The Nobel Prize is unquestionably the most prestigious award for intellectual achievement and discovery in physiology and medicine. With the early morning announcement of Nobel winners each October, the scientific community and many non-scientists briefly focus attention on biomedicines greatest advances – as judged by the Nobel Assembly. But the impact of Nobel Prizes extend beyond that brief period. As scientists worldwide including many colleagues at Harvard Medical School dream about their future research, many privately imagine themselves winning the Nobel Prize (though they don’t like to admit it), providing an additional incentive, if only a remote one, to their discovery efforts.
The Nobel Prize, in addition to serving as the most influential certification of extraordinary achievement, can also be a powerful lens through which to examine many aspects of the scientific enterprise – from the broader role of credit and recognition in science, to scientific discovery as a social enterprise, to the role of science and scientific leaders in contemporary society. Though Nobel Prizes inhabit the extreme end of the prize spectrum, and therefore have many unique attributes, Nobel effects ripple like a force field through the broader ecosystem of science, illuminating general principles of scientific credit and warning of potential future problems in this area.
Why do we care so much about scientific credit? Although Nobel Prizes are the ultimate allocation of credit for discovery, credit serves more broadly as the ‘currency of the realm’ in academic research. In addition to the pleasure attendant to recognition for your accomplishments, scientific credit is essential to a successful academic scientific career, through effects on faculty positions and institutional resources, grant funding, and obtaining the most highly skilled students and collaborators. Though credit initially flows from scholarly publications and priority, the interplay between publication and credit is complex and imperfect. This imperfection results from many factors; the proliferation of journals with widely varying readership and impact, disparate views of how specific papers have impacted a field, and a host of national, institutional and other biases.
Nobel Prizes occupy the apex of a pyramid of awards and prizes that continue to proliferate. These come in many flavors, and decorate virtually every field and subfield; some recognize specific discoveries, and others recognize career achievements. Each brings value to the scientific community by providing incentives to individual scientists, and by enhancing public respect for the institution of science. Awards and prizes may be initiated by professional or
Although not the oldest such award, the prestige of the Nobel Prize derives from a number of factors. These include the fame of the eponymous founder, the large size of the prize, its intention to be international in scope, the quality of the selection committee and process, and the glittering royal ceremonies at which the prizes are bestowed. Perhaps most importantly, the prizes (though surely not all of them) have stood the test of time, seen as worthy by the scientific community – both for the choice of discoveries and the specific recipients. Should the quality of this track record wane, new candidates for the most prestigious award might someday emerge, but this is unlikely to occur anytime soon.
In addition to being coveted by scientists for the unique recognition they bestow along with major financial and career benefits, Nobel Prizes bring value to additional parties. Nations and universities see Nobel Prizes as reflecting their communal success and impact, and don’t hesitate to market these accolades for parochial benefit. Since most basic academic research is publicly supported, prizes serve the additional role of enhancing public support for research. In these ways, Nobel Prizes fuel the future research enterprise.
The effect of Nobel Prizes on recipients is dramatic. Laureates instantly ascend to a rarified level of public regard, sometimes seen as heroes or heroines worthy of veneration. Doors rapidly open to those laureates seeking such passages. Some become public spokespeople for or interpreters of science, while others opine on subjects – within science or outside it – about which they have no expertise or experience, occasionally to embarrassing effect. Winning a Nobel Prize provides no assurance that laureates’ opinions outside the area for which they are recognized are either illuminating or accurate.
The factors influencing the choice of Nobel recipients reflect prevailing scientific attitudes and biases. With passage of time, past choices may come to be seen as forward thinking, conservative, or simply erroneous. Over time, prizes have varied markedly regarding their link to therapies vs basic mechanisms, and may be grouped into broad areas such as infectious mechanisms, techniques that enable and advance many investigations, and genetic mechanisms and manipulations, to name a few.
In the 117 years since the awarding of the first Nobel Prize, much has changed in the world of science and biomedical research. While individual scientists publishing alone or in small groups dominated early research and prizes, many advances today involve large interdisciplinary and multi-laboratory teams.
As science evolves, so must our approaches to awards and prizes. The Nobel Prize benefits from its venerable traditions, and its guardians are appropriately aware of this. But the flesh and blood human beings who steward this remarkable Prize have an additional responsibility. As approaches to research evolve, they must keep the Nobel Prize vibrant and relevant to future generations. Historians of science, and volumes such as this one, will help ensure that they do.
Jeffrey S. Flier
Dean, Harvard Medical School 2007–2016