In my opinion, the Nobel Prize is awarded to more or less adequately in those areas where the community can assess the merits of colleagues are awarded. It is accurate — physics and chemistry — and more or less accurate — biology and medicine — science.
True, there occur serious lining.
So, in 2009, the year the award was awarded to three of biologists, experimentalists, confirmed the offer in the early 1970s by Alexei Matveyevich Olovnikov Leonard Heyflika explanation of the experiment. But by Heyfliku Olovnikova and this award is not given, although they are both still alive (and god forbid them to live to 120, especially as the experiments and theory Heyflika Olovnikova — just explain why we age, and how to disable the mechanism of aging). That is, the Nobel Committee awarded in this case, a secondary job, not the primary one.
Another example — the Nobel Committee awarded the Albert Hermanovicha Aynshtayna (we often recite in English — Einstein, but he still Aynshtayn) for his work on the theory of the photoelectric effect, developing an open Planck quantum theory, but the pioneering work Aynshtayna — the theory of relativity — and remained nenagrazhdennym .
But it is — almost inevitable particular. The Nobel Committee is fundamentally broken with Nobel himself in the main. Nobel conceived his award as ensuring the development of promising research. The committee was, roughly speaking, is to identify the most interesting studies of the number of ongoing at the moment and give the researcher an amount which he would have had to continue working in the chosen direction for years to come. But for several decades, the Nobel Committee awards the contract solely for the discoveries made many years earlier, that is, does not provide a continuation of the work, and the only reward for the work already completed long ago.
It is clear why this is so. Rate of work at the forefront of science, it is difficult — to do this yourself at the forefront of science. But the work of the Nobel committee is organized so that leading scientists are only entitled to nominate candidates, evaluate these candidates as the organization for many years have not seen in the breakthrough research. Therefore, the Nobel Committee every year more and more behind the front edge of science. And, of course, went for the award for his work has long held and evaluated by the scientific community. It's sad, but I fear that in the foreseeable future is almost inevitable.
But all these obvious shortcomings Nobel Committee decisions on the exact sciences paled against his own complete failures in the field of humanitarian, where an objective assessment difficult.
For example, the first recipient of the Nobel Prize in literature was the poet Sully Prudhomme. His name I do not remember — I do not remember, because all this is forgotten poet, in fact, still alive. While at the same time worked with him undoubtedly the greatest, repeatedly surpassing his figures. Some of them — like, say, Kipling — then still have won the Nobel Prize. Some — such as Tolstoy or Chekhov — did not. But a comparison of Sully-Prudhomme with a great many of his contemporaries shows how inadequate was the decision. However, here at the Nobel Committee has a formal excuse: he wanted to encourage Nobel idealistic trend in literature. But he meant by that idealism is not quite what is called the term now. He was referring to the literature highlights the humanitarian ideals and glorifying, and the Nobel committee took it as a requirement to encourage the lyrics with some mystical accent. That is, alas, a measure of inadequacy committee decisions. As such, the current award Chinese writer under the pseudonym "Mo Yan", meaning "be quiet", "for his magnificent (in another translation — hallucinatory) realism, combining folk tales with modern times."
Nobel Prize in economics, strictly speaking, is not established itself Nobel — officially it is called
And finally, the most perfect nightmare happening in the Nobel Peace Prize. Again, it is clear that the objective criteria in this area is difficult to handle, because you can not always predict the long-term consequences of a political solution. Accordingly, what is reasonable, useful and fair, may subsequently prove fatal step. But it's still not an excuse, for example, the awarding of the world advance, as happened in 2009, the year with the newly elected president of the United States of America. Nomination of candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize is completed around the middle of February. Barack Hussein Huseynovich Barak Obama took office, as it should be by now the current U.S. law, the 20th of January. That is obviously not had the time to do anything meaningful advances. He was awarded, in fact, only the flow of campaign promises. Incidentally, I have repeatedly noted, as far as I know, under U.S. law statements made in the course of the election campaign, the lack of jurisdiction — even if knowingly false. It is assumed that the lie — is an integral part of any campaign, and therefore punish candidates for it — unfairly. That is, Obama was awarded the prize, in fact, for a lie. And it is a measure of the extent to which the Nobel Prize is now degenerated.
So the Nobel Committee can trust to some extent, as long as we are talking about things objectively verifiable. But when it comes to something subjective, solutions Nobel Committee, is no better than making any mere mortal. That's how it should relate to the Nobel Prize for literature, economics and peace.