Awards And Recognition In Science: A Distortion Of Reality

From childhood, I harbored the ambition of becoming a physician and research scientist. I also harbored some misconceptions about my chosen career: One was that recognition comes to scientists without much effort on their part--after all, the news media frequently conveyed the notion that winners of prestigious prizes are surprised by the news of their award. Another was that prize-winning scientists are brighter and more creative than other scientists. I have long since shed these misconceptions, but still they prevail--in the public's mind and, most dangerously, in the minds of some scientists. The misconceptions are dangerous when held by the public because they contribute to the already lamentable ignorance about science and scientists. And they are dangerous when held by researchers because the idea that the only good scientist is a famous scientist can promote a no-holds-barred quest for notoriety, which, in turn, can promote ill-motivated research and, perhaps, even fraud. Fortunately, most scientists are aware that many prestigious prizes have to be diligently pursued by the awardee. Furthermore, while the contributions of a given investigator may indeed be valuable, one cannot discount the importance of "the old boys' network" and other forms of politicking that often count most when award winners are selected. Those who work daily at research also see the folly in the notion of a scientific hierarchy--a few brilliant, productive investigators hovering majestically above a vast army of drones who make minor contributions. True scientists know how dependent they are on the investigations of others, and how each discovery stems from prior breakthroughs. Back when I was a student at the University of Rochester, a personal experience taught me a lesson. I had published an early paper on the risks of carbon-14, indicating that this isotope is not a major environmental risk (R.L. Brent, "Another possible cause of spontaneous mutations," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Document U.R.-313, 1956). Several years later, publications came out concerned with the risks of carbon-14 that did not mention my report, and many of the faculty at Rochester felt that my prior publication deserved equal recognition. But my mentor at the time, Donald Charles, advised me, "Don't get involved in recognition-seeking. It has destroyed more scientists than any other process. A scientist should get his rewards from planning, conducting, and publishing his research. If you have a burning desire to become famous, then become a movie star, not a scientist." I believe that scientists who know better have a responsibility to correct misconceptions that are not in science's best interest. In line with this, setting the record straight on the issue of prizes and awards is surely important. In the preface to his book Nobel Prize Winners in Medicine and Physiology, 1901-52 (London, Abelard-Schumann, 1953), L.G. Stevenson wrote: "Each Nobel laureate is judged to have made a personal contribution of first-rate importance. Behind and around him there is always a constellation of scientists [whose] researches have made it possible." My suggestion is to spread the recognition for the advancements in science to the rightful contributors. Each scientist, when receiving an award, would be obliged to cite 10 investigators whose work was important in enabling the awardee to achieve his or her goal. These scientists would then be cited as co-awardees. Imagine the Nobel Prize ceremonies with each winner flanked by the researchers who made his or her achievement possible. We would have a representation of true scientific discovery. Robert L. Brent is Distinguished University Professor and the Louis and Bess Stein Professor of Pediatrics at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia. He also is the editor of Teratology, a journal focusing on causes and prevention of birth defects.

Awards And Recognition In Science: A Distortion Of Reality

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of