Making over a Tradition

Now that we know who the 2023 Nobel Laureates are (and boy there were some great ones this year!) it is time to reflect on the awards!!!

Wall Street Journal Reflection

The Wall Street Journal recently had an article in the Review section that discussed how outdated the awards are in process, criteria, and transparency.

Some of the issues the Wall Street Journal article brought to light:

• The nomination process is shielded from transparency for 50 years.
• Translation: each awardee must be nominated and that nomination process is not revealed to the public until 50 years post-award notification. This is unlike the awards of similar caliber in which nominees, subsequent votes, and decision-making are via majority rule logic.
• The Nobel Prize in Literature has been suggested to be “Eurocentric” in that only two Americans have ever won it including the likes of Bob Dylan who refused to attend the award ceremony.
• The topical basis for the awards: Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine/Physiology.
• Translation: Science has changed fairly drastically from 1903 in that what were massive findings in medicine in the 18th century are not as massive uncoverings as today. The discovery of the electron won the prize, but so did the Higgs-Boson. Moreover, the progress made in Medicine/Physiology has deviated from population-level health findings (i.e. Jonas Salk) versus CRISPR.
• The topical basis also does not award those who are making technological breakthroughs or computer science initiatives. Where does AI fit in if at all? Or what about mathematics and the unearthing of mathematical equations to pave the way for traditional science findings?
• The process around rescinding an award or awarding a posthumous award.
• Translation: Rosalind Franklin was not awarded in conjunction with Watson and Crick for the discovery of DNA when she provided the glue to uncover the helical structure of DNA. However because she had died before the award was granted, she was not allowed to be named as a laureate.

The author does note, however, that changes to the awards have been conducted. The expansion of the award from one laureate to a shared three was a relatively new change the committee made in understanding that the completion of science is now communal but not independent for each researcher. This does however bring to light arguments around labs or groups who contribute to scientific findings. Is it just the PI who is responsible? Or should it be their lab?

Only time will tell if the awards and their selections change. For now, it does provide an event of massive proportion to celebrate science so let us do just that.