The Nobel Duel(asimov.press)
asimov.press
The Nobel Duel
https://www.asimov.press/p/nobel-duel
8 comments
Would you say the same of Watson-Crick/Pauling and Watson-Crick/Candlin? One was pure rivalry. The other was (to my mind) just a dick move.
Fred Hoyle famously had feuds. A lot of the Astro community couldn't work with him. I think it even extended to his grad students. He was an amazing educator and got side-tracked into bizarre theories which every now and then turn out to have a germ of truth (you could say that about extra-terrestrial sources of life in regard to precursor chemicals in the asteroid belt)
Hoyle and Martin Ryle for instance.
Fred Hoyle famously had feuds. A lot of the Astro community couldn't work with him. I think it even extended to his grad students. He was an amazing educator and got side-tracked into bizarre theories which every now and then turn out to have a germ of truth (you could say that about extra-terrestrial sources of life in regard to precursor chemicals in the asteroid belt)
Hoyle and Martin Ryle for instance.
I don't think Watson/Crick vs. Pauling rose to the same level of animosity as this did. I'm not familiar with "Candlin", who was he/she? Or did you mean Franklin?
I think Newton vs. Leibniz would be a good comparison for the rivalry described in The Nobel Duel.
I think Newton vs. Leibniz would be a good comparison for the rivalry described in The Nobel Duel.
Great article. I have no interest at all in biology or medicine but I couldn't stop reading.
I am a biochemist and neuroscientist and also thought it was fantastic read. It's rare that someone manages to cater to both audiences this well. Kudos!
I started writing this review in 2022, after learning about The Nobel Duel at the Frontiers in Reproduction course (Prof. Stephen Hammes mentioned it to me). At the time, both Schally and Guillemin were still alive! I worked on the review off and on for nearly 3 years. It’s a rather complex story, and I went down a lot of scientific rabbit holes in the process (such as looking into 1960s peptide purification methods).
Overall, I think the main lesson I learned is that the rivalry between Schally and Guillemin was avoidable. In other words, their “winner takes all” scientific environment was a necessary component of the rivalry, but by itself it wasn’t sufficient. After all, plenty of other endocrinologists didn’t have massive feuds. The rivalry was really driven by the combination of the scientific environment with the personalities and communication styles of the two men. If Schally and Guillemin had had a candid conversation in 1961 and agreed to work in separate areas (or, less likely, to work as equal partners), the whole feud would have never happened.
So today, if you’re feeling like someone isn’t giving you credit for your work, or is being unfair to you, reach out and talk to them before things escalate too far. Of course, this may not work, but it’s better than sending nasty letters (or these days, emails or tweets) back and forth. There will always be competition in science, but duels can be avoided.