Thanks to Marc Abrahams, useless research has been receiving “great and glorious recognition” for 35 years
The Ig Nobel Prize, that has been awarded for 35 years now, is a parody of the Nobel Prize for “unworthy” research. The creator of the prize, American mathematician Marc Abrahams, who has also awarded the prize to various University of Amsterdam researchers, will be a guest at Nemo on Tuesday evening. “Unlike most prizes, it is not about good or bad.”
From a paper that shows that lap dancers in ovulation get better tips than their colleagues, to proof that malaria mosquitoes are equally attracted to the smell of toe cheese as they are to that of Limburg cheese: thanks to the Ig Nobel Prize, the fake Nobel Prize for useless research, the world can now enjoy these facts.
American mathematician Marc Abrahams wanted to honour achievements that “clearly deserve some kind of grand and glorious recognition, but are unlikely to get it”. He has been collecting funny and remarkable stories about science all his life and in 1991 he established the Ig Nobel Prize, the prize for research unworthy of the Nobel Prize, as the publisher of the Journal of Irreproducible Results. He later founded the Annals of Improbable Research, a magazine he still writes for.
... demonstrated that a synchronised heartbeat is a good predictor of whether two people are attracted to each other. “I am really proud of the Ig Nobel Prize. It is good for scientists to see the funny side of things. Funny things attract attention and stick in people’s minds. The Ig Nobel is not only funny: it also makes you think.”
“The prize has also led to new collaborations. Together with another Ig Nobel Prize winner and chemist, I am investigating whether there is also a case of smell-synchronisation in couples during a date – do they smell the same things? – and what that says about attraction.’
Marc, is winning the Ig Nobel Prize an honour or is it a criticism of the uselessness of science?
“That is exactly the right question and also the reason for the success of the prize. Most prizes recognise ‘the best’, or in some cases ‘the worst’, but with the
Ig Nobel Prize that distinction is irrelevant. What matters is that it makes people laugh and then makes them think.”
“This also applies to life in general and to science in particular. Most scientific stories are not that simple: they change over time and seem to be good at some moments and bad at others. The Ig Nobel Prize will hopefully make people think about this.”
So the prize is not meant to show that scientific research is sometimes useless?
“That’s right. And to show the opposite: if you think something is only beautiful and good, think again. If you look at the list of winners, you will probably draw the conclusion that some have done something good, others something evil, and others something in between. If you ask someone else to look at the same list, they will come to a different conclusion. As long as that is the case, I think we are doing well.”
Do you have a favourite winner?
“I have many favourites. They are like my children and I have 340 of them.”
“If I have to name one: the duck story is exceptionally good. Just look at how people react when you read out the title of Kees Moeliker’s paper: Homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck. You can see all the human emotions pass by within a minute.”
...won the Ig Nobel in 2020 for diagnosing misophonia, the disgust that some people experience when hearing chewing noises. “I have the certificate framed in my consulting room, and many patients notice it and ask about it. I think that also helps with feelings of support and recognition.”
“We may be a bit of an outsider this evening because our research is far from “funny” because it deals with a psychiatric condition involving serious psychological suffering. Winning the prize has led to a lot of attention for this subject – the condition is now recognised worldwide – and will hopefully contribute to the destigmatisation of misophonia and psychiatric disorders in general.”
“Another interesting winner is Saul Newman, a British professor who studies people who live to be 120 years or older. The story goes that these people are mainly found in certain places in the world, the so-called blue zones, and the explanation for their longevity is how the people in those places live and what they eat. Newman discovered that the statistics in the papers that form the basis of that evidence are incorrect. He went looking for the original documents of the people aged 120 and over and discovered that most of the documents did not exist and that some of these people had two or three birth certificates with different years of birth. Sometimes the people over 120 were only alive on paper, their families had never filed a death certificate to ensure they continued to receive their pension. Newman has not been able to publish these results in demography to this day because the big names in that field of research are responsible for the erroneous results. Since Newman received the Ig Nobel Prize, many other fields of study have been willing to publish his work.”
Some countries, such as Great Britain and Japan, win the prize more often than average. Why is that?
“I think it has to do with how these countries deal with people with unusual ideas. In the UK, there is even a name for it: British eccentrics. In most parts of the world, people with strange ideas have no easy life. They are passed over, ignored or, in the worst case, condemned. In Japan and England, it doesn’t matter what people think, they are proud that these people live in their country. Producing eccentric people seems to be part of the national identity.”
...for feeding worms drunk to study the separation of active polymers. AD: “We are genuinely proud of winning the Ig Nobel Prize. It is a prize with huge visibility and a great reputation that also offers a great opportunity for outreach.”
TH: “For me, the prize is a reminder that fun and good scientific research can coexist. This meaning resonates completely with how I experienced our research as a bachelor’s student at the time. I am also very grateful for the fun and lovely community I have gained from other winners and the Ig Nobel Prize organisation.”
Researchers of the University of Amsterdam also often win the Ig Nobel Prize. Is there an explanation for that too?
“I would like to know that too, but I think it’s just a coincidence. We read piles of papers and receive 9,000 entries for the Ig Nobel Prize every year. One hundred people decide which ten studies will ultimately be chosen as winners. This is preceded by heated discussions. So I think it’s a coincidence that the University of Amsterdam is more often among the winners.”
In the US, science is under serious pressure under the second Trump administration. Is it still appropriate to satirise science?
“A major problem that science has always had is that many people feel intimidated by it. Then there is no room to laugh or think. What is happening in the US now is that science is being divided into good and bad and things are being cut on that basis.”
“With the Ig Nobel Prize, we try to make people laugh and then make them think – even if it’s only for a minute – before they decide whether something is good or bad. If we can get people in the US to start asking questions instead of accepting decisions that are made for them, then the prize will have achieved its goal.”
