Society's Child

Nobel prize will have no gender or ethnicity quotas, academy head says

The Guardian
Tue, 12 Oct 2021 04:22 UTC

Swedish scientist and head of the academy that awards Nobel prizes has ruled out the notion of gender or ethnicity quotas in the selection of laureates for the prestigious award.

Göran Hansson, the secretary general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, accepted that there are "so few women" in the running but conceded the prize would ultimately go to those who are "found the most worthy".

Investigative journalist Maria Ressa of the Philippines, was the only woman honoured this year, sharing the Nobel peace prize with fellow journalist Dmitry Muratov, alongside 12 men.

Since its inception in 1901, only 59 Nobel prizes have gone to women, comprising just 6.2% of the total.

Hansson, who informs chemistry, economics and physics Nobel prizewinners of their triumph, defended his stance on quotas in an interview with the Agence France-Presse.

"It's sad that there are so few women Nobel laureates and it reflects the unfair conditions in society, particularly in years past but still existing. And there's so much more to do," he said.

"We have decided we will not have quotas for gender or ethnicity. We want every laureate [to] be accepted ... because they made the most important discovery, and not because of gender or ethnicity. And that is in line with the spirit of Alfred Nobel's last will."

© Claudio Bresciani/TT NEWS AGENCY/AFP/Getty ImagesGoran Hansson (C), permanent secretary of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, with Nobel economics prize committee members Peter Fredriksson (L) and Eva Mork (R).

Hansson emphasised that the academy would ensure that "all deserving women get a fair chance to be evaluated for the Nobel prize" and said "significant efforts" have been made to encourage nominations of women scientists.

"We made sure that we know about the problem and also about subconscious bias, etc in the [prize-awarding] committees and academies. We've had lectures by sociologists, we've had group discussions, we have put quite a lot of effort into it," he added.

"In the end, we will give the prize to those who are found the most worthy, those who have made the most important contributions.

"No women got the prizes in sciences this year. Last year we had two women laureates receiving the chemistry prize, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, and we had one woman laureate in physics, Andrea Ghez. The year before we had Esther Duflo in economic sciences."

And while more women are being recognised now compared with previous decades, Hansson said the trend was increasing "from a very low level".

"Keep in mind that only about 10% of the professors in natural sciences in western Europe or North America are women, and even lower if you go to east Asia," the physician added. "... It takes time to evaluate, to get nominations in and evaluate for the Nobel prize... You could even say that this is the situation as it was perhaps one or two decades ago, when the discoveries were made."

Hansson said the issue of gender quotas had been discussed about three weeks ago but was dismissed on the basis that it may detract from laureates' legitimacy.

"We have discussed it ... but then it would be, we fear, considered that those laureates got the prize because they are women, not because they are the best. Now, there's no doubt that scientists like Emmanuelle Charpentier or Esther Duflo got the prize because they made the most important contributions," he said.

"We will make sure that we have an increasing portion of women scientists being invited to nominate. And we will continue to make sure we have women on our committees, but we need help, and society needs to help here. We need different attitudes to women going into sciences ... so that they get a chance to make these discoveries that are being awarded."

New Zealand physicist and author Laurie Winkless criticised the academy in a series of tweets on Tuesday. "Distressed but not surprised that the organisation has retained its outdated attitudes," she wrote. "A reminder: if the committee had had their way, Marie Curie would not have received the 1903 physics prize."

Comment: Imagine that, awarding a prize based on merit and not gender ideology.

Reader Comments

dom38 · 2021-10-15T06:38:33Z

<sarcasm> Well. Since science is now increasingly determined by the oligarchy (not by real and independant scientists), why not grant the nobel prize according to woke principles? </sarcasm>

Christian83 · 2021-10-15T11:47:19Z

There ain’t no trannie laureates either since 1901. Disgraceful Neanderthals.

StonedMentat · 2021-10-15T11:50:15Z

“it may detract from laureates' legitimacy. “

“Only smart people can understand our science”. Oppose Nobel Prize winners and you are branded an idiot.

Manipulating science using scientific prestige.

Alfred Nobel’s deep need to be accepted by the aristocracy made him the status quo’s staunchest defender. Nobel didn’t sell his munitions factories to fund the Nobel prizes.

What are the input variables for the equations of General Relativity? What information does GR require to produce a result? What steps or algorithms do you use to get a result with GR? There isn’t any computer program which can run General Relativity. GR is a physics cookbook which is so bad it will have you burning water. There are no answers to these questions since General Relativity is imperial gibberish.

Even the empire admits that the Standard Model for Particle Physics and General Relativity are incompatible. They are incompatible because neither of them represents scientific reality.

According to the Nobel Prize Committee General Relativity is absolutely perfect. It is the perfect tool for holding back the scientific advancement for the rest of the world. This while America and its entitled European Oligarchs club the world with intellectual property claims based on a secret monopoly on real science.

The Nobel Prize has played a critical role in crippling science. Conferring on its recipients the mantle of infallibility and supreme mental achievement. Except it is all a lie.

Sometimes the scientists are in on the secret (like Richard Feynman) and sometimes the scientists are baffled winners since they have inadvertently given more credibility to the empire’s gibberish. The Nobel prize also sprinkles in a few talented people for camouflage.

This year’s winners were about climate change. The science which proves that the Sun is completely invariable (constant) unlike every other star. Carbon dioxide slightly retards the escape of surface heat from the planet. A clear night time sky has more effect on the temperature than does carbon dioxide.

The empire’s stellar evolution model of the Sun is fake. The empire says that the Sun was 30% cooler when the Earth formed yet the geological evidence (dolomites and carbonates among others) says that the Sun was 30% hotter than it is now. The now frozen Mars has kilometer thick water emplaced sediments, so which model is correct for the current conditions found on Mars?

According to the Nobel Prize Winners, early Mars had this impossibly thick atmosphere which sucked in heat from their cooler Sun to produce the sediments. Using the hotter Sun model, the Earth was a hostile sauna and Mars was well within the Goldilocks zone.

Mars is now frozen because the Sun is cooler. But Mars has already lived and died (producing the sediments) and that is why there are still living (and quite dangerous) organisms on Mars. Mars is populated by lifeforms that are the survivors of a very long period of biological evolution. NASA and Fort Dietrick (American/NAZI Biological Warfare Labs) want to bring those organisms back to Earth. What could go wrong?

The Nobel Prize is endorsing climate change to forward the political agenda of the ruling elite.

The Nobel Prize is one of the most sophisticated forms of villainy in the history of mankind.

The Nobel Prize is a critical tool of the ruling class for controlling science. Nothing which might bring doubt about the Noble Prize’s manufactured prestige is permitted.

Rowan Cocoan · 2021-10-15T12:31:01Z

Wow. I can't believe this given their prior wokeism. Maybe the assholes are having second thoughts about that Obysmal prize. (Unlikely!)

Göran Hansson, the secretary general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, accepted that there are "so few women" in the running but conceded the prize would ultimately go to those who are "found the most worthy".

Why should he even have to concede? Should just say this is an award based on merit alone. (I imagine Nobel probably set up the trust with some specific language about that. He was smart enough to see where this shit was going.)

Oh, and I then read this:

"We have decided we will not have quotas for gender or ethnicity. We want every laureate [to] be accepted ... because they made the most important discovery, and not because of gender or ethnicity. And that is in line with the spirit of Alfred Nobel's last will."

I would guess Nobel would demand that they focus not on the 'spirit' of the damn thing but what is actually written!

Of course, it's been given to women before and in science. And

"We have discussed it ... but then it would be, we fear , considered that those laureates got the prize because they are women, not because they are the best . Now, there's no doubt that scientists like Emmanuelle Charpentier or Esther Duflo got the prize because they made the most important contributions ," he said.

My rocket engineer Mum wouldn't want an award that used as its factors whether one was M, F, Trannie or Flaming Faggot.

R.C.

Rowan Cocoan · 2021-10-15T12:37:36Z

Rowan Cocoan Finally, this bitch can simply fuck off!

New Zealand physicist and author Laurie Winkless criticised the academy in a series of tweets on Tuesday. "Distressed but not surprised that the organisation has retained its outdated attitudes," she wrote. "A reminder: if the committee had had their way, Marie Curie would not have received the 1903 physics prize."

But she did so what's your point bitch? How can anyone claim to be a physicist and so fucking illogical?

R.C.