Nobel Peace Prize. No reason to drag the other Nobels into that.
So, I really did mean the Nobel Prize as such and I'm really sorry they did that.
From the wikipedia article on the Nobel Prize:
"The interval between the accomplishment of the achievement being recognized and the awarding of the Nobel Prize for it varies from discipline to discipline. The prizes in Literature are typically awarded to recognize a cumulative lifetime body of work rather than a single achievement. In this case the notion of "lag" does not directly apply. The prizes in Peace, on the other hand, are often awarded within a few years of the events they recognize. For instance, Kofi Annan was awarded the 2001 Peace Prize just four years after becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations."
So, maybe this is a case of prescience or something ?
I really think this was dreadfully misguided and that it devalues the whole of the Nobel Prize, of course there is absolutely no way they could ever do anything about it now but the Nobel Prize is now synonymous with 'has the potential to do great things, some day. We hope.'
That's just a part/whole fallacy. The badness of what some priests did to boys doesn't devalue what Mother Theresa did by virtue of them both being Catholic.
It is a shame that being a priest in the Boston area is now linked with being a pedophile
Einstein's Nobel has no tarnish on it because the Committee gave Obama one.
However the Nobel committee has complete oversight and control over where these prizes go, the prizes aren't capable of deciding where they go, so a devaluing of the committee devalues the prize.
If the Nobel committee brought out an award for mathematics everybody would think it's about damn time. However if they brought one out for creationist research, not a single scientist on the planet would ever want a Nobel Prize again.
She has been praised by many individuals, governments and organizations; however, she has also faced a diverse range of criticism. These include objections by various individuals and groups, including Christopher Hitchens, Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the proselytizing focus of her work including a strong stance against abortion, a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty and alleged baptisms of the dying. Medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices and concerns were raised about the opaque nature in which donated money was spent.
Krugman, as an economist, did a great deal to further the field (although he has since forgotten these things, apparently). Economists who I respect feel that his prize was deserved.