Ig Nobel awards to honor uproarious science

Nobel Prize laureates will commend scientists on the papers that are not frontrunners for the real Nobel Prize at a ceremony Thursday night at Harvard.

Adam Hunger/Reuters
In 2010, Elena Bodnar demonstrates a face mask that was awarded a 2009 Ig Nobel prize. Dr. Bodnar designed and patented a bra that can be quickly converted into a pair of gas masks, one for the brassiere wearer and one to a bystander, won the 2009 Ig Nobel Public Health Prize. REUTERS/Adam Hunger

The Improbable Research Nobel Prize Award ceremony is tonight.

That’s right: tonight, on the same evening that NASA scientists will celebrate Voyager 1’s historic exit from the solar system, Nobel Prize laureates will commend scientists on the papers that, well, are not frontrunners for the real Nobel Prize – but still have something valuable to teach the audience.

Tonight’s award ceremony, known as the Ig Nobel Awards, has been put on since 1991 at Harvard. The ceremony will include “genuinely bemused genuine Nobel laureates” bestowing awards on scientists whose projects “make people laugh, then make them think,” as the organizers, the Annals of Improbable Research, put it.

It will also include an opera performance.

The identities of the ten winners are kept absolutely clandestine until the announcement this evening, the organization says.

But, based on last year’s prize winners, audience members can expect to laugh – and then to think about why they are laughing.

The awards are meant to “raise the question: How do you decide what's important and what's not, and what's real and what's not — in science and everywhere else?,” write the organizers on their website. Why is a paper that solves the puzzle of how people’s hair turns green in some Swedish homes completely uproarious? Why is it so hilarious that scientists can now tell us that chimpanzees can identify other chimpanzees from photographs of their rear ends?

Last year, some scientists were awarded for their serious and scientific probes into the most humble of subjects, including: “the balance of forces that shape and move the hair in a human ponytail” and “the dynamics of liquid-sloshing, to learn what happens when a person walks while carrying a cup of coffee.”

Other winning papers offered solutions to things that do not seem likely to happen, like how to stop a colonoscopy patient from exploding, explaining things that did not seem to need explaining, like how leaning to the left makes the Eiffel Tower look smaller, and invented things that did not seem to need inventing, like a machine that repeats people’s words to them at a slight delay.

Some papers were complimented on highlighting the banality of other scientists’ papers, like one that showed how complicated scientific instruments and statistics could come up with brain activity in a dead salmon.

Somewhat mysteriously, the committee also awarded the “The US Government General Accountability Office, for issuing a report about reports about reports that recommends the preparation of a report about the report about reports about reports.”

The US government did not send a representative to collect that award.

The awards, beginning at 6:00 at Harvard, will be live broadcast on the organization’s website at 5:35 pm (EST). The winners will then succinctly explain their projects at a 1:00 pm talk on Saturday at MIT.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.