Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Nobel Ideals & Noble Errors: Great Scientists Don't Make Mistakes, Do They?
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Allchin, Douglas |
| Copyright Year | 2008 |
| Abstract | Christian Eijkman shared a 1929 Nobel Prize "for his discovery of the antineuritic vitamin." His extensive studies on chickens and prison inmates on the island of Java in the 1890s helped establish a white rice diet as a cause of beriberi, and the rice coating as a remedy. Eijkman reported that he had traced a bacterial disease, its toxin and its antitoxin. Beriberi, however, is a nutrient deficiency. Eijkman was wrong. Ironically, Eijkman even rejected the current notion when it was first introduced in 1910 (Allchin, 1996; Carpenter, 2000). Although he earned a Nobel Prize for his important contribution on the role of diet, Eijkman's original conclusion about the bacterium was just plain mistaken. Eijkman's error may seem amusing, puzzling, or even downright disturbing--an exception to conventional expectations. Isn't the scientific method, properly applied, supposed to protect science from error? And who can better exemplify science than Nobel Prize winners? If not, how can we trust science?--And who else is to serve as role models for students and aspiring scientists? Eijkman's case, however, is not unusual. Nobel scientists have frequently erred (Darden, 1998). Here I profile a handful of such cases. Among them is one striking pair, Peter Mitchell and Paul Boyer, who advocated alternative theories of energetics in the cell. Each used his perspective to understand and correct an error of the other! Ultimately, all these cases offer an occasion to reconsider another sacred bovine--that science is (or should be) free of error, and that the measure of a good scientist is how closely he/she meets that ideal. An Error for Every Nobel? Consider first Linus Pauling, the master protein chemist (Nye, 2007; Magner, 2002, pp. 357-359). Applying his intimate knowledge of bond angles, he deciphered the alphahelix structure of proteins in 1950, which earned him a Nobel Prize in 1954. He also reasoned fruitfully about sickle cell hemoglobin, leading to molecular understanding of its altered protein structure. Yet Pauling (1970) also believed that megadoses of vitamin C could cure the common cold. Evidence continues to indicate otherwise, although Pauling's legacy still seems to shape popular beliefs (Hurd, 2007). His unqualified advocacy eventually led to him losing sources of financial support. Pauling sometimes described the source of good ideas as having lots of ideas, and throwing away the bad ones. That may well characterize science. Yet it highlights the question of how one recognizes bad ideas and how long they may linger, with what effect, before being thrown away. Pauling's ideas about vitamin C partly echoed another Nobel Prize winner, whom he called "the most charming scientist in the world": Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (Allchin, 2007). Szent-Gyorgyi isolated vitamin C and helped identify it as ascorbic acid. Later, he buoyed research by showing how vast quantities of it could be extracted cheaply from the paprika peppers of his native Hungary. He also claimed, erroneously, that vitamin C participates as an intermediate in mitochondrial reactions and that it could cure various medical conditions. Szent-Gyorgyi received a Nobel in 1937 "for his discoveries concerning the biological combustion processes." He had helped resolve a debate about those reactions--showing how oxidations leading to proton transfers could be reconciled with electron flow and the use of oxygen. He also helped elucidate the role of fumaric acid (although he identified it incorrectly as a catalyst, rather than an intermediate). Szent-Gyorgyi went on to contribute to muscle physiology, demonstrating the role of ATP in actin and myosin interaction. Yet he also promoted many spurious claims, such as having discovered yet another vitamin (vitamin P), and treating diabetes with succinic acid and cancer with ultrasound or mushroom juice! For every fruitful idea SzentGyorgyi offered, it seems, there was at least another that was equally mistaken. … |
| Starting Page | 502 |
| Ending Page | 505 |
| Page Count | 4 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.2307/30163333 |
| Volume Number | 70 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/papers/nobel-errors.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://douglasallchin.net/papers/nobel-errors.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.2307/30163333 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
