Literary critics have spent the past week reeling after the Nobel Prize committee’s announcement that it has granted the 2016 Prize in literature to Bob Dylan (who hilariously failed to even acknowledge the prize for five days). The attention that Dylan’s win has garnered has detracted attention from the Nobel Prizes in both Chemistry and Physics, announced earlier this month, each resulting in an award of 8 million Swedish kronor, or $930,000, to the recipients. Three British physicists who currently work in the U.S. were awarded the prize for their examination of the properties of matter in extreme states , research which can be used for the next generation of superconductors and even quantum computers. The prize in Chemistry was awarded to a team of three scientists from France, the U.S., and the Netherlands respectively for their development of molecular machines, molecules with controllable movements. While these prizes do not draw the same attention as a Peace Prize or a Literature Prize among the general public, they are critical factors that influence what research gets funded at our top universities and how scientists decide what is worth studying. But is that really a good thing?

Incentivized research projects such as the XPrize or Cancer Research UK’s research prizes motivate innovation in certain fields but the Nobel Prize does not have such a targeted aim. Although the Nobel Peace Prize is centered around positive impact on the human race, the scientific prizes are not always as concerned with the human factor. Yes, the matter in extreme states that won the 2016 Physics Prize is incredibly innovative and the molecular machines that won the Chemistry Prize may be used to create revolutionary new materials and energy storage–but do they have immediate benefits that we will feel in 2016? Will they transform medicine, or public welfare, or the lives of the greater population of the planet within the coming months?

These projects are incredible but they are the first step in a larger chain of exploratory science that, while it is admirable and truly commendable, will not be ending world hunger, curing a disease or creating a more equitable and inclusive society within our lifetime. The Nobel Prize is a beautiful way to recognize some of our brightest minds, but it also detracts from the work going on to solve problems that need to solved in order to save lives.

The brightest scientific minds of our world often get caught up in theoretical problems, and when we reward them with financial incentives, the spotlight falls on that research rather than the work of scientists tackling more “mundane” problems. If a research institution gains a Nobel Prize, it will attract the best and brightest minds but will force them to focus on the project that received Nobel acclaim. By giving financial prizes only to scientists who are working on projects that are far-reaching rather than those who are tackling immediate crises, we may cut the legs out from valuable research that needs funding today. Projects that create crops resistant to climate change, make transit more affordable and simple  and design affordable vaccines are all revolutionary and have immediate positive effects on human well being–yet none of them have received the Nobel prize. The Nobel Prize should not by any means be done away with–but perhaps the committee should consider doing even more good by rewarding research that will save lives immediately rather than possibly improve lives after several more decades of research.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Is the Nobel Prize Rewarding the Wrong Research? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a scuffle that pits a global non-governmental body against a formidable foe: the signatures of 110 Nobel Prize winners. The subject of debate? Genetically modified organisms (GMOs); specifically, a vitamin A enhanced grain known as Golden Rice. Last week, a cohort of past Nobel laureates–including physicists, chemists, economists, and doctors–signed a letter implicating Greenpeace International as carrying out a “global campaign to mislead consumers” about GMOs and Golden Rice.

Greenpeace is against GMOs in general, and has a section on its website dedicated to the modified grain. The group says Golden Rice is “environmentally irresponsible, poses risks to human health, and could compromise food, nutrition, and financial security.” Instead, the group favors solutions that already exist in communities with high levels of malnourishment or nutrient deficiencies, namely more varied diets and community gardens.

But GMO advocates say nutrient enhanced crop varieties–along with animals that have been modified to grow faster or eradicate viruses–can help millions of people around the globe. The letter, sent by laureates from 1962 to 2015, offers a scathing diagnosis of what they see as Greenpeace’s intentional sabotaging of efforts to send GMOs, like Golden Rice, to market. They wrote:

Greenpeace International has been at the forefront of these campaigns, spreading false information and fomenting unfounded fears that have led to individual and organizational [behavior] that have resulted in excessive regulatory burdens and delays.

Golden Rice was developed by German scientists 24 years ago. It has been heralded as a potentially life-saving strain, due to its high beta carotene count. Many rice varieties in Africa and Southeast Asia lack vitamin A, which leads to vitamin A deficiency (VAD). VAD can cause blindness and lead to an increased risk for infection and disease. Golden Rice has yet to hit the market, and some local anti-GMO groups in the Philippines–where the primary testing plots for the crop are located–destroyed testing sites a few years ago.

“Corporations are overhyping Golden Rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable genetically engineered crops,” Greenpeace issued in a press release.

For all the back-and-forth, a recent study conducted by researchers at Washington University-St. Louis found that Golden Rice’s issues go beyond barriers set up by anti-GMO groups such as Greenpeace. “The rice simply has not been successful in test plots of the rice breeding institutes in the Philippines,” explained Glenn Stone, lead author of the study, to Washington University’s student newspaper. “The simple fact is that after 24 years of research and breeding, Golden Rice is still years away from being ready for release.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Battle: Nobel Laureates vs. Greenpeace International appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, I talked about the gender gap as it appears in Hollywood’s hiring practices. This week, gender bias has reared its ugly head once more–with the Nobel Prize.

In a recently released analysis by Fortune, it is disturbing–though not all that surprising–to see that when it comes to the highest honor a person can receive in their field, most of the honorees are men.

The Nobel Prize was first awarded in 1901, and for those that don’t want to do the math, that was 114 years ago. In that time, we have had some truly remarkable female laureates. Malala Yousafzai is the youngest winner in history; at just 17 she received the Nobel Peace Prize for her work against the suppression of education. Marie Curie was one of the few people who won the prize twice, in physics and then in chemistry, for her breakthroughs in the world of science. Yes, women have contributed quite a bit to humanity, and have sometimes been recognized for it. But the numbers, as always, don’t lie. Since 1901, men have won the prize 825 times, and women have won just 49 times.

Out of all the Nobel Prizes awarded to individuals, only 5.6 percent of them went to women.

According to Fortune’s analysis, the category with the most female winners is Literature; 12.5 percent of the winners were women. The category with the fewest women is Physics, with a whopping 1 percent. While those numbers seem disappointingly low, Fortune calls it “drastic improvement,” if only because the number of female laureates has gone up from four in the prize’s first two decades to 49 in 2015.

I’m going to have to disagree with Fortune on this one.

“Drastic” literally means extreme or radical. It should not be considered “drastic” for one gender to still have such a small representation in one of the highest honors in the world. Now, we don’t want Nobel Prizes going to people just because there is a gender gap that needs filling, but once again, the gap is just too big to be explained away by “maybe men are just better at [insert category here]”.

It isn’t necessarily the Nobel Prize committees’ fault, though. The pool of female candidates in certain categories, especially physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics, is relatively small. So, that 1 percent of women who have won in physics seems a lot bigger when you realize that the entire field of physics only has a relatively small percentage of women associated with it in the first place. So, it isn’t the prize’s fault, but what these numbers highlight is a greater need for women in all fields, especially the sciences. And when there aren’t a lot of female role models for potential scientists to look up to, increasing that percentage is going to be difficult.

So what do we do? We encourage. We tell young girls and women that they can be anything they want to be, whether that means a housewife, musician, actress, physicist, or doctor. Women already in scientific fields can stand up and be role models for those just starting out in those careers. Only then will the percentage of female candidates increase, as well as the number of female Nobel laureates.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Gender Gap is Everywhere: Disparity in Nobel Prize Winners appeared first on Law Street.

According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, FIFA’s outgoing President Sepp Blatter deserves a Nobel Prize. Putin made these comments during an interview with Swiss broadcaster RTS that was released on Monday. These comments followed  Blatter and Putin’s gathering in St. Petersburg for the preliminary draw for the 2018 World Cup located in Russia. But Putin’s comments seem a bit odd, as there’s potential evidence that Blatter has been involved in suspicious or illegal activities for years.  

After all, Blatter has had his fair share of attention this past year. Blatter’s 17-year-reign as FIFA president came to an end in June when he announced his resignation. His resignation came six days after the FBI announced it would be investigating some top FIFA officials. The FBI later announced it planned to win the cooperation of other FIFA officials who were under indictment and work its way up the organization.

During the interview, Putin stated

I believe that people like Mr. Blatter, the heads of major international sports federations, deserve special attention and gratitude from public organizations, if anyone should be awarded Nobel Prizes it is these people.

FIFA itself had a rough year as well. Last January, FIFA was hit with a lawsuit by several high profile female players after it announced the Women’s 2015 World Cup would be played on turf instead of grass like Men’s World Cups. In addition to the lawsuit, FIFA has struggled to maintain partners and sponsors after the announcement of the investigation into the potential corruption scandal. Last month, the Nobel Peace Center announced that it would stop working with FIFA on the joint fair play Handshake for Peace after the corruption allegations. After the severance of this relationship, it is hard to believe that the Nobel Peace Center would agree with Putin’s comments. While the Nobel Peace Center doesn’t directly say the relationship was severed because of the allegations, it’s a popular and believable theory.

While Blatter denies any wrongdoing, that’s a bit hard to believe given his abrupt resignation and the indictment of his former colleagues. However, Putin seems to be convinced of Blatter’s innocence stating:

We all know the situation surrounding Mr. Blatter right now, I don’t want to go into details, but I don’t believe a word of him being involved in corruption personally.

I question Putin’s ability to judge someone’s innocence given his recent activities (Ukraine comes to mind), but since Blatter isn’t being personally investigated by authorities, that could be part of Putin’s reasoning.  Currently, Swiss and U.S. authorities are investigating whether the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bids were accepted through legal means, but Putin has voiced his concerns about those investigations, particularly the U.S. role.

While Blatter has won more than 70 awards in the futbol world, many members of the soccer community were not sad to see him go. Greg Dyke, the head of the Football Association (FA), and Michael Plantini, the head of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) had already been calling for him to step down.

While Blatter is not currently being investigated by U.S. or Swiss authorities, many believe he may be at least somewhat involved in the scandals. Dyke, the head of FA, stated

I don’t believe Mr. Blatter’s decision to step down was an ethical decision. I suspect it is much more to do with the investigations that are going on, clearly something has terrified him.

Although Blatter has many awards and served FIFA for 17 years as president, he is in no way qualified to receive a Nobel Prize. In fact, given that the Nobel Prize is only given in Chemistry, Peace, Physics, Physiology, Literature, and Medicine, Putin should have specified what award Blatter is actually qualified for.

The 2015 Nobel Prize winners have yet to be determined, and Blatter will likely remain in office  until his successor takes over. However, his role in the potential corruption investigation has yet to be determined, creating skepticism around his legacy and role at FIFA, and a huge question mark when examining Putin’s statements.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sepp Blatter and the Nobel Prize: What is Putin Thinking? appeared first on Law Street.