No abstract

Measurement of prestige in science is at best a crude process. However, over the past decade, ways of determining the degree of recognition of scientific work have been developed, and the correlation of recognition with other factors, such as the location and the prestige of the scientist's organization, have been considered. 1 This discussion is particularly interesting in regard to those who win the Nobel Prize, the most prestigious scientific award.'From the quantitative point of view, Nobel prizewinners have been studied chiefly with respect to their work patterns and publication practices.3 Their pre-and post-prize status has also been discussed qualitatively, since 'the prize literally assigns a new status to the laureates. The newly-crowned laureate is socially defined not only as a great man of science but also a celebrity and a sage.,4 In an anecdote reflecting this social attitude, Goughs describes a conference in which certain seats in a meeting hall were highly prized because of their proximity to the speaker. Occupants of these chairs who wanted to keep them in their possession after a brief departure from the hall had to mark them in some way, such as attaching a clipboard. However, the chairs of Nobel prizewinners attending the conference were never claimed by lesser mortals -no indication of ownership was necessary. The aura was apparently sufficient.Our object in this essay is to demonstrate quantitatively the differences in the perceived importance of the work of individuals in this Authors' address. Science Policy Branch,

No abstract

Risk to human health was compared for five conventional and six nonconventional energy systems. The entire cycle for producing energy was considered, not just part. The most important conclusion drawn is that the risk to human health from nonconventional sources can be as high as, or even higher than, that of conventional sources. This result is produced only when the risk per unit energy is considered, rather than the risk per solar panel or windmill. The risk from nonconventional energy sources derives from the large amount of material and labor needed, along with their backup and storage requirements. Risk evaluation is a relatively new discipline, and therefore the results presented here can be considered only a beginning. However, society should keep relative risk in mind when evaluating present and future energy sources.

No abstract