Nobel prizes are not the only glories worth celebrating
The selection committee chooses people and research from one small subset of the world
The winners of this year’s Nobel prizes are being announced this week. The prizes are an opportunity to discover new areas of research, and developments there that scientists consider particularly notable. In this endeavour, it is equally necessary to remember what the Nobel prizes are not.
For starters, the Nobel prizes are not lenses through which to view all scientific pursuit. It is important for everyone — scientists and non-scientists alike — to not take the Nobel prizes too seriously.
The prizes have been awarded to white men from Europe and the US most of the time, across the medicine, physics and chemistry categories. This presents a lopsided view of how scientific research has been undertaken in the world. Many governments take pride in the fact that one of their citizens has been awarded this prize, and often advertise the strength of their research community by boasting of the number of Nobel laureates in their ranks. This way, the prizes have become a marker of eminence.
However, this should not blind us from the fact that there are equally brilliant scientists from other parts of the world that have done, and are doing, great work. Even research institutions do this; for example, this is what the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University says on its website: The Institute’s mission and culture have produced an exceptional record of achievement. Among its faculty and members are 33 Nobel laureates, 42 of the 60 Fields Medalists, and 17 of the 19 Abel Prize Laureates, as well as many MacArthur Fellows and Wolf Prize winners.
Winning a Nobel prize may be a good thing. But not winning a Nobel Prize is not a bad thing. That is the perspective often lost in conversations about the quality of scientific research. When the Government of India expresses a desire to have an Indian scientist win a Nobel Prize in the next decade, it is a passive admission that it does not consider any other marker of quality to be worth the endorsement. Otherwise, there are numerous ways to make the statement that the quality of Indian research is at par with the rest of the world’s.
In this sense, what the Nobel Prizes afford is an easy way out. Consider the following analogy: when scientists are being considered for promotions, evaluators frequently ask whether a scientist in question has published in “prestigious” journals like etc. If the scientist has, it is immediately assumed that the scientist is undertaking good research. Notwithstanding the fact that supposedly “prestigious” journals also publish bad science more often than you’d think, this process of evaluation is unfair to scientists who publish in other peer-reviewed journals and who are doing equally good work. Just the way we need to pay less attention to which journals scientists are publishing in and instead start evaluating their research directly, we also need to pay less attention to who is winning Nobel prizes and instead assess scientists’ work, as well as the communities to which the scientists belong, directly.
Obviously this method of evaluation is more arduous and cumbersome — but it is also the fairer way to do it. Now the question arises: is it more important to be fair or to be quick? On-time assessments and rewards are important, particularly in a country where resource optimisation carries greater benefits as well as where the population of young scientists is higher than in most countries; justice delayed is justice denied, after all. At the same time, instead of settling for one or the other way, why not ask for both methods at once?
Speaking of global representation: this is another area where the Nobel Foundation has faltered. Apart from favouring white scientists from the US and Europe, the Nobel prizes have also ignored the contributions of women scientists. Thus far, only two women have won the physics prize (out of 206), four women the chemistry prize (of 177) and 12 women the medicine prize (of 214).
One defence that is often advanced to explain this bias is that the Nobel prizes typically rewards scientific and technological achievements that have passed the test of time, achievements that have been repeatedly validated and whose usefulness for the common people has been demonstrated. As a result, the prizes can be understood to be awarded to research done in the past — and in this past, women have not contributed a significant portion of the scientific workforce. Perhaps more women will be awarded going ahead.
This argument holds water but only in a very leaky bucket. Many women have been passed over for the Nobel prizes when they should not have been, and the Nobel Committee is in no position to explain why. This defence becomes even more meaningless when you ask why so few people from other parts of the world have been awarded the Nobel. This is because the Nobel prizes are a fundamentally western — even Eurocentric — institution in two important ways.
First, they predominantly acknowledge and recognise scientific and technological developments that the prizepickers are familiar with, and the prize-pickers are a group made up of all previous laureates and a committee of Swedish scientists. Second, the Nobel prizes are designated for individuals or groups whose work has granted the “greatest benefit on mankind”. For the sciences, how do you determine such work?
In effect, the Nobel prizes highlight people and research from one small subset of the world. As the prizes are announced one by one, we need to bear these limitations in mind and choose our words carefully, so as to not exalt the prizewinners too much and downplay the contributions of numerous others in the same field as well as in other fields. The laureates have not been chosen from among all qualifying candidates in the world. More importantly, we must not assume that the Nobel prizes are any kind of crowning achievement.
Many women have been passed over for the Nobel prizes when they should not have been, and the Nobel Committee is in no position to explain why.