Henry: Why'd you have to go and mention Henry Eyring? He's a "hot button" issue in the politics of science.
Me: Why's that?
Henry: Well, he was a Mormon you know. He gave up his seat at Princeton to move back to Utah to run things.
Me: Does that even matter?
Henry: Of course not. But Eyring was one of those—along with Gilbert Lewis—who should have won the Nobel Prize...but didn't.
Me: You're not saying that his religion had something to do with why he didn't win?
Henry: I'm not not saying that. But you do know that he's related to Mitt Romney? link
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
At the risk of being "one of those people" and dropping names, I didn't know Henry Eyring but a friend of mine was a good friend of "Hank's" and while he might have been disappointed in not winning the Nobel Prize, I don't think that he would have lot that much sleep over it.
ReplyDeleteI never met Henry Eyring, but the other Henry and I realy did have such a conversation. Of course I added the part about Mitt Romney who wasn't on the radar in 1996 or so.
ReplyDeleteEyring wrote a book called "Reflection Of A Scientist" which I've never read. He wrote about science and religion. Here are a couple select quotes: link
Are either Eyring or Romney related to John Browning? Because the M1911 is a gem.
ReplyDeleteI agree Eyring got screwed on the Nobel prize for being Mormon.
The Nobel Committee is notorious for being both fickle and liberal. Eyring notwithstanding, they have picked some seriously deserving people in the sciences.
DeleteThe "Peace Prize" tends, on the other hand, to go to cheap political hacks.
Eyring's contributions were positively prize-worthy. We'll never know why he didn't get the prize. But the sad, sad, case of G.N. Lewis was the most egregious oversight: link In Lewis' case it's easier to see why--the man had enemies.
ReplyDelete