Coming up with a Nobel List?

Joseph Wee considers himself an avid follower of the developments within the scientific field which includes medicine, chemistry, physics and biology. His favorite authors include Isaac Assimov and Carl Sagan. He also enjoys reading science fiction, especially in sub-genres related to time travel.

The Nobel Prize counts among the most prestigious awards recognizing the achievements and contributions of various experts within their fields. The Nobel Laureates are selected by different committees, each of which will decide the winner for the year in a particular discipline. Up to three laureates may be named for a particular discipline, and they are in the fields of Chemistry, Physics, Physiology and Medicine, Literature and lastly, Peace.

A lot of prestige comes along with the award of a Nobel Prize, but it does have its fair share of controversies too. One such controversy is overlooked achievements. Franz Hillenkamp and Michael Karas of the Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry at the University of Frankfurt were believed to have missed out on the award for the development of mass spectrometry in protein chemistry. The Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 may have been awarded to Richard P. Feynman, Julian S. Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, but the contributions of Freeman Dyson were overlooked. In other cases, the awards have missed out similar discoveries that were made much earlier. Another criticism was that majority (77%) of the Nobel Prize awards in sciences and medicine were given to discoveries, and a little less than a quarter (23%) were given to inventions. Interestingly, Alfred Nobel’s will stated that the prize should be conferred on a person who made the most important discovery or invention to mankind. Nobel didn’t emphasize on discoveries, yet the latter took up a large pie of the awards.

One alternative is to change the current format of the Nobel Prize into that of a Nobel List instead. Such a List would have equal representation of discoveries and inventions. Furthermore, the List should ideally have achievements in different sub-fields within a discipline, which are deemed to be important to mankind. For example, the List will include scientists who made important discoveries in the field of biophysics, and another group of scientists who made important discoveries in the field of genetics. Similarly, a major playwright and another major poet can be named in a Nobel List for Literature. Ideally, the List should be exhaustive in terms of identifying major contributors to the field, i.e. the ones charged with drawing up the list should not hesitate to list four or more major contributors to the discipline if indeed it was shown to be the case. In that way, this will lessen controversies alleging overlooked contributions.

One major problem with this approach is the award of prize money, which is slightly more than US$1.2 million, since the number of “listed Laureates” will be more than the traditional maximum of three. One way to resolve this is to break the US$1.2 million into token sums, which will be distributed to the “listed laureates”. However, such a solution may not be a perfect one and is not without its problems. The second arguement against such an award format is that listing more discoveries and inventions for such an award may detract from the most important contribution to the field since there is less pressure to select the most important discovery and invention from the rest within a field because such a List is already more inclusive. However, the counter-arguement is that the determination of the importance of a contribution vis-à-vis others to a field and mankind at large may be more of an art than a science. Wouldn’t it be better if three important discoveries and inventions are listed instead of deciding on one?

There are benefits of having such a List. Listing recognition for work in sub-disciplines within a field would have a positive educational impact on the general public. For instance, the current Nobel Prize awarded in a certain year for contributions in high energy/particle physics may not spur interest among followers of astrophysics. However, a Nobel List listing contributions in high energy/particle physics and astrophysics may spur interest among both interest groups. It will also be more informative in the sense that the general public who reads about such a List will be aware of the major progress made by certain sub-disciplines within a field. Such a List which demands equal recognition of both discoveries and inventions will promote a holistic view of science and medicine – that it is not only about making discoveries, but applying them in inventions that will further improve our lives.