Advertisement
Grab your lab coat. Let's get started
Welcome!
Welcome!
Create an account below to get 6 C&EN articles per month, receive newsletters and more - all free.
It seems this is your first time logging in online. Please enter the following information to continue.
As an ACS member you automatically get access to this site. All we need is few more details to create your reading experience.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
After reading Stu Borman’s story on those given the cold shoulder by the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, online readers couldn’t help but name more overlooked scientists as well as pass along an idea for a future ACS national meeting symposium.
For the use of NMR in organic chemistry alone, Jack Roberts deserves the Nobel Prize and should have been awarded it many years ago.
David Schuster via C&EN’s website
Raymond Lemieux of the University of Alberta could have been awarded the Nobel for his advances in the area of carbohydrate chemistry. He was fighting a lone battle in this area, and we now know that carbohydrates are one of the most important areas from chemistry to biology to vaccine development!
Shankaran. K via C&EN’s website
Very interesting theme for the History of Chemistry Division. I would (tentatively) suggest a provocative follow-up symposium on Nobel Laureates who should not have been awarded the prize.
Paul J. Karol via C&EN’s website
There is a great quote from physicist Freeman Dyson who was left out of the Nobel Prize for quantum electrodynamics, mainly because including him among the three well-deserved winners would have exceeded the limit on the number of awards for a single prize. When asked in his later years whether he resented being left out, his reply was “It is better to be asked why you did not win a Nobel Prize than to be asked why you did.”
Ronald Lawler via C&EN’s website
You might also like...
The power is now in your (nitrile gloved) hands
Sign up for a free account to get more articles. Or choose the ACS option that’s right for you.
Already have an ACS ID? Log in
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter