We can't know for sure, but this medical Nobel seems to have been given in order to send a strong message that people who challenge the accepted paradigms should be tolerated/encouraged/funded. As these winners have pointed out in a number of interviews and articles, the amount of abuse from the medical establishment was enormous. Given how quickly "accepted wisdom" can be overturned in medicine, it still amazes me how arrogant those in charge of funding medical research can be. One week, coffee causes breast cancer, the next week it doesn't, the following week it causes some other problem. A little humility in the face of an incredibly complex set of interacting systems would go a long way. Notice that several generations of doctors who put their patients through hell in order to "treat" their ulcers have yet to apologize for what in retrospect makes them look like quack witch-doctors. At 06:47 PM 10/4/2005, Network UPS Tools wrote:
Nobel Prize
I labeled my remark about the Nobel Prize in Medicine "About Time", and John McKay asked What is your point, Rich? There was no discovery of Helibacter pylori - just recognition that it occurs in the stomach and withstands the acid there. Marshall had one hell of a fight to establish recognition among the medical profession for his results. What analogous mathematical results are you thinking of?
The discovery of the true cause of stomach ulcers improved the health of lots of people, and deserves a prize. Most of the recent Medicine prizes have been for more basic science. This could ultimately lead to better health, but it seems pretty long term. Thus my remark about theoreticians. The ulcer discovery had immediate practical results. I think it should have been honored as soon as the results were accepted, or as soon as the health consequences became apparent.