Controversy over the Nobel Prize in Medicine

Dr. Raymond Damadian failed to be included in this year’s Nobel honors for work in Medicine, and feels sore about it.  Although he was the inventor of the first machine that discovers cancers through magnetic resonance imaging, the award went to two other and somewhat subsequent scientists, Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield.  Notoriously, the Nobel committees never reveal their deliberations (until everyone is long dead) and never change their minds.  So, although by having taken out advertisements of protest in The New York Times and The Washington Post may make him feel somewhat better, and draw attention to his bad luck, Damadian seems fated to remain with the rest of us who are not Nobel Laureates.  He will join Charles Best of Banting and Best fame who discovered the significance of insulin treatment for diabetes – Frederick Banting and his boss J.J.R. McCleod (who was on vacation at the time) got the award and Best the junior scientist was left out.

But perhaps Dr. Damadian does have reason to feel having been slighted for the wrong reasons.  He is not just an inventor, but also a very prominent Christian.  And not just a Christian of any bland kind, but a Creation Scientist – one of those people who believes that the Bible, especially including Genesis, is absolutely literally true – six days of creation, Adam and Eve the first humans, universal flood, and all of the rest.  It is as least as likely a hypothesis that Damadian was ignored by the Nobel committee because they did not want to award a Prize to an American fundamentalist Christian as that they did not think his work merited the fullest accolade.  In the eyes of rational Europeans – and Swedes are nothing if not rational Europeans – it is bad enough that such people exist, let alone give them added status and a pedestal from which to preach their silly ideas.  Especially a scientific pedestal from which to preach their silly anti-science ideas.

Is this unfair?  One certainly feels a certain sympathy for the Nobel committee.  Creation science is wrong and (if taught to young people as the truth) dangerous.  It does represent everything against which good science stands.  However, even the best scientists believe some very strange things, and if we start judging one area of their work in terms of other beliefs that they have, we could well do more harm than good.  Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of them all, had some very strange views about the proper interpretation of such Biblical books as Daniel and Revelation, and in respects believed things about the universe – its past and its future – that make today’s Creation Scientists seem comparatively mild.  More recently, Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection along with Charles Darwin, became an enthusiast for spiritualism, believing that there are hidden forces controlling every aspect of life.  People knew this and were embarrassed by it, but it did not stop them from celebrating and praising Wallace’s great scientific work.  He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society, and given Britain’s greatest award for achievement, the Order of Merit.

All of my life I have fought for evolution and against Creationism – in writings, on the podium, and in court in 1981 as a witness in Arkansasagainst a law demanding that Creation Science be taught alongside evolution in the state supported schools.  But as one who loves science above all and thinks it the greatest triumph of the human spirit – as one who has no religious beliefs whatsoever – I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs.  Having silly ideas in one field is no good reason to deny merit for great ideas in another field.  Apart from the fact that this time the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community.

Author

  • Michael Ruse, Ph.D. is Professor of Philosophy and Zoology at Florida State University.

    The author of many books including Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?, Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology, The Philosophy of Biology, and Taking Darwin Seriously. New publications forthcoming include Can a Darwinian be a Christian? The Relationship Between Science and Religion, The Evolution Wars, and Cloning (edited volume). He is also the founder and editor of the journal Biology & Philosophy, and editor of the "Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology" (8 volumes published and 10 more volumes contracted).

Similar Posts

  • Some Characteristics of Science

    Many science-religion dialogues become controversial when participants ascribe different meanings to the terms science and religion . When scientists reject certain claims of religionists, it is often because their view of science is not the same as that of an opposing commentator, and vice versa. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a non-practitioner…

  • On the Essence

    Introducci�n. El problema del alma, uno de los m�s antiguos de la filosof�a, es tambi�n central en el pensamiento de Zubiri, hasta el punto de que cabe clasificar buena parte de su obra en funci�n de este problema; esta clasificaci�n, por otra parte, nos permitir� se�alar las fuentes zubirianas que vamos a utilizar aqu� en…

  • Idols and the Death of God

    1. Idols 1.1 Nietzsche When Nietzsche’s madman proclaimed the death of God in 1887, he correctly identified the perpetrators: “We have killed him, you and I”. However, an examination of the crime scene reveals that Nietzsche misidentified the victim; it was not God, but an image of God that we created and then killed. The…

  • Whatever Happened to Wisdom?

    Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? –T. S. Eliot “The Rock” 1934   Always be ready to give an answer when someone asks you about your hope. –1 Peter 3:151   “Perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that ethics requires us to risk ourselves…

  • Transdisciplinarity and the Philosophy of Science

    1) The Seamless Garment of Knowledge Transdiciplinarity, rigorously speaking, is a term which conveys that knowledge in the ultimate sense transcends the restricted and compartmentalized scope of our many individualized disciplines and highly specialized sciences. We aim to scale such a summit of knowledge only partially when we allow ourselves to realize the interdisciplinary potential…