The 2003 Nobel prize for MRI: Significance and impact

As this editorial was prepared on December 10, 2003, our colleagues, Paul C. Lauterbur, PhD, and Sir Peter Mansfield, both former Presidents of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM), were recognized in Stockholm as co-recipients of the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Their separate contributions in gradient imaging and echo-planar imaging are internationally recognized as seminal accomplishments in the field. In addition, each has made significant contributions to the scientific community, as evidenced by their presence as authors in the archival literature, their training of young investigators, and their support and voluntary contributions to organized medicine, including, in particular, our society. This event highlights the rapid development in the field and the truly significant impact on health care delivery that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its correlative diagnostic imaging and associated therapeutic modalities have provided. In this issue, we have several invited editorial comments that focus on the excitement and energy that the Nobel Prize in Medicine for MRI has generated. First, we present laudatory remarks from Michael Moseley, PhD, President of the ISMRM, and Jörg F. Debatin, MD, Medical Director and Chief Executive Officer of the University Hospital, Hamburg, Germany, and a member of the Editorial Board of JMRI. These are followed by an editorial by Chris Boesch, MD, PhD, former President of ISMRM, in which he places the current award in a perspective of 13 Nobel Prizes directly and indirectly related to the development of MRI. Third, we have two observations on the disappointment of our colleague, Raymond Damadian, MD, in not being recognized with a share of the Nobel Prize. Presenting their views on this matter are William G. Bradley, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Department of Radiology, University of California at San Diego and JMRI Editorial Board member, and Jürgen Hennig, PhD, Universität Freiburg, Germany, past President of ISMRM and JMRI Editorial Board Member. Finally, we close with a discussion of the complex genesis of MRI that touches on all of the above issues by Ian Young, PhD, member of the Editorial Board of JMRI. It is noted that the editorial opinions expressed in the following articles are the personal opinions of the authors and not the official position of the ISMRM. Any discussion concerning the selection of Nobel Laureates could certainly benefit from the expertise of someone directly associated with that process. Hans G. Ringertz, MD, PhD, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Radiology at Karolinska Institute, is also the Chairman of the Nobel Academic Council and was kind enough to share some of the intricacies involved in awarding the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. The nomination procedure is an extensive, year-long process that invites a great number of universities and other organizations to recommend possible nominees. As has been discussed elsewhere during this year’s debate, up to three individuals involved in the discovery and/or development of the specific entity being honored may receive a Nobel Prize; however, the contributions of each of the winners do not always have to correlate directly. In March, the top nominees from the previous year are reexamined, and preliminary international investigations are begun. The field is narrowed to 20-25 potential prizes by June, and experts in all of those areas are chosen to conduct more thorough investigations of the nominees. Further winnowing then occurs until the top three possibilities are chosen at the end of September. The final meeting of the Nobel Assembly occurs in October, and then that year’s Nobel Laureate(s) are chosen and announced. The process then culminates in the actual awarding ceremony in Stockholm during the first half of December. This year, there is considerable debate regarding the Nobel Prize awards in Medicine for MRI, and I trust that the following editorials will contribute to that discussion. We certainly welcome editorial comments that would seek to disagree, be supportive, or correct any of the observations and conclusions mentioned in this introduction or the invited editorials that appear in this issue of JMRI. Recent editorial opinions by John Gore, PhD, Editor, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (1), and Felix W. Wehrli, PhD, Editorin-Chief, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (2), provide important historic perspectives describing the evolution of the science and technology of MRI. These are exciting days in our field, and it is indeed an honor to be a part of the process. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING 19:173–174 (2004)