It seems to me evident that the system of prizes, honors, and awards in physics has run completely amok, absorbing far too much of the time and energy of the community in proportion to the benefits conferred. Yet nobody complains. Every month Physics Today routinely announces the latest crop of winners, all the major American Physical Society meetings have sessions to bestow prizes, the APS directory continues to distinguish the asterisked from the unasterisked, and nobody ever complains. Why?

To ask the question is to answer it. Indeed, merely by publishing the above paragraph I have probably already irreparably blemished my reputation in the profession, and if Physics Today has actually printed this column I imagine it can only have been after heated and prolonged editorial debate. Much of this essay, in fact, sat aging in my computer in a directory with highly restricted access for almost two years. It was finally sprung loose by the 1988 presidential campaign, which filled me with so intense a loathing for those who hesitate to speak provocative truths that I can longer restrain myself. Here I go.

Why does nobody ever complain? Nobody complains because there are two categories of physicists: those who have won prizes and those who have not. Winners cannot criticize the system. It would be rude to the donors of their prizes. It would be offensive to the committee that selected them and the people who wrote letters on their behalf. It would be a vulgar display of bad taste. It would be unseemly to criticize a system one has benefited from before others have had their chance to win.

But neither can nonwinners criticize the system. It is not that a public attack on, for example, the absurdity of election to the National Academy of Sciences might jeopardize one's own chances for immortality, for this would be a noble sacrifice. What freezes dissent for the nonwinner is that it would be perceived as sour grapes—an unbecoming outburst of petty jealousy. The only respectable stance for the nonwinner is warmly to congratulate each new crop of winners, a kind and gentle response to be sure, but one that implicitly endorses the system itself, preposterous as it is.