Nobel science must recognize diversity

The cultures of excellence can favour white male American researchers, Thomas Schlich and Nils Hansson say.

Last week we learned that, once again, a Swedish man will be awarding prizes to a bunch of older gentlemen, most of whom are American or have made their careers in the United States. This is a caricature of the Nobel Prizes for science, but it’s not too far from reality.

Back when the Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel laid the foundation for the prizes to be given to whoever had “conferred the greatest benefit to mankind,” he made no mention of gender, though he emphasized that the prize should be an international award. Regardless, as we saw last week, there is a striking overrepresentation of men among winners of Nobel Prizes for science, as there is for Americans. (Even the Canadian co-winner of the physics prize has spent most of his career in the United States.)

Are men and Americans naturally superior at science? That’s highly improbable.

So how can we explain the disparity?

The direct link to the

Nobel Prize is the nomination. Awarding the Nobel Prize happens in three steps: First, scholars from around the world are invited by the Nobel committees to submit proposals. Second, the committees invite experts to evaluate the nominees. Third, the reports are discussed within the committees, which submit their recommendation(s) to the Nobel Assembly, which chooses the laureate(s).

Having gone through thousands of nominations in the Nobel archives, we have seen that American scientists have been disproportionally active in nominating their colleagues for the prize.

They have organized formal meetings to prepare nomination letters. They have used ghost writers to prepare letters, and then handed them to former Nobel laureates to sign.

Whether such measures really work or not, they show the importance of the networks of colleagues who create opportunities. Let’s not forget that producing new and better knowledge depends on opportunity and on recognition: Not only does scientific excellence lead to prizes, recognition also leads to excellence. These networks are a part of a culture of excellence that embodies an optimistic, proactive attitude toward scientific distinction.

But the cultures of excellence are also a source of inequality. They are heavily gendered and they differ among countries, perpetuating the inequality of opportunity to the advantage of male and American researchers.

The Nobel Prize is only the tip of the iceberg, which consists mostly of the less visible networks of recognition, based in cultures of excellence. It’s here, at the level of the culture of excellence where things can be changed. Opportunities can be created in Canada, at all levels.

Supervisors, professors, universities, grant agencies need to actively support researchers, with an emphasis on women, not only financially, but also by encouraging excellence by informal and formal recognition through rewards and prizes. A renewed culture of excellence will result in a less homogeneous awarding of Nobel Prizes — and while trying to reach this goal, such a policy will also lead to other good things, such as scientific progress and equal opportunities for men and women. Thomas Schlich is James Mcgill Professor in the History of Medicine at Mcgill University. Nils Hansson is lecturer at the Department of History, Theory and Ethics of Medicine at the University of Düsseldorf, Germany.

A renewed culture of excellence will result in a less homogeneous awarding of Nobel Prizes (and) such a policy will also lead to other good things.