Covering the Nobels—is it worth the bother?

We're contemplating the attention we give to science's biggest prizes.

Read the whole story

 

[smistephen]

I emphatically want you to keep writing these stories.

They don't have to be huge deep-dives, you can link to other sources for that. But I thoroughly enjoy hearing about the Nobel Prizes, it's nice to have an entire week set aside specifically for recognizing cool science stuff, even if it isn't perfect

 

[T_And_D]

Please keep writing these stories. I would encourage you to do more of them but that is because I appreciate well written science articles.

Cars? Not interested. Pop culture? So many places cover this.

One of the things that really drew me into Ars all those years ago was the combination of in-depth tech, gaming and science articles, the latter of which from Chris Lee are generally great.

You mention that you have difficulty with covering the prizes after the announcement so why not before?

There are plenty of people discussing possibilities months in advance - Goodenough was mentioned frequently since the summer - so why not have articles on the possible contenders in the run up to the announcement? No big deal if they don't win - you've likely covered some very interesting and worthy science in the process!

I should make if clear that I write for a science news site - not really a direct competitor though. I also work for some of the journals that cover research that goes on to be discussed in the arena of Nobel prizes. Despite this, I'll still turn to Ars Technica constantly for an informed and slightly more detailed article than I'll get from other locations without it becoming more fitting for an extended specialist blog post (also valid though like the excellent Not Even Wrong).

Ars does science coverage very well. I implore you to continue and expand on it.

Edit: typos courtesy of my phone.

 

[A_Very_Tired_Geek]

I think the problem, if indeed you want to call it that, is that the Nobels are already covered to a fair-the-well by other international news outlets. People that want to know why they won can generally look at the deeper technical treatments by reading their published works. The rest of us who won't follow the technical details already have all we need from the other news outlets who broadcast the results soon as they are announced and usually already have an interview ready to add to the story.

Personally I've always been more interested in the Ig Nobels simply because they're more fun and still make you go "hmmm....".

 

[Benjamin Hall]

I’d suggest you consider the separation between the people who win the prize, and the fields and discoveries that win the awards.

Whilst I’m sympathetic to the arguments about the value of the who, the what is undoubtedly important; these are areas of science that sometimes sprang from the wilderness to make a massive impact on thinking and creates new disciplines. Discussing the broader field also allows your coverage to highlight the other individuals who have contributed.

Taking the area of science that won recent prizes that I’m most familiar with, there were a lot of people who worked on molecular modelling at the time who didn’t win, and a lot of people who shortly followed and grew the field in different ways. These are stories that are less told but still relevant; why not use the nobels as a place to start telling them?

 

[zeotherm]

As long as you cover the Ig Nobels all is good

More seriously, Ars and the excellent science writers are poised (ignoring time constraints) to give an actual discussion/deep dive into the science behind the awards. That is what has always distinguished Ars from most every other site around. But I totally understand the lack of interest and corresponding, why put effort into something people don't care about.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

I'm definitely in favor of science stories that include an explanation of the science involved (obviously you don't want to start from first principles with every story, though!).

Awards provide an opportunity but there are plenty of others if readers are showing less interest.

 

[Wickwick]

You've got long-form pieces on all sorts of stuff around here. If you think that humanizing researchers is going to get eyeballs, you can do that at any point in the year without the deadlines relating to the Nobles.

If you think field summaries will get eyeballs, same thing.

I don't think either of those two things requires coverage of the Nobels.

But don't even think about cutting back coverage of the Ig Nobels.

 

[Cow Towner]

It can be interesting to read about a prize awarded for physics, which is the only science area I have much hope of understanding, but I see awards for things that seem less than prize-worthy and some significant work ignored. It is true, and embarrassing, that women are often left out. I note that there are many women authoring science articles and papers. All this makes it seem like it a club that awards popularity or something. Almost like the Hall of Fame for American baseball or football. Don't rock the boat too much as a player or you won't get in.

Taking a deep-dive into Nobel Prizes is not necessary. Summarizing them would be sufficient for me.

I do love the science articles and that is the main reason I'm here.

 

[Lacedaemon]

I would be interested in coverage of the Fields Medal. Mathematics are the foundation of all of this, but to me, it’s often still a black box at best and an unholy magic at worst.

Ars has been instrumental in unpacking other esoteric topics for me, so I’m taking the opportunity to make a request for another.

 

[Lacedaemon]

You've got long-form pieces on all sorts of stuff around here. If you think that humanizing researchers is going to get eyeballs, you can do that at any point in the year without the deadlines relating to the Nobles.

If you think field summaries will get eyeballs, same thing.

I don't think either of those two things requires coverage of the Nobels.

But don't even think about cutting back coverage of the Ig Nobels.

+1 on the Ig Nobels

 

[moh maya]

A short blurb covering the award and linking to a news site like the BBC immediately after the announcement should suffice honestly.

But, taking a leaf from the article's observation that it "takes a village", maybe a deep dive, even if it is weeks or months later, of the whole topic, its applications, its history and genesis. You guys excel in such stuff.

Scientific research, and reporting, doesn't need to be constrained by the "timeliness" criteria. It could even be a series. Take the oxygen sensing for example.

There's whole layers of research that have driven our understanding of signalling cascades, communicating which is important so the interested, general public begin to grasp the sheer complexity and nuance. And also (perhaps) begin to appreciate how little we still truly understand. These could be long form series diving into complex topics.

Few I know have your combination of communication skills and such deep enthusiasm and abiding interest for science. The wonderful group of authors on this site are uniquely qualified to communicate the sheer complexity and decades of inter disciplinary work that goes into making such significant discoveries. Please do so.

(Speaking as an ex-PhD in mol. Gen / mRNA splicing. I can recognise amazing science writing when I read it).

My 2 cents, fwiw.

(Edit: formatting)

 

[iamai]

I'm going to read about the Nobels somewhere and I would prefer it to be here because I know you'll do a good job of explaining the science.

 

[Deputy Cartman]

Considering how three scientists recently received the Nobel Prize in physics for their work on lithium ion batteries, and how I am surprised it took so long for a prize regarding the R&D of this technology to be awarded, yes by all means keep covering it. I consider myself marginally more educated and interested in this area than your average layman off the street, but that bar is set so low it's on the ground, and most of this material is so advanced that it will either be ignored or dumbed-down to the point of pantomime by the vast majority of media sources. "Three men were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for the lithium ion battery! BLAMMY! Wowee-zowee! Now back to talking heads who don't actually know anything discussing the latest Trump twitter diarrhea!"

Speaking of said Nobel prizes, Goodenbough, age 97, is apparently the oldest person to have ever received a Nobel prize.

 

[BigDH]

I would love to know more on the backside of the winners.

Sure, the bio's are nice, but what lead them to the answer!

Was it something they had burning in their minds or based on someone else's work that gave them an itch that needed a scratch! Or something that just fell in their laps looking for something else.

Its the back story which can be so enlightening and can compel others to push them selves! This is the story you need to write! The deeper the research the better.

How about If I was Nobel what science area changed things and the people involved within it. Would these folks be likely winners in the future??

 

[Oldmanalex]

I think that you should continue to cover the Nobel prizes. In reality they allow you to do some in depth science coverage which is rather more important than most of what you cover, even if people like myself tend to comment more on such stories than on the hard science. We live in a technology-dominated world, but for most of us it might as well be a magic-dominated world. Every brick in the educational wall is important as our technology undoubtedly has the power to destroy us, and each person who learns enough to understand what we are doing, and how we are doing it, means one more person able to ask why we are doing it, and consider the alternatives in a meaningful way.

Science is already under siege from all sides, because what I would like to be true is all too often seen as what must be true, and any attempt to show otherwise must be suppressed. The Nobel prize, with its imperfections, gives one a chance to engage a few more people with the process as long as one actually tells the stories. Silence for whatever reason does not induce understanding. Caving in to fossil fuel companies or creationists is no more honorable or useful than caving in to anti-vaxxers or people who think that the Nobel prizes are about demographic representation.

Anyone who wants different prizes to be the main focus is welcome to push their own brand or invent a new one. In time some of them may gain the respect of the Nobel prizes, and at that time maybe Ars will be doing multiple prizewinner articles each year. That would be a win-win, but would require the critics to do more work and less complaining.

 

[joachip]

We all have our individual tastes I guess. Personally I think gaming and smartphones are two topics that are covered excessively everywhere I look. These are the topics I tend to skip.

Nobel prizes? Sure. Science should be celebrated!

PS: I didn't know I was interested in archeology either, but Ars got me hooked!

 

[Deleted member 174040]

I emphatically want you to keep writing these stories.

They don't have to be huge deep-dives, you can link to other sources for that. But I thoroughly enjoy hearing about the Nobel Prizes, it's nice to have an entire week set aside specifically for recognizing cool science stuff, even if it isn't perfect

This.

 

[Youke]

You mention that you have difficulty with covering the prizes after the announcement so why not before?

There are plenty of people discussing possibilities months in advance - Goodenough was mentioned frequently since the summer - so why not have articles on the possible contenders in the run up to the announcement? No big deal of they don't win - you've likely covered some very interesting and worthy science in the process!

This.

I have to make time to read (the horror of that statement just hit me fully) so having a good overview of all the people / research being considered (well, that you feel interesting enough for coverage) would go a long way towards keeping me informed on subjects I have an interest in (the advancement of all scientific fields) while actually providing a different product from what can be found in the current environment.

In the end, I love how this site covers such a wide scale of topics, in breadth and depth, so I'd just hate so something quality go away. I get it though...have to pay the bills.

 

[Dr Spiff]

In this day and age, I think we should seize every opportunity to celebrate science. And I expect Ars will be able to explain the winning ideas much better than the average news outlet. So I’d appreciate if you cover the Nobel, as well as other, science prizes.

 

[ColdWetDog]

A short blurb covering the award and linking to a news site like the BBC immediately after the announcement should suffice honestly.

But, taking a leaf from the article's observation that it "takes a village", maybe a deep dive, even if it is weeks or months later, of the whole topic, its applications, its history and genesis. You guys excel in such stuff. Scientific research, and reporting, doesn't need to be constrained by the "timeliness" criteria. It could even be a series. Take the oxygen sensing for example. There's whole layers of research that have driven our understanding of signalling cascades, communicating which is important so the interested, general public begin to grasp the sheer complexity and nuance. And also (perhaps) begin to appreciate how little we still truly understand. These could be long form series diving into complex topics.

Few I know have your combination of communication skills and such deep enthusiasm and abiding interest for science. The wonderful group of authors on this site are uniquely qualified to communicate the sheer complexity and decades of inter disciplinary work that goes into making such significant discoveries. Please do so.

(Speaking as an ex-PhD in mol. Gen / mRNA splicing. I can recognise amazing science writing when I read it).

My 2 cents, fwiw.

This. As has been brought up, actual coverage of the Nobels is rather easy to find. Backstories, not so much. And as TFA article points out, most of the meat is in the back story (sorry veganites, but 'most of the broccoli' just doesn't have the sizzle).

(How do you get to be an ex-PhD? Did someone take it back?)

 

[Maldoror]

Anything to further the cause of science in these dark days is positive in my book, and if that means using a flawed prize to shine a light on interesting new discoveries and fields I'd say go for it.

Ars is special since I'd guess most of your readers are inherently interested in science. But if the coverage of a Nobel prize in some more depth draws in a young new reader and lights the fire in her or him, that's worth it.

 

[bizzyness]

I think they're worth covering. Generally, something like the physics award are groundbreaking, even if obscure. Ars usually does a good job of explaining why something can be obscure yet significant. The photoelectric effect won Einstein the nobel prize. You can get a quick summary of it and say, "Yeah, so what?" but its implications are huge.

I suppose you can overdo scientific prizes but for the science nobels, probably a good thing to cover. Personally, I'd like to less on games, cars, and Elon Musk and more on, say archaeology.

 

[Chuckstar]

How about an Ars-quality summary (more insightful than the typical popular science press coverage, that is) of all the awards posted the following week after the announcements? You’re right that we can get the quick-blurb version, anywhere. Also, there isn’t really time for Ars to find an Ars-quality “stuff” related to an award between the announcement and when you’d want to get a same-day article out.

One thing I would miss if Ars didn’t cover the Nobels at all would be that the forum conversation is often pretty informative, and non-story-related forum topics don’t always get the same level of participation.

 

[raphael_as]

Let me preface this by saying that In general I think Ars does an excellent job on hitting that middle ground on its science (and archeology) coverage, and I think it does a fairly good job of mixing it up between fields. Even when it makes my head hurt, it’s usually thought provoking.

And that is what I would suggest is part of the issue. For me at least, the recent science Nobels (physics, chemistry, medicine/physiology) have been either very technical and specific (treatment of roundworm, development of various tools) or very generalized ‘something cool was done, we’re going to randomly pick 3 people who had something to do with it’ (neutrino oscillations/mass, LIGO).

Again for me, the latter tend to be things that I am already familiar with (because of the inevitable ‘lag’ in the award process), and while I often have an ‘oh thats really cool’ moment when I read of the former, it doesn’t resonate that much, perhaps because of the specialized nature or that I don’t have the background to appreciate how it impacts the field (or even more broadly our day to day lives).

Contrast that with my appreciation/understanding/wow factor on the in depth article that was done on plate tectonics - an ‘old’ theory that pretty much everyone learns at school undergoing a renaissance as our understanding of what goes on beneath our feet increases. Not only was it interesting but it was more or less the perfect length/level of detail that it didn’t overwhelm me has a relatively well-read science type person) or require an investment in time I don’t have, but it did make me think and want to follow up.

So my preference would be to have more articles of that type - take a subject and do a medium dive into it (with further reading suggestions if possible). The actual source of the subject (whether a prize, or a major article or a conference discussion) doesn’t really matter to me, but I have a natural preference for things outside my field and areas of knowledge - as an example in looking at some of the recent Nobels, I thought to myself that I’d be interested in learning more about some of the Nobel for economics prizes (e.g. tying climate change and macroeconomics, or the work on consumption and poverty).

You will always have the folks who work in the field ready to provide more depth (and complain about inaccuracies in the article) but I think that medium level plays well to the Science-savvy, curious (in both senses of the word) Ars audience.

 

[arcite]

Maybe focus on the more obscure categories of winners. As others have said, plenty of other media outlets focus on the big names.

 

[Fatesrider]

I think the problem, if indeed you want to call it that, is that the Nobels are already covered to a fair-the-well by other international news outlets. People that want to know why they won can generally look at the deeper technical treatments by reading their published works. The rest of us who won't follow the technical details already have all we need from the other news outlets who broadcast the results soon as they are announced and usually already have an interview ready to add to the story.

Personally I've always been more interested in the Ig Nobels simply because they're more fun and still make you go "hmmm....".

Ars has a way of slipping between the mainstream news coverage tracks with respect to what it reports on. For the Nobels, well, they get covered by EVERYONE.

But Ars has ALREADY reported on most of the discoveries/science that came before which led to an eventual award. So in a lot of respects, that's covered ground here. The mainstream media doesn't do the kind of in-depth coverage of science and technology that Ars does.

I remember reading about the some of the awards and recall reading about the experiments/findings here much earlier. Often times, personal snippets and backgrounds are already covered in those earlier articles.

Another thing that may be why Ars isn't the best fit for the Nobels is that the Nobels are not all about science and tech. There's Literature and the biggie, Peace, which seems rather fraught both politically and ideologically. Ideally, when reporting about awards, all of them are mentioned and highlighted. But when a third of them don't relate to the general subject matter of Ars, well, that's problematic in and of itself.

What may be more valuable for Ars readers is to have a single article highlighting the prizes in the relevant categories (Chemistry, Physics, Medicine and Economics - which is a science) and linking to the previous stories that were written about their work (not sure about economics, though, since I'm having a hard time recalling any Ars articles about economic theory).

That way it keeps it relevant to Ars itself while the rest of the mainstream media blitzes the world with the prizes for each category. Sort of like the comments section here, staying on topic is part of the deal, even if we don't have nearly enough Ars articles about ponies to justify their presence in the comments. Make it a celebration of the recipient's award by showing how "Ars reported it first" sort of thing with respect how the science wowed folks when it was first done.

That's something only Ars can do, since few other places have the comprehensive and granular skill-sets to report on the sciences being done out there in a way that relates to a reasonably well informed reader. So it's something that can and should be done, but be done in a way that's uniquely Ars.

 

[Chuckstar]

(How do you get to be an ex-PhD? Did someone take it back?)

I interpreted that as shorthand for “PhD who no longer works in the area of my PhD”, but I’m curious if I’m correct or not.

 

[A_Very_Tired_Geek]

I think the problem, if indeed you want to call it that, is that the Nobels are already covered to a fair-the-well by other international news outlets. People that want to know why they won can generally look at the deeper technical treatments by reading their published works. The rest of us who won't follow the technical details already have all we need from the other news outlets who broadcast the results soon as they are announced and usually already have an interview ready to add to the story.

Personally I've always been more interested in the Ig Nobels simply because they're more fun and still make you go "hmmm....".

Ars has a way of slipping between the mainstream news coverage tracks with respect to what it reports on. For the Nobels, well, they get covered by EVERYONE.

But Ars has ALREADY reported on most of the discoveries/science that came before which led to an eventual award. So in a lot of respects, that's covered ground here. The mainstream media doesn't do the kind of in-depth coverage of science and technology that Ars does.

I remember reading about the some of the awards and recall reading about the experiments/findings here much earlier. Often times, personal snippets and backgrounds are already covered in those earlier articles.

Another thing that may be why Ars isn't the best fit for the Nobels is that the Nobels are not all about science and tech. There's Literature and the biggie, Peace, which seems rather fraught both politically and ideologically. Ideally, when reporting about awards, all of them are mentioned and highlighted. But when a third of them don't relate to the general subject matter of Ars, well, that's problematic in and of itself.

What may be more valuable for Ars readers is to have a single article highlighting the prizes in the relevant categories (Chemistry, Physics, Medicine and Economics - which is a science) and linking to the previous stories that were written about their work (not sure about economics, though, since I'm having a hard time recalling any Ars articles about economic theory).

That way it keeps it relevant to Ars itself while the rest of the mainstream media blitzes the world with the prizes for each category. Sort of like the comments section here, staying on topic is part of the deal, even if we don't have nearly enough Ars articles about ponies to justify their presence in the comments. Make it a celebration of the recipient's award by showing how "Ars reported it first" sort of thing with respect how the science wowed folks when it was first done.

That's something only Ars can do, since few other places have the comprehensive and granular skill-sets to report on the sciences being done out there in a way that relates to a reasonably well informed reader. So it's something that can and should be done, but be done in a way that's uniquely Ars.

I'd argue that the fact Ars is asking us whether or not they should continue covering the Nobels suggests that the coverage for the winners at the time of announcement isn't interesting enough to draw the expected page views. So something is wrong. No Ars normally isn't a website you come to for breaking news. That's not its strength. You're right that they try for a middle ground. But that doesn't seem to be enough for their coverage of the Nobels or it would be drawing enough page views to suggest everything is fine.

Ars is already covering the technologies behind many of the Nobel laureate awards before they ever make it to the awards. So, covering the Nobels is largely redundant because it's a rehash of what they've covered historically. You can pick up the names of the recipients elsewhere. If you're really interested you can search Ars for previous articles where they may have been mentioned. But I don't find the Nobels themselves very newsworthy for Ars because all it is recognition for what's likely already been covered. Highly technical readers are going to go look at the papers that got them the award.

That's no knock against Ars, it's simply a nod to their thorough treatment of many different categories of science, technology, and archeology reporting. The Nobels are often kinda anti-climatic in comparison. I think that reflects more on the Nobel Prizes themselves than anything. They're boring. Note I'm saying the Nobels are boring, not the science, there's a big difference. And yes, that's just my personal opinion.

Edit: clarity > "interested" to "mentioned."

 

[katiejk]

I enjoy the coverage of the Nobels and would like to see it continued.

 

[Qaz`]

I rely a bit on ars to give me a reasonably accurate rundown on the technology and science of curent events. When I see a headline with a significant tech component I quite frequently think "I'll wait for the ars article”.

You are not first, but you rarely have the facts all messed up, and the artcles are usually written for a tech literate audience. The nobel science prizes are no exception. I'm sure I can find that covereage elsewhere, but not consistently on a single site.

I dont mind the day-or-so lag.

 

[ecthroi]

personally would rather see Ars devote that time to science content that doesn't get covered elsewhere, archaeology/physics/etc. as mentioned.

 

[captainbob23]

I agree with the general sentiment here, in that I would like Ars to continue to cover the Nobels. The deep dive in to the science behind the work is appreciated, such as the recent article about lithium ion batteries.

I've always had a passing interest in archeology, and love those articles. The plate tectonics article was a fantastic example of why I subscribe to Ars. I also have an interest in geology, but I was not aware of the newer theories regarding the mantle, so that article was a fascinating read.

 

[wgscott]

I can forgive Alfred Nobel for having invented dynamite, but only a fiend in human form could have invented the Nobel Prize.

J. B. Shaw

 

[0xdeadc0de]

At the very least it is more interesting than the eleven articles for every Apple product launch or gushing over cars that cost more than houses.