Invited Editorial Comment

The Historical Documentation of ScientificDevelopments: Scientists Should Participate

The announcement from the Nobel Assembly at Karo-linska Institutet on October 6, 2003 to award the NobelPrize in Physiology or Medicine for 2003 jointly to PaulC Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield for their discoveriesconcerning MRI has been received by the MR commu-nity with great joy and satisfaction. The award wasgiven to Paul Lauterbur for his discovery of “. . .thepossibility to create a two-dimensional picture by intro-ducing gradients in the magnetic field. . .” This discov-ery is described in his paper in Nature, where he dem-onstrated the first MR image of two smaller test tubes ina NMR sample.

Sir Peter Mansfield shares the award for his furtherdevelopment of “. . . the utilization of gradients in themagnetic field. He showed how the signals could bemathematically analyzed, which made it possible to de-velop a useful imaging technique. Mansfield alsoshowed how extremely fast imaging could be achiev-able. . .”

It was already known in the 1950s that the depen-dency of the resonance frequency of protons on themagnetic field strength can be used to distinguish theirlocalization, if a suitably modified magnetic field wereused. Singer described such applications in his paperson flow by NMR. To make the transition from a methodfor localization of spins to an imaging technique consti-tutes a quantum leap, one of the rare “Eureka” mo-ments in science. In our current world overflowing withimages, it is hard to conceive of the boldness of mindand inspiration it took for Paul Lauterbur to take thatbig step. NMR spectrometers, at that time, were instru-ments measuring the resonance signal of protons as avoltage at the output of a highly complex receiver andamplifier apparatus. This voltage could be visualized onan oscilloscope and stored as a hardcopy on paper.Digital signal processing was largely unknown; indeed,the “computers” around the labs at this time could dolittle more than basic arithmetic. It is difficult to saywhat should be more admired: the ingenuity of PaulLauterbur to modify such an apparatus in order toregister and collect signals under variable gradientswith the aim to convert these signals into an image, orhis dedication and inspiration to develop the necessarymathematical methods to finally get the job done. Lau-terbur is free to admit that mathematical methods forimage reconstruction had been described early thiscentury and have been used by Hounsfield in his workon CT at around the same time. He was, however, un-aware of these techniques and had to develop the algo-

rithms for his “MR-Zeugmatography” from scratch,based on his gut feeling, that this must be feasible.

Sir Peter Mansfield has been instrumental in the fur-ther development of these basic concepts of MRI as weknow it today. Most notably, he has invented and intro-duced EPI, which is the father (or mother?) of all fastimaging techniques. The inherent sensitivity of EPI toimperfections of the magnetic field inhomogeneity; thepathetically low performance of gradient amplifiers ofthat day in terms of speed, power, and especially repro-ducibility; and the low signal-to-noise ratio caused bythe high receiver bandwidth used to sample the EPIsignals made the early EPI images not exactly nice tolook at. It took great perseverance and a firm belief inthe further technical progress for Sir Peter to keep con-tinuously working at EPI over nearly two decades untilMR technology was sufficiently advanced to give us theimage quality today. EPI is currently used as the “work-horse” fast imaging sequence in many applications likefMRI, diffusion imaging, perfusion mapping, and manyothers. In fact, many of the new fields in MR currentlyunder development would be not feasible without EPI.

Many scientists felt that the Nobel Prize for magneticresonance has been long overdue. As a positive side ofthe apparently long ramifications of the Nobel Commit-tee’s decision, one may note that the extremely thor-ough evaluation progress has finally led to identify thetwo individuals who are perceived by the MR commu-nity as being outstandingly deserving recipients of theaward. It is, of course, a fiction to attribute a huge newfield of science like MR to two individuals alone. Theselection of, at most, three persons to represent a cer-tain field according to the statutes of the Nobel Prizealways has something artificial about it and is unfair tothose who are not included on the list. This is certainlypainful for those omitted. If we are honest, this elementof selection is, however, certainly contributing to theappeal and attraction that the award has far into thenon-scientific general public. Like any innovation, theinvention of MRI took place within the context of acontinuous scientific development. Singer, who alreadyhas been mentioned, has used inhomogeneous fields tolocalize protons before. E. Odleblad, T.R. Ligon, R.Damadian, and others had prepared NMR spectra oftissue samples and shown that this may be interestingto look at in man. Last, but not least, it took the efforts,energy, and dedication of highly idealistic cliniciansand radiologists like Brian Worthington, Bill Bradley,Graeme Bydder, Alex Margulis, and others to bring MRI

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING 20:181–182 (2004)

© 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. 181

into the hospitals. Without the efforts of the Aberdeengroup around John Mallard, in particular, who built thefirst practical human MR scanner, MR might have re-mained a curiosity in the engineering labs for a longwhile. Thus, in all gladness and celebration for thehighly deserved award for Paul Lauterbur and PeterMansfield, we should also be grateful to all of the indi-viduals who have shaped and inspired the success ofMR.

The long story of disgruntled losers in the Nobel Prizecompetition has certainly taken a new turn this yearwith several whole-page advertisements that RaymondDamadian has taken out in major newspapers in theUnited States (at a cost of several hundred thousanddollars) to lament his dissatisfaction with the decision.Many I have spoken to over the last weeks have voicedtheir opinion that the best way to deal with this highlyunpleasant and inappropriate reaction is to be silentabout it. This is certainly laudable and wise. However,in order to avoid the wrong impression that the scien-tific community tries to escape the issue by not sayinganything and therefore something about the claimsmade in these advertisements may be true after all, letit be said that the large majority of the scientific com-munity is very satisfied with the result of the extremelythorough evaluation process of the committee. The MRcommunity is extremely multicultural, multinational,and multidisciplinary, and likes nothing better than togive credit to an outsider for being successful in pro-gressing the field. The list of “Gold Medalists” of ISMRMcontains many awardees who are acknowledged forcontributions they have made far away from their“home turf.” The neglect perceived by Raymond Dama-dian is therefore not the story of an outsider againstsome perceived establishment but his own personalopinion.

I received the message about the award sitting at mydesk working on some abstracts for the Kyoto meeting.My immediate reaction was intense relief that this has

finally happened, and about a hundred millisecondlater a somewhat astonished pleasure that the Commit-tee has not only finally acknowledged MR but evenidentified the right persons in doing so. I think that allradiologists and clinicians using MR in their daily pa-tient care and all scientists doing MR research to bepublished in many journals and presented at scientificmeetings in many fields are entitled to share in the joyand to feel a little bit as “Nobel Prize Awardees” them-selves.

As a methodologist myself, I am, in particular, verypleased that the methodological developments havebeen acknowledged by the Nobel Committee. Currently,there is strong worldwide pressure in the scientific com-munity to give first priority to applications. Methodolo-gists are tolerated only insofar as they submit theirmethodological developments under some applicationtheme. Huge application-based “research factories” arebuilt in the hope that this is the way to meet the chal-lenges of the future. In many fields, where methodolo-gies are sufficiently “ripe” to be driven by applications,this is a necessary and beneficial development. How-ever, in focusing on those application fields, it is easilyforgotten that creativity and innovation rarely thrive inan environment created by such mega-projects. Itwould certainly be too much to hope that the NobelPrizes in Physiology or Medicine awarded to a chemistand a physicist working in their labs far off the main-stream of research will lead the science politicians torethink their strategies. However, it should be an en-couragement to all of those who value independence ofthought, rather than submission to some current ac-tual trend, to persevere with their work.

Jurgen Hennig, PhDUniversitat FreiburgFreiburg, Germany

DOI 10.1002/jmri.20122Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

182 2003 Nobel Prize for MRI