|
Quick – who won the Nobel Prize this year for oh, say,
anything.
I suspect most folks are more likely to remember which
teams played in the World Series or what film won for Best Picture.
If that’s you, it’s a safe bet you have a lot of company. Me, for
instance.
It’s not that we don’t care, but it is tough for the
layman to see the relevance of much of the work honored, or even
understand it. In recent years the Nobel has been awarded for the
“discovery and characterization of an entirely new class of proteins
called prions,” “elucidation of the enzymatic mechanism underlying
the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate,” and “using laser light to
cool gases ... and keeping the chilled atoms floating or captured in
different kinds of atom traps.” Steak maybe, but no sizzle.
Even the Nobel Prize for literature can leave you guessing; last
year’s recipient was described as “an extremely serious satirist
with a multifaceted oeuvre.” I like to think of myself as
reasonably well read, but have no idea what an “oeuvre” is,
multifaceted or otherwise. Could be a low-cholesterol egg
substitute, but I’m not sure what that would have to do with
literature.
The economics prizes are equally mystifying. Last
year’s winners, Myron Scholes and Robert Merton, were selected for
developing “a pioneering formula for the valuation of stock options
(which) paved the way for economic valuations in many areas (and)
generated new types of financial instruments and facilitated more
efficient risk management in society.” The two Americans went on to
become partners in Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund
whose recent troubles have jeopardized the financial workings of
pretty much the entire planet.
The problems of Messrs. Scholes and Merton aside, the
arcane nature of many Nobel accomplishments does not diminish their
value. As complex as the world has become, most of us simply accept
what surrounds us without truly comprehending much of it anyway. So
although I don’t understand how my microwave oven works, I can
appreciate it nonetheless.
But the announcement this month of India’s Amartyo Sen as winner of
the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is still refreshing.
Dr. Sen’s work has focused on poverty, in particular how a society’s
distribution of resources affects the poor. With the world’s pockets
of seemingly endless destitution, the significance of this research
is easy to appreciate.
His most important work has been the study of famines, efforts the
prize committee specifically cited. It may not be an enzymatic
mechanism or a prion protein (which sounds like it might be good
with oeuvres), but with periodic starvation still afflicting many
countries, it is a field with sound practical applications.
Dr. Sen’s most interesting observation might be that
famines rarely occur in democracies, that the phenomena is often due
more to politics and the distribution of resources than to actual
food shortages. “That's because while famine may kill millions,
typically it doesn't affect the rulers,” he notes. “And if it is a
one-party state, or (there is) a military junta running it, or
colonial rule ... you may usually find a situation where their lives
are going on extremely unaffected, whereas lots of people are
dying.”
According to Sen, the leadership of democracies is
directly affected by famine even if they never miss a meal. There
may be no hunger pains at the top, but attacks from a free press,
censure by opposing political parties, and the wrath of the
electorate inflicts a different kind of misery.
Democracy can be a messy thing, perhaps nowhere more so than in
Sen’s native land. But even India, whose poverty I have witnessed
firsthand, has avoided famine since gaining independence in 1947.
Voters there know that they can change governments if they are
fed-up instead of fed, and do so on a regular basis.
As we well nourished Americans prepare for our own elections, Dr.
Sen’s work may also hold a message for us: The process can be
untidy, but democracy works. After a fashion, at least. May we use
it and cherish it.
|
