To Ig or not to Ig

It's almost that time of year again; the Nobel Prize winners will be announced Oct 6-13. And just a short month prior to that, the Ig Nobel Prizes will be awarded! In case you haven't heard of these, here's a description from the site:

The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then makes them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative — and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology.

But do the prizes fall short of this aim? I worry, perhaps undeservedly, that a lot of people miss the second part and only laugh.

And in fact, it seems (though I can't seem to find proof) that was the original purpose of the Igs, created in 1991. An article by 1999 Ig winner Dr. Len Fisher states that these prizes were originally designed to "use satire to show up the difference between pseudo-science or trivial science and real science" and are given "for research that cannot or should not be reproduced." (Emphasis mine.)

Well, I don't know about the other scientists in the room, but my hackles are raised. Trivial? Should not be reproduced? That's a slap to the face. Reproducibility is one of the cornerstones to our profession. If something only happens in your hands and no one else can repeat it, it's probably an artifact of your method and not real. How do you determine that without someone else trying? Not to mention, 'pseudoscience' is NOT interchangeable with 'trivial'.

More to the point, we don't dedicate our lives to finding scientific truth in order for it to be labeled as useless. That's not to say that every endeavour leads to useful data, but to not publish it is a waste of grant/tax payer money and would be equally disparaged. Studies are built off what other people have done, so knowing an idea isn't good because someone else has already tried it is a good thing! And who exactly determines whether something is ground-breaking or trivial? Typically, only history can decide that.

My favourite example of this is Taq polymerase (named for the bacteria which produces the DNA replicating enzyme, Thermus aquaticus). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is an extremely important technique used across almost every scientific discipline, including DNA fingerprinting in forensics. It even won a Nobel prize in 1993 for its development by Drs. Michael Smith and Kary Mullis. And yet, this technique never would have gained popularity due to its high costs unless that group had thought of using a high heat-stable form of the DNA polymerase enzyme. And what would have happened if the original researchers had decided that investigating how a bacteria that lives in hot springs replicates is DNA was "trivial"? How many lives have been saved by putting criminals behind bars due to these experiments that might have been classified as "should not be reproduced"? These awards run the risk of discouraging research in areas that aren't readily applicable to what we deem to be important, which is disheartening.

But, to be fair, who doesn't want to watch Nobel laureates help a respected researcher demonstrate the use of her bra/gas mask invention? Because, for the most part, scientists have a great sense of humour, especially after a few pints of social lubricant. It's one of the reasons (along with the great science) I absolutely love going to conferences! And the Ig Nobel Prizes ceremony plays this up in a million ways! Like the traditional Paper Airplane Deluges directed at the "safety-equipment-laden individual onstage who is the Designated Paper Airplane Target". Or the informal lectures held for the Ig recipients to attempt to explain and/or defend their research. How about an 8-year old named Miss Sweetie Poo who walks up to any speaker exceeding their time limit and repeats "Please stop. I'm bored" until they leave the stage? Clearly, this ceremony is not meant to be taken seriously!

Plus, Improbable Research does their best to not offend. According to the FAQs, they privately contact winners before the announcement and silently withdraw the nomination if it's declined. I think that's exceptionally classy. And most accept the dubious honour, because they know the worth of their own research. The Ig Nobel Prize mission statement above is further rationalized because "good achievements can also be odd, funny, and even absurd" which is absolutely true. These awards really are an attempt to humanize scientists, to make science accessible. And that's an honourable goal. (Ahem, pats own back.)

The problem is, the media doesn't always portray the Ig Nobel Prizes in the same light. I've always gotten the feeling that journalists are laughing at, not with, these researchers. So I want to ask you, my 3 dedicated followers (Hi Mom!), do the Igs really accomplish their mission? Or do the just serve to highlight the silliness of some of the work being done in labs? You can message me on Facebook or email me. And yes, this is a test to see how many people read my posts. :P