4 research outputs found

    Does the Nobel Prize reflect current scientific and academic values?

    Get PDF
    This opinion paper puts forward arguments that reflect how science鈥檚 most elite prize, the Nobel Prize may be, despite its grand stature, somewhat out of touch with the functionality of grassroots science. There is a disconnect between limited fields of study to which the prize is awarded and the interdisciplinary nature of complex research. This is the first weakness. The second limitation is the focus on a single individual, occasionally on two or three when the prize is divided, even though much research is frequently collaborative. This is particularly true in the biomedical and natural sciences, which tend to involve individuals with multiple skills, each or all of whom may be equally deserving of the Nobel Prize, given their collective participation. The Nobel Prize also tends to display poor cultural, linguistic and gender representation and/or bias. Finally, retractions of papers by select Nobel Prize laureates suggest that even these elite academics are not immune to the ills of science and academic publishing and that affect all scientists in a complex global web

    At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014

    No full text
    In this study we examined the institutions (and countries) the Nobel laureates of the three disciplines chemistry, physics and physiology/medicine were affiliated with (from 1994 to 2014) when they did the decisive research work. To be able to frame the results at that time point, we also looked at when the Nobel laureates obtained their Ph.D./M.D. and when they were awarded the Nobel Prize. We examined all 155 Nobel laureates of the last 21 years in physics, chemistry, and physiology/medicine. Results showed that the USA dominated as a country. Statistical analysis also revealed that only three institutions can boast a larger number of Nobelists at all three time points examined: UC Berkeley, Columbia University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Researcher mobility analysis made clear that most of the Nobel laureates were mobile; either after having obtained their Ph.D./M.D. or after writing significant papers that were decisive for the Nobel Prize. Therefore, we distinguished different ways of mobility between countries and between institutions. In most cases, the researchers changed institutes/universities within one and the same country (in first position: the USA, followed, by far, by the United Kingdom, Japan and Germany)
    corecore