It's Monday, April 30th, 2018, and you're listening to Inquiring Minds. I'm Indra Viscontas.

And I'm Kishore Hari. Each week, we bring you a new in-depth exploration of this space where science, politics, and society collide.

We endeavor. We endeavor to find out what's true, what's left to discover, and why it all matters.

You can find us online at inquiring. Show, on Twitter, at Inquiring

show, and on Facebook. And you can subscribe to the show on iTunes or any other podcasting app.

And if you want an ad-free version of the show, just pledge $5 or more per month at patreon.com

slash inquiring minds.

Do you think the Nobel Prize is good for science?

Well, I certainly think it brings a lot of attention to science, which is probably good for science.

I mean, the Nobel Prize is the Nobel Prize of Prizes, right?

I mean, you can't discount the name and, like, the cultural value. Everyone knows what a Nobel Prize is the Nobel Prize of Prizes, right? I mean, you can't discount the name and

like the cultural value. Everyone knows what a Nobel Prize is. But do the Nobel Prizes make

sense under the current rules? Let's take example last year, the Prize in Phoenix went to the people

behind the LIGO project, the one that found gravitational ways.

The rule of state, only three people can be awarded the prize itself. Even though we know

probably thousands of people worked on that project, let alone the engineers that probably

constructed the instrument and whatnot. And one of the chief architects of the project, Ron Dreiver,

actually sadly passed away a few months before the award announcement. And another rule is that

the Nobel Prize can't be awarded posthumously. I sort of think those roles are antiquated because

it perpetuates an idea of a lone genius in science?

Yeah, which I think is becoming less and less true.

As the tools that we use, as scientists, become more and more complicated, demand more and more people.

...