Nobel prizes are almost as sus as Oscars now. Corina Machado tells you all you need to know.

The peace price is different, and it's been a bit of a hit and miss at least since Kissinger got it.

And the economics prize, though it's not officially really a Nobel prize.

But the core science prizes, AFAICT, are pretty spot on. Of course there are always many worthy contenders of a prize and one can quibble should this or that person really deserve to get it instead of another person, but I haven't heard of any outright frauds or some trivial advancement getting the prize.

	▲	DrScientist an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's still very political - with a small p. For example the recent nobel prize for Chemistry being awarded to David Baker, Dennis Hassabis and John Jumper. Why the hell is David Baker on that list? He was just the head of a very big lab that was working in the traditional way using largely physics based approaches, making incremental progress. AlphaFold blew that whole approach out of the water. They cite the design of Top7 back in 2003 - it's not at the level of impact as Alphafold. The impact of Alphafold is obvious to all - the importance of the 2003 Baker paper doesn't stand out to me from 1000's of other possible candidates - that's where self-promotion, visibility and politics plays a part. The 2003 Baker paper has 2249 citations over 22 years. The 2021 AlphaFold paper has had 43876 citations in 4 years..........

▲

shrubble 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Reminder that there are two different organizations that award “Nobel” prizes; one is the actual organization and the other is the Riksbank, the central bank of Sweden. Not the same people, etc.