prize for mathematics, but it’s called fields medal and/or abel prize for some reason ;)
posted by dingdong on 11-24-2007 at 12:19 pm
Chuck Norris was Gandhi’s student for 15 years. Is that true?
posted by Dan on 11-24-2007 at 12:20 pm
Before criticizing someone as great as Gandhi, plz get ur facts right.
posted by Pacific on 11-24-2007 at 12:26 pm
What about the great Austrian Economist, Ludwig Von Mises. One of the first people to discredit Socialism, and expose the calculation problems for economies that lack a market to determine prices. His ideas and his students played a huge part in discrediting Keynes as well, when they accurately forecasted Stagflation in the 1970s and 1980s (which Keynes said was impossible). He made economics about humans again, and yet no Nobel prize, because the Nobel committee were Keynesians at the time.
posted by Matt on 11-24-2007 at 1:05 pm
It’s time to end this cult of Ghandi. The man was a racist. He regularly wrote about the distinction between Indians and Blacks (called “Kaffirs” and “Natives” in his writings) to try and convince the British that Indians should not be considered as “uncivil” as Blacks. During his time in South Africa, he defended the apartheid system. Google Ghandi and racism and you’ll see his many writings.
posted by Shu Chow on 11-24-2007 at 1:14 pm
I’m pretty sure that I heard that Gandhi once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
Is that true?
posted by Clark on 11-24-2007 at 1:31 pm
I can’t possibly take anyone seriously who, in a debate about whether Gandhi should have received a nobel prize, uses the phrase “plz get ur facts right”. Unless, of course, that person is a cat.
posted by Daniel on 11-24-2007 at 1:38 pm
there in fact IS a nobel prize for economics. John Nash is the only reciever. 1994.
posted by Laiken on 11-24-2007 at 3:11 pm
“8. When dynamite inventor (that’s not a comment on his abilities; he really did invent dynamite) Alfred Nobel stipulated in his will that his fortune be used to establish a fund to award five annual prizes and famously left out mathematics.”…
What happened? This is not a complete sentence.
posted by Brad Mattison on 11-24-2007 at 3:33 pm
“I read somehwere” –one’s first clue is that the informant can’t recall any specifics. Gandhi’s wife might have had reason to complain about his strange antics but beating her up was not one of them.
“It’s time to end this cult of Ghandi…Google Ghandi and racism and you’ll see his many writings. ”
She can’t even transliterate his name accurately and she promotes herself as an expert (and Google as an infallible reference, hmmm). Unbelievable. Of course there is a lot of criticism of the man–now that he’s dead and can’t defend himself. The British elites hated him and probably still do. In modern Indian he is a political “paraiah” (pun intended), and he’s demonized for having referred to what are now the “scheduled castes” as “Harijan”–which to my Sanskritized ears sounds like “beloved of the Lord”–but some people “might” have used it as a euphemism for something else. It is much like the troublemakers “of a certain sort” who went around college campuses in the USA telling East Asians that the world “Oriental” is an insult (it isn’t, and the people who claimed so are liars; it is Latin for “Eastern”).
The reason Gandhi never won a peace prize (but various terrorists and warlords have) is that Sweden dared not provoke the British more than they already had by having Germany as their biggest trading partner during both World Wars. Numerous Swedish politicians were assassinated by the Allies as it was (including Raoul Wallenberg, who was executed by firing squad at Lubyanka prison, and everybody still pretends its a mystery what happened to him).
posted by Atash on 11-24-2007 at 3:40 pm
If it came right down to it, who would win a rumble for the Nobel Peace Prize? You know, if push came to shove?
Throw in Mandela, Dr. King, Schweitzer, Desmond Tutu, whoever you want. My money is that Gandhi would still come out on top. There would be nothing but low blow nut-shots for every laureate.
I can picture him slapping that sleeper hold on Woodrow Wilson and laughing maniacally right now. The man’s a human wrecking machine! Look it up!
posted by Robert V on 11-24-2007 at 3:44 pm
I’m going to risk seeming unsmart (shows my inept attempt at communication right there with that word) by saying this, but did anyone see UHF? Ghandi back and angry bit? Classic budget comedy.
posted by Ally on 11-24-2007 at 3:57 pm
And they gave a peace prize to Mother Theresa..she didn’t deserve it, she stole money from the Calcutta Hospital, and diverted the money to the Vatican.
posted by psychotic ape on 11-24-2007 at 4:06 pm
Mother Theresa once stole the last piece of bread from a starving orphan and gave it to George W. Bush. And everyone knows that she would go out of her way to run over puppies when she was driving. I still remember the time she popped this kid’s birthday balloons just to see him cry.
posted by Robert V on 11-24-2007 at 5:16 pm
Ally, I saw UHF, and that’s the first thing I thought of after reading this post. “No more Mr. Passive Resistance.”
Most people don’t know this, but Ghandi went into old folk’s homes and hadokened the elderly, and Mother Teresa did shoryukens on kittens.
posted by bobthewalrus on 11-24-2007 at 5:41 pm
Yeah, but I heard before Ghandi converted to Catholicism he did mean things like eat goat testicles –while they were still attached to the live animal :( How can a person like that even be considered humane?!
posted by Jak-uf on 11-24-2007 at 5:56 pm
There are several names that are left off, there are several in China, Mexico, Cuba, Russia, Soviet Union, Iran, and even Japan that have put there lives on the lives for the freedom and happiness of the people. These unheard of heros are not even known to society. What ironic is that a few of these heros are still alive today.
posted by Mexican Guy on 11-24-2007 at 6:33 pm
Sir Hans Kornberg sure does deserve one before he dies.
posted by Renee on 11-24-2007 at 10:05 pm
Technically, Alfred Nobel did not invent dynamite; he was the first to safely mass produce it.
Mother Theresa then tested it on baby “Ghahndi”. True Story.
Monkey Ballmer uses the new, faster Firefox 3 to spell-check “Gandhi” is a Bogus Myth.
posted by Mac Daddy Castralto on 11-24-2007 at 10:43 pm
Arguably one of the world’s greatest playwrights and certainly Ameerica’s, Tennessee Williams was repeatedly denied a Nobel nomination simply due to his open homosexuality–unlike the closeted Arthur Miller and Eugene O’Neil (who won a Nobel).
posted by Mark S. Snyder on 11-24-2007 at 10:52 pm
Please get the history correct with regard to Number 7 above — the first two papers reporting spatially localized detection of NMR were written by Paul Lauterbur in Nature and Peter Mansfield in the Journal of Physics C, both in 1973. Damadian led one of several groups that followed on with a dedicated imaging system. Damadian later made a number of claims concerning the ability of MR imaging to detect cancer that may have helped him win a lawsuit or two but have very little to do with science.
posted by mrgeek on 11-24-2007 at 11:18 pm
Can someone keep Robert V and the other folks posting stupid comments from posting? I like this site because it’s intellectual and fun, and would hate to see it turn into a useless forum on opinions and ignorance.
posted by Kate on 11-25-2007 at 12:06 am
Dean Kamen, my ass!
posted by Todd on 11-25-2007 at 1:00 am
Unknown about Gandi, he taught Hulk Hogan about stage performance, and was first to teach the Haka Battle Dance.
posted by Ruben on 11-25-2007 at 8:08 am
There is a prize in Mathematics that is akin to the Nobel. It is called the Field’s medal and is very prestigious.
posted by Ranon on 11-25-2007 at 9:14 am
One time when Kate was little she tried to flush her baby brother down the toilet. Shame!
posted by Robert V on 11-25-2007 at 10:53 am
What about Tesla?
In my opinion far more genious than Edison. They actually were rivals, but Tesla wasn’t an American…
He was an expert in several fields, like the telephone which was almost solely credited to Marconi, electric light which was almoste solely credited to Edison, etc. etc.
Alas his sponsor was Morgan; yes, the one from the Wallstreet Crash…
posted by Marja on 11-26-2007 at 12:45 pm
Funny you should mention Mendeleev, I was just having a conversation about him the other day.
OK, and I take a bit of offense at the “boring science” remark. Math=life. :D
And, ladies and gentlemen… Gandhi did a lot of good, so let it go…
posted by Allison on 11-26-2007 at 5:08 pm
There is no Nobel price in Mathematics since one of the love of Nobel (Sophie Hess) dated (more exactly cheated with) a mathematician (Gosta Magnus Mittag-Leffler) ^^; Nothing to do with the applied mathematics affecting mankind or whatever.
Mathematics have the Field medal, which is as much prestigious as the Nobel price in their area.
posted by Moun on 11-26-2007 at 6:01 pm
Gandhi was ok most of the time, but he was a really vicious drunk. He’d beat the shit outta ya, just for looking at him. On the other hand, he was hung like a horse and the ladies loved him, ’til he got a snootful and knocked their lights out just for fun.
posted by Bubba on 11-26-2007 at 10:02 pm
As mentioned by one of the comments, there is no official Nobel prize in physics. Here is the story:
movementarian.com/2006/08/06/the-myrdal-mystery-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving/
posted by Ghandi on 11-27-2007 at 6:06 am
Hello,
you seem to be the only site bringing up the question of Evelyn Waugh and why he never won the Nobel Prize for Literature. My mother and brother (who like his writings but hate his political views) say Waugh was not a good enough writer. However, his hatred of the English working class and the welfare state, plus his extremely conservative religious views (for which the Politically Incorrect Guide adores him) would, even balanced critics say, have been sure to prevent him even being considered. I wonder how many writers of less ability have won?!
posted by Julien Peter Benney on 10-7-2009 at 5:55 am