Main Edition
US
FR
October 5, 2023 - 1:00pm
Universities tend to get a bad press these days. But the annual Nobel Prize announcement season, now underway, is usually an exception, as the public is again reminded of the wonderful things their staff (for it is usually their staff who win) have been doing for the improvement of the human condition and the furthering of knowledge.
The University of Pennsylvania’s press team could thus have been forgiven for seeking to make as much as possible of the fact that the two winners of this year’s Nobel in Physiology or Medicine, whose research enabled the development of the now-famous mRNA vaccines, are both professors at their institution.
But their bragging press release was met with swift heckling on a grand scale. For Katalin Karikó, the Hungarian-American biochemist who shares half of the prize, was shabbily treated by Penn, which refused to offer her a permanent position, demoted her, and paid her a derisory salary (the university might have made as much as $1,7 billion from their ownership of the intellectual property rights associated with this research) while she carried out her world-changing research.
Eventually, she was forced out after being told that she was “not of faculty quality” because of her failure to secure research grants, among other things.
Karikó, for her part, has often spoken about the treatment she received, with great equanimity but without glossing over the ugly details. But she is far from being the first scientist whose field-changing contributions led them to a career dead end. In 2008, when three scientists received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, the world was surprised to discover that Douglas Prasher, a fourth scientist whose work was critical to their success, had been driven out of academia and was reduced to driving a shuttle bus for a car dealership in Alabama for $8.50 an hour. Like Karikó, he had been unable to secure enough research funding, the death knell of many academic careers.
Some will point out that not even university administrators are equipped with the gift of clairvoyance. Resources are limited, and less successful scientists have to be weeded out. The ability to obtain grants and to publish in certain journals are standard indicia of academic achievement, and neither Karikó nor Prasher had been very successful at these activities. On this view, the fact that their work turned out to be important later — in one case almost existentially so for humanity — is a happy accident, but not in and of itself a sign that the system is broken.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThanks. I knew nothing about any of this.
Yes, this is a common refrain. It’s money that talks loudest in universities, I’m afraid.
Money and toeing the woke line.
It is not what the article is about But unsurprising from a typical unherd reader
Huge amounts of money are directed towards ‘researchers’ who are incapable of rational or logical thought, to whom truth is anathema, a form of hate speech, to further the Marxist cause of superficial (skin colour, accent, sex, etc.) equality, equity and diversity that is actually designed to close down any heretical voices. I guess indoctrination is a guaranteed way of filling the minds of non-academically inclined students with something which they can regurgitate in exams and later in the workplace, whilst feeling educated and superior to the non-indoctrinated. Those who are the most easily and successfully indoctrinated then become ‘researchers’ because their applications for funding contain the ‘correct’ terminology (all the current buzz words) those who are assessing the research grant applications expect/want to see as they themselves have been successfully indoctrinated. Hence tricks like replacing the term coloured person (now a racist term) with person of colour (a non-racist term), thereby enabling the newly indoctrinated to claim older people not of colour to be almost always racist and establishing in their own minds their moral superiority whilst providing a basis for dismissing all of the great works of the past they have never studied.
Downvoted. I have stated this many times but once more, I do wish downvoters would state their objections.
Upvoted by me.
Thank you.
More down votes. Any suggestions as to what some readers find objectionable in my comment?
You are daring to challenge the integrity and jobs of self-important people. A ‘micro-cancel.’
By criticising these august journals you are criticising science and we all learnt during Covid that science must be trusted or you are a right-wing-hater stamping on the faces of Our Brave NHS Heroes, or something. It will, of course, descend into a purity spiral when fashionable ideas change.
Because you clearly explained why so much of academia is basically corrupt and why only approved views are tolerated.
You basically highlighted capture of so much “science” by Neo-Marxists, woke idiots.
Them and their supporters on here, don’t want debate because paucity of their moronic woke views can not survive proper debate.
If the article was explaining the Pythagoras theorem proof, you would comment on its woke (ot anti woke) nature. Common for unherd
Me too.
Upvoted by me. You have the courage to state what others dare not. Downvotes, in your case, are a sign that your arrows have found their target!
I upvoted you. But I often downvote people I strongly disagree with because:
1) I already replied to them before, explaining why I disagree with their position.
2) because they tell blatant lies to support their views and I already explain to other posters why their whole argument is based on lies.
3) because they don’t understand basic science and technology and I can’t be bothered to explain it to them.
It is, if you have woes, everyone knows
You might be interested in what Robert Malone, mRNA’s inventor, has to say about this award: Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine: FactCheck.
Substacker Eugppyius also dug up this morsel: “a Nobel Prize for these vaccines against Covid-19 could encourage hesitant people to opt for vaccination in the reassurance that it is effective and safe, explained panel member Olle Kämpe.”
Interesting. While I accepted the initial anti-covid inoculations having read further on the subject I have declined subsequent inoculations despite being well within the vulnerable group by reason of age and asthma. I recently caught covid but was only aware I had it rather than a brief headache and very mild cold symptoms because my younger wife suffered flu like symptoms and tested positive prompting me to test myself and so proved positive. Anecdotal rather than anything else but hardly making me regret my decision to decline further inoculation. Thanks for he interesting link.
How do you know you were positive?
The tests are just a con to justify ongoing campaign of jabbing people.
No longer for medical reason but to keep the pretence that covid policies on medical, social and economic grounds made any sense.
That is a totally absurd conspiracy theory. It’s quite depressing that so many people go down this rabbit hole.
There isn’t an ongoing campaign of jabbing people; it is recommended for over 65s in the UK. Your choice.
Yes, I was wondering why it was awarded at this particular moment when people in the West are bombarded with requests to have another covid booster.
Based on covid virus genome 9 months out of date.
If you recall, we had media campaign few months ago highlighting how much covid virus mutated.
If so, what is the point of jabs based on old spike protein sequence?
Point is to make money for Big Farma and their mates in NHS and government.
If it kills or seriously injures tens of thousands down the line?
Who cares.
It hasn’t and doesn’t
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccination/covid-19-vaccines-side-effects-and-safety/#:~:text=The%20safety%20of%20the%20vaccines,side%20effects%20are%20very%20rare.
It’s an old story. Some people have a knack of weaselling money from grant-making bodies. Some people have a knack for catching the zeitgeist just so, so they end up publishing in prestigious journals (eg Andrew Wakefield, with his rubbish about autism and the MMR jab, in ‘The Lancet’). Some people have the knack and the hard work to produce something original and worthwhile.
It makes you wonder how many times a better mousetrap has been invented by inventors without influence or powerful friends, before someone actually deigned to take notice.
The problem with producing something worthwhile is that it generally requires years and years of incredibly hard work which doesn’t produce anything worth publishing until the end.
I wonder why climate research is so skewed in one direction?
Well, it’s obviously because global warming is happening, and is a pressing problem?
Worth considering, but probably too simple for UnHerd commentators.
The earth appears to be warming, but the mechanisms impacting that are VERY poorly understood, as shown in the lack of agreement between the models and the data. The overly simplistic “it’s CO2 produced by people” poisons every discussion.
Yes. And the constant resort to deceitful data and the censorship of alternate opinions in the MSM makes the whole CO2=Death trope seem ridiculous. And rather childish. A bit comical, really.
This is true, but the Brown case certainly sheds light on the imperative to make results look as alarming as possible. I don’t think funders are lining up to support research that examines sun spots etc…
This article can be seen as a corollary to the one published today by Unherd on The Lancet. This often happens – giving alternative takes on the same or similar issues.
It’s not a bad way to conduct journalism, since offering varied perspectives is something Unherd is in a position (perhaps even designed) to do and no doubt intended to draw the widest possible audience and number of subscriptions.
Incidentally, the funding and tenure issues could be equally applied in the arts field.
This is an important, and overdue article. However, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Yes, of course, it’s difficult getting grants and getting published. However, this is nothing new; it has been this way for at least as long as my career in science, which dates back to 1977. Is it more difficult now? Almost certainly. But this is not new.
One of the biggest problems with science is scientists. One cannot remove the human aspect, which explains to a large degree, the cliquish nature of most academic fields. Virtually every department has an in crowd, an out crowd, as well as various outliers. For obvious reasons, the in crowd most often prevails.
The Academy, in fact, all of education in America, is composed of all-too humans, many of whom exhibit the usual human flaws. Among them: jealousy, egotism, sycophancy, personality cults, personal grudges, and ordinary greed. Behind the ivied walls lurks a battleground of prejudiced individuals, and even biased ideologies.
The number of “scientific journals” has exploded in the last few decades. Add to that the publications, many of which have long been considered preeminent, that have been tarnished by the flaws noted above.
We must also acknowledge our new religion, the 800 pound gorilla of “wokeness”/progressivism/neo-Marxism/whatever they’re calling it today. However, that discussion is far beyond the scope of this comment.
Much of what passes for “science” these days would have been discarded in a more rational time.
Simply put, western science is rapidly progressing towards a new Dark Ages. Perhaps sadly, I realize that I will not live to see a new Renaissance era. I can only hope that one will occur.
I am so happy and so inspired by Ms. Kariko’s perseverance. I love the way she refused to be deterred by obstacles that would have stopped most people from.continuing their research. I so applaud you, Ms. Kariko!
The University of Pennsylvania? That’s where Michael Mann works. He’s the guy who statistically manipulated climate data to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period and create the fallacious “hockey graph”. He also reportedly claimed to be a Nobel winner when in fact the prize in question went to an organization he was merely part of. But he does increase the boiling planet panic, which generates money for “climate research”, so UPenn must adore him. It must be a profoundly cynical organization.
Michael Mann is with Pennsylvania State University, not the University of Pennsylvania. The latter is a private, Ivy League institution,
Are we sure this award is deserved in context of all the damage caused to, especially, young vaccinated people?
It looks like establishment trying to reinforce supposed “scientific basis” for mRNA vaccines.
We are not guilty they would say.
We approved Nobel Prize winning science.
University professors are human, just more so. They preen and squabble like teenagers. This has resulted in many areas being dominated by ideological bullies, gatekeepers, attention seekers and mediocres. They will do anything for money and are manipulated by ideological funders – hence articles about decolonizing the nitrogen atom or the many horrors of climate change. There are some tangible new rules that could be put into place to improve things – but they will need to be imposed externally by governments since universities are incapable of self reform.
I am sorry, but anything imposed by government might be bad idea.
If you have pro green nonsense governments, like uk, how do you think they improve matters by “imposing” whatever.
They will impose censorship on views contrarian to theirs.