Important issues are raised in this article and many scientist go ignored in the celebrations and in turn funding does not come their way when they compete for it. Adding concern to the reproducibility issue is the appearance of smashing papers in top journals that when scrutinized show data mishandling and over interpretation of even misinterpretation that seems to have escaped reviewers and editors, but that even undergrads can pinpoint...how is this possible? There are rumors that editors may receive benefits of some sort for getting high impact papers which is usually due to publishing articles by famous scientists. This, if true, may be the biggest lie in scientific publication and should be investigated. Importantly, if true, it means that because usually high impact papers lead to grant funding, meaningful research may go unfunded and top scientists may keep gulping up money. Importantly, if grants follow high impact papers and these were obtained by massaging of editors this means that the federal government grants are mishandled by some scientific journals. Societies journals un by real scientists that do science and not just read science may be the only answer for the future.
2
Not to mention the MacArthur Foundation Genius Grants announced this week giving nearly three quarters of a million dollars to two dozen people who absolutely don’t need the money. One has a bestselling book and the other a hit Broadway play. In a time when too many people here don’t have jobs and when people around the world are hungry or running from war zones, can there be a bigger waste of money.
The people who have this largess laid at their feet will not do any more or less for humanity because of the money. If these people were really geniuses they’d give it back or redirect it to a worthier cause.
The people who have this largess laid at their feet will not do any more or less for humanity because of the money. If these people were really geniuses they’d give it back or redirect it to a worthier cause.
8
1. Science prizes represent a very small part of science funding, which is mostly dispersed by peer reviewing of applications by government agencies and foundations.
2. But prestigious science prize have a disproprotionate incentivizing role in motivating scientific egos to produce, thus probably more than justifying whatever the cost to their donators.
3. A bigger problem in scientific funding, particularly in the EU, results from the large percentage of grant applications that are rejected and the high bureaucatic overhead, making the entire application process counterproductive by wasting scientists' time. And of course established older scientists may have an advantage over younger but more productive colleagues.
So the whole science prize issue is a straw man.
2. But prestigious science prize have a disproprotionate incentivizing role in motivating scientific egos to produce, thus probably more than justifying whatever the cost to their donators.
3. A bigger problem in scientific funding, particularly in the EU, results from the large percentage of grant applications that are rejected and the high bureaucatic overhead, making the entire application process counterproductive by wasting scientists' time. And of course established older scientists may have an advantage over younger but more productive colleagues.
So the whole science prize issue is a straw man.
8
Great piece, except for this:
"And, unlike physics, it can’t be advanced by purely theoretical work, or by a single individual."
The idea that physics advances through theoretical work on the part of a single person is just a stereotype, nothing more. As a physics PhD who has worked at the cutting edge, I assert that physics is just as dependent on collaboration, incremental work, experimental results, and replication as any other science. For example, as much as lay people like to think that Einstein developed relativity out of nothing and was light years ahead of his contemporaries, the fact is that he built upon available mathematical and experimental results, and was completely wrong about quantum mechanics. The names of the hundreds of physicists who developed quantum mechanics may be unknown to most, but it is to them that we owe the transistor (and, as a consequence, the entire digital revolution), not to mention MRIs, microwave heaters, and lasers. It would be good if people based their opinions of physics on something more credible than Hollywood movies.
"And, unlike physics, it can’t be advanced by purely theoretical work, or by a single individual."
The idea that physics advances through theoretical work on the part of a single person is just a stereotype, nothing more. As a physics PhD who has worked at the cutting edge, I assert that physics is just as dependent on collaboration, incremental work, experimental results, and replication as any other science. For example, as much as lay people like to think that Einstein developed relativity out of nothing and was light years ahead of his contemporaries, the fact is that he built upon available mathematical and experimental results, and was completely wrong about quantum mechanics. The names of the hundreds of physicists who developed quantum mechanics may be unknown to most, but it is to them that we owe the transistor (and, as a consequence, the entire digital revolution), not to mention MRIs, microwave heaters, and lasers. It would be good if people based their opinions of physics on something more credible than Hollywood movies.
15
"By honoring breakthroughs, award committees reinforce the misconception that science is all about discoveries, when the cornerstone of science is replication and corroboration of results, which ensure that a finding is real and not a false lead." completely disagree with the author on some many levels. This is coming from a scientist at a top 10 ranked research powerhouse university. While it is extremely important to replicate findings from other groups, the citation process ensures of this. Findings that are not replicated by others are simply not cited. Also, academia is not akin to a socialist society and it should not be reduced to 'take from those who have more and give to those that conduct subpar science'. Science is about advancing knowledge frontiers to improve human health and should not ensure that 'all' researchers (whether starting or middle career scientists) don't get their 'feelings hurt' because they can't get funded. Best advice for young scientists on taking NIH grant money from the big boys, do better science, learn how to write and communicate these ideas and write better grants. Science advances through a meritocracy and should be taken away from our most brilliant minds. That being said, congratulations to the soon-to-be announced Nobel prize winners, you deserve every bit of it.
6
Oh please. Are there not enough other things worthy of complaint than scientists finally getting rewarded for years of commitment to their work? This is such specious poppycock.
11
Dr. Prasad is correct in the sense that BIG SCIENCE is in vogue. Better than 80% of the $30 billion NIH budget goes to less than 50 major medical centers. It amounts to scientific pork. After that is dished out, the NIH can only fund about 5% of grant applications. Many of the comments that are selected picks by the Times or readers are completely off the mark.
2
Among those who have written so far about Dr Prasad Op-ed, there are members of the "general public" and a few scientists. I wonder how many among the latter can list for the rest of us the names of Nobel Prize winners (in Medicine) who can be considered to have changed any paradigm in the context that Kuhn meant. Incidentally, I've heard both researchers and regular folks stating that going to see the Yankees by public transportation instead of by one's car represent a paradigmatic change. In sum, BRAVO Prasad!!!
1
Look, if the Nobel Prizes have a point, it's that they recognize the most important scientific contributions and contributors. Of course, precisely because these contributions are so important, the winners will tend to be already famous and well compensated. To say that they shouldn't receive such awards because they already enjoy the fame and money is in effect to impugn the idea of merit awards altogether.
Sure, it's sometimes very hard indeed to say that one contributor is more important than another in a given discovery. But that doesn't mean that there aren't sensible reasons on which to base such judgments. Again, to suggest that the difficulty in doing so is a reason to do away with such awards is to impugn the idea of merit awards altogether.
And should there be merit awards? I should think that one good argument that such awards work as motivation is to see how keen scientists are to win them, and, indeed, how bitterly they may dispute whether they are deserved. If scientists motivate themselves in no small part because of recognition, then these awards provide a very concrete sign of that recognition.
And I think finally that the value of these awards is primarily as a goal in the future for scientists, not as a means to achieve still further things. Since these awards tend to be given late in the scientist's career, there is little prospect of equally great accomplishments after the award in any case.
Sure, it's sometimes very hard indeed to say that one contributor is more important than another in a given discovery. But that doesn't mean that there aren't sensible reasons on which to base such judgments. Again, to suggest that the difficulty in doing so is a reason to do away with such awards is to impugn the idea of merit awards altogether.
And should there be merit awards? I should think that one good argument that such awards work as motivation is to see how keen scientists are to win them, and, indeed, how bitterly they may dispute whether they are deserved. If scientists motivate themselves in no small part because of recognition, then these awards provide a very concrete sign of that recognition.
And I think finally that the value of these awards is primarily as a goal in the future for scientists, not as a means to achieve still further things. Since these awards tend to be given late in the scientist's career, there is little prospect of equally great accomplishments after the award in any case.
3
I cannot speak for other scientists, but I guarantee you that the NSF could make more and smaller awards in mathematics and get more bang for the taxpayers buck. I cannot name a single mathematician who would not conduct mathematics research over the summer whether or not he/she was paid 2/9 of an academic year salary. Yet when such was proposed to the NSF, it was shot down, presumably by senior mathematicians who stood to lose money that would have be redirected to their junior colleagues. As usual, the rich get richer.
1
The real problem: Nobel Prize winners determine the direction of science. They have the authority, the megaphone, to channel research. In other words, they define 'the box'. This makes working outside 'the box' a very difficult challenge; and concomitantly constrains true creativity. Recent examples: How much effort has been expended on 'graphene'? Those closest to the field understand this is at best a quixotic effort. The resources expended are more than 10X that justified by a realistic appraisal .
I disagree with the author about awards - I think they are useful in that they draw attention to significant progress. But I do agree with him about the skew in funding. There are far too many grants in the hands of large labs ... which leads to those labs doing more research and cornering even more funds. There's not much left for younger scientists starting out. I genuinely fear for the next generation of independent researchers... we may not be doing enough to create any.
2
Although true at its face value, I am afraid the face value of this missive is low. It is misplaced, if technically correct. The Nobel Prize is not about to be re-targeted because of this essay. It and the other "top prizes" are a tiny drop in the bucket of the total research scene. How much better it would have been for the NYT to spend the ink (or electrons) on the over funding of identified and overfunded "hot topics," while deep originality is greeted with "I never heard of that", as if that were a self sufficient and fatal criticism.
1
The dubious MacArthur "genius" grants are another example of wasted money. Most of the people who receive these grants already have received plenty of money and recognition.
I would replace big-money prizes like these with something along the lines of "The Millionaire." This was a TV program years back in the fifties where an unseen millionaire named John Beresford Tipton sent a guy around the country every week to deliver a check for a million dollars to ordinary people that he selected, for reasons that were never explained.
Why not bring this idea back, this time for real? The MacArthur and Nobel Prize people people could even improve on it by requiring the recipients of these million dollar checks to spend all of their money in 30 days.
Ordinary people everywhere would greatly enjoy watching this show and might even learn a few things from it.
The MacArthur and Nobel prizes are shows, and this would be a better one.
I would replace big-money prizes like these with something along the lines of "The Millionaire." This was a TV program years back in the fifties where an unseen millionaire named John Beresford Tipton sent a guy around the country every week to deliver a check for a million dollars to ordinary people that he selected, for reasons that were never explained.
Why not bring this idea back, this time for real? The MacArthur and Nobel Prize people people could even improve on it by requiring the recipients of these million dollar checks to spend all of their money in 30 days.
Ordinary people everywhere would greatly enjoy watching this show and might even learn a few things from it.
The MacArthur and Nobel prizes are shows, and this would be a better one.
1
The public has some kind of need for heroes. Going through the supermarket checkout, one will regularly see, yet another magazine cover with Einstein's moppy head of hair. The term genius has been given a face, yet the average person cannot intelligently discuss what Einstein was involved in. Why did the media make Einstein a rock star? There were plenty of brilliant physicists. The next time someone mentions Einstein, ask them to tell you about Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Hilbert, Ricci-Curbastro, Riemann, Christoffel, and Planck.
3
The amounts dispensed in such awards are in all relatively small. The big Elephant in the room is the lack of government funding for basic research, as compared with previous decades. Our place in discovery is likely to falter due to this short-sighted policy driven by an increasingly anti-science, religious, anti-intellectual bent of our society.
We forget that undirected basic research is the life-blood of innovation. Directed research is rather limited in its potential. Quantum mechanics, basic research done almost 100 years ago, directed only at answering perplexing problems in basic physics, is the basis for all of the the electronics our society is enamored of.
Another danger of of the loss of government funding is that more research is being funded by private entities that have skin the the game. This allows a greater tendency to get results that are wanted rather than real.
We forget that undirected basic research is the life-blood of innovation. Directed research is rather limited in its potential. Quantum mechanics, basic research done almost 100 years ago, directed only at answering perplexing problems in basic physics, is the basis for all of the the electronics our society is enamored of.
Another danger of of the loss of government funding is that more research is being funded by private entities that have skin the the game. This allows a greater tendency to get results that are wanted rather than real.
4
The Nobel Prize is supposed to honor the best and brightest who have already made their greatest contributions. It's not there to encourage young researchers and boost other projects. Same goes for the other Nobels, like literature and peace, and why even those of us who support Obama were embarrassed when he was given the Nobel Peace Prize without actually having done anything. He did not belong in the same category as Nelson Mandela. You don't give the Literature Nobel to up and coming writers either, but to writers who have already made an extraordinary contribution.
The real problem here is that institutes like the NIH are having to cut funding, and are giving the shrinking pool of money to researchers who already have a track record of discoveries. This seriously and dangerously constrains new researchers and discourages the best and brightest young minds, who are increasingly going into private sector bioscience --- rather than public research where most of the great discoveries that benefit the public good are generally made. This is a serious problem. The government must get back to seriously funding the NIH, once the greatest agency of its kind, to keep America at the forefront of scientific progress --- usually made in small increments, like the article says.
The real problem here is that institutes like the NIH are having to cut funding, and are giving the shrinking pool of money to researchers who already have a track record of discoveries. This seriously and dangerously constrains new researchers and discourages the best and brightest young minds, who are increasingly going into private sector bioscience --- rather than public research where most of the great discoveries that benefit the public good are generally made. This is a serious problem. The government must get back to seriously funding the NIH, once the greatest agency of its kind, to keep America at the forefront of scientific progress --- usually made in small increments, like the article says.
6
The author seems to confuse issues concerning Awards with Research Grants and also misses the main point of giving major Named prizes and Awards. These are bestowed as recognition of outstanding achievement. The biggest awards often recognize people and efforts that took whole careers to develop. The motivation of people who win these awards is almost never financial. I do not know any scientist that says, "I want to win the Nobel so I can buy a fancy car". Most people that win the major awards are driven scientists that have given their whole lives for their science. In fact many pay a high price – a good number are not nice people and have shattered families and other wreckage as a result of their drive. People will always argue over who gets the prize for doing what and who got left out, but in the end, those that win them contributed in profound ways to the advancement of their field. The article trivializes this. Similarly, the fact that the scientists that win 80% of major grants and proposals happen to be seasoned veterans also happen to be those that survived a grueling peer review process that selects the best, most promising ideas (no coincidence written by the top people in a field). The author also ignores the fact that there are many awards and grants reserved exclusively for younger, up-and-coming scientists.
4
As a scientist I agree with many of the points made, and also with the overwhelming sentiment to increase government funding of science; however abandoning the big awards doesn't seem so important. It's like the Academy Awards, most of the people that make the top films possible are not recognized. Let those acknowledged have their day and more, but keep the perspective that many others contributed.
5
Dr. Prasad sounds like a proponent of what Thomas Kuhn called Normal Science. Normal Science is the stuff done by all the plodding professors who never have an original idea. They just follow whatever major ideas have been proposed by the real innovators in science. Normal Scientists never discover anything of importance, and they don't receive big prizes.
I suspect Dr. Prasad will have a long and uneventful career as a Normal Scientist. Tenure will be his big career achievement.
I suspect Dr. Prasad will have a long and uneventful career as a Normal Scientist. Tenure will be his big career achievement.
5
I think prizes are good for promoting public understanding of science, although they don't necessarily need to be monetary awards. There should be a televised ceremony like the Oscars, with celebrity hosts and fun, accessible explanations of the research.
22
I'm one of the hardly recognized researchers. I'm so far down the totem pole I do my research with no funding at all, in my spare time. I definitely agree with this article, although I admire the high-achievers. But yes, giving out a few awards here and there is counterproductive. It is a well-known principle of good business management that competition and prizes do not work well in a collaborative setting, and science is naturally collaborative.
21
I remember reading numerous stories complaining about taxpayer money being "wasted" on silly studies such as the mating habits of fruit flies. Of course we can thank the media for shouting out with false outrage about basic research being useless. No surprise since most people, especially journalism students don't have much understanding about science. Like the author points out, 7000 scientists over 100 years laid the ground work for one Nobel prize discovery.
I seriously doubt scientists look for the most silly research subjects to tackle. After all, part of being a scientist is making sound research proposals. Proposing mindless nonsense is a quick way to exit the field. No wonder we're falling behind the world in scientific research.
I seriously doubt scientists look for the most silly research subjects to tackle. After all, part of being a scientist is making sound research proposals. Proposing mindless nonsense is a quick way to exit the field. No wonder we're falling behind the world in scientific research.
16
This comment is right on target.
Public recognition and appreciation of science has become an serious societal issue as seen in the high level of science illiteracy; the politicization of science, the interest and commitment of youth in career in science and general skepticism concerning the role of science in government and commerce.
Scientific prizes have a beneficial effect and in most instances they recognize individuals who are very worthy of the acclaim that comes with them.
Public recognition and appreciation of science has become an serious societal issue as seen in the high level of science illiteracy; the politicization of science, the interest and commitment of youth in career in science and general skepticism concerning the role of science in government and commerce.
Scientific prizes have a beneficial effect and in most instances they recognize individuals who are very worthy of the acclaim that comes with them.
@George: "Of course we can thank the media for shouting out with false outrage about basic research being useless."
You are blaming the wrong profession. Politicians complain about allegedly wasteful scientific research. The media reports on those politicians, one of whom was US Senator Tom Coburn:
Field Study: Just How Relevant Is Political Science?
By PATRICIA COHEN
OCT. 19, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/books/20poli.html
You are blaming the wrong profession. Politicians complain about allegedly wasteful scientific research. The media reports on those politicians, one of whom was US Senator Tom Coburn:
Field Study: Just How Relevant Is Political Science?
By PATRICIA COHEN
OCT. 19, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/books/20poli.html
The fact that the Nobels are often given to the wrong people, or at least ignore people who made significant (if not indispensable) contributions, is well-documented. Just ask the ghost of Rosalind Franklin, without whose work Watson, Crick, and Wilkins would have literally been poking around in the dark.
7
The Nobel prize is not awarded posthumously[1], and Franklin died four years before the prize was awarded to Watson, Crick, and Wilkins. Also, three people, at most, can share the Nobel prize.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize
1
Rosalind Franklin was not eligible to receive the Nobel prize because she had already died of cancer. Sad but true.
2
Those who say the only reason Rosalind Franklin didn't get the Nobel prize because she was dead, and who go on to assume that the Nobel prize is fair, should look up Jocelyn Bell.
1
The sociologist Robert Merton spoke to this almost 50 years ago with his seminal paper on "The Matthew Effect." Citing the Book of Matthew ("For onto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him who hath not shall be taken even that which he hath."), Merton illustrated the inequities of the continued accrual of recognition (and funding) to those already honored and recognized, and who--in a reversal of Newton's words--stood on the shoulders of those "little" people who performed much of the underlying work.
6
First of all, the prize money is in total trivial. Not enough for the career of one star sports player, tiny compared to the funding of of university football coaches.
Second, it almost always go to deserving people, sometimes even to the most deserving although that is not so important.
Third, it is private money that serves important public services, rewarding contributions to the public good, giving publicity to deserving work, promoting valuable work.
Forth, typical awardees don't retire on their awards, they use the recognition to promote their field of research and attract young people of talent.
Fifth, we need more of it, not less.
Sixth, science is underfunded in general, and the prizes are a good investment for generating increased funding.
Seventh, prize winners have a platform to speak the truth (to power).
Eighth, Folly? Folly? Did that title come from the author of the article or some editor? Madness is to underfund scientific research or to deny its results.
Ninth, Big Science Awards? Some of the prizes are big enough to make a difference in the lives of some awardees, but not big enough even in total to be a big factor in the funding of scientific research (see point #1). If the awards are big, it is only in terms of prestige and publicity, which is not folly, but a good thing. So does the phrase mean something else–awards for Big Science? But that contradicts the authors POV which is that the awards don't go to the whole of the big enterprise.
Second, it almost always go to deserving people, sometimes even to the most deserving although that is not so important.
Third, it is private money that serves important public services, rewarding contributions to the public good, giving publicity to deserving work, promoting valuable work.
Forth, typical awardees don't retire on their awards, they use the recognition to promote their field of research and attract young people of talent.
Fifth, we need more of it, not less.
Sixth, science is underfunded in general, and the prizes are a good investment for generating increased funding.
Seventh, prize winners have a platform to speak the truth (to power).
Eighth, Folly? Folly? Did that title come from the author of the article or some editor? Madness is to underfund scientific research or to deny its results.
Ninth, Big Science Awards? Some of the prizes are big enough to make a difference in the lives of some awardees, but not big enough even in total to be a big factor in the funding of scientific research (see point #1). If the awards are big, it is only in terms of prestige and publicity, which is not folly, but a good thing. So does the phrase mean something else–awards for Big Science? But that contradicts the authors POV which is that the awards don't go to the whole of the big enterprise.
33
The Nobel and similar prizes are largely the culmination of a long research career, extremely successful careers that have been tracked and recognized by their peers and rewarded in a succession of less grandiose awards based on impactful publications and talks. Obviously their research was funded all along this path, and not, as the writer seems to suggest, because they received a big award. In all cases they received grants- less generous ones in their earlier career- based on their vision and potential impact of their proposed research.
The author laments "80 percent of research funds in basic medical sciences were concentrated among the top fifth of researchers" a number, I guestimate, that implies from fifty to hundred thousand top researchers in the medical sciences alone. The odds of anyone of them ever getting even close to a top prize or award (one that allocates greater than $ 50 K) is minuscule, and diving up the rewards among the other few hundred thousands of lesser accomplished researchers amounts to pocket change.
The lesson here is an obvious need for increases in government supported basic research funding, which has been stagnant for at least three decades and is actually decreasing as a percentage of the US GDP, in contrast to that of many of our international competitors. I hope that Professor Prasad communicates with equal fervor, but better logic, with members of Congress and state government.
The author laments "80 percent of research funds in basic medical sciences were concentrated among the top fifth of researchers" a number, I guestimate, that implies from fifty to hundred thousand top researchers in the medical sciences alone. The odds of anyone of them ever getting even close to a top prize or award (one that allocates greater than $ 50 K) is minuscule, and diving up the rewards among the other few hundred thousands of lesser accomplished researchers amounts to pocket change.
The lesson here is an obvious need for increases in government supported basic research funding, which has been stagnant for at least three decades and is actually decreasing as a percentage of the US GDP, in contrast to that of many of our international competitors. I hope that Professor Prasad communicates with equal fervor, but better logic, with members of Congress and state government.
15
With regard to motivation….Underlying all of this is the assumption, and it is an assumption of our western culture, that we must seek continuous improvement in the human condition. This can only be ignored at one's peril. What scientists talk less about for obvious reasons in an economically competitive environment are the aesthetic rewards. These rewards are strong motivators quite apart from "improvements" that sell so well to the sponsors.
2
The Nobel price is a little like the Oscars, it doesn't mean that the award is given to the winners for their last movie as it never is their best performance of their lives. That might have been in a small movie several years back. The Oscars is given simply to tell the winner, we appreciate what you have done in your life. Their is the occasional exception, but that has most often to do with an massive overdose of timely publicity.
It is very much the same for the Nobel Price. The fact that the price is mostly given to scientist near the end of their careers, makes that even more clear.
Like the author said, there are many many very specific awards for scientists.
It is very much the same for the Nobel Price. The fact that the price is mostly given to scientist near the end of their careers, makes that even more clear.
Like the author said, there are many many very specific awards for scientists.
1
I agree completely with this opinion. And with many of the comments that state that prizes are publicity and PR for science. All research scientists acknowledge that they "stand on the shoulders of giants." Perhaps the prize committees could recognize and acknowledge this as well? And have mid-level awards for cutting edge or promising research -- even if it doesn't ultimately result in a splashy splash in the pan.
3
Like that plodding kid in third grade that expected top marks because he folded his hands just so for attendance, sucked up to the teacher, and had really... really.. neat penmanship.
And was totally bummed when that preternaturally smart kid who never seemed to try very hard got all the awards.
One would think - especially in the upper environs of science that folks would accept that there a very few people with enormous brains that were gifted to them by God.
And... there aren't participation awards once you leave Junior High.
And was totally bummed when that preternaturally smart kid who never seemed to try very hard got all the awards.
One would think - especially in the upper environs of science that folks would accept that there a very few people with enormous brains that were gifted to them by God.
And... there aren't participation awards once you leave Junior High.
7
For example, the Higgs Boson is named after ONE member of the team that did the work. What are the other two great researchers -- chopped liver?
3
Higgs predicted the particle would exist. He was not on the discovery team.
3
No, the Higgs boson is named after the theorist who postulated that such a particle should exist. The "team" as you call it, was needed to actually detect it.
And you do know that the word "Boson" was named after the person who postulated their existence and properties, and well as "Fermions" was also named after the one scientist who had the idea?
And you do know that the word "Boson" was named after the person who postulated their existence and properties, and well as "Fermions" was also named after the one scientist who had the idea?
5
@Hypatia: "What are the other two great researchers -- chopped liver?"
You didn't tell us their names, which deflates your point.
You didn't tell us their names, which deflates your point.
The OP-ED in the Sat, Oct 3, New York Times titled “The Folly of Big Science Awards” by Vinay Prasad is goes deeper than the awards. Young investigators are currently squeezed by this structure of scientific endeavor. The tradition of major centers of research is at least 200 years old and this had an impact on the basic science requirements for medical education. The developments in medicine and in preparatory scientific education and research have for a long time aggregated resources to a small number of highly productive centers. This was in part driven by the ties of these centers to major universities and the review committees that serve NIH funding allocation. In addition, there is also a clustering of major centers of discovery and the instrumentation and technical development industries. The most important consideration is to make adequate funding available to promising investigators irrespective of their university affiliation. That is also complicated by the fact that funding for research belongs to the institution, and not the investigator. I cite the recent lawsuit won by the Scripps Research Institute in a suit filed by an investigator who was recruited from UCSD (#16) to the Keck School of Medicine at USC (#47). The funds could not be transferred.
2
Why science prizes? To create celebrities in science, and thus, to make science famous. But surely the reason for science ought not to be fame, but truth? Therein the problem: using the celebrity principle, that fame matters most, one overwhelms the very reason for science, which is that truth matters most. Prizes in science teach the identification of fame with truth.
Civilization depends upon truth, thus science. The confusion between fame and truth brought the near-collapse of civilization before.
Aristotle (320 BCE) taught physics which was obviously false (he taught that a force had to be continually applied for continuous motion). However, because Aristotle was immensely famous, his false physics was viewed as the obvious truth. In turn, because Aristotle’s physics was so stupendous, Aristotle’s erroneous ideas in politics (that monarchy, thus dictatorship, was the best political system) were viewed as obviously true, too, and used to demolish the idea of the Republic for more than two millennia.
Hence we can see who confusing fame with science advantages: those who view fame as the end all, be all. In turn, such people are the best and most obsequious servants to the established order. And this is exactly why, throughout history, some of the worst tyrants have heaped praise on the few.
There are more huge prizes in science nowadays, because some of the most influential people in the world today have a very dark, sinister and troubling relationship with science.
Civilization depends upon truth, thus science. The confusion between fame and truth brought the near-collapse of civilization before.
Aristotle (320 BCE) taught physics which was obviously false (he taught that a force had to be continually applied for continuous motion). However, because Aristotle was immensely famous, his false physics was viewed as the obvious truth. In turn, because Aristotle’s physics was so stupendous, Aristotle’s erroneous ideas in politics (that monarchy, thus dictatorship, was the best political system) were viewed as obviously true, too, and used to demolish the idea of the Republic for more than two millennia.
Hence we can see who confusing fame with science advantages: those who view fame as the end all, be all. In turn, such people are the best and most obsequious servants to the established order. And this is exactly why, throughout history, some of the worst tyrants have heaped praise on the few.
There are more huge prizes in science nowadays, because some of the most influential people in the world today have a very dark, sinister and troubling relationship with science.
6
This is the best comment, and this is the real issue the author is worried about. It is not the prize but the fame that comes with it that is the problem (to the author and this poster) Science shouldn't be about fame, but it ends up being that way once one is famous. Famous scientists are listened to more than nonfamous ones, but it shouldn't be this way: what matters in science is the truth. Just because you got it right once, or even consistently, it doesn't mean you'll be right the next time or in any given situation.
I've seen Nobel prize winners behave in a way they wouldn't have if they hadn't gottten the prize. I've seen and worked with great and humble winners too (my postdoc mentor for one, Nobel in Chemistry in 2013).
I agree with the poster above that the intersection is uncomfortable. Because more than a few people are deserving of these prizes at any time, there is a lot of politics attached to it, and a lot of it has to do with PR and salesmanship (I say this as the recipient of several prestigious awards). As someone who plays this game I worry that science is becoming too PR driven, which means driven by ego more than by the quest for truth, which I think is dangerous.
Rather than lionising individuals and personalities, we should be lionising actions and discoveries. I understand the latter is the goal but it can be done more directly. Lionising individuals in any discipline I think is problematic.
--Ram
http://compbio.org
I've seen Nobel prize winners behave in a way they wouldn't have if they hadn't gottten the prize. I've seen and worked with great and humble winners too (my postdoc mentor for one, Nobel in Chemistry in 2013).
I agree with the poster above that the intersection is uncomfortable. Because more than a few people are deserving of these prizes at any time, there is a lot of politics attached to it, and a lot of it has to do with PR and salesmanship (I say this as the recipient of several prestigious awards). As someone who plays this game I worry that science is becoming too PR driven, which means driven by ego more than by the quest for truth, which I think is dangerous.
Rather than lionising individuals and personalities, we should be lionising actions and discoveries. I understand the latter is the goal but it can be done more directly. Lionising individuals in any discipline I think is problematic.
--Ram
http://compbio.org
1
The prize money is for the public and the prize giver. The 'winner' as you point out, is more aptly just the 'recipient.'
By the time a scientist is awarded a prize, his real work is already over. Not too many folks have won two Nobel prizes.
By the time a scientist is awarded a prize, his real work is already over. Not too many folks have won two Nobel prizes.
1
And the Academy Awards go to the artists and technicians least in need of financial support (though exceptions exist), and the World Series trophies and rings go to baseball players least in need of financial support...
So? Some awards are for breakthroughs, some awards are for lifetime achievements, and some awards are for being in the right place at the right time, like a lottery. To some, the prospect of a Nobel award is an incentive; to others, just a dream; to still others, an irrelevancy.
Six million dollars in Nobel awards is nothing in funding actual science. Redirecting that money would be useless and remove a principal area of visibility of science. Let's concentrate on the billions we SHOULD be spending on basic AND applied research, from private and public sources, and focus on a balanced approach to improving humanity.
So? Some awards are for breakthroughs, some awards are for lifetime achievements, and some awards are for being in the right place at the right time, like a lottery. To some, the prospect of a Nobel award is an incentive; to others, just a dream; to still others, an irrelevancy.
Six million dollars in Nobel awards is nothing in funding actual science. Redirecting that money would be useless and remove a principal area of visibility of science. Let's concentrate on the billions we SHOULD be spending on basic AND applied research, from private and public sources, and focus on a balanced approach to improving humanity.
6
One idea the author suggests is interesting and may actually be something that is very, very helpful. Publications today are often for "things that work". In other words, you have to show something happened - there was a difference. Non results are not as frequently published. So the literature becomes skewed towards only the things that work. For example, in dietary supplements, multiple studies showing no effect of intake of a particular material are not published, but the few that do show an effect are published, and often picked up by the main stream media and announced to the world. So after many years of work, even a meta analysis of the data is skewed. Rewarding well designed, clear outcomes, positive, negative or neutral, would be helpful.
I think a clear prize for well done research even if it doesn't show something happened would encourage more publication of non results - and that's a very good thing for science.
I think a clear prize for well done research even if it doesn't show something happened would encourage more publication of non results - and that's a very good thing for science.
2
True scientific inquiry is one of the most inspiring and magnificent of human activities.
And government funding of basic research has been one of the great engines of the American economy making for a great deal of the prosperity and riches of America. But it doesn't make for immediate profits so private companies have only infrequently funded such research. Instead private industry has often been given the results of tax-payer funded scientific advances for a song, made huge profits and often taken all of the credit. This false allocation of credit has enabled politicians to defund basic research and instead channel the money into further tax cuts and lucrative contracts for their contributors.
Thank God there are still so many Americans still interested in working as scientists instead of becoming e.g. nonproductive financiers. One way or another their honest efforts should be rewarded with even more recognition and money. And every award should gratefully acknowledge the usually large and crucial contributions of other scientists.
Once when I worked as a Chemical Engineer, I was moved by how much engineers attributed their success to past engineers. I am sure that the best thing in every scientist would want this for their peers too.
And government funding of basic research has been one of the great engines of the American economy making for a great deal of the prosperity and riches of America. But it doesn't make for immediate profits so private companies have only infrequently funded such research. Instead private industry has often been given the results of tax-payer funded scientific advances for a song, made huge profits and often taken all of the credit. This false allocation of credit has enabled politicians to defund basic research and instead channel the money into further tax cuts and lucrative contracts for their contributors.
Thank God there are still so many Americans still interested in working as scientists instead of becoming e.g. nonproductive financiers. One way or another their honest efforts should be rewarded with even more recognition and money. And every award should gratefully acknowledge the usually large and crucial contributions of other scientists.
Once when I worked as a Chemical Engineer, I was moved by how much engineers attributed their success to past engineers. I am sure that the best thing in every scientist would want this for their peers too.
3
Science is a creative entrepreneurial activity that is our greatest source of hope for improving the future. Let's both celebrate and fund this essential activity!
3
No scientist is working for prize money. The money awards could be reduced to zero with no effect.
8
@Toasted: "No scientist is working for prize money."
Perhaps, but some scientists start companies based on their research, probably because they have more confidence in themselves than in the whims of awards committees.
"The money awards could be reduced to zero with no effect."
The news media cover the Nobel prize awards, which has the effect of publicizing scientific research and exposing scientists to the general public.
Perhaps, but some scientists start companies based on their research, probably because they have more confidence in themselves than in the whims of awards committees.
"The money awards could be reduced to zero with no effect."
The news media cover the Nobel prize awards, which has the effect of publicizing scientific research and exposing scientists to the general public.
Right, I am not saying stop the awards, just reduce the prize money.
Require each prize to be a potlatch. (Great word. Look it up.) The winner (usually older and living comfortably) keeps, say, 10%, designates 5% each to up to, say, 10 senior collaborators or their labs, and the rest in 2.5 - 5% chunks to whoever under 40 they think is doing promising work.
For the winners, the money is doubtless a nice perk, but they were never stupid enough to go into science to get rich. The best way to honor them might be to let them direct investment funds where their wisdom and experience say progress lurks.
For the winners, the money is doubtless a nice perk, but they were never stupid enough to go into science to get rich. The best way to honor them might be to let them direct investment funds where their wisdom and experience say progress lurks.
5
As a biologist, I completely agree with this article's position. Not only does biomedical science build on prior results, but also on prior disconfirmations. These so-called failures are equally important, in that they cancel fruitless research pathways, thereby steering subsequent research away from these directions. Yet, despite their importance, they're very rarely published in the most influential journals. This suggests that --- like most other arenas of human accomplishment, we are tuned-in to the "winners," interested mostly in the "stars" who move swiftly up the fruitful research pathways. The prestigious prizes reaffirm that winner-consciousness,so prevalent in first-world cultures. Meanwhile, the early and mid-career researchers struggle for funding in a discipline that has never seen as much competition for financial support as in the past 20–30 years. Another symptom of this struggle for funding is seen in the last paragraphs of the Discussion section of so many research papers, wording such as, "hopefully, this research will lead to new pharmacologically active compounds etc., etc.," which, as this article points out, are rarely discovered based on a single research study.
Time to rescue biomedical science from the star mentality; spreading around the money from these mega-prizes is a good place to start.
Time to rescue biomedical science from the star mentality; spreading around the money from these mega-prizes is a good place to start.
5
As with all things American, it's not what you know, but who you know.
The Nobel prize is American? That's news to me and millions of others.
1
The author is mistakenly conflating two different types of awards, publically funded research grants (about $250K for an NIH grant) and philantropic research prizes ($250K for the Lasker). The first provides meager salaries and equipment to fund specific research projects. The second brings rare recognition to those whose work over a lifetime has had the biggest impact. Both are exceedingly difficult to obtain, and neither should be seen as undeserving.
16
I believe that this article illuminates one aspect (there are other facets of the winner-take-all structure of scientific research) of the currently stultifying environment of scientific research. This is not to say that there is no progress. Rather, progress is slower and more expensive than it has to be.
I left academia from one of the most prestigious institutions in the country years ago. My chair had told me that it was time to go up for promotion. I decided, instead, to leave for a non-academic job. I am certain that I am happier than I would have been had I stayed. Not because of the nature of the work as an academic researcher, teacher, and practitioner, all of which I loved and was successful at, but because of the corrosive environment that is so common in academic culture.
I left academia from one of the most prestigious institutions in the country years ago. My chair had told me that it was time to go up for promotion. I decided, instead, to leave for a non-academic job. I am certain that I am happier than I would have been had I stayed. Not because of the nature of the work as an academic researcher, teacher, and practitioner, all of which I loved and was successful at, but because of the corrosive environment that is so common in academic culture.
2
The thought that these awards are not needed because the recipients are well known is absurd. I would be shocked if more than a few percent of the population could name a single living recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine.
And the committees sometimes do get the awards right. Neither Jonas Salk, the developer of the first polio vaccine, nor Albert Sabin, the developer of the oral polio vaccine, won the Nobel in Medicine. Instead, the award went to John Enders, Thomas Weller, and Frederick Robbins 3 scientists largely unknown to the public. They were the ones who made the groundbreaking discovery (the ability to grow viruses in tissue culture outside of live animals) that led to the development of polio and other vaccines. Without awards such as the Nobel Prize, their contributions would be largely lost in history. Despite the Nobel, it is Salk and Sabin that people remember.
And the committees sometimes do get the awards right. Neither Jonas Salk, the developer of the first polio vaccine, nor Albert Sabin, the developer of the oral polio vaccine, won the Nobel in Medicine. Instead, the award went to John Enders, Thomas Weller, and Frederick Robbins 3 scientists largely unknown to the public. They were the ones who made the groundbreaking discovery (the ability to grow viruses in tissue culture outside of live animals) that led to the development of polio and other vaccines. Without awards such as the Nobel Prize, their contributions would be largely lost in history. Despite the Nobel, it is Salk and Sabin that people remember.
8
This article and many of the comments are hogwash. The awards are made to individuals, not institutions. The awards honor years of valuable contributions to the field. The awards are not for research funding.
The scientists and physicians who are being awarded the Nobel and Lasker prizes made the discoveries for which they are being honored many years before they are nominated for the prize. Their discovery has been vetted and validated by additional studies performed and/or directed by the discover and by other research groups in related fields. Many times the discovery is not the discoverer's only contribution to the field.
These rare, inventive individuals are not sources of fraud and their publications are not often retracted because of data manipulation or falsification.
Science funding has been and always will be an issue. Research costs money. Currently neither industry or governments are willing to fund basic research to the level where all scientists are gainfully employed doing research. There are too many young scientists competing for too few jobs and grants.
The scientists and physicians who are being awarded the Nobel and Lasker prizes made the discoveries for which they are being honored many years before they are nominated for the prize. Their discovery has been vetted and validated by additional studies performed and/or directed by the discover and by other research groups in related fields. Many times the discovery is not the discoverer's only contribution to the field.
These rare, inventive individuals are not sources of fraud and their publications are not often retracted because of data manipulation or falsification.
Science funding has been and always will be an issue. Research costs money. Currently neither industry or governments are willing to fund basic research to the level where all scientists are gainfully employed doing research. There are too many young scientists competing for too few jobs and grants.
15
You hit the nail on the head. Instead of attacking life-long achievers and the top minds in our country, the author should have written a more useful Op-ed entitled, "The Folly of Government Funding of Research".
Scientists are generally motivated individuals and pursue science because they are curious and love to find answers to questions. Rewards and recognition certainly add to their motivation. Like all other human beings scientists too have their share of weaknesses and follies.
Your suggestions to end science rewards however is petty.
Your suggestions to end science rewards however is petty.
10
The Big prizes in medicine is definitely not helping the research in the field of medicine - it is nothing but an arbitrary distribution of prize money to most networked research scientists on a popular drug discovery. Two points are missing in this selection process - one Vinay Prasad mentioned - the chain of contributors over long time contributed in a drug discovery and this complexity is not be captured - recognizing a single person or a small group of person and bestowing the whole credit is unfair. The second point that is completely missing in the selection - the drug discovery is not only a biological process, it includes the intricacies of biology and the life process. Most of the time prizes are given on the basis of works on biology only. That is why only 5% of potential drug discovery research comes out as FDA approved drugs. The emphasis on life process in selection is necessary.
The scientific experiment, field of science itself, I would like to see funded and which I believe is the most critical and necessary to balance the usual social drive into technology and emphasis on STEM fields? The science of psychiatry/psychology. My belief is that this field is not at all on solid footing for one simple and obvious and startling reason: We do not apply rigorous moral, intellectual, physical, etc. testing of individuals across the board of society, which is to say all our concepts with respect to individuals such as madness or narcissism or selfishness or what have you are now on a quite subjective and often accusatory footing because we do not have all individuals in society rigorously tested for qualities but rather have the science of psychology/psychiatry wielded by power (business, marketing, political manipulation, law enforcement) and applied "outward" at "other people" rather than having the totality of society rigorously tested and analyzed--especially power--so we can in fact put all accusations of narcissism or selfishness or madness or what have you on a truly balanced, equal and fair and objective scientific basis to see who really has this or that quality. In other words, it makes little sense to accuse or celebrate this or that individual for this or that quality or intellectual ability unless the totality of human relationship (both accuser and accused and the like) is analyzed and put on objective footing. Want to accuse? Be tested first.
The author is simply wrong, while the winners of these prizes might be known in their specialty but with few exceptions they are not know to the general public. That is what these prizes achieve. Any reward in any part of society may not reward those most deserving but in the case of science this is probably least true. The comparatively small amounts awarded the winners as compared to the rewards of other fields of endeavor, movies for example would not make significant changes if distributed for research while the publicity surrounding the prizes probably make governments and others more willing to devote money to science.
51
The real benefit society derives from the Nobel is generation of stars. I'm not talking cosmology; I'm talking about hero worship. In a society that idolizes men who can accurately throw a long bomb, women who can kick from the corner, and anybody who gets nothin' but net, we desperately need children who are impressed by the people making sense out of dark matter and so-called "junk" DNA. The Nobel takes ordinary, or perhaps extraordinary, scientists, and molds them into stars for our children to look up to. And we need that.
27
Yes, so who should get awards?
Unknowns who might be promising? Try this in another field and see how people would react.
Unknowns who might be promising? Try this in another field and see how people would react.
1
This is true of many awards ,these days. Recipients of Visual Arts awards are chosen in order to bring the most attention the whatever entity is making the it. Not the artist who needs, deserves, or will put it to the best use.
It discourages one from making any applications.
It discourages one from making any applications.
Many visual artists want to believe they have talent but in fact don't or it is underdeveloped.
So yes it is disappointing for them to not be recognized for work they believe is worthy but is not so in the eye of others.
Scientists work in a realm that is measurable visual artists don't. Judging a painting for instance is largely subjective and depends upon ones taste.
There are certain factors that are easier to judge in a painting such as color values and composition but it is still largely unmeasurable.
So yes it is disappointing for them to not be recognized for work they believe is worthy but is not so in the eye of others.
Scientists work in a realm that is measurable visual artists don't. Judging a painting for instance is largely subjective and depends upon ones taste.
There are certain factors that are easier to judge in a painting such as color values and composition but it is still largely unmeasurable.
1
And these awards likely are the reason that such sites as "Retraction Watch" exists to detect and expose fraud in things scientific. It is certainly ironic that vaunted science, the religion of the atheists and unbelieving, depends completely on a decidedly non-scientific element: honesty/trust.
I chuckle to myself and imagine the chagrin of the Times Editorial Board about this reality.
I chuckle to myself and imagine the chagrin of the Times Editorial Board about this reality.
You simply lie with your silly charade that nature has a human personality.
1
Excellent article!
Many scientific and academic awards are not determined by the merit of the work alone, but by the visibility of a specific researcher. Who is a 'star' is often the product of slick marketing and group-think in academic circles. And low-profile (or even socially inept), yet exceedingly productive researchers often get suppressed by such awards.
Unfortunately, the marketplace of ideas requires a fair amount of marketing.
Many scientific and academic awards are not determined by the merit of the work alone, but by the visibility of a specific researcher. Who is a 'star' is often the product of slick marketing and group-think in academic circles. And low-profile (or even socially inept), yet exceedingly productive researchers often get suppressed by such awards.
Unfortunately, the marketplace of ideas requires a fair amount of marketing.
3
Science prizes are often awarded to large institutions usually connected with Universities. Science departments are usually run by men who began to notice the accolades the football team and other teams were getting from the public. Men are competitive creatures and a lot are interested in sports even the science geek types. Therefore, I propose that science prizes are needed to reward the spirit of competition in order to compete with sports programs on university campuses. These observations come from working in the office of a "science star" at a University.
Science prizes are awarded to individuals, some of whom may be connected to large institutions or universities. But it's not the institution that gets the award.
1
Sigh. We don't get enough media for science topics, at least the prizes give people some awareness that it's going on. And for academics who spent years in grungy labs, with little financial reward, a little prestige isn't a bad thing.
If you want to go after awards, how about all the stupid celebrity bashes they throw themselves? Seems like every other week there's some other useless discussion of which designer the slinky and well-fed vacuous rich are wearing. What a useless wasted of media and attention.
More science funding and more awards are fine. But harping on the big awards isn't the means to get there.
If you want to go after awards, how about all the stupid celebrity bashes they throw themselves? Seems like every other week there's some other useless discussion of which designer the slinky and well-fed vacuous rich are wearing. What a useless wasted of media and attention.
More science funding and more awards are fine. But harping on the big awards isn't the means to get there.
5
Given the issues you cite, maybe major awards should give a minority share to the scientific prize winner and require her or him to dole out the remainder to promising younger scientists outside his research team.
1
Who is this 'we' you keep referring to? As far as I know, these prizes are not public, they are private. So they can give money to whoever they want, for any or no reason. Its a shame, but tough, that you don't like that.
4
Vinay Prasad makes many good points in his opinion piece, but in my opinion his argument overlooks the vital benefit of visible prizes to the scientific enterprise. Biomedical research is largely funded by the public, a public that is increasingly suspicious of or openly hostile to science. Nobel Laureates receive no public money as part of their prizes, and still must compete for public funding after winning. Even if Nobel Prize winners have an easier time obtaining public funding (and I know of no evidence that they do), this is a very small price to pay for a very visible reminder that science is valuable, and worthy of public support.
46
Dr. Prasad fails to recognize that "we" don't give out the big science awards and "we" don't fund them. The Nobel Prize committee (and others) are free to make their awards as they see fit.
5
What a silly column!
Society gives awards to those it chooses, by less than perfect selection processes. This covers all areas of scientific and artistic endeavor. That science only advances by the wondrous creative breakthrough of an individual is simplistically foolish. That such things don't happen is false. The response of individuals receiving such honors varies from humility and gratitude to smug satisfaction, depending on the ego of the recipient. None of this is related to the destruction currently being committed to the scientific research enterprise by the lack of funding and awareness of the crisis state that exists. The journalistic heat being generated by a current concern about reproducibility, over-reacted to by a cowed scientific leadership, should not become over-heated in the rush for headlines. The US flourishes by the quality and quantity of its creative contributions to many areas of human concern. The essential and proud examples that this country has contributed to the advances in scientific, technological and biomedical knowledge are under threat. The system will not survive the present neglect and we will all be the losers.
In the spirit of complete disclosure, I am a practicing scientist who has not won a Nobel prize and intends to celebrate those who have and those that will!
Society gives awards to those it chooses, by less than perfect selection processes. This covers all areas of scientific and artistic endeavor. That science only advances by the wondrous creative breakthrough of an individual is simplistically foolish. That such things don't happen is false. The response of individuals receiving such honors varies from humility and gratitude to smug satisfaction, depending on the ego of the recipient. None of this is related to the destruction currently being committed to the scientific research enterprise by the lack of funding and awareness of the crisis state that exists. The journalistic heat being generated by a current concern about reproducibility, over-reacted to by a cowed scientific leadership, should not become over-heated in the rush for headlines. The US flourishes by the quality and quantity of its creative contributions to many areas of human concern. The essential and proud examples that this country has contributed to the advances in scientific, technological and biomedical knowledge are under threat. The system will not survive the present neglect and we will all be the losers.
In the spirit of complete disclosure, I am a practicing scientist who has not won a Nobel prize and intends to celebrate those who have and those that will!
9
The award was instituted as a balm for Alfred Nobel's conscience, not really a prize for medical, or any other research.
2
There are more serious issues to address. Who gets prizes in the science arena is not the one we should see discussed in the NYT. Given the current crisises we face in the environment and with disease, a story on funding and its sources and a story about the last group in the western world to face prior restraint on the publishing of their work in an exercise called peer review,before, not after publishing, would be on point topics for today's scientists.
2
This commentary is built on a number of half truths and comes to exactly the wrong conclusion. That is, no one in science argues that previous work provides the foundation for current and future work. But, real progress is created when a researcher has a particular insight into the process - discovery that no one else has. As such, the idea that research is simply a 'process' that inevitably results in discovery fails to recognize the role of these insights.
Fortunately, many scholars throughout the decades including those awarding the Noble Prize recognize the importance of these 'special' insights. Celebrating excellence, patience, creativity, and hard work are important for humanity to progress. Hopefully, we appreciate the discussion, but ignore those who fail to understand nor appreciate what it takes to contribute meaningfully to our world.
Fortunately, many scholars throughout the decades including those awarding the Noble Prize recognize the importance of these 'special' insights. Celebrating excellence, patience, creativity, and hard work are important for humanity to progress. Hopefully, we appreciate the discussion, but ignore those who fail to understand nor appreciate what it takes to contribute meaningfully to our world.
9
Interesting. Of course I've hard of Alfred Nobel and dynamite, but the other prizes Prasad mentions are news to me. There surely are problems in the science community. Big Pharma has too much influence; big weapons likewise. Science is now so expensive that the era of the brilliant individual may be near an end, giving way to large teams using equipment that costs more than many scientists used to earn in a lifetime. What the NIH and NSF etc. fund reflects their need to show results, and reflects pressures from the powerful. No on ever said society is perfect.
1
There are credible alternative explanations for most of what you have said. In “One study that tracked funding for university professors and researchers over an eight-year period found that about 80 percent of research funds in basic medical sciences were concentrated among the top fifth of researchers “the competitiveness in grant application process is such, the NIH only have funding from the legislature for 20% of the applications . They struggle to give them to the best proposals. One criterion is “does it appears you can do what you say you can do”. Past success influences this decision. Your quibble is not with the funding agencies, which have programs for young scientists, but with your legislators, who could support more funding for basic research, as President Obama recommends. Instead many Republicans appear hostile to science. Legislative funders could allocate money for 30% or 60% of the scientists. Taking money from those who are successful to incur more risk with an unknown with that precious little money does not make scientific sense. Yes, if by mid-career you have not been serendipitously lucky, the high competitiveness will work against you. Breaking up large awards and spreading the money around will not affect the 20% partly since runners up probably already have a solid track record. To continue to be an advanced nation with world class inventiveness and world class new product development, we need more total money for basic research.
14
This is junk thinking -- thoughtless! The science community (PhD-types) are not screened for innovation and invention before they are minted scientist. Worse, most have to go to work for industry because they had loans, cars and trucks, spouses and children. Companies own any creativity and as such little inventiveness is forthcoming because of "teamwork". Consequently, the American scientist underperforms and as a professional class are mostly failures (if measured by issued patents and commercially successful work). Without inspiring young scientist with notions of fame and fortune most scientist would be happier doing menial labor. Sorry!
1
The discovery of the Planck constant comes from research to measure the temperature of molten steel by industry. Thoughts regarding relativity where encouraged by early thoughts on communication between moving trains. Please do not disparage creative thought in the service of commerce.
1
Dr. Vinay Prasad, author of this article, is also co-author of the book "Ending Medical Reversal: Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives" - truly a noble pursuit. According to a description of this book, "medical reversal happens when doctors start using a medication, procedure, or diagnostic tool without a robust evidence base—and then stop using it when it is found not to help, or even to harm, patients" (https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/ending-medical-reversal). The last paragraph of the article calls for "better experimental design...." Unfortunately, the article reinforces an aspect of experimental design that can be inimical to better outcomes and saving lives. More specifically, consider the emphasis on "large sample sizes...." Large sample sizes can be advantageous. However, standard practice to create "a robust evidence base" for medicine is to combine large sample sizes with the use of group averages to assess causality. This convention confounds individuality with treatment effects, tends to obviate the value of genomics, makes it difficult to evaluate treatments for rare disorders as improving diagnostic specificity makes more disorders rare, exacerbates the research to practice translation problem, drives up costs, reduces productivity, and creates ethical problems. Such problems can be avoided with the Science of Individuality Measurement Algorithm.
1
Basic science should be max-funded w/assets liberated from war & billionaire subsidies...failure to design a technocratic society is hugely prodigal & could foreclose any prospect of survival...if we act w/prescience, the oft-bruited mid-century flashover to syntelligence might yet obtain [per N. Bostrum, C. Koch & colleagues, Oxford Institute for Transhumanism]...track Craig Venter's plan to ship [& later narrowcast] genomes to Colonia Martialis for 3-D printing of terraformational species--logical in context of NASA's already-funded study of 'Alcubierre' spacetime surfing.
While there may be a replication problem in some fields of science this is not true for most areas, particularly in the hard sciences. What does exist however, is a lack of public understanding of science and that is why we need the big prizes. If you split a Nobel up into ten small prizes nobody would remember the winners but many Nobel winners are practically household names to STEM students. I had the privilege of working with a Nobel winner, and through him got to meet many others. What they had in common was tremendous insight and courage, and that is what they then passed onto those they trained. As for some type of "large sample sizes", appropriate controls" etc. What a limited view of science! Some of the greatest findings (many of which led to Nobels) were based on almost single observations that, today, are the foundations of many important (applied) areas. We need the glittering prizes more today than we did 100 years ago, since this is one way that those holding the purse strings can actually see the results of funding.
33
Vinay Prasad main point is that those acknowledged by these prizes don't need the money to do their research but others do. That's true but irrelevant to the question of whether we should have such awards. The amount of money used by these scientists after their awards is insignificant compared the the need he points out and would do essentially nothing if it were spread out.
But what would happen if the awards were changed as he suggested is that science would lose senior spokesmen who were understood by the lay population to have done great things. Some of these scientist actually go to congress or elsewhere and advocate for the needs of the broader community. If the scientific community is suddenly deprived of the ability to have such spokemen, a significant decrease in funding will likely ensue and it will be more poorly directed. I remember when a Physics Nobel (there are no computer science Nobels) thought more funding should go to certain parts of computer science. Suddenly those areas, not the ones I would have chosen, got a lot of funding, but the rest of CS got some increase.
Science does have lower level prizes. The National Academies have about 15x as many members as the US has had Nobelists. I'm a member of one of them. I can tell you personally that I don't have anything like the microphone that a Nobel laureate has.
But what would happen if the awards were changed as he suggested is that science would lose senior spokesmen who were understood by the lay population to have done great things. Some of these scientist actually go to congress or elsewhere and advocate for the needs of the broader community. If the scientific community is suddenly deprived of the ability to have such spokemen, a significant decrease in funding will likely ensue and it will be more poorly directed. I remember when a Physics Nobel (there are no computer science Nobels) thought more funding should go to certain parts of computer science. Suddenly those areas, not the ones I would have chosen, got a lot of funding, but the rest of CS got some increase.
Science does have lower level prizes. The National Academies have about 15x as many members as the US has had Nobelists. I'm a member of one of them. I can tell you personally that I don't have anything like the microphone that a Nobel laureate has.
23
It is clear that this editorialist has no idea how science works or how the Nobel Prize is selected. Although there have been controversies from time to time, it is actually uncanny at how well the Nobel Committee recognizes the individuals who have made major breakthroughs in their fields. Of course science builds on the work of others, and yet no one who knows anything about science would question that there are rare breakthroughs that truly are groundbreaking. To recognize these is to celebrate the pinnacle of science.
29
I don't agree that "this editorialist has no idea how science works or how the Nobel Prize is selected." In fact, the writer expresses exactly what you do, but disagrees that he one(s) who happen to hit the "breakthrough" point should get the gold ring. In science (as in much in life) we stand on the shoulders of many generations of those who went before. Many promising avenues of research end in dead ends. Some of those, though they are disappointing, offer valuable information to other researchers. Sometimes the disappointments simply help to redirect others by telling them where the answer is not, i.e., a path that does not work is also information (a shoulder to stand upon). Hence the element of luck for the one who comes along at just the right time and is given information from many other good tries. That is not to say that those who make the breakthroughs are not fine, dedicate scientists. It does say, though, that they rightfully should share their success with the the many more who contributed in some way.
Additionally, the author notes that awards ought to support mid-career scientists. Ever notice how many Nobel Laureates are in their 70s or beyond? Often, they are at or near the end of their scientific work. Offering support to those with productive decades left would be a very good thing indeed.
Additionally, the author notes that awards ought to support mid-career scientists. Ever notice how many Nobel Laureates are in their 70s or beyond? Often, they are at or near the end of their scientific work. Offering support to those with productive decades left would be a very good thing indeed.
6
A solution might be a change of custom surrounding
prestigious prizes. A prize could come with an
implied obligation to share the award with
deserving younger scientists of the recipient's
choice. Even if they tended to be members of the
recipient's own lab, it would still shine a spotlight
on them and thus enhance their chances of being
funded in the future.
prestigious prizes. A prize could come with an
implied obligation to share the award with
deserving younger scientists of the recipient's
choice. Even if they tended to be members of the
recipient's own lab, it would still shine a spotlight
on them and thus enhance their chances of being
funded in the future.
4
The author overlooks another aspect of science awards - at least the most well-known like the Nobel. It enhanced public awareness of scientific achievements and gives great scientist prestige. In an era in which people like the Kardashians and Donald Trump are idolized and scientific evidence is disdained by far too many it is extremely important that the public admires and respects the work of great scientists.
22
Nobel prizes re about $1 million dollars that is often shared by 2-3 people. Typical NIH research grant (R01) for independent investigators is about $100-250K per year that supports the lives and works of a senior investigators and 2-3 graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. It is entirely within reason for some private foundations (i.e. Nobel) given prizes of this size to honor the achievements of some of our most colleagues. We all ride on other shoulders and most Nobel prize winners are humble men and women who recognize this fact clearly. Please do not compare Nobel prizes with CEO pay.
21
Can we accept that the writer's conclusion is correct in identifying what we need to fund, but incorrect in condemning the Nobel Prize for being a mistake. Yes, we need to fund medical research, but the rare Nobel Prize is simply too rare to be meaningful to medical funding. By the time the prize is awarded, a career is mostly at its end stage.
2
The bigger problem is that the awarding of grants and funding follows the same pattern, and the problem extends from medicine to all disciplines of science. As an agricultural scientist, I can tell you many researchers are forced to spend up to 30% of their time writing proposals (that now have ridiculously onerous eligibility / matching funds requirements etc.), proposals that have a 3% success rate. So 97% of the scientists are getting no public support at all. Proposal-writing has become a complete waste of everyone's valuable time, and the USDA is now virtually worthless as a source of funding for any basic agricultural research.
108
I agree with this. I think federal agencies (in the US) like NSF, NIH, etc should grant funds in smaller amounts to a bigger base of scientists. This spread would increase the chances of successful research by increasing the numbers of people exploring new frontiers. Giving large amounts to a small number of researchers is like putting all one's eggs in one basket. In addition, often times is has the distasteful flavor of cronyism, at least looking from the outside.
Science provides the best currently available natural explanation based upon the best currently available natural information. Properly understood all science is provisional and subject to repudiation, confirmation or refinement by better theories or more information. Thus proving or disproving something natural by the scientific method is of equal intellectual value.
But the reality is that the proven positive is deemed more worthy than the negative. Particularly if it is valued by human beings for the potential benefit to humanity or for the sheer joy of knowing and understanding something newly wonderful and beautiful.
What is proposed here seems to want to treat all scientists and their efforts more equally. But that is not equitable nor naturally normally human. In every field of human endeavor including science, some of us are better and more worthy than others. Medicine is part science, part technology and part art.
How many science awards have you received Dr. Prasad?
But the reality is that the proven positive is deemed more worthy than the negative. Particularly if it is valued by human beings for the potential benefit to humanity or for the sheer joy of knowing and understanding something newly wonderful and beautiful.
What is proposed here seems to want to treat all scientists and their efforts more equally. But that is not equitable nor naturally normally human. In every field of human endeavor including science, some of us are better and more worthy than others. Medicine is part science, part technology and part art.
How many science awards have you received Dr. Prasad?
2
The mistake is assuming that just because you receive a prize, you are better. This is the point that Vinay Prasad is trying to make but doesn't connect the dots. Leave it at the level of discoveries and do not make it a personality contest. Separate the discovery from the discoverer. The point being made in science is that if you discover something no one else has, there is a lot of other factors at play and lionising particular individuals isn't fair for discoveries made standing on the shoulders of giants.
And I've received a lot of honours and awards for science (http://compbio.org/cv.html. I owe it to my mentees, my collaborators, my support structure, and a lot of serendipity.
--Ram
http://compbio.org
http://ram.org
And I've received a lot of honours and awards for science (http://compbio.org/cv.html. I owe it to my mentees, my collaborators, my support structure, and a lot of serendipity.
--Ram
http://compbio.org
http://ram.org
1
The idea that giving 1 million/year in prizes for remarkable, time tested discoveries in medicine, which has an annual budget of at least $1tr/year, i.e. at least one million times bigger than the prizes,
the idea that these prizes which push every serious researcher to work harder,
the idea that these prizes from an immutable bequest take away significant research money,
is a rant bordering insanity.
the idea that these prizes which push every serious researcher to work harder,
the idea that these prizes from an immutable bequest take away significant research money,
is a rant bordering insanity.
7
Yes, Dr. Prasad, you are correct. As the physicist Richard Feynman said,
the Nobel Prize was Alfred Nobel's second big mistake.
the Nobel Prize was Alfred Nobel's second big mistake.
1
Feynman did accept his award.
It seems important to acknowledge big advances, because they're the goal of science. Scientists are like explorers; attention accrues to those who discover new worlds, not just those who run a tight ship. The prestige and romance of discovery is what draws many to science in the first place, and keeps them going through the long trudges in the lab. It seems unlikely that the relatively few Nobel prizes awarded distort resource allocation significantly, though in some fields they might be a bit of a lottery.
Medicine that relies on 'magic bullet' interventions at a single scale or level of organization is running out of steam: the low-hanging fruit has pretty much already been picked, and we need to move to multiscale, multilevel patterns of intervention, mostly involving improvements in living and working conditions. Much of this is well understood, e.g.
https://peerj.com/preprints/8/
but the band plays on...
https://peerj.com/preprints/8/
but the band plays on...
1
It is in our general nature to recognize and honor a few (but only a few) names in any particular field of endeavor, whether science, literature, art, business, entertainment, or sport. In many of these fields there are a few awards large enough to generate public recognition for those who win them. The names of these winners become touchstones for our conversations about those fields. The general public's attention can thus be drawn to achievements that might otherwise be overlooked. I contend that this generation of publicity is the most important effect of the size of the prize.
35
Or perhaps let the recipient keep just half and but let him/her choose which promising other researchers get the other half. He gets the prestige and kingmaker clout but resources go elsewhere. Not sure there is a good solution. Determining who does "good work" but does;t make the final breakthrough is highly subjective. Good work may not look good until years later. Hard to justify to taxpayers and donors etc. This problem exists in many areas. Decades of R&B creativity but then the Beattles and Stones swoop in and add a final twist and get more than the rest combined. Life is unfair.
2
"One study that tracked funding for university professors and researchers over an eight-year period found that about 80 percent of research funds in basic medical sciences were concentrated among the top fifth of researchers." I think this, like several other examples in the op-ed, is mainly about about problems in biomedical research, not all scientific research.
As I understand it (I’m not in medicine), the National Institute of Health is a major funder of biomedical research. Economists have documented boom-and-bust cycles at NIH that don’t occur at other federal funding agencies. See Michael Teitelbaum’s book Falling Behind, e.g., figure 2.7. The NIH funding problems are definitely not a good thing, but fortunately they don’t occur at all US science funding agencies.
Maybe the title of the op-ed should have been "Unfortunate Consequences of NIH Boom-and-bust Cycles?"
As I understand it (I’m not in medicine), the National Institute of Health is a major funder of biomedical research. Economists have documented boom-and-bust cycles at NIH that don’t occur at other federal funding agencies. See Michael Teitelbaum’s book Falling Behind, e.g., figure 2.7. The NIH funding problems are definitely not a good thing, but fortunately they don’t occur at all US science funding agencies.
Maybe the title of the op-ed should have been "Unfortunate Consequences of NIH Boom-and-bust Cycles?"
6
This is true of the other sciences as well. The 1984 Nobel for Physics went to Carlo Rubbia and Simon Van Der Meer for their discovery of the W & Z vector bosons that mediate the electroweak force. This was richly deserved because it confirmed the theory put forward by Glashow, Salam and Weinberg (who were awarded the Nobel in 1979). Yet the paper that broadcast the experimental verification of the theory had dozens of authors - a collaborative effort that may be known only to people who have followed the work.
The Nobel in Physics for 2013 went to Higgs and Englert, again a richly deserved award. There were others who came up with the same theory at about the same time (Guralnik, Hagen & Kibble for example) but who were ignored. The experimental team at CERN that discovered the Higgs were not honored by the Nobel Committee either.
It may be that the Committee looks not only for pioneering work but for leadership as well.
The Nobel in Physics for 2013 went to Higgs and Englert, again a richly deserved award. There were others who came up with the same theory at about the same time (Guralnik, Hagen & Kibble for example) but who were ignored. The experimental team at CERN that discovered the Higgs were not honored by the Nobel Committee either.
It may be that the Committee looks not only for pioneering work but for leadership as well.
2
I can concur with the author. I mathematics, it has become a winner takes all situation. Few top people, but not all top people, mostly those who also enjoy name recognition, for example, because they have already won another prize are bestowed with more awards. They also rake in large NSF grants. At the same time the percentage of proposals awarded is at the all time low. No wonder young americans don't bother becoming scientists.
1
This article demonstrated that a great contribution to science has a context and that the Nobel Prize is awarded to the most striking result that summed up what everyone had done and set the direction for future work. Dr Allison used an antibdy to unleash an immune response effective against many kinds of cancers in animals, which led to anti cancer results in humans ten yeard later. There's nothing wrong with the Nobel Prize. What is disturbing is the idea of a "prize industry" replacing funding for basic research that needs to be spread widely.
Basic research is where many major results originate. The genes that predispose a cell toward cancer if they are mutated weren't found by medical researchers. They were found by scientists looking into the control of cell division in flies and worms and yeast. Serendipity of this kind happens often enough that defunding basic research is crazy. Honor the scientists who have produced excellent work but keep in mind that new ideas are likelier to come from elsewhere.
Science is hard and science is unpredictable. A grad student picks a topic for research that seems promising, but most disappoint and some of the best work results in closing the door on an avenue of research. This is a great service that gets no honor. Negative results are very important but difficult to publish. Journals want positive results, but we need a Journal of important negative results to save scientists a lot of time and effort.
Basic research is where many major results originate. The genes that predispose a cell toward cancer if they are mutated weren't found by medical researchers. They were found by scientists looking into the control of cell division in flies and worms and yeast. Serendipity of this kind happens often enough that defunding basic research is crazy. Honor the scientists who have produced excellent work but keep in mind that new ideas are likelier to come from elsewhere.
Science is hard and science is unpredictable. A grad student picks a topic for research that seems promising, but most disappoint and some of the best work results in closing the door on an avenue of research. This is a great service that gets no honor. Negative results are very important but difficult to publish. Journals want positive results, but we need a Journal of important negative results to save scientists a lot of time and effort.
2
Well, this op-ed will have almost zero effect on science prizes. The people who give out the prizes are not about to dilute their effects by making them smaller and giving them to more, and to more deserving people. It's all about ego, Big Media and our money-driven world. Prize size and the Big Media coverage that comes with such size is exactly what the prize givers are after. They, too, want to be recognized as making a significant difference in society. Much of the original motivation for Alfred Nobel to begin giving out money was because he felt guilty he had made so much money from the invention of dynamite, which has probably killed more people than all the nuclear weapons combined. So he became a big philanthropist for the field he loved so dearly, science.
2
Prizes are good PR for science. We need to, once again, attract the best and brightest to science. Giving scientists celebrity status helps even if it is somewhat imperfect. Science education is growing weakness of American society, we need to do better. I think prizes are a valid way to raise awareness of the importance of science
57
Science education is not the weakness! There are no research jobs for most, there are no professional level teaching jobs for most, and funding has become an industrial rat race. The noble prize was originally intended for the young and promising, a long dead but wonderful idea.
Giving scientists celebrity status has the same effects, both positive and negative, that it does in other fields such as politics and films. It increases awareness, but in doing so it distorts the allocation of resources toward some areas of endeavor at the expense of others. And, as the article suggests, it also tends to oversimplify public understanding of those achievements.
This amounts not so much to a criticism of the Norwegian and Swedish authorities who, after all, can hand out their medals and their money to whomever they like. Rather, it supplies a focus of attention for the media who then do not need to devote attention to the nature of the accomplishments rather than the personalities (or, more often, just the nationalities) of the recipients.
This amounts not so much to a criticism of the Norwegian and Swedish authorities who, after all, can hand out their medals and their money to whomever they like. Rather, it supplies a focus of attention for the media who then do not need to devote attention to the nature of the accomplishments rather than the personalities (or, more often, just the nationalities) of the recipients.
The prizes are SUPPOSED to honor those who have actually contributed the most to humanity by their efforts; and these worthies tend to BE those least in need of funding and recognition. At least, so long, these days, as they're sufficiently politically correct to espouse green solutions and the general embrace of Kumbaya by all societies.
Not a bad idea that those who already have demonstrated their distinction have their funding assured for the remainder of their lives. For those with interesting ideas whose funding might otherwise be crowded out, that’s what we have government grants for.
Not a bad idea that those who already have demonstrated their distinction have their funding assured for the remainder of their lives. For those with interesting ideas whose funding might otherwise be crowded out, that’s what we have government grants for.
8
This article is a muddled mess.
"scientific breakthroughs — serendipitous occurrences"
After decades of hard work, breakthroughs are not serendipitous. This is like saying running the four minute mile was serendipitous. These people worked hard and made intelligent choices that succeeded.
Getting back to the article, I assume the point of it was that we should fund more medical research. It is a bit hard to understand his reasoning since he bungles several points. For example the prizes and funding have been going to top researchers for many decades and yet the author worries about the next generation when in fact the next generation has been doing well despite this concern. Also all the articles that a breakthrough paper references are to work that were funded. So what is his point? The many associated paper necessary to make a breakthrough do get funded.
Also this is weird.
"Or we could break up big prizes and give out many smaller awards. This may be more effective in supporting science, a view shared by Terence Tao, a mathematician who won $3 million from the inaugural Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics but tried to talk the man who gave it to him into spreading it around to more people. Alternately, instead of giving out big science awards, let’s use the prize money to study better ways to fund science."
And the things that is stopping Terence Tao from spreading his award around himself is....?
"scientific breakthroughs — serendipitous occurrences"
After decades of hard work, breakthroughs are not serendipitous. This is like saying running the four minute mile was serendipitous. These people worked hard and made intelligent choices that succeeded.
Getting back to the article, I assume the point of it was that we should fund more medical research. It is a bit hard to understand his reasoning since he bungles several points. For example the prizes and funding have been going to top researchers for many decades and yet the author worries about the next generation when in fact the next generation has been doing well despite this concern. Also all the articles that a breakthrough paper references are to work that were funded. So what is his point? The many associated paper necessary to make a breakthrough do get funded.
Also this is weird.
"Or we could break up big prizes and give out many smaller awards. This may be more effective in supporting science, a view shared by Terence Tao, a mathematician who won $3 million from the inaugural Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics but tried to talk the man who gave it to him into spreading it around to more people. Alternately, instead of giving out big science awards, let’s use the prize money to study better ways to fund science."
And the things that is stopping Terence Tao from spreading his award around himself is....?
3
The author makes good points, but aren't Nobel Prizes, etc. a small fraction of funding? It's possible that when you add up all funding, including salary and honorarium and travel expenses, that funding is not efficient or fair, but I would think the Prizes are a very small fraction of funding.
And prizes like the Nobel bring well-served and favorable attention to the recipients and the field.
And prizes like the Nobel bring well-served and favorable attention to the recipients and the field.
3
I totally agree that it doesn't make sense to throw research money at people who almost certainly have already done the best work in their life. But many of these prizes, and the Nobelprize in particular, aren't about research funding. Rather, they area public celebration of scientific achievements.
95
I agree wholeheartedly.
And I would like to add that the author seems to be under a misapprehension that the award money is to do research. No it isn't, at least not in most cases, and certainly not in the case of the Nobel prize. It is a prize and awardees can to anything they want with it. Besides, when compared to research grants, particularly in the biological sciences, the award money is small.
And I would like to add that the author seems to be under a misapprehension that the award money is to do research. No it isn't, at least not in most cases, and certainly not in the case of the Nobel prize. It is a prize and awardees can to anything they want with it. Besides, when compared to research grants, particularly in the biological sciences, the award money is small.
Perhaps we can give them the recognition as a symbolic prize without the check. A statuette or the Nobel medal symbolizing the prestige and recognition, but no monetary prize. That would be for another competition such as that suggested by the author of this piece.
1
The writer makes some interesting points, but I think he misunderstands the purpose of science prizes. It may be true that these acclaimed scientists don't "need" the resources or extra fame. But such prizes are meant to be a celebration of major scientific accomplishments, not a funding mechanism or an incentive mechanism. The sums, while substantial for individuals compared to most scientists, are way too little to make major changes in the distribution of funding, and don't significantly squeeze out other science. And while replication and generalization are very important in scientific progress, discovery is the key big step. I have to disagree with the author's implication that creativity, insight, or true genius don't play especially significant roles in discoveries and breakthroughs. And the idea that giving out these prizes is somehow related to the "replication crisis" is absurd. True breakthroughs get replicated quite quickly due to the excitement and interest they generate, and I feel fairly certain that Nobels and Laskers are given to people who have done a great job in pursuing reproducible science.
51
The point of the prize is to appropriate the genius of the winner for the institution bestowung the prize. We confuse which way the acclaim is flowing. Its no surprise that prizegranters want to legitimize their "award" by giving it to the already famous
I see your point, but the real problem is that scientific research in the United States is grossly, insanely underfunded. Of all the shortsighted things that our shortsighted leaders do, the catastrophic decision to starve research is the most destructive to our nation.
110
The money is going to the under taxed top 1% and Amer-uhcans evidently want it that way because they believe that thems as got deserve even more.
Very good points. The same problem occurs in grant funding. In the 1970's when I began research, public support for universities was strong and all faculty had good base funding that allowed a wide range of research. Many of these projects were slow and tedious work but the researcher knew they had potential value even if no one else could see it.
But now research is driven by limited grant funding programs which try to pick a tiny fraction of winners by committee. Interestingly, my research that has had the greatest impacts came from 3 projects of more than 30 years each for which I could never obtain grants (though ironically, those who use these findings are getting grants now).
But now research is driven by limited grant funding programs which try to pick a tiny fraction of winners by committee. Interestingly, my research that has had the greatest impacts came from 3 projects of more than 30 years each for which I could never obtain grants (though ironically, those who use these findings are getting grants now).
4
Well said! Prizes are part of the "star system" mentality. But in science, we don't need a handful of superstars, we need thousands of careful, competent, and creative scientists to push against the unknown along millions of lines of research.
This goes beyond science. We have a similar need in the humanities to have scholars who are deeply familiar with every culture and era of history. The need is not purely intellectual: Would we have wasted so much money and so many lives in Iraq if we had had more scholars familiar with the vast array of tribes and traditions there? Ditto Afghanistan, Syria, Libya....
This goes beyond science. We have a similar need in the humanities to have scholars who are deeply familiar with every culture and era of history. The need is not purely intellectual: Would we have wasted so much money and so many lives in Iraq if we had had more scholars familiar with the vast array of tribes and traditions there? Ditto Afghanistan, Syria, Libya....
2
Science is not supposed to be a democracy and means-testing is not in the nature of scientists. Not familiar with Dr. Allison's work, I nevertheless doubt that you'd have to credit his observations and conclusions to the pre-DNA era, I'd definatley put the cut-off some time after Archimedes. The person who puts it together should get the prize. There's still a little intellect involved, you know, even in Biology. Prizes do not fund a career by themselves and even a Nobelprize will be less than the yearly salary of a CEO of a Pharma company. Competitive grants do the actual career funding. And therein lies the much bigger problem for Science - elderly and well connected scientists and their circle of friends in the committees who fund what was hot 20 years ago and what won't shake up the prevailing narratives. That's why we still haven't found out what about 40% of our genes are doing but have an enormous network of interactions with for example p53 - thousands of publications on only one gene. These 40% hide a lot of functions that may lead to new prizes. I'd say worry about the facts (and how to get them) and the story and the prizes will come (or not). How to reform academic research would be quite another, multifaceted story.
3
It's an old custom. Them that has, gets.
1
As in a pyramidal power structure the bottom loses visibility with a rise in top, so is perhaps true of the scientific establishment that has grown taller and more powerful over the years.
1
How about FUNDING science?
... just as a minimum?
I know three different scientists, all exemplary, who are leaving their fields of research because they can't get grant money.
Not because their research isn't valuable - in every case, it is - but because we have successfully defunded basic research in academia.
America used to be a leader in R&D. No longer.
... just as a minimum?
I know three different scientists, all exemplary, who are leaving their fields of research because they can't get grant money.
Not because their research isn't valuable - in every case, it is - but because we have successfully defunded basic research in academia.
America used to be a leader in R&D. No longer.
144
I'd like to see those statistics Maybe corporate funding of research might be down, but universities implicitly and explicitly fund research more than teaching.
1
My husband has to spend enormous amounts of his time writing grant proposals. Whether they are funded or not has a lot to do with which political party controls Congress and the committees who disperse funds. In times when Republicans dominate, our income goes down and he has to scramble or add extra teaching (this is at the university level). Surprise, surprise, his area of research is related to climate change.
1
According Robert Merton, one of science's most basic norms is disinterestedness. As public funds dry up, that disinterestedness is now for sale to the highest bidder -- all in the name of doing "science."