by
|
by |
|
|
|
|
The Nobel Prize is without a doubt the top award for biomedical research (technically, physiology and medicine). How a country primarily known for Volvos, massages, and meatballs came to be responsible for such an important award is hard to understand. Even more difficult to comprehend is the selection process, which involves members of the Karolinska Institute, the Nobel Assembly, and a guy named Mel who works in the deli across the street from the Institute. Over the years, many people have wondered why the winners can't be chosen more democratically, as are the U.S. presidents. Then again, maybe this wouldn't be such a great idea, if the recent presidential election were used as a model.
"Welcome to our special Nobel Prize election night coverage. This is Tom Brokaw reporting live from Stockholm. The early projections from the exit polls show a very tight race between the 'Biological Understanding of System CHeckpoints' group of Paul Nurse, Lee Hartwell, and Bert Vogelstein, known by the acronym BUSCH, and the team of Mario Capecchi and Sydney Brenner, representing the 'Genes in Organisms: Recombination and Replacement Experiments,' known by the acronym GORRE. Of the 50 voting members of the Nobel Assembly, the first nine to emerge from the polls were equally split between these two tickets, with one abstaining from answering the poll . . . at least that is how we interpreted his comment of 'None of your damn business.' Although the polls don't close for another hour, it looks like one of these two groups will get the next Nobel Prize for Medicine. Back to you, Dan."
"This is Dan Rather in Bethesda, Maryland, with analysis of the results so far. Joining me in the studio are two former Nobel laureates, David Baltimore and Harold Varmus. How do you see this race going, David?"
"Well, these certainly are two strong groups, Dan. Both teams have made significant discoveries, and they've run very solid campaigns. Earlier poll results indicated that the BUSCH group's cancer connection appealed more to the elderly members of the Nobel Assembly, while the GORRE group appealed to the younger members, those under 85."
"Excuse me for interrupting, David, but there's an important development. We go again to Tom Brokaw in Stockholm. What's happening there, Tom?"
"Well, Dan, another member of the Nobel Assembly has emerged and agreed to be interviewed. I'm here with Professor Olafson. How did you vote, Professor?"
"I voted for the team of Eric Kandel, Paul Greengard, and Arvid Carlsson for 'Neurons, Aplysia, and Dephosphorylation in Intelligence Research,' or NADIR. The other major teams had engaged in such strong negative campaigns, I got tired of all the mud-slinging and went with a group that ran a positive campaign. And besides, Arvid is a close personal friend. We meet every Wednesday night for bowling."
"Thank you, Professor. And now back to you, Dan."
"This is Dan Rather, in the studio, with analysis of this recent development. It certainly was a bitter campaign at times, with the two major parties accusing each other of fuzzy logic. With me in the studio is Harold Varmus. Was the negative campaigning a factor, Harold?"
"I think it was, Dan. The BUSCH and GORRE teams spent too much time denigrating each other's contributions to science. They also made too many promises as to how their research would lead to cures for everything from cancer to heart disease to halitosis. Although the NADIR group was excluded from the televised Nobel election debates, I'm sure the voters are aware of their contributions to science. However, there is the feeling that a vote for NADIR is a wasted vote."
"More election results just in. We go live to Dennis Miller at our Nobel election headquarters in New York."
"Thanks, Dan. The polls have now closed and the precincts have started reporting. As you can see from this map, the GORRE group has taken most of the votes from northwest Sweden, while the BUSCH group has taken most of the votes from central Sweden. The big surprise is that the NADIR group leads in southern and eastern Sweden. It still remains too close to call in Stockholm. The candidates should hold off writing their acceptance speeches and blow-drying their hair. Back to you, Dan."
"This is Dan Rather in Bethesda. Based on the returns so far, the race could go to either the BUSCH or GORRE teams, or even to the NADIR group if they win in Stockholm and western Sweden. We go live to Tom Brokaw in Stockholm for another new development."
"This is Tom Brokaw along with Professor Ericson, a member of the Nobel Assembly. Professor Ericson has charged that there are problems with the voting this year. What's the problem, Professor? Professor? Wake up, Professor, we're on TV."
"Huh? Oh - excuse me. Well Tom, the ballot was not very clear. I thought I was voting for the GORRE group but just when I was about to pull the lever, I realized that the buttons were mixed up and I had selected PAT BUCHANAN."
"Thank you, Professor. This is Dan Rather in the studio. That new development could explain the latest results: Of the 49 votes counted, it's a three-way tie between the GORRE, BUSCH, and NADIR groups with 14 votes each. Surprisingly, PAT BUCHANAN got 7 votes, perhaps a result of the confusing ballots in west Stockholm. This group had virtually no popular support going into the election. In fact, there was a strong negative opinion for the PAT BUCHANAN group, which is led by Craig Venter and is an acronym for 'Patent All Things - Bacteria, Ungulates, Chordates, Homo sapiens, Anthropods, Nematodes, All carbon-based life forms, and Non-carbon-based life forms too, just in case.'" Of course, this close a race will trigger an automatic recount of the ballots. We will also have to wait until the one absentee ballot from overseas is counted. It's possible that this election will be tied up in the courts for weeks, but stay tuned for continuous coverage of the events."
As you can see, the democratic process is not without problems. There are alternatives. Perhaps the Nobel laureates could be chosen by a Who Wants to Be a Millionaire-style quiz, with questions that are difficult for a typical nerdy scientist ("And for one million dollars and the Nobel Prize, what sport calls their finals the World Series? A, polo; B, synchronized swimming; C, chess; D, mud wrestling. . . .") Or they could use the Survivor format. Send the nominees for the Nobel Prize to a desert island and see who is willing to walk across hot coals, eat rats, and spend 43 days with nobody to talk to except brainless backbiting scum who want to be rich and famous. On second thought, maybe that's the way the U.S. president should be elected. . . .
Lloyd Fricker is a professor of molecular pharmacology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.
Julia Kuhl has done illustrations for the New Yorker and the New York Times, among others. She now lives in Heidelberg, Germany, with her neurobiologist husband and is working on a comic book - a Fulika atra (coot) version of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
