Nobel Prizes

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares147 Views

    George E. Smith Dead: Nobel Prize Winner Was 95

    by

    Together with Willard S. Boyle, he invented an imaging device that is an essential part of nearly every telescope, photocopier and digital camera used today.George E. Smith, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing a revolutionary imaging device that has not only allowed scientists to see the universe more clearly but has also made it possible for hundreds of millions of people to record every birthday and vacation for posterity, died on Wednesday at his home in Barnegat Township, N.J. He was 95.His death was confirmed by his daughter Lauren Lanning.It was while he was working at Bell Laboratories in 1969 that Dr. Smith and a colleague, Willard S. Boyle, came up with the idea for what is known as the charge-coupled device, or CCD — a technology that is an essential component of nearly every telescope, medical scanner, photocopier and digital camera in use today. Their work helped build “the foundation to our modern information society,” Gunnar Oquist, the Nobel academy’s secretary general, said when it was announced that Dr. Smith and Dr. Boyle would share the 2009 prize for physics. (They split the award with Charles K. Kao, who was recognized for work that resulted in the development of fiber-optic cables.)Dr. Smith, left, and Dr. Boyle in 2009, at a news conference in Stockholm after they won the Nobel Prize in Physics.Bertil Ericson/Scanpix Sweden, via Associated PressDr. Smith and Dr. Boyle had been trying to create better memory storage for computers when the idea for the CCD arose. They thought the photoelectric effect — which Einstein had explained, an explanation that won him a 1921 Nobel Prize — might offer a solution.The photoelectric phenomenon occurs when electromagnetic radiation, such as light, hits a metal surface, dislodging electrons from atoms and causing a current to flow through the metal. The device that Dr. Smith and Dr. Boyle created employs rows of tiny capacitors to store and transfer the electrical charge — essentially capturing light — and uses the information to construct an image.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Mario Vargas Llosa, Nobel-Winning Peruvian Novelist, Dies at 89

      by

      Mr. Vargas Llosa, who ran for Peru’s presidency in 1990 and won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2010, transformed episodes from his personal life into books that reverberated far beyond the borders of his native country.Mario Vargas Llosa, the Peruvian novelist who combined gritty realism with playful erotica and depictions of the struggle for individual liberty in Latin America, while also writing essays that made him one of the most influential political commentators in the Spanish-speaking world, died on Sunday in Lima. He was 89.His death was announced in a social media statement from his children, Álvaro, Gonzalo and Morgana Vargas Llosa.Mr. Vargas Llosa, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2010, gained renown as a young writer with slangy, blistering visions of the corruption, moral compromises and cruelty festering in Peru. He joined a cohort of writers like Gabriel García Márquez of Colombia and Julio Cortázar of Argentina, who became famous in the 1960s as members of Latin America’s literary “boom generation.”His distaste for the norms of polite society in Peru gave him abundant inspiration. After he was enrolled at the age of 14 in the Leoncio Prado Military Academy in Lima, Mr. Vargas Llosa turned that experience into his first novel, “The Time of the Hero,” a critical account of military life published in 1963.The book was denounced by several generals, including one who claimed it was financed by Ecuador to undermine Peru’s military — all of which helped make it an immediate success.Mr. Vargas Llosa was never fully enamored, however, by his contemporaries’ magical realism. And he was disillusioned with Fidel Castro’s persecution of dissidents in Cuba, breaking from the leftist ideology that held sway for decades over many writers in Latin America.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Mario Vargas Llosa: An Appreciation

      by

      The Peruvian author Mario Vargas Llosa was the world’s savviest and most accomplished political novelist.Once upon a time, during the last quarter of the 20th century, it was possible to argue that one person was America’s best novelist and best literary critic. I am talking about John Updike, whose long and elegant reviews in The New Yorker set reading agendas.Such was Updike’s influence that readers paid heed when, in the mid-1980s, he developed a sustained literary man-crush on the Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, who died on Sunday at 89.More than once in his reviews of Vargas Llosa’s novels, Updike took note of the author’s handsomeness and urbanity. He was more impressed by Vargas Llosa’s substantial intelligence, his learning, his versatility and his imagination, which could conjure the comic fussiness of a tiny left-wing splinter group in solemn session, or the nauseated feelings of a young wife who discovers that her husband is gay, or the mixed feelings of a citified idealist engaging in a gun battle in the Andes while beset with altitude sickness.Vargas Llosa “has replaced Gabriel García Márquez” as the South American novelist North American readers must catch up on, Updike wrote in 1986, four years after García Márquez received the Nobel Prize in Literature and 24 years before Vargas Llosa himself would.Even Updike was two decades late to the writer’s work. Vargas Llosa had already published most of his major and enduring novels, including “The Time of the Hero” (1963), “The Green House” (1966), “Conversation in the Cathedral” (1969) and “The War of the End of the World” (1981). These grainy, raunchy, politically minded and mind-expanding books found a worldwide audience but were slower to catch on in the United States.Vargas Llosa had helped start, in the early 1960s, a movement that became known as the Boom, a term applied to a freewheeling and socially conscious new generation of Latin American writers: García Márquez, Carlos Fuentes, Julio Cortázar, Juan Rulfo, Guillermo Cabrera Infante, José Donoso and Miguel Ángel Asturias, among others.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      82 American Nobel Prize Winners Endorse Kamala Harris

      by

      More than 80 American Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine and economics have signed an open letter endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president.“This is the most consequential presidential election in a long time, perhaps ever, for the future of science and the United States,” reads the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. “We, the undersigned, strongly support Harris.”The letter praises Ms. Harris for understanding that “the enormous increases in living standards and life expectancies over the past two centuries are largely the result of advances in science and technology.” Former President Donald Trump, by contrast, would “jeopardize any advancements in our standards of living, slow the progress of science and technology and impede our responses to climate change,” the letter said.Eighty-two Nobel laureates — from a physicist who helped discover leftover light from the Big Bang to an immunologist who paved the way for one type of Covid-19 vaccine — have signed the letter. The laureates include the molecular biologist Gary Ruvkun, the chemist David Baker, the physicist John Hopfield and the economist Daron Acemoglu, all of whom won Nobels this month.Read the Letter from Nobel Laureates Endorsing Kamala Harris for PresidentMore than 80 American Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine and economics have signed an open letter endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president.Read Document 4 pagesJoseph Stiglitz, an economist at Columbia University who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001, drafted the endorsement. He said he was motivated by the “enormous cuts in science budgets” Mr. Trump proposed during his presidency, as well as what Dr. Stiglitz described as the former president’s “anti-science” and “anti-university” stances.While in office, Mr. Trump proposed a budget that would have led to a severe loss of funds for federal health and science agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Science Foundation and the Environmental Protection Agency. On the campaign trail this year, Mr. Trump has suggested shutting down the Department of Education.“I hope it’s a wake-up call for people,” Dr. Stiglitz said of the letter. “A consequence of this election is the really profound impact that his agenda has on science and technology.”The letter also praised Ms. Harris’s recognition of the role that immigrants play in advancing science and technology, both nationally and on a global scale. Immigration has been a key issue in this year’s election, with both candidates promising a stricter approach than their prior presidential campaigns.Many scientists are inclined to “stick to their knitting,” Dr. Stiglitz said — focusing on their research rather than politics, and on knowledge for knowledge’s sake instead of the real-world applications that result from it.“But they’ve recognized this is a moment where you can’t be silent,” he said. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Letter from Nobel Laureates Endorsing Kamala Harris for President

      by

      At no time in our nation’s history has there been a greater need for our leaders to appreciate the
      value of science in formulating public policy.
      The enormous increases in living standards and life expectancies over the past two centuries are
      largely the result of advances in science and technology. Kamala Harris recognizes this and
      understands that maintaining America’s leadership in these fields requires budgetary support
      from the federal government, independent universities, and international collaboration. Harris
      also recognizes the key role that immigrants have always played in the advancement of science.
      Should Donald Trump win the presidential election, he would undermine future US leadership on
      these and other fronts, as well as jeopardize any advancements in our standards of living, slow
      the progress of science and technology, and impede our responses to climate change.
      This is the most consequential presidential election in a long time, perhaps ever, for the future of
      science and the United States. We, the undersigned, strongly support Harris.
      Signed,
      Peter Agre
      Chemistry 2003
      Frances H. Arnold
      Chemistry 2018
      David Baker
      Chemistry 2024
      Moungi G. Bawendi Chemistry 2023
      Martin Chalfie
      Chemistry 2008
      Elias James Corey,
      Chemistry 1990
      Johann Deisenhofer
      Chemistry 1988
      Joachim Frank
      Chemistry 2017
      Alan Heeger
      Roald Hoffmann
      Brian K. Kobilka
      Chemistry 2000
      Chemistry 1981
      Chemistry 2012
      Roger D. Kornberg
      Chemistry 2006
      Robert J. Lefkowitz
      Chemistry 2012
      Michael Levitt
      Chemistry 2013
      William E. Moerner Chemistry 2014
      Richard R. Schrock Chemistry 2005
      Sir James Fraser Stoddart
      Chemistry 2016
      Sir M. Stanley Whittingham Chemistry 2019 More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Shift in the World of Science

      by

      What this year’s Nobels can teach us about science and humanity.Alan Burdick and Technology observers have grown increasingly vocal in recent years about the threat that artificial intelligence poses to the human variety. A.I. models can write and talk like us, draw and paint like us, crush us at chess and Go. They express an unnerving simulacrum of creativity, not least where the truth is concerned.A.I. is coming for science, too, as this week’s Nobel Prizes seemed keen to demonstrate. On Tuesday, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to two scientists who helped computers “learn” closer to the way the human brain does. A day later, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three researchers for using A.I. to invent new proteins and reveal the structure of existing ones — a problem that stumped biologists for decades, yet could be solved by A.I. in minutes.The Nobel Committee for Chemistry announced the winners last week.Jonathan Nackstrand/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesCue the grousing: This was computer science, not physics or chemistry! Indeed, of the five laureates on Tuesday and Wednesday, arguably only one, the University of Washington biochemist David Baker, works in the field he was awarded in.The scientific Nobels tend to award concrete results over theories, empirical discovery over pure idea. But that schema didn’t quite hold this year, either. One prize went to scientists who leaned into physics as a foundation on which to build computer models used for no groundbreaking result in particular. The laureates on Wednesday, on the other hand, had created computer models that made big advancements in biochemistry.These were outstanding and fundamentally human accomplishments, to be sure. But the Nobel recognition underscored a chilling prospect: Henceforth, perhaps scientists will merely craft the tools that make the breakthroughs, rather than do the revolutionary work themselves or even understand how it came about. Artificial intelligence designs and builds hundreds of molecular Notre Dames and Hagia Sophias, and a researcher gets a pat for inventing the shovel.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More