The RSAS is responsible for the selection of the Nobel Laureates in
Chemistry from among the candidates recommended to them by the
Committee for Chemistry. This committee takes into account nominations
made to them by persons—including previous Laureates—invited by them to
do so. They are also able to nominate candidates for awards themselves.
Laureates are chosen by the full Academy in early October through a majority
vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Laureates are
announced in November. During the selection process in 1918, when Haber
was a nominee,
81 Haber’s son, Ludwig Fritz (‘Lutz’), in his book The
Poisonous Cloud,
82 describes a ‘disagreement’ amongst the committee members that year. He says;
In 1918 the Chemistry Prize Committee was not unanimous. One member
argued that the Haber-Bosch process was still secret, which was against the
principles of the Nobel Foundation. Another member considered that the
fixation of atmospheric nitrogen had prolonged the war and that on those
grounds Haber should be disqualified. No criticism of chemical warfare was
recorded. There was also the question to what extent Haber had been assisted
by [his collaborators] Le Rossignol, Mittasch and Bosch. The discussions are a
curious mixture of ignorance and irrelevance …
Now one would not wish to deny the love of a son for his father and to care
for his place in history, but a more recent examination of the considerations
of the Chemistry Committee by Robert Friedman,
83 reveals a much more
complex picture than Lutz Haber was willing, or able, to concede at the time;
the ‘curious mixture …’ reflecting tensions in the committee and a tendency
for some members to pursue a personal agenda, to play politics, and to engage
in favouritism. According to Friedman, the facts are these;
Even before 1918, the Chemistry Committee was already experiencing
some disagreement. As early as 1916 the ageing Peter Klason, who had been a
committee member from the inception of the Nobel Prizes, had proposed
Haber for the prize. Klason had rarely been able to gain any agreement
amongst other members regarding his nominations—who were almost
invariably industry-orientated chemists. But he was determined to have his
way and in his choice of Fritz Haber he was able to play to the committee’s
undeniable affinity for German chemistry.
84 Klason already had a ‘track
record’ in nominating those who had worked on nitrogen ‘fixation’, but none
of the processes he supported in the past were viable. But just before the war a
new ‘universal’ solution—the ‘Haber-Bosch’ process—had been announced
and he lobbied to reward at least the academic half of this apparent
308
D. Sheppard
Chemistry from among the candidates recommended to them by the
Committee for Chemistry. This committee takes into account nominations
made to them by persons—including previous Laureates—invited by them to
do so. They are also able to nominate candidates for awards themselves.
Laureates are chosen by the full Academy in early October through a majority
vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Laureates are
announced in November. During the selection process in 1918, when Haber
was a nominee,
81 Haber’s son, Ludwig Fritz (‘Lutz’), in his book The
Poisonous Cloud,
82 describes a ‘disagreement’ amongst the committee members that year. He says;
In 1918 the Chemistry Prize Committee was not unanimous. One member
argued that the Haber-Bosch process was still secret, which was against the
principles of the Nobel Foundation. Another member considered that the
fixation of atmospheric nitrogen had prolonged the war and that on those
grounds Haber should be disqualified. No criticism of chemical warfare was
recorded. There was also the question to what extent Haber had been assisted
by [his collaborators] Le Rossignol, Mittasch and Bosch. The discussions are a
curious mixture of ignorance and irrelevance …
Now one would not wish to deny the love of a son for his father and to care
for his place in history, but a more recent examination of the considerations
of the Chemistry Committee by Robert Friedman,
83 reveals a much more
complex picture than Lutz Haber was willing, or able, to concede at the time;
the ‘curious mixture …’ reflecting tensions in the committee and a tendency
for some members to pursue a personal agenda, to play politics, and to engage
in favouritism. According to Friedman, the facts are these;
Even before 1918, the Chemistry Committee was already experiencing
some disagreement. As early as 1916 the ageing Peter Klason, who had been a
committee member from the inception of the Nobel Prizes, had proposed
Haber for the prize. Klason had rarely been able to gain any agreement
amongst other members regarding his nominations—who were almost
invariably industry-orientated chemists. But he was determined to have his
way and in his choice of Fritz Haber he was able to play to the committee’s
undeniable affinity for German chemistry.
84 Klason already had a ‘track
record’ in nominating those who had worked on nitrogen ‘fixation’, but none
of the processes he supported in the past were viable. But just before the war a
new ‘universal’ solution—the ‘Haber-Bosch’ process—had been announced
and he lobbied to reward at least the academic half of this apparent
308
D. Sheppard