Nobel Physics laureates undeserving, colleagues say: report

Dec 22, 2009

Former colleagues of two American scientists who won the 2009 Nobel physics prize say the winners, Willard Boyle and George Smith, did not deserve the award, Canada's Globe and Mail reported Tuesday.

The Nobel committee awarded the two men the prize in October, citing their invention of an image sensor called a charge-coupled device (CCD) that revolutionized photography and cleared the way for digital cameras.

But two scientists who worked with Boyle and Smith at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey say they played no role in developing the technology the Nobel committee cited in awarding the prize.

"They wouldn't know an imaging device if it stared them in the face," said Eugene Gordon, 79, according to the Globe and Mail.

Gordon alleged that the patent cited by the Nobel committee does not have anything to do with digital imaging tools.

"I think they made a mistake," he said of the committee. "That citation was totally wrong," he told the newspaper.

Gordon said the prize should have been awarded to Mike Tompsett, the former head of a research group working on CCD, who built the first two examples of the device.

"He invented how to do it," Gordon said.

Tompsett told the newspaper that Boyle and Smith deserve recognition for their original idea, but said the pair were taking their concept in the wrong direction.

"They were looking at memory," he said. "They did not anticipate imaging."

"If you take it all literally, the prize should have been given to me," he said. "I think if their name is on it, mine should be, too."

Speaking to another Canadian newspaper, the Halifax Chronicle Herald, Smith rejected his former colleagues' criticism.

"I have documentation that disproves most of what they are saying and the rest of what they are saying is not at all logical," he said.

Smith told the Herald that Tompsett can take credit for good engineering but not for inventing the concept.

But Tompsett said the Swedish committee responsible for awarding the prestigious prize made a "real error" and "did extremely poor research."

Explore further: Best of Last Week – New type of qubit created, Hubble sees a glowing galaxy and extreme agreeing may solve disagreements

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Bell Labs researchers awarded for CCD

Jan 05, 2006

Bell Labs said Thursday two of its former researchers were awarded by the National Academy of Engineering for inventing the charge-coupled device.

Nobel winners helped by independence, coffee

Dec 07, 2009

(AP) -- Intellectual freedom, independent research and frequent coffee breaks with colleagues helped this year's Nobel Prize winners make their groundbreaking scientific discoveries.

'Masters of light' win Nobel Physics Prize

Oct 06, 2009

Charles Kao, Willard Boyle and George Smith won the 2009 Nobel Physics Prize Tuesday for pioneering "masters of light" work on fibre optics and semiconductors, the Nobel jury said.

Stem cell pioneers among Nobel Prize candidates

Oct 04, 2009

(AP) -- Two Canadian scientists whose discovery of stem cells has paved the way for controversial research could be candidates for the 2009 Nobel Prize in medicine, the winners of which will be announced Monday.

Recommended for you

Radar search to find lost Aboriginal burial site

22 minutes ago

Scientists said Tuesday they hope that radar technology will help them find a century-old Aboriginal burial ground on an Australian island, bringing some closure to the local indigenous population.

'Moral victories' might spare you from losing again

10 hours ago

It's human nature to hate losing. Unfortunately, it's also human nature to overreact to a loss, potentially abandoning a solid strategy and thus increasing your chances of losing the next time around.

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2009
Looks like this years Nobel Committee is just a bunch of dreamers and political hacks w/ the award to Boyle and Smith, the award to Obama, and the award to Gore and the IPCC committee, including those so called scientists caught diddling w/ data, emails, and methods.

The only thing really important about the prize is the money.

But nothing has changed. Over 40 yrs ago Melvin Calvin was awarded the prize for unraveling photosynthesis but all the ideas and the work came from his student Andy Benson, who received little recognition.
frajo
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2009
A biased comment that doesn't mention who got the Nobel peace award 1973.
nadsozinc
Dec 23, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
stealthc
1 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2009
The nobel prize turned into a huge joke when they awarded jokebama the peace prize 2 weeks into his administration when he was merely busy spouting a bunch of hot air. Now he is encouraging war. He is also encouraging world government and world tax. He is busy stabbing his people in the back and he is going to cause a civil war.
I wouldn't be surprised if these scientists got the prize, for being a UN lackey and puppet. The UN gets the prize of world government for being a Rothschild lackey. Rothschild gets the prize of being the world's first dictator. YAY! TIME TO BRING THESE PEOPLE DOWN YOU DUMMIES.
frajo
Dec 24, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2009
A biased comment that doesn't mention who got the Nobel peace award 1973.


Bob Dylan called Kissinger "a monstrous evil" but as the leading American exponent of 'realpolitik' he was the one that had to negotiate the treaty that said "We got whupped.", declare victory and get out.

Maybe he (as in America) was forced into it, but he was the instrument of it. His being awarded the prize is problematic for that - he promoted peace only when Ho and Giap forced him to. (By the same thinking Donetz deserves it for ending WWII.)

As for Gore and the IPCC, the animosity to them can easily be traced to a failed political agenda. If nothing else they brought a problem to the fore. If the science is bad - then it can be dismissed; if the science is good (and it probably is)then something has to be done. Either way the studies have been put under a close inspection, which is not totally a bad thing - if you are pro-AWG (bad term that) or a Denier.
croghan27
Dec 25, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
COCO
not rated yet Jan 05, 2010
forget about it - both Obama and Henry remain part of the same neocon breed who award themselves regardless of anything.