March 7, 2007
Nobel Prize medal stolen
Famed physicist Ernest O. Lawrence's Nobel Prize - a medal made of 23-karat gold and worth about $4,000 - has been stolen from a locked display case at the Lawrence Hall of Science in the Berkeley hills, police said.Full article here. Lawrence's Nobel Prize biography is here; the Lawrence Hall of Science website is here. When I was a boy, the Lawrence Hall of Science was a favorite destination, perched on the hill with a great view, and easily accessible by either bus or bike (a good climb with our old clunkers!).University of California-Berkeley police said Monday that the coin-like 1939 Nobel Prize in physics was displayed with other artifacts from Lawrence's life and work in the sprawling E.O. Lawrence Memorial Room at the science museum.
Thursday morning, a staff member noticed the medal was missing and the display case was empty. Police don't yet know whether someone picked the case's small lock or whether a key was used.
UPDATE: A quick recovery: a Berkeley undergrad who worked at the Hall of Science appears to have been the culprit.
Posted by David on March 7, 2007 11:43 AM
"the first Nobel Prize the university ever received": US scientific preeminence is really quite young.
Posted by: dearieme on March 8, 2007 1:13 PM
Good logic. The Nobel Prize is 'really quite young' (1901). But anyway, see Michelson, Physics, University of Chicago, 1907.
Posted by: Bubbles on March 9, 2007 11:49 AM
Michelson makes preeminence? Don't be so silly.
Posted by: dearieme on March 9, 2007 1:34 PM
Yes, you're right. Preeminence happens when 'Berkeley finally gets a Nobel.' If I recall, Michelson was the first of 79 from Chicago alone. In the same span, France had a total of 2, UK 5, etc., etc., etc.
Posted by: Bubbles on March 9, 2007 4:10 PM
OK Bubbles. In which years did American-educated scientists start winning the 3 science Nobels, for work done in the US, in dominating numbers?
Posted by: dearieme on March 10, 2007 7:23 PM
Dear Ieme, I think I need a new database to answer questions at that level of detail. Here's what the current database says though: 'User seriously out of her tree, if she's counting only 3'.
Posted by: Bubbles on March 11, 2007 10:31 AM
3 is the relevant number if you're discussing "scientific preeminence".
Posted by: dearieme on March 11, 2007 12:57 PM
As a Chicago scientist would say, you need to define your terms. Apparently for you, science = 'Nobel awards in physics'; your idea of preeminence is even more arbitrary. You don't offer any evidence for the counterclaim, and here's why - it's so patently obvious that the US has dominated science for more than a century (as well as everything else that matters) that it's absurd for you to seriously try.
Posted by: Bubbles on March 11, 2007 5:01 PM
cronaca.com