Science Has Partly Outgrown Nobel's Vision Of The Prizes

The pioneering contributions to lepton physics, atmospheric chemistry, and developmental biology honored by this year's Nobel Prizes were all made at least some 15 or 20 years ago. This illustrates a dilemma the Nobel committees are faced with every year in the selection of the prize winners. On the one hand, the committees have to follow, as far as possible, Nobel's intention to award the prize to those who, "during the preceding year," by their scientific achievements, have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. On the other hand, the committees have to make sure that the achievements have been well tested and gained acceptance in the scientific community. And, since original and wide-ranging achievements seldom win immediate acceptance, but more often are met with resistance, these two criteria-recency and acceptance through corroboration-tend to clash. It may, of course, also take a considerable time before it is possible to determine the merits, in terms of benefit to mankind, of a scientific achievement. In order to safeguard a high standard of the selection process, the statutes of the Nobel Foundation (dated June 29, 1900) allow for exceptions to the criterion "during the preceding year." The statutes provide "that the awards shall be made for the most recent achievements in the fields of culture referred to in the will and for older works only if their significance has not become apparent until recently." Interestingly, the interval between the prize-winning achievements and the awards has increased over the years. Harriet Zuckerman, in Scientific Elite (New York, Free Press, 1977), compared the mean interval between the achievements and the awards during the periods 1901-25 and 1951-72. The interval increased from 11.1 in 1901-25 to 14.0 years in 1951-72 for the prize in physics; from 14.8 to 19.2 years in chemistry; and from 12.0 to 14.1 years in physiology or medicine. Largely as a result of this, she adds, the mean age at which scientists win the prize has also increased. According to the Nobel Foundation Directory 1995-1996, in the period before World War II (1901-38), the mean proportion of scientists winning the Nobel Prize in physics at age 65 or over was 2 percent, compared with 19 percent in the period after the war (1946-94). The percentage rose from 3 percent in 1901-38 to 25 percent in 1946-94 for the chemistry prize, and from 17 percent to 20 percent in physiology or medicine. Evidently, in their decisions, the Nobel committees have been constrained to deviate more and more from Nobel's will. This is true also in another respect. Although it was Nobel's intention that only one prize winner should be selected from each of the three scientific fields, the statutes of the Nobel Foundation allow for up to three to be so honored. And, comparing the period before World War II (1901-38) with the period after the war (1946-94), the percentage of shared prizes has more than doubled: from 26 percent to 65 percent for the prize in physics, from 15 percent to 43 percent in chemistry, and from 25 percent to 80 percent in physiology or medicine. In light of the tremendous expansion of science and collaborative research, especially after World War II, these trends are perhaps only to be expected. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note how the evolution of science seems to partly outgrow Nobel's vision of the prizes. Even the increasing tendency to honor well-established scientists, rather than younger ones, does not seem to accord with Nobel's idea of the prizes. According to one of the witnesses to Nobel's will, R.W. Strehlenert, Nobel had pointed out on several occasions that his intention was to provide financial independence for those who, by their work, had inspired promises for the future: "It was therefore not only the accomplished works he wanted to reward, but just as much the promising talents he wanted to furnish with an opportunity of further development" (Minutes of the Municipal Court of Stockholm, Feb. 5, 1897). To all appearances, in the foreseeable future, these trends in the distribution of the Nobel Prizes are not likely to change. They appear to be inevitable consequences of the efforts to maintain the position of the Nobel Prize as one of the most prestigious awards in the world. One might say, perhaps, that Nobel in his will slightly underestimated the potentials of this, his last invention. B.I.B. Lindahl is an associate professor of theory of medical science at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. He is currently conducting research in the department of philosophy at Stockholm University.

Science Has Partly Outgrown Nobel's Vision Of The Prizes

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of