The Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and medicine or physiology, established by Alfred Nobel over a century ago, represent the pinnacle of scientific recognition.
However, the award is not without its share of criticism over selection criteria and lack of diversity.
These honours celebrate transformative discoveries that often take decades to unfold and have a significant impact on society. However, the Nobel Prizes are not without their challenges and criticisms, particularly when it comes to the so-called “rule of three.”
Rule of three
The rule, stipulated by Alfred Nobel in 1895, allows each Nobel Prize to be awarded to a maximum of three individuals. This rule poses a significant constraint, especially in today’s collaborative scientific landscape, where research often involves large teams and simultaneous breakthroughs by different groups. This limitation can lead to dilemmas when deciding who to honour and who to leave out.
In some instances, groundbreaking discoveries with extensive contributions from many researchers receive Nobel recognition for only a select few.
David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, highlights the challenge posed by the rule of three in an era of increasing team-based research.
The Nobel committees, responsible for adhering to the rule, face difficulties in recognising the collaborative nature of modern science, where large groups tackle complex problems and international networks play a crucial role.
Peter Brzezinski, secretary of the committee for the Nobel Chemistry Prize, explains that the Nobel Foundation, responsible for fulfilling Alfred Nobel’s will, has no plans to change this rule.
The committees follow a meticulous process involving expert assessments and literature reviews to identify key contributors. If the Nobel committees cannot identify a limited number of scientists who made the discovery, they are unable to propose a Prize to the Academy.
Delayed recognition
The Nobel Prizes, by design, take a retrospective view of scientific achievements, often honouring work that occurred decades earlier. However, this approach can sometimes make the committees appear disconnected from contemporary scientific priorities.
Fields such as artificial intelligence (AI), which have transformed society rapidly, may not receive Nobel recognition in a timely manner. Despite the groundbreaking work of individuals like Demis Hassabis and John Jumper, creators of AlphaFold, an AI program for protein structure prediction, the Nobel committees are often seen as conservative, preferring to award older breakthroughs.
Lack of diversity
Another criticism directed at the Nobel Prizes relates to a lack of diversity among winners, particularly in gender representation. While there has been an increase in female laureates in recent years, the number remains limited.
Carolyn Bertozzi was the sole female science prize recipient in 2021, and there were no female laureates in 2021 or 2019. Critics argue that this disparity reflects systemic bias within science, where women may not receive due credit for their contributions.
The secrecy surrounding the Nobel selection process exacerbates these issues. The shortlists, nominators, and selection documents are confidential and remain sealed from public view for 50 years, hindering transparency and accountability.
In contrast, challenge prizes like the XPrize are advocated by some as a more forward-looking approach. These prizes incentivize future efforts to address significant problems, promoting innovation and collaboration without the constraints and limitations associated with the Nobel Prizes.
In conclusion, while the Nobel Prizes hold immense prestige and recognition, they face challenges related to their rule of three, timeliness in recognising contemporary breakthroughs, and issues of diversity and transparency. These challenges highlight the evolving nature of science and the need for ongoing discussions on how to best acknowledge and reward contributions to scientific progress.
