Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.


Longitude Prize now an objective decision

Martin Rees writes that John Harrison “came closest to receiving the reward money” offered in the 1714 Longitude Act (Nature 509, 401; 2014). This description conceals a long and painful battle between astronomers and those who argued that Harrison should be awarded the prize for his marine chronometer, designed to determine the longitude of a ship's position by using existing tables.

The astronomers of the day claimed that watching Jupiter's moons, as suggested by Galileo, was the scientific solution. But in practice, this 'astronomic' solution would not work under a cloudy sky.

Today, by contrast, the winner of the 2014 Longitude Prize, who we now know will be working on antibiotic resistance, will be “decided objectively — as in athletics”, as Rees points out.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carl G. Ribbing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ribbing, C. Longitude Prize now an objective decision. Nature 511, 31 (2014).

Download citation


Quick links