Should there be Provisions for Revoking the Nobel Prizes?

Iris Deng - Hong Kong

Statement from the Nobel Prize Organisation

"Neither Alfred Nobel's will nor the Statues of the Nobel Foundation

mention any such possibility (revocation of a prize). None of

the prize-awarding committees in Stockholm and Oslo has ever

considered to revoke a prize once awarded.”

Introduction

German chemist Fritz Haber won the 1918 Nobel Prize for Chemistry in recognition of his life-saving method of synthesizing ammonia for fertilizers from nitrogen and hydrogen. However, later in his career, Haber went on to become the founding father of chemical warfare, silently killing up to 90,000 soldiers during the First World War.

‘Bread from Air’

As the world's population continues to increase rapidly, so does the demand for food. Fortunately, during Haber’s time as a professor in Karlsruhe, he discovered that ammonia synthesis could be possible at high pressure in combination with a suitable catalyst. The ammonia produced can be directly pumped into the soil as a fertilizer or reacted with nitric acid to form solid ammonium nitrate - a water-soluble fertilizer. Without the Haber-Bosch process — the process of directly synthesizing ammonia from hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen — over half of our population would face inevitable death due to starvation. 

This process is significant because crops and plants rely on photosynthesis to grow. Photosynthesis requires carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water, all three constantly supplied through the air, rain, watering, and simply being outside or near a window. However, another essential component of plant growth is the nutrients found in the soil, including potassium, phosphorus, and nitrogen. Without them, the crop would scarcely grow, let alone fast enough to keep up with the growing population. Once the soil is depleted of its nutrients, it becomes infertile, and the only way to remedy this is to replenish the minerals. This can be done by plowing in manure or compost, yet this method cannot sustain the increasing demand for food. Supplying nitrogen for crops was a crucial concern, as it is a major component of chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is the green pigment in chloroplasts that is responsible for photosynthesis and is required for amino acids, the ‘building blocks’ of protein. It may seem strange that we face this problem, given that 78% of our air is made out of nitrogen, but nitrogen in the atmosphere exists as a diatomic molecule (N2), causing it to be inert and unreactive, meaning plants are unable to utilize it in this form, and can only rely on compounds in the soil. In the 19th century, Europe relied on guano (bird excretion) as the primary nitrogen source. Despite being imported from several individual Pacific islands, it ultimately failed to meet the rapidly increasing demands of the rising population, and many were left unfed. Luckily, large saltpeter deposits (a mineral form of potassium/sodium nitrate) were soon found in the Chilean desert and proved an excellent nitrogen source. However, saltpeter could not permanently sustain the global population. The world desperately needed a solution that involved a renewable and economically feasible way of replenishing nutrients in the soil. Therefore, Haber created a solution.

The Haber-Bosch process is achieved by reacting nitrogen and hydrogen with a high-pressure and high-temperature catalyst. Haber wanted to take advantage of the abundant nitrogen gas in the air, so he became the mastermind behind the first industrial process to use high pressure for a chemical reaction. His work on nitrogen fixation was the foundation of this new process.

For nitrogen (an inert element) to react with other chemical substances, it needs to be converted to its more reactive compounds, such as nitrates and ammonia. This allows organisms to absorb the more reactive nitrogen compounds and utilize the nitrogen. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria fix nitrogen in the soil over millions of years and thus are found in soil. By 1908, Haber proved his thesis that with a combination of high pressure and a suitable catalyst, nitrogen could be "fixed," making ammonia synthesis possible. Then, with the development of this process by German chemist and Engineer Carl Bosch from the chemical company BASF, ammonia could now be synthesized on a national scale, and enormous amounts of fertilizer could be produced without significant financial input. This is easily regarded as the "most important technological invention of the 20th century", proving to save an estimated 2.7 billion people. Haber was awarded the 1918 Nobel Prize for chemistry, and Bosch in 1931. This sparked a surge of controversy, as the aftermaths of the new process proved to fuel war since nitrogenous compounds had other uses in ammunition and explosives.

‘Massacre in Thin Air’

Haber was a patriotic man. In 1914, he devoted himself and his institute's resources to meeting Germany's demands for chemical products and synthetic substitutes for the First World War. He fueled his country with both fertilizers and munitions, especially after the British blockade cut off their primary supply of nitrates from Chile. Along with the German chemist Wilhelm Ostwald, the combined process of synthesizing ammonia and oxidizing ammonia into nitric acid handed Germany the key to a continuous supply of nitrogen for explosives.

As the supposedly short war seemed to have no end due to the stalemate on the Western Front, Haber was urged by the military to use tear gasses or chemical irritants in an offensive, hopefully shortening the war. Although there were no physical treaties stating that gas was not to be used against opposing nations, there had been a mutual understanding to refrain from poisoning enemy troops with chemical substances. Despite this, Haber was eager to support his country’s war efforts and began experimenting with gaseous compounds. Initially, he proposed a substance called Xylyl bromide, yet it proved unsuccessful as it froze too quickly. It was first used on January 31st, 1915, against Russia on Germany's Eastern borders, and it did not vaporize due to the low temperatures. Its failure was a setback for the development of gas warfare, but this setback was only temporary. Haber then moved up the period of halogens and experimented with chlorine.

Along with a team of German chemists, Haber developed a method of releasing chlorine gas from pressurized cylinders. On April 22nd, 1915, Haber personally oversaw the first-ever successful gas attack in history at the Second Battle of Ypres in Belgium. Due to the success of chlorine gas, Haber also oversaw the development of mustard gas, which proved to be even more effective, as it was heavier and settled in trenches.

"They (opposing soldiers) had never seen anything like it. And many would never see it,

or anything again". Thousands of French and Algerian soldiers lay in agony, suffocating in a ghastly cloud of green gas as they drowned in their blood. Chlorine gas is a powerful irritant to the eyes, nose, and throat and is dissolved quickly in water, forming hydrochloric acid and hypochlorous acid. This causes your capillaries (and eventually the entire circulatory system) to collapse as the acid is highly corrosive, and tears open your blood vessels, which spills fluids. Victims suffer an excruciating death due to this build-up of fluid (pulmonary edema), which accumulates in the alveoli, preventing the lungs from absorbing oxygen (asphyxiation). More than 150 tonnes of poisonous gas was released at 5 pm on April 22nd on the command of Corporal Fritz Haber, just as the wind changed in favor of the Germans. The gas had been more effective than anticipated and marked the beginning of chemical warfare. Unfortunately, despite the myriad of fatal casualties, the Germans' advance failed. Proceeding hesitantly, they barely gained any land, following the release of the chlorine gas, as they were unsure regarding the extent of its success. For Haber, it was regarded as a victory. He had served his country. Haber was soon promoted to Chief of Germany's Chemical Warfare Service and held a dinner party to celebrate this "win." Naturally, this sparked some controversy, as Haber's creation marked the onset of thousands of agonizing deaths. Following his celebration, Clara Immerwahr, his wife, voiced her concerns on the consequences of his new, deadly, chemical weapon. As an accomplished chemist herself, she understood what Haber's invention entailed and stood in protest of the direction of her husband's military research. She had sacrificed a great deal for Haber, having given up her career to keep up with the demands of housekeeping and spending time looking after their son. Despite her efforts, Haber remained a patriotic man and refused to listen. As a result, Clara shot herself with Haber's revolver. Haber returned to the Eastern Front on the next day, seemingly unfazed, and abandoned funeral duties to others.

The Holocaust

The years following the war were challenging for Haber. Not only was he charged with war crimes, but he was also forced to resign as he struggled to conceal his Jewish roots after Hitler came into power in 1933. In the early 1920s, Haber embarked on a chemical journey, vowing to pay Germany's war debts by extracting gold from seawater. Despite his strained efforts, he emerged empty-handed but published a proposal for calculating the energies of ionic crystals, universally known as the Born-Haber cycle. During this time, Haber also invented a cyanide-based insecticide called Zyklon A. At the time, it wasn't a particularly notable invention as the years of the Holocaust approached. German scientists experimented with Haber's original formula to produce Zyklon B, known as hydrogen cyanide. This substance was released in gas chambers of Nazi concentration camps to exterminate prisoners rapidly. Ironically, Haber's own relatives were victims of this tragic genocide. His inventions, when seized by the wrong hands, inadvertently caused the death of his kin.

Beyond Haber’s legacy

The story of Fritz Haber only scratches the surface of the controversial Nobel laureates in the past century. If Haber's Nobel Prize was to be revoked, it implies that the damage caused in his wake outweighs the good that he accomplished.

Provisions for revoking the Nobel Prize should not be introduced

The Nobel Prize is the world's most prestigious award. It is an honor worn by every laureate, signifying their efforts in contributing to "the greatest benefit of humankind." It is a symbol of their achievements. Revoking a Nobel Prize would undermine the historical significance of the laureate's work and accomplishments. It implies that the advancements of the laureate, whether scientific, literary, or peace-advocating, are irrelevant and no longer deserving recognition. If a previous awardee has now been involved in activities deemed unacceptable in modern-day society, has their contribution to benefiting humankind, the work that resulted in them receiving a Nobel Prize, changed in any way? No, it hasn't. Revoking the prize will not undo their contentious actions but will only belittle their revolutionary discoveries, potentially leading to a decline in advancement in their respective field. 

Another point to consider is that Nobel Prizes are awarded annually. According to Alfred Nobel’s Will of 1895, the Prizes are awarded to “those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind.” It is awarded to the people who have contributed the most in that specific year, not of all time. The deeds of a laureate before and after the year of being awarded the prize are trivial. The revocation of a prize may entail the decline of future advancements. If scientists are too worried about the potential damage to their reputation from the public scrutinizing their actions, how will they be able to devote themselves to work fully? 

Another concern revoking a Nobel Prize raises is the unintended consequence of the invention and patenting. Once a work is published, the writer has no control over how others interpret it. Using Haber as an example, he did not intend for Zyklon A to become the deadly gas responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews. He had no authority or influence over the development of his discovery, which was controlled by future chemists who manipulated it to meet the demands of their government during that period. 

The subject of bias is also prominent in this argument. If there were to be provisions for revoking the prize, whose decision would it be? The nominees' work is sent to specific field institutions for further evaluation and adjudication so the panels' of these institutions would have the final say in the revocation of a prize. If it is made public that a laureate's prize is under reconsideration, members of these panels will be subject to political and social bias. They can't have a completely neutral perspective of the matter at hand as the reach of the internet continues to grow. 

Revoking a prize can also raise questions about the consistency of the Nobel Prize institutions. The public may begin to doubt the selection process and, eventually, the prize's significance. Who would care about a prize constantly being given and revoked again? 

Provisions for revoking the Nobel Prize should be introduced

Do we want a chemist responsible for the death of millions of innocent lives to hold the title of the most prestigious award in the world? Provisions for revoking the Nobel Prize elicit the integrity of the prize, showing that the committee values the importance of ethical and responsible practices, painting a good picture of the prize's authority and legitimacy. Revoking a prize from a controversial laureate shows moral responsibility from the committee, ensuring the support of the public. 

From a utilitarian perspective, Haber fed more people than he killed and, therefore, did more good than bad and thus deserved the Nobel Prize. However, who is to say that the lives he took are less significant than those he saved? People's lives are not a mathematical equation; the lives of those he saved do not 'cancel out' the lives of those he killed. 

Another instance in which a Nobel Prize should be revoked is if the laureate's work has been proven inaccurate, fabricated, or simply incorrect. For example, Danish scientist Johannes Fibiger was awarded the 1926 Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering a parasite that was the alleged cause of cancer. Later research proved his bold idea was phenomenally wrong; the parasite led to some diseases, but cancer was not one of them. His work was vital in developing modern cancer research, but did he still deserve the prize, considering that discoveries made much later proved him wrong? In recent years, Gregg Semenza was awarded the 2019 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on cellular oxygen regulation. Previously, Semenza had 17 of his papers retracted, corrected, or raised for concern, 5 of which were retracted due to image manipulation. His work is also under investigation by Nature Genetics, Oncogene, Science Signalling, and The Journal of Physiology and Nature Reports for fabrication. Scientific or academic misconduct in the Prize lowers the standards of the prize and the overall integrity. By introducing provisions for revoking the prize, the credibility of the Nobel Prize is increased, maintaining the elite standard. 

The ever-changing moral standards of modern society should also be taken into consideration. Actions formerly deemed justifiable may not always be acceptable in modern times. As the honor of being awarded a Nobel Prize is valid to the laureate long after their death, their actions should align with modern-day standards. An example of a Nobel laureate with derogatory views is William Shockley. Winner of the 1956 Nobel Prize for Physics, Shockley used his scientific credentials to promote racist ideology. Given the historical context, it wasn't uncommon for a white, privileged American man to hold such views, but do we want this man to have the honor of the most prestigious award in the world? Not revoking the prize tells society that such views are acceptable and reasonable. Lastly, the consideration of revocation of a prize is extremely rare. Over 600 prizes have been awarded; less than a dozen prompted controversy or discussion. The process of selection is relatively foolproof and thorough.

Conclusion

Although Haber insisted that he was merely trying to serve his country, the pain and suffering he caused still significantly impacted countless families. There is no denying that he is responsible for the creation of chlorine gas and the "father of gas warfare.” The burden of science is that it can be used for nefarious or good purposes depending on who holds the knowledge. Cases can be made for and against provisions for revoking the Nobel Prize, but ultimately, whether it should be done is up for debate. Should we consider upholding moral ethics or preserve the integrity of the inventions and hold them separate from their creators? Can inventions ever be separated from their creators? Until these questions are answered, there can be no conclusion towards whether revoking a Nobel Prize is acceptable or not. 

Bibliography

Fritz Haber (no date) Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Fritz-Haber (Accessed: 13 June 2023)

Haber-Bosch process (2023) Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/technology/Haber-Bosch-process (Accessed: 13 June 2023) 

‘Fritz Haber: Both sides of A nobel prize’ (no date) Actualitat. Available at: https://web.ub.edu/en/web/actualitat/w/fritz-haber-both-sides-of-a-nobel-prize#:~:text=Fritz%20Haber%2C%20originally%20from%20Breslau,the%20Karlsruhe%20Institute%20of%20Technology. (Accessed: 13 June 2023)

​​From fertiliser to zyklon B: 100 Years of the scientific discovery that brought life and death (2013) The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/03/fritz-haber-fertiliser-ammonia-centenary (Accessed: 13 June 2023)

Schneider, L. et al. (2023) Gregg Semenza: Real nobel prize and Unreal Research Data, For Better Science. Available at: https://forbetterscience.com/2020/10/07/gregg-semenza-real-nobel-prize-and-unreal-research-data/ (Accessed: 13 June 2023)

Green, D.B. (2017) 1868: The man behind chemical weapons is born, Haaretz.com. Available at: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2017-04-12/ty-article/.premium/the-man-behind-the-nazis-chemical-weapon-of-choice/0000017f-dbb6-db22-a17f-ffb7602e0000 (Accessed: 13 June 2023)