Editorial: Nobel prizes for the 21st century
THE Nobel prize system needs an overhaul. That’s the conclusion of a group of scientists brought together by Â鶹´«Ă˝ to debate the future of the prizes.
In a letter to the Nobel Foundation, published on newscientist.com on 30 September, the group suggests that the foundation should introduce prizes for the environment and public health, and reform the existing medicine prize. “These suggestions will enable the prizes to remain influential for another hundred years,” the group says.
Advertisement
The existing science prizes – for chemistry, physics, and medicine or physiology – are based on the categories laid out in , a Swedish businessman who amassed a fortune by inventing dynamite and who died in 1896. To explore whether this century-old system could be improved, Â鶹´«Ă˝ invited a selection of high-profile scientists to debate ideas for reform. Based on the discussions that ensued, an open letter was drafted to the Nobel Foundation (see list of signatories).
The panel says that new prizes are needed to reward findings that tackle contemporary challenges, such as biodiversity loss and HIV/AIDS.
“Prizes are needed to reward findings that tackle contemporary challenges such as biodiversity loss”
For environmental threats, the panel suggests creating a prize that covers areas such as climate change mitigation and species conservation. “There are going to be a dozen heroic figures involved in solving the problem of climate change,” says panel member Larry Brilliant.
A second new prize would recognise global gains to public health, such as the reduction or eradication of disease. Landmark achievements, such as the eradication of smallpox in 1979, do not fall under the remit of the existing medicine prize. What’s more, organisations as well as individuals should be eligible, as is the case with the peace prize.
The panel also says that the remit of existing science prizes needs to be widened, as key achievements are going unrecognised. Critics have long pointed to fields such evolutionary biology, which do not fit into the categories identified in Nobel’s will. Charles Darwin died 19 years before the first prize was awarded, but even if he had been alive it is unlikely that he would have received a Nobel, since his work does not qualify as chemistry, physics or medicine.
Much modern science also falls between the cracks. For example, breakthroughs in neuroscience have only been recognised twice in the last 30 years, and yet “understanding the brain is one of the great frontiers of science”, says panel member Peter Raven.
Other areas, such as plant science, are also excluded. There was , for example, when the , a technique used to turn off genes. Much of the initial work was done by plant scientists, but the prize went to Andrew Fire of Stanford University, California, and Craig Mello of the University of Massachusetts in Worcester, who had studied the process in worms.
The panel says these problems could be remedied by expanding the medicine prize to include all of the life sciences, or by leaving the prize as it is and creating new awards for fundamental biology and neuroscience.
They may, however, have a tough time convincing the Nobel Foundation to change. “The foundation guards with all its might the image of being impervious to outside influence,” says , a science historian at the University of Oslo in Norway. “Still, the foundation is sensitive to the reputation of the prize and to insightful criticism.”
The prizes, and the statutes for each, are governed by Nobel’s will. But the foundation, which manages the endowment used to fund the prizes, and the subject committees, which select the winners, have both shown flexibility in the past. In 1968, for example, the economics prize was established using a donation from the Riksbank, Sweden’s central bank. The prize is not officially a Nobel, but its association with the foundation has earned it the international recognition and prestige associated with the other awards.
The group’s letter is addressed to Michael Sohlman, executive director of the foundation. He says that he will circulate it to the rest of the board, but says the board is opposed to the introduction of new prizes. During his 17 years at the foundation, proposals for change have only twice reached the board and on neither occasion were they discussed at a board meeting. It would be time-consuming and expensive to establish new prizes, he adds: each of this year’s Nobels is worth 10 million kronor (US$1.4 million). Brilliant argues that many philanthropic organisations would be willing to contribute to the new prizes.
Sohlman also notes that the Nobel peace prize has been used to honour the kind of achievements that the panel says should be recognised by new prizes. In 2007, for example, the peace prize went to former US vice-president Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their work on disseminating knowledge about global warming. The same prize was used in 1999 to recognise the humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières.
The panel argues that these decisions often fit uncomfortably with the peace prize’s definition and have sometimes been seen as political. “If malaria were ever eradicated it would only be eligible for a peace prize,” says Brilliant. “It is wonderful to eradicate disease, but it’s not peace.”
Despite these problems, some scientists argue that it might be best to leave the Nobel prizes alone. , director of Science and Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC, acknowledges the shortcomings of the prize categories, but is wary of adding new ones. “It cuts both ways,” he says. “Maybe the Nobels are such a powerful brand that you don’t want to tinker with them.”
Teich adds that other awards have been created to fill the gaps between the Nobels, such as the , which is celebrating its 20th anniversary. There is also the , which has recognised achievements in geosciences and other disciplines since 1982. Still, compared with the Nobels these have had limited success. “Yes, other prizes exist,” says Friedman. “But none come even close to the level of prestige. Basically, there is only the Nobel.”
Read the full letter
Editorial: Nobel prizes for the 21st century
Signatories
is president of the , a philanthropic organisation, and an adviser to
is a professor of robotics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the founder of iRobot Corp and Heartland Robotics
is chairman and CEO of the non-profit X Prize Foundation, which creates large prizes to drive radical technological breakthroughs
is a cell biologist with Cancer Research UK. He shared the 2001 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for his work on the cell cycle
is director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford. He was chief scientific adviser to the UK government between 2000 and 2007
is a professor of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She is known for the theory of symbiogenesis, which challenges the role of random mutation in evolutionary innovation
is a professor of psychology at Harvard University. He is an expert on language and cognition and a best-selling author whose books include The Language Instinct
is director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St Louis and a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
is professor of primate behaviour at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center
is an emeritus professor at Harvard University. He was twice winner of the Pulitzer prize for his writings on evolutionary biology