l***d
发帖数: 1828 | 1 http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101118/full/news.2010.620.html
Nobel prize committee under fire
Errors lead to accusations that committee did not do its homework before
making the 2010 award for physics.
A high-profile graphene researcher has written to the Nobel prize committee
for physics, objecting to errors in its explanation of this year's prize.
The award was given to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov of Manchester
University, UK, for their work on graphene, a two-dimensional carbon
structure that has huge potential in the field of electronics.
Due to the Nobels' prominence, it is not unheard of for disgruntled
researchers to criticize a prize committee's decision. But this complaint
focuses instead on the quality of the scientific background document issued
by the committee to explain why it awarded the prize. "The Nobel Prize
committee did not do its homework," says Walt de Heer of Georgia Institute
of Technology in Atlanta. He sent his letter to the committee on 17 November.
After enquiries made by Nature in advance of De Heer's letter, the committee
is making at least one correction to its online information, says chairman
Ingemar Lundström. "Some of the things we also think are mistakes."
De Heer holds patents on the use of graphene in electronics, and made some
of the earliest measurements of electronic effects in the material. Geim
accuses de Heer of trying to boost his own reputation. "If he complains
about Stockholm, some people might start thinking that he contributed
something important," says Geim.
De Heer does disagree with the award of the physics prize to Geim and
Novoselov, calling it "extremely fast", but he insists that his objections
to the prize committee's document are not motivated by sour grapes. "The
motive is simply to have the record straight on a document this important,"
he says. "Its standards have to be higher than for any other prize and they'
re not."
According to the background document as downloaded by Nature on 17 November,
Geim and Novoselov won the 2010 prize for "decisive contributions" to the
development of graphene. It explains that the field was ignited by a 2004
paper1 that the group published in Science.
Series of errors
But de Heer sees a series of errors that he believes overplay the
significance of Geim and Novoselov's work at the expense of other
researchers. One example is Figure 3 of the document, which is taken from
Geim and Novoselov's 2004 paper. The caption says the data were obtained
using graphene, which the document defines as "a single atomic layer of
carbon". But the result was actually obtained in few-layer graphene (FLG), a
multilayer form of carbon also known as graphite. Graphene and graphite
have different electronic properties — part of the reason for the
tremendous interest in studying single atomic layers.
Geim says the error is not a big deal because he and his colleagues later
reported similar data on single-layer graphene in 20052. But De Heer says in
his letter to the committee that his own 2004 paper3 included measurements
on a single layer of graphene, even though he did not realize it at the time.
Other mistakes downplay the work of Philip Kim of Columbia University in New
York, whom many researchers think should have shared the prize. When the
Manchester group published crucial electronic measurements on graphene in
Nature in 2005, the paper4 appeared back-to-back with one5 from Kim's group.
"He made an important contribution and I would gladly have shared the prize
with him," says Geim.
Kim says he is honoured by the suggestion. "Personally I wish it but it's
not working that way," he says. "I respect the decision."
Figure 4 of the Nobel document shows two panels of data, but its caption
refers twice to the left panel, which shows data obtained by Novoselov and
Geim, and not at all to the right panel, which shows Kim's data. In addition
, a citation to Kim's 2005 paper could be read as referring to an inset of
data in the figure, leaving the main panel uncited. Kim downplays the errors
, calling them editorial in nature.
Complete surprise
De Heer also complains that the main text of the background document
exaggerates the importance of Novoselov and Geim's 2004 paper. It states
that the study came as a complete surprise to the physics community and that
, before their work, graphene had never been isolated and was not thought to
be stable. "It is a complete straw man", says De Heer.
That claim by the Nobel committee has irked other graphene researchers as
well. "That statement is not accurate," says Paul McEuen at Cornell
University in Ithaca, New York. McEuen says that graphene had been made
before the 2004 paper, and that several groups were working towards making
electrical measurements on it. McEuen says that in his view, the most
important contributions were those published in 2005 by Geim and Novoselov
and separately by Kim.
Novoselov and Geim argue that the accuracy of the committee's statement is a
matter of opinion. Only "a tiny minority" of researchers thought that
graphene would be stable, says Geim. He points out that thousands have since
voted with their feet by switching fields to work on graphene. Novoselov
and Geim's 2004 Science paper has received 3,357 citations according to the
Web of Knowledge citation index.
Lundström says that the committee is now correcting several points in
its document raised by Nature and by De Heer's letter, but says it is
unlikely to change its general statement on the significance of the
Manchester group's 2004 work. He adds that as a "popular" document, the
backgrounder does not necessarily reflect all the information that the
committee relied on when awarding the prize.
ADVERTISEMENT
De Heer also speculates that information from nomination material has been
used in the backgrounder. "The document reads like a nomination letter," he
says. Per Delsing at Chalmers University of Technology in Göteborg, an
adjunct member of the Nobel committee, responds that the committee did
extensive research into the field before awarding the prize, but wouldn't
comment on the suggestion that material submitted by a nominator might have
been used in the preparation of the document. "I cannot reveal that. Many of
these things are secret," he says.
The committee has apparently already made one correction to the document. In
a version downloaded in October 2010 by Rodney Ruoff at the University of
Texas at Austin, the names of Ruoff and five other authors were omitted from
a reference to a 2009 paper describing the scaling-up of sheets of
graphene6. These names are now included. Ruoff says he'd like the Nobel
Prize committee to investigate how its document was generated and whether
material from nomination letters was incorporated. "This whole experience
has left me wondering how the Nobel-prize process works," he says.
However, Klaus von Klitzing of the Max Planck Institute for Solid State
Research in Stuttgart, Germany, winner of the 1985 Nobel prize for physics,
says he sees no need to criticize this year's committee. He points out that
a symposium on graphene was held earlier this year in Stockholm, during
which committee members heard from leading graphene researchers including de
Heer and Kim. "I believe that members of the Nobel Prize Committee had a
good overview about the scientific situation," he says. | t****a
发帖数: 3544 | 2 interesting ...
committee
【在 l***d 的大作中提到】
: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101118/full/news.2010.620.html
: Nobel prize committee under fire
: Errors lead to accusations that committee did not do its homework before
: making the 2010 award for physics.
: A high-profile graphene researcher has written to the Nobel prize committee
: for physics, objecting to errors in its explanation of this year's prize.
: The award was given to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov of Manchester
: University, UK, for their work on graphene, a two-dimensional carbon
: structure that has huge potential in the field of electronics.
: Due to the Nobels' prominence, it is not unheard of for disgruntled
| e********y
发帖数: 935 | 3 心里不平衡啊。。。
committee
【在 l***d 的大作中提到】
: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101118/full/news.2010.620.html
: Nobel prize committee under fire
: Errors lead to accusations that committee did not do its homework before
: making the 2010 award for physics.
: A high-profile graphene researcher has written to the Nobel prize committee
: for physics, objecting to errors in its explanation of this year's prize.
: The award was given to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov of Manchester
: University, UK, for their work on graphene, a two-dimensional carbon
: structure that has huge potential in the field of electronics.
: Due to the Nobels' prominence, it is not unheard of for disgruntled
| q*d
发帖数: 22178 | 4 今年不服气的似乎是有点多
【在 e********y 的大作中提到】
: 心里不平衡啊。。。
:
: committee
| c****e
发帖数: 2097 | 5 i think x1980 would probably become a more worthy physicist than these lads
committee
【在 l***d 的大作中提到】
: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101118/full/news.2010.620.html
: Nobel prize committee under fire
: Errors lead to accusations that committee did not do its homework before
: making the 2010 award for physics.
: A high-profile graphene researcher has written to the Nobel prize committee
: for physics, objecting to errors in its explanation of this year's prize.
: The award was given to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov of Manchester
: University, UK, for their work on graphene, a two-dimensional carbon
: structure that has huge potential in the field of electronics.
: Due to the Nobels' prominence, it is not unheard of for disgruntled
| x***u
发帖数: 6421 | 6 以后争论会越来越多，只要Nobel奖的水准越来越低。
山顶可以窄到只有一棵树，越往下走，差不多高度的树会越来越多。 | w*******x
发帖数: 489 | 7 有见地。
公布了奖的第二天电梯里碰到kim，我开玩笑的问他这个事情，Kim大概就是这么说的：）
committee
【在 l***d 的大作中提到】
: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101118/full/news.2010.620.html
: Nobel prize committee under fire
: Errors lead to accusations that committee did not do its homework before
: making the 2010 award for physics.
: A high-profile graphene researcher has written to the Nobel prize committee
: for physics, objecting to errors in its explanation of this year's prize.
: The award was given to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov of Manchester
: University, UK, for their work on graphene, a two-dimensional carbon
: structure that has huge potential in the field of electronics.
: Due to the Nobels' prominence, it is not unheard of for disgruntled
| e********y
发帖数: 935 | 8 But De Heer says in his letter to the committee that his own 2004 paper3
included measurements
on a single layer of graphene, even though he did not realize it at the time.
这段让我想起以前看到的Weinberg对neutral current的发现的一句话，you get the
credit for
discovering something only if you claim you made that discovery.
committee
【在 l***d 的大作中提到】
: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101118/full/news.2010.620.html
: Nobel prize committee under fire
: Errors lead to accusations that committee did not do its homework before
: making the 2010 award for physics.
: A high-profile graphene researcher has written to the Nobel prize committee
: for physics, objecting to errors in its explanation of this year's prize.
: The award was given to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov of Manchester
: University, UK, for their work on graphene, a two-dimensional carbon
: structure that has huge potential in the field of electronics.
: Due to the Nobels' prominence, it is not unheard of for disgruntled
| a***y
发帖数: 117 | | w********h
发帖数: 12367 | 10 我觉得他这句话是个败笔。
应该换个说法：为了谨慎起见，并没有过早claim此项成果的单层性。
time.
【在 e********y 的大作中提到】
: But De Heer says in his letter to the committee that his own 2004 paper3
: included measurements
: on a single layer of graphene, even though he did not realize it at the time.
: 这段让我想起以前看到的Weinberg对neutral current的发现的一句话，you get the
: credit for
: discovering something only if you claim you made that discovery.
:
: committee
| | | m*****r
发帖数: 3822 | 11 所以写文章还是要敢吹。崔琦那个分数量子效应他在文章里也就是那么一猜。
你做出来不说是没用的，没完全做出来猜对了也算你的。
time.
【在 e********y 的大作中提到】
: But De Heer says in his letter to the committee that his own 2004 paper3
: included measurements
: on a single layer of graphene, even though he did not realize it at the time.
: 这段让我想起以前看到的Weinberg对neutral current的发现的一句话，you get the
: credit for
: discovering something only if you claim you made that discovery.
:
: committee
| o*********i
发帖数: 266 | 12 赫赫。
说是测TI的把rouxy做个二级导数看到有点小kink也说是测出fractional了。
【在 m*****r 的大作中提到】
: 所以写文章还是要敢吹。崔琦那个分数量子效应他在文章里也就是那么一猜。
: 你做出来不说是没用的，没完全做出来猜对了也算你的。
:
: time.
| q*d
发帖数: 22178 | 13 有一年老杨被请到西海岸帮忙解释超导磁通量子化的现象,
老杨瞪大眼睛看着一张乱七八糟布满数据点的图觉得他就是看不出来里面有那个
做实验的某人声称的"台阶".
过了阵子,这现象被广泛验证,老杨很佩服的说,
怪不得某人是做实验的而他本人不是.
【在 o*********i 的大作中提到】
: 赫赫。
: 说是测TI的把rouxy做个二级导数看到有点小kink也说是测出fractional了。
| o****t
发帖数: 275 | 14 想起老杨在Huang采访他时点名批评Sakurai没真正搞懂为什么磁通会量子化。
【在 q*d 的大作中提到】
: 有一年老杨被请到西海岸帮忙解释超导磁通量子化的现象,
: 老杨瞪大眼睛看着一张乱七八糟布满数据点的图觉得他就是看不出来里面有那个
: 做实验的某人声称的"台阶".
: 过了阵子,这现象被广泛验证,老杨很佩服的说,
: 怪不得某人是做实验的而他本人不是.
| s*******n
发帖数: 1474 | 15 作理论的是不是很多都不知道误差棒什么意思？
【在 q*d 的大作中提到】
: 有一年老杨被请到西海岸帮忙解释超导磁通量子化的现象,
: 老杨瞪大眼睛看着一张乱七八糟布满数据点的图觉得他就是看不出来里面有那个
: 做实验的某人声称的"台阶".
: 过了阵子,这现象被广泛验证,老杨很佩服的说,
: 怪不得某人是做实验的而他本人不是.
| q*d
发帖数: 22178 | 16 节选自方励之的"纸老虎研究50年"
..........
现在知道，对铀-235，准确值是2.52，对镤-239，它是2.95。
所以，如果2.3一数的确来自苏联，那么， 美，苏，中三方当年各自在秘密
发展核弹时，都采用了一个同样的但并不正确的缺省参数2.3。所以，结论应当
是，“核（知识）扩散”是从制造原子弹的第一篇文献的时代就开始了。
我们看到,老方作为一个前中科院学部委员,
居然根本就没有errorbar的概念.
【在 s*******n 的大作中提到】
: 作理论的是不是很多都不知道误差棒什么意思？
| e********y
发帖数: 935 | 17 老方是想说,其实天朝抄袭了苏修的结果?
【在 q*d 的大作中提到】
: 节选自方励之的"纸老虎研究50年"
: ..........
: 现在知道，对铀-235，准确值是2.52，对镤-239，它是2.95。
: 所以，如果2.3一数的确来自苏联，那么， 美，苏，中三方当年各自在秘密
: 发展核弹时，都采用了一个同样的但并不正确的缺省参数2.3。所以，结论应当
: 是，“核（知识）扩散”是从制造原子弹的第一篇文献的时代就开始了。
: 我们看到,老方作为一个前中科院学部委员,
: 居然根本就没有errorbar的概念.
| q*d
发帖数: 22178 | 18 苏修抄美帝的,
天朝抄苏修的
【在 e********y 的大作中提到】
: 老方是想说,其实天朝抄袭了苏修的结果?
| d*********g
发帖数: 1695 | 19 这个，两弹一星的故事里说了，说当时他们已经认识到从苏联抄来的一个参数错了，他
们通过手摇式计算机重新算并更正了，所以中国的原子弹进展很快。
【在 q*d 的大作中提到】
: 节选自方励之的"纸老虎研究50年"
: ..........
: 现在知道，对铀-235，准确值是2.52，对镤-239，它是2.95。
: 所以，如果2.3一数的确来自苏联，那么， 美，苏，中三方当年各自在秘密
: 发展核弹时，都采用了一个同样的但并不正确的缺省参数2.3。所以，结论应当
: 是，“核（知识）扩散”是从制造原子弹的第一篇文献的时代就开始了。
: 我们看到,老方作为一个前中科院学部委员,
: 居然根本就没有errorbar的概念.
| q*d
发帖数: 22178 | 20 1.这个2.52的值当时必须是实验测出来,
我不清楚现在有没有第一原理能推出这数值,我估计不能.
2.方励之另外犯的一个错误,钚和镤没分清
【在 d*********g 的大作中提到】
: 这个，两弹一星的故事里说了，说当时他们已经认识到从苏联抄来的一个参数错了，他
: 们通过手摇式计算机重新算并更正了，所以中国的原子弹进展很快。
|
|
