tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post4723861383651180297..comments2024-03-27T21:23:40.339-04:00Comments on Chemjobber: Are chemists to blame in the Lauterbur/Damadian dispute? Chemjobberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-91737085722739343152012-09-17T19:00:55.720-04:002012-09-17T19:00:55.720-04:00I probably qualify as a biased chemist, but if you...I probably qualify as a biased chemist, but if you read the papers yourself, you can see what the score is for yourself.<br /><br />Damadian had the really neat idea of differentiating benign vs malignant tissue by differences in relaxation times and all that, and suggested that NMR could make for a useful tool in medical diagnosis.<br /><br />Lauterbur actually figured out how to image stuff with magnetic resonance, and suggested applications beyond medicine in his paper. He has an actual reconstructed image of an aqueous sample in his 1973 Nature paper. If you check on his citations, you will see that he was influenced by efforts in image reconstruction from x-ray and electron micrographs. <br /><br />No contest, IMO. If the prize was for magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging as applied to medicine, sure, Damadian would have been an appropriate third laureate. It was not, however. I don't know why - one would have to ask the Nobel Foundation, but my impression is that they're not going to say anything. MJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02796378432680640144noreply@blogger.com