This is really sad: according to Nature and Rockefeller University, one of this year’s Nobel Laureates in Medicine and Physiology, Ralph Steinman, whose prize was announced this morning, actually died of pancreatic cancer on Friday. I’m not aware of anything like this happening before.
Steinman was only 68. It’s not just sad that the man would have gotten such great news had he lived only three more days, but it also creates a bit of a conundrum: Nobels are not awarded posthumously. I suspect, however, that because he was alive when he was chosen, he’ll still get the formal award and that someone else will accept it in his place. It would be churlish to deny the man, his family, and his collaborators this honor.
h/t: Dom
Maybe they should rethink that requirement to something like alive within the previous 100 years
It’s past time for such an adjustment.
According to the secretary of the KI NObel committee (via Swedish newspaper) he actually died HOURS BEFORE the decision was taken.
Google translate link to the article: http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Fnyheter%2Fvetenskap%2Favlidne-pristagaren-behandlade-sig-sjalv&act=url
It seems particularly cruel of the fates – I mean of life (though I imply no agency by using that phrase) but he was ill for some years & his research prolonged his own life.
This wouldn’t be the first time a Nobel Prize has been awarded posthumously. Dag Hammerskjold won the Peace Prize in 1961, having been nominated before his death earlier that year (according to Wikipedia).
Yes, but that is not a proper Nobel, it is the peace prize (which is decided by Norwegians so what do they know!)
They even gave one to Mother Teresa, Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissenger! (and Obama!)
Yes it is, one of the five original Nobel Prizes. It’s the economics prize which is not “real”. No-one knows why Nobel stipulated that the Norwegians select the winner for this prize.
Not posthumous and at most three winners he also stipulated, and these are followed (with exceptions like died after the announcement, or at least after the (perhaps informal) decision). He also stipulated for stuff done “within the previous year”, but this was (understandably) relaxed.
I was actually under the impression that Nobel stipulated the Norwegians were to give the peace prize because in his recent past Sweden had been a fairly militaristic power in Europe. I don’t know how true this is, though, given that Nobel lived in the latter part of the 19th century and Sweden’s last major conflict ended in 1814.
There was also some controversy with Robert Edwards being awarded the 2010 medicine prize as he was too far gone with alzheimers to understand what was happening.
The reason why posthumous award of the nobel prize is not done is due to the fact that it removes some of the advantage of the current system which is that it stimulates current research. A discovery a young researcher makes today could get her or him a nobel prize in five to ten years – while they are still actively working. If posthumous awards are possible then you could easily end up with living winners being a rarity! There are many great results that never got their discoverer a nobel (for example Rosalind Franklin and her DNA pictures).
In the current case I suspect the best solution is to say the decision was made when Steinman was alive and so it is not a posthumous award – it is a prize awarded to a living person who just happened to die before he could collect it.
Edwards has been given a knighthood this summer as well.
2009 also had an awardee to ill to appreciate his award, but I think it was still a valid and good award.
As for Steinman’s death, his passing is a loss even without this odd predicament. I am not sure how the Committee will deal with it. I do not envy them.
As for some prize not being a “real” Nobel, I would say that applies much more to the Economics prize which was not in the will and is officially The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
The Literature prize is no less political in its way than the Peace Prize. And there is a great deal of debate as to whether some of the winners should have received it.
My thoughts go out to Ralph Steinman’s family and friends.
Maybe so, but the prize is given out of Nobel’s will. This is why it weighs heavily on awarding inventions instead of research, and the committee has through the years worked hard to loosen the strictures as much as they can.
From a leading local newspaper:
“Göran Hansson, Nobel committee secretary, confirmed to TT that Ralph Steinman died ULTIMO weekend.
What happens now?
– It is too early to tell. We have just received this information. What we can do now is just to complain that he did not feel the joy of their discoveries. What it has practical implications, we examine in the coming days along with the Nobel Foundation, said Hansson.
– We examine how the rules look like. One can not in principle reward deceased. This is a very unique situation because he passed away hours before the decision was made, said Göran Hansson.
– We appoint not some new winners, but this is our decision. How it then becomes practical with the surrender of the price we must investigate. I have no answer for now, he adds.” [/Google Translate]
One possibility is that since the decision was made “in closed chambers”, they can make the formal award anyway; I certainly hope so. Another is that they have to inhibit it.
As you may have guessed, there are two players here: the Nobel committee (who choses the prize winners) and the Nobel Foundation (who manages the will). The Nobel Foundation decides the rules, so it will be a while.
Incidentally some here guessed the committee choose unusually late. The press material was lacking the more thorough description that goes out.
I was surprised at the lack of information on the Nobel website. They usually have a lot more information about the winners (especially if they are venerable professors or heads of major research departments like the current winners.)
I was also of the opinion that the winners were usually told of their win prior to announcement. Apparently not.
They certainly try to contact the winners in the hours before the prize is announced. But that isn’t always going to be possible (even though people who think they might win often try to be easily available on the night in question).
As others noted, there is a happy update:
“Göran Hansson, Nobel committee secretary, confirmed on Monday afternoon for the TT that Ralph Steinman died ULTIMO weekend. Demise led to the initial confusion about whether the price could be distributed to a non-living person. Later explained the Nobel Foundation that Steinman will remain as winners.
The Foundation’s bylaws state that a “work of a person who later died should not be awarded prizes.” The price may be held by a person nominated as a winner, but died before he or she received the prize, writes Nobel Foundation as a result of the decision.
“The decision to award the Nobel Prize Ralph Steinman was, however, in good faith on the assumption that the winner was in life,” the Nobel Foundation said in a statement, noting:
“A useful interpretation of these rules leads to the conclusion that Ralph Steinman will be awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2011th The purpose of the above statute is to clarify that the Nobel Prize does not knowingly be awarded posthumously. ”
[Same source & translation.]
The Foundation went for the non-churlish “closed chamber” option, and pleased everyone. (I’m sure the Committee is pleased!)
Reminds me of the sad story of Richard Feynmann’s lifelong dream of going to Tannu Tuva. After being denied so many times by the Soviet government, and considering all kinds of stunts (like pretending to work for a museum looking for Tuvan artifacts), he was finally granted permission. But the letter arrived just a day or two after he died (also of cancer), I think.
It is tragic; a real loss to his family, community and science. I knew him when I was a post doc at Rockefeller University and his lab was just down stairs from the lab I worked in. He was unfailingly friendly and courteous and was always willing to discuss his work. Somewhat unusual among heads of lab. His death was a shock to me and I was surprised that none of the radio reports of the sward mentioned this.
The whole idea of recipient being a live is interesting and I wonder if it is embedded in Nobel’s will? There has been at least on set of recipients who were denied a well deserved award because of the untimely death of one. Avery, Macleod and MaCarty did not get an award for the identification of DNA as the genetic material because of Avery’s death. The award was stymied by a member of the committee who did not belief their results evan after Watson and Crick’s paper (1953) and held up the award until it was moot because of Avery’s death (1955). It seems the committee is recognizing significant work quicker
these days which is good, I think. However, there has been grumblings about the award for prions.
The prize will still be awarded.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15155642
Yes, it will be awarded. From todays NPR posting:
According to the Nobel Foundation’s current statutes, amended in 1974, “work produced by a person since deceased shall not be considered for an award. If, however, a prizewinner dies before he has received the prize, then the prize may be presented.” That suggests the foundation will award a prize in the case of a death that has occurred after the announcement, but not in the case of a death before the announcement.
Martin
Hopefully, the timing of the decision and the announcement of Steinman’s well deserved recognition will give the committee the cover it needs to do the right thing. It would, as they say, be the “noble” thing to do.