Nobel Prize controversy
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond...ze_controversy

Nobel Prize controversy

In 2003, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for their discoveries related to MRI. Although Nobel rules allow for the award to be shared with a third party, Damadian was not given the prize.

Between October and November 2003 Damadian took out large, expensive advertisements in The New York Times and The Washington Post protesting his exclusion with the headline "The Shameful Wrong That Must Be Righted".[8] Damadian suggested that Lauterbur and Mansfield should have rejected the Nobel Prize unless Damadian was given joint recognition. Supporting Damadian were various MRI experts including John Throck Watson, Eugene Feigelson, V. Adrian Parsegian, David D. Stark and James Mattson. New York Times columnist Horace Freeland Judson criticised this behavior, noting that there is "no Nobel Prize for whining"[9]

Others point out that while Damadian had hypothesized that NMR relaxation times might be used to detect cancer, he did not develop (nor did he suggest) the current way of creating images. Since the Nobel Prize was awarded to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for the development of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Damadian's exclusion makes more sense.

Damadian is a controversial figure in NMR circles, not least for his exuberant behavior at conferences...[10] He is also fundamentalist Christian and a young earth creationist[11] and a member of the "Technical Advisory Board" of the Institute for Creation Research.[12] Philosopher Michael Ruse writing for the Metanexus Institute suggested that Damadian might have been denied a Nobel prize because of his creationist views, saying "I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs. Having silly ideas in one field is no good reason to deny merit for great ideas in another field. Apart from the fact that this time the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community.",[13] a point that has been picked up by creationists such as Carl Wieland of Creation Ministries International who cite it as an example of anti-creationist bias in science.[14] Others consider the claim to be mere speculation.[15]