• -
17 Results
The Nobel Peace Center in Norway.
Another All-male Lineup for the Science Nobels: Is It Time to Stop Caring?
Despite internal changes in how scientists are nominated for the Nobel Prize, there is still a substantial gender bias in prize recipients. Concrete policy changes are needed to ensure more diversity is reflected in the world’s most visible and prestigious scientific honor, write experts Kenneth M. Evans, Kirstin R.W. Matthews and Daniel Moralí. Baker Institute blog: http://bit.ly/2MDRDbW
Kenneth M. Evans, Kirstin R.W. Matthews, Daniel Moralí October 14, 2019
The Nobel Peace Center in Norway.
A Call for Sustaining U.S. Scientific International Collaboration: What the Nobel Prize Tells Us
While the U.S. still maintains the overall lead in Nobel prizes (with the exception of literature), the rate at which American scientists have been awarded the prize has declined since the late 1970s. Fellow Kirstin R.W. Matthews and postdoctoral fellow Kenneth M. Evans explore the state of scientific collaboration in the U.S. in this Baker Institute blog: https://bit.ly/2yiNhzF
Kenneth M. Evans, Kirstin R.W. Matthews October 5, 2018
Globe showing Americas
Commentary: Study Highlights Ethical Ambiguity in Physics
In physics, extensive collaborations, access to colleagues’ data and rigorous peer review make it extremely difficult for individual researchers to bend the rules. Furthermore, physics does not harbor the types of ethical minefields characteristic of the biosciences. No thorny questions arise pertaining to human or animal life, nor do physicists commonly grapple with the ethical haze of intellectual property when patents and money are at stake. Things seem to be black and white in physics. But are they?
Elaine Howard Ecklund, Kirstin R.W. Matthews June 1, 2015
Lab sample pipette
Defining “Research” in the US and EU: Contrast of Sherley v. Sebelius and Brüstle v. Greenpeace Rulings
In a recent commentary, Baker Institute science and technology policy experts described two international court cases that aimed to define “research” — and that ultimately arrived at two different answers. “What makes this interesting is that the courts’ definition of ‘research’ was based on politics — what the court wanted the end result to be,” said Kirstin Matthews, the institute’s fellow in science and technology policy. To reach a decision prohibiting human embryonic stem cell (hESC) patents, the EU court ruled that “research” occurs in a continuum. To reach a decision supporting federal funding of stem cell research, the U.S. court ruled that “research” involves a specific project.
Maude Rowland Cuchiara, Kirstin R.W. Matthews August 4, 2013