
Ivar Giaever obituary: modest Nobel-winning physicist
He believed that a Nobel could indicate good fortune rather than exceptional intellect. 'Some winners are smart,' he once told a reporter, 'some are average and a few are actually dumb.'
It was true that higher education was a low point for Giaever. While studying mechanical engineering at the Norwegian Institute of Technology in Trondheim his main focus was playing bridge, chess and billiards. Though the university champion in the latter, he did not win trophies for his academic performance. Giaever asked his physics professor about his examination results and was told: 'Your answers are among the worst that have ever been handed in!'
As luck would have it, this dismal effort helped Giaever to secure a job at a renowned GE industrial laboratory near Albany, the New York state capital. Eyeing his grades, the personnel director exclaimed: 'I see you have 4.0 in both physics and mathematics, you must have been a very good student!' Giaever wisely neglected to mention that the grading system in Norway worked in the opposite direction to the US, meaning that 4.0 was the lowest pass mark rather than the top grade it signalled in American schools.
Setting aside his educational record and self-deprecation, Giaever was, of course, very smart. He excelled during a corporate training programme and when he was hired in 1958 he became, according to his family, the only scientific researcher at the laboratory without a PhD.
Giaever began experimenting with superconductors — materials that can conduct electricity without energy loss — and in 1960 performed a breakthrough quantum mechanics experiment on a phenomenon known as the tunnel effect. In the late Fifties a Japanese physicist working for the Sony Corporation, Leo Esaki, had demonstrated electron tunnelling in semiconductors. He showed that the particles had wave-like properties that, in the right conditions, allowed them to 'tunnel' through ordinarily impenetrable barriers. Using metal strips separated by a thin oxide layer, Giaever proved this also occurred in superconductors.
Such insights were valuable to theoretical physicists and to makers of modern electronic equipment that uses diodes, transistors and lasers. Giaever's experiment supported what is known as the BCS theory. The authors of that 1957 theory on superconductor behaviour were awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 1972; Giaever secured the honour a year later, aged 44, crediting his success to advice from colleagues as he shared the prize with Esaki and Brian Josephson, a Welsh theoretical physicist whose work while a graduate student at Cambridge University built on Giaever's achievements.
Ivar Giaever was born in Bergen in 1929 to John, a pharmacist, and Gudrun (née Skaarud), who helped in the pharmacy and took care of the family. Neither went to high school. He grew up on a farm, which proved useful during wartime food shortages, and enjoyed skiing and taking machinery apart to see how it worked. Schools closed each autumn so that children could spend three weeks in the fields harvesting potatoes. Aged 14 he met a local girl, Inger Skramstad, who became an au pair in England and a ski instructor and community volunteer in the United States; they married in 1952.
Before entering the Institute of Technology Giaever had a year of work experience at an ammunition factory, experimenting during his lunch hour to automate the lathe he operated. It was dangerous work; several colleagues were missing thumbs and he narrowly escaped serious injury when he used a steel milling machine incorrectly and a tool snapped and recoiled forcefully, grazing his chin.
After his degree and compulsory military service he took a job with the patent office in Oslo, assessing applications related to locks, hinges and knitting machines. Money was tight: on one occasion, Ivar and Inger accepted a dinner invitation but could not afford a babysitter, so he tied their infant son, John, to the bed and went out. With a baby and a housing crisis so severe there was an eight-year waiting list for an apartment, they decided to follow the example of a friend who had emigrated to the US and, Ivar recalled, bought 'a car as large as a tank'.
With only $200 in their pockets the family moved to Toronto, where one of Inger's sisters lived, but at first life in Canada was no easier. Giaever used a knife to slit the front of his ill-fitting shoes to ease the rubbing pain as he trudged the city's streets looking for a job in the dead of winter. He tried the GE headquarters in Toronto. Directed by a secretary to walk down several corridors to the employment office, he took a wrong turn and found himself out on the street. Disheartened and wondering if he had been tricked, he was on the brink of leaving but went back and was guided to the correct entrance.
Giaever was hired as an engineer, testing electrical equipment and improving his mathematics skills on a company training scheme. To enhance his salary and career prospects he emigrated to the US, continuing his training with GE and enrolling at the nearby Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) for a master's degree in physics before finishing a doctorate there in 1964, the year he became an American citizen. He was invited to a meeting of scientists in Moscow, which led to him being interviewed by the FBI, and to a conference in Brighton, where the main inconvenience was the stones on the beach.
Bringing their hulking Chevrolet station wagon across the Pond in 1968, the family spent a sabbatical year in England. Giaever studied biophysics on a Guggenheim fellowship at Clare Hall, Cambridge, and observed that even a meeting about his overdraft with his bank manager started with a glass of sherry. Formalities were not the only culture shock. 'Americans take great pride in working hard while the English are more concerned with appearing very smart,' he wrote. 'In Cambridge people did not seem to care about what was correct or not; the point was to win the argument.'
Applying the techniques and principles of physics to biology was a growing passion and on his return to the US he began experiments with the goal of detecting hepatitis antibodies. Though his GE bosses had scant interest in biology the prestige of his Nobel victory gave him free rein to pursue whatever interested him. When news of the triumph emerged the company sent a limousine to whisk him to work and rolled out a red carpet at the laboratory entrance. Giaever worked in the laboratory of the celebrated polio vaccine developer Jonas Salk at the Salk Institute in San Diego. He left GE in 1988 for a professorship at the RPI, had a spell as a professor at the University of Oslo and co-founded a biophysics company centred on cell research and drug discoveries.
Careful with money given his earlier struggles, he habitually lunched on cups of spicy noodles bought from Walmart for 28 cents apiece. Leisure time was spent playing board games, windsurfing and skiing into his mid-eighties. Inger died in 2023; he is survived by their son, John, a retired engineer, and three daughters, Anne, a teacher, Guri, an associate professor in pharmaceutical sciences, and Trine, an artist.
Giaever and his wife lived in the same house for 60 years but travelled the world. Aged 80, he took a teaching position in Seoul and made the national news on a trip to South Korea when he told a journalist that the nation lacked Nobel laureates because fervent debates can inspire progress and Koreans are too polite to argue with authority figures. Unafraid to speak his mind, Giaever possessed an irreverent wit honed from dedicated viewing of the sitcom, Seinfeld. He was a sought-after speaker and frequent guest expert on an American public radio science programme.
A natural sceptic — aged six he declared the Easter bunny to be a fiction, a stance that cost him sweets — he was a prominent self-described climate change denier and resigned from the American Physical Society in 2011 because it described the evidence for global warming as 'incontrovertible'. He wrote: 'In my view, nothing in science is incontrovertible.'
Asked how it felt to win the Nobel, he liked to reply: 'I suddenly became the most famous person I knew.' Reflecting on a career that brought him several other prestigious prizes and more than 30 patents, he mused about how different it all would have been had he given up and gone home after walking the wrong way in the GE office in Toronto: a 50-50 decision that transformed his future. 'Life is not fair,' he wrote in his 2016 book, 'and I, for one, am happy about that.'
Ivar Giaever, Nobel prize-winning physicist, was born on April 5, 1929. He died after a period of declining health on June 20, 2025, aged 96
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Impossible to rebuild': NIH scientists say Trump cuts will imperil life-saving research
Last week, the office of management and budget (OMB) revealed plans to freeze all outside funding for National Institutes of Health research this fiscal year, but reversed course later that day, leaving the scientific community in a state of whiplash. A senior official at the NIH who spoke on condition of anonymity said this was just the latest in a 'multi-prong' approach by the Trump administration to destroy American scientific research. In July, the National Cancer Institute, which is part of the NIH, updated its website to reflect Trump administration plans to significantly cut cancer research spending as well. Since January, the administration has been cancelling NIH grants, in some cases targeting other specific research areas, such as HIV treatment and prevention. 'It's really, really bad at NIH right now,' said the official, who added that researchers working outside the NIH have been unaware of the severity of the situation until recently, even though they have also faced funding upheaval since the winter. 'The Trump administration is, for the first time in history, substantially intervening inside NIH to bring it under political control,' the official said. 'That's what we saw this week with the OMB freeze on funding.' 'I think the core of it is that they want to destroy universities, or at least turn them into rightwing ideological factories,' the official said, since the majority of the NIH's grants are distributed to researchers in universities, medical schools and similar institutions. In 2021, JD Vance gave a speech entitled The Universities Are the Enemy. The official said they were alarmed at how little universities are fighting back – many have settled with the administration, which has 'gotten Columbia to completely knuckle under. One of America's most significant universities and a place that is a worldwide magnet for talents. Same thing at Penn. Now they're going after UCLA.' Institutions such as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have also stayed on the sidelines, refusing to sufficiently resist Trump, the official said. If the administration does manage to freeze NIH funding, it will push to rescind the funds permanently using a rescission motion, the official said. This type of motion only requires a simple majority of 50 votes to pass the Senate, instead of the supermajority necessary to beat a filibuster. Republicans would have enough votes to 'ram through these motions to effectively cut the budget without Democrats in Congress weighing in. It's an ongoing disaster.' Researchers at the many universities where the administration has frozen funding, such as Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, are starting to feel the gravity of the situation, said the official. Carole LaBonne, a biologist at Northwestern, said 'university labs are hanging by a thread', explaining that even though the OMB reversed its decision to freeze outside NIH funding, 'the baseline reality is not much better'. Other recent changes at the NIH include allocating research grants all at once rather than over multiple years, so that fewer projects are funded. Reductions in cancer research funding also mean that only 4% of relevant grant applications will move forward. 'This will effectively shut down cancer research in this country and destroy the careers of many scientists. This is devastating,' LaBonne said. The extreme uncertainty surrounding scientific research is also negatively affecting scientists' mental health. 'I do not know any faculty who are not incredibly stressed right now, wondering how long they will be able to keep their labs going and if/when they will have to let laboratory staff go,' LaBonne said. 'It also very hard to motivate oneself to write grants, a painstaking and time-intensive processes, when there is a 96% chance it will not be funded.' Ryan Gutenkunst, who heads the department of molecular and cellular biology at the University of Arizona, said: 'The chaos at NIH is definitely freaking [faculty and students] out and wasting huge amounts of emotional energy and time. We were emailing about the latest pause, only to find it unpaused hours later.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The senior NIH official found last week's events unsurprising, they said: 'They're throwing everything at the wall to stop NIH from spending. What struck me was that many of my colleagues at universities were like, 'Oh, my God, they're stopping grants.' And it really seemed to activate people in a way that I hadn't seen before, whereas a lot of us at NIH thought, 'Oh, they just did another thing.'' Science is an engine for American economic dominance, and scientific clusters such as Silicon Valley could not exist without federal funding, the official said. 'Once you break them, it will be impossible to rebuild them. We're on the path to breaking them.' LaBonne said she worried about the impact on progress in cancer specifically. 'My own research touches on pediatric cancers. Forty years ago more than 60% of children diagnosed with cancer would have died within five years of diagnosis. Today there is a 90% survival rate. We should not put progress like that in danger,' she said. Although many major scientific institutions have complied with the administration, grassroots organizations and individual scientists, including those within the NIH, are finding ways to resist. The senior NIH official said they were most hopeful about grassroots organizers who are resisting the Trump administration openly, rather than relying on older strategies such as litigation and negotiations with Congress. For example, Science Homecoming, a website to promote science communication, is encouraging scientists to get the word out about the importance of federal funding to their home towns. The Bethesda Declaration, signed by 484 NIH staff, directly accused NIH director Jay Bhattacharya of 'a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally appropriated funds for critical NIH research. Each day that the NIH continues to disrupt research, your ability to deliver on this duty narrows.'


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How did a new War of the Worlds movie get a 0% critical rating?
Just over 20 years ago, Steven Spielberg released War of the Worlds, a remake of the HG Wells classic updated for then modern day, capturing an era of post-9/11 anxiety filtered through the prism of late-90s disaster movies. That movie's reputation has only grown over the years – it's basically the thinking and anxious person's Independence Day – but the Wells text has been revisited repeatedly since its publication at the tail end of the 19th century. 2025 seems as good a time as any for another update. And if ever any viewers yearned to see a new War of the Worlds beset with the constant pinging of a Microsoft Teams chat, Prime Video has a real treat in store. Yes, hovering towards the top of Prime Video's movie charts is a new War of the Worlds, which arrived with little fanfare on the service at the end of July. In it, Ice Cube plays Will Radford, a Department of Homeland Security official who monitors an array of feeds for terrorist threats. Despite a belated heads-up from his Nasa pal Dr Sandra Salas (Eva Longoria), he (somewhat bafflingly) fails to pay much mind to a series of mysterious gathering storms, until it's too late: meteor strikes occur worldwide, and from the meteors emerge alien tripods that quickly lay waste to buildings and people everywhere. Will has been distracted by the hunt for a hacker called 'Disruptor', as well as by spying on his grown-ish kids Faith (Iman Benson), who is expecting her first child, and Dave (Henry Hunter Hall), a gamer Will thinks is wasting his life. In a novelty that turns into a hindrance almost immediately, most of this unfolds on Will's computer screen at his mostly empty office, where he's working what's described as a 'graveyard' shift despite it being, you know, daytime. Actually, it's more accurate to say that it unfolds near Will's computer screen. Unlike past 'screenlife' movies like Unfriended, War of the Worlds is not exactly rigorous about adhering to its self-imposed limitations. Though Will's face is often display on screen as part of various video calls (which is how Unfriended and others have worked actors' faces into a screen-only framework), the movie also flat-out cuts away to traditional shots of Will that are framed vaguely like a Zoom call but clearly take place outside of Will's computer. This makes sense. After all, when you've got an actor as expressive as Ice Cube, you want unmotivated closeups that can capture every single cocked-eyebrow scowl. How will the audience know how to feel if they can't see Ice Cube scowling at his computer screen? That's probably not fair to Cube, who has been quite good in plenty of other movies. The man has presence. What he does not have is the kind of subtlety or emotional range that benefits from de facto solo occupation of the screen. Really, every actor in War of the Worlds feels like they're performing in a Zoom-style vacuum – and seemingly not as a commentary on the coldly disconnected world of digital communication. In fact, quite the opposite: in this movie, everyone video-calls everyone all the time, to better show off some of the worst visual effects ever seen in a movie bearing the Universal Pictures logo out front. No amount of handheld phone-camera or grainy news footage can disguise how terrible the alien ships look. They wouldn't pass muster on a whimsical Snickers ad. So how did this happen? How did this D-grade reimagining of a public-domain property wind up going from major studio to major streaming service to the top of the charts? It should have been a fortuitous confluence of events. Film-maker Timur Bekmambetov remains high on the screenlife format, a variation on found footage, where stories are told entirely through activity on device screens. He's produced several successful film series based on that tech: the aforementioned horror film Unfriended and its sequel, and a pair of less bloody companion thrillers, Searching and Missing. All of these movies make innovative use of their central gimmick, and War of the Worlds came out as a pandemic-inspired variation. It was announced in the fall of 2020 as a spectacle-driven sci-fi movie that could nonetheless unfold in a series of contained environments, with actors all filming their parts separately. So the reason War of the Worlds feels not just like eavesdropping on a Zoom call but like a movie pieced together through Zoom is that it more or less was. More technology was involved, but that's barely clear from the final product, which has the rushed jankiness of something that should have come out a month or two after filming and been marketed as a quickie experiment. Instead, the movie seems to have sat on a shelf for literally years before it was sold off to a streaming service. Weirdly, it's not the only 2020-shot Universal-produced sci-fi movie to get that treatment: Long Distance, a space survival movie starring Anthony Ramos, recently debuted on Hulu despite filming wrapping before the end of 2020. Even a lengthy post-production would mean that it spent three years on the shelf, and couldn't even rate a release in the aftermath of the 2023 strikes. (Long Distance looks and acts more like a real movie compared with War of the Worlds. This is also true of many network TV shows and some big-budget ads.) The simplest answer to why the hell these movies have remained in limbo, then, seems to be Covid-era buyer's remorse. Studios were panicking about how to keep their pipelines moving during an unprecedented disruption, and didn't wind up having room on the release schedule for these smaller projects. The real question is how audiences have made it through an unconvincing cheapie like War of the Worlds – a sci-fi epic that seems to take place in real time yet features a vast and coordinated worldwide mobilization of multiple armed forces – without shutting it off in disgust (it boasts a rare 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes). Maybe they haven't. Streaming viewership is notoriously sketchy to measure, and most services rely on total minutes watched, which means watching five minutes of an awful movie and then flipping to something else can add to its total. War of the Worlds seems to have been made for its Covid-era convenience, and cynically capitalizes on surveillance paranoia and government secrets without actually saying anything coherent about, well, anything. But Amazon – which figures into the plot so embarrassingly that it seems like a plea for a Prime Video pick-up – stumbled upon the perfect streaming product: a cheap piece of junk with a recognizable title and stars, just enough for millions of people to hit play. Maybe some of them even watched through the end; the movie certainly doesn't compete with second-screen phone-scrolling, in the sense that your scroll is likely to eventually hit upon something vastly better than the movie's own toggling between chat windows. Amazon has plenty of experience helping consumers find junk, so War of the Worlds wound up in a fitting home – at least until Temu starts its own streaming service.


Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
CureVac settles mRNA patent dispute litigation with Pfizer and BioNTech
Aug 7 (Reuters) - German drugmaker CureVac ( opens new tab and GSK (GSK.L), opens new tab reached an agreement with BioNTech ( opens new tab and Pfizer (PFE.N), opens new tab on Thursday to resolve a years-long patent dispute related to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, CureVac said. As part of the settlement, CureVac and GSK will receive a combined payment of $740 million and single-digit royalties on sales of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. going forward. CureVac will also grant BioNTech and Pfizer a non-exclusive license to manufacture, use, import and sell mRNA-based COVID-19 and influenza products in the U.S. The settlement comes after BioNTech agreed to acquire its domestic peer CureVac in a $1.25 billion all-stock deal in June. Three years ago, CureVac had filed a patent lawsuit against BioNTech over its use of mRNA technology, seeking fair compensation from the company and two of its subsidiaries for infringement of its intellectual property rights. CureVac had said that its claim to intellectual property rights was based on more than two decades of work on mRNA technology, some of which was used by BioNTech and Pfizer for the development and sale of their Comirnaty coronavirus vaccine. CureVac's efforts to develop an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine did not come to fruition during the pandemic, whereas BioNTech and its partner Pfizer chalked up more than $40 billion in combined vaccine sales in 2021 and 2022.