Prizes, Unfairness, and Life

Venki Ramakrishnan, in his very well written book, Gene Machine, talks about prizes, rewards and recognition at one point:

“(The Nobel Prize) has become deeply embedded in popular culture, representing not only having done something great but actually being great.”

But for most scientists, “fantasies take a backseat to reality”. And yet:

“Nevertheless, scientists are only human… The corruption (of awards) starts early, with small prizes throughout our education, then prestigious fellowships, then early career under-forty prizes.”

 

With so many prizes, one might think that these prizes are “all independent” and would “recognize many different scientists and discoveries”. But in reality:

“Often one bold committee makes the first award in a new field, and then other prize committees play it safe by following suit. This can quickly have a snowballing effect, with the result that the same luminaries pick up lots of awards.”

Worse:

“Instead of differentiating themselves from the Nobel Prize and complementing it, many of these committees measure their success by how many of their awardees go on to win the Nobel Prize.”

 

So why is the Nobel the pinnacle of prizes?

“The timing of the first Nobel Prizes in 1901 was particularly propitious. Its inception coincided with the kind of revolution in science that happens only once every few centuries (quantum mechanics and relativity)… The discovery of genes and the inner structures of the cell revolutionized biology. Many of the early recipients of the Nobel Prize, like Planck, Einstein, Curie, Dirac, Rutherford and Morgan, were giants who will be remembered forever… combined with the staggering sum of money.”

 

Sure, there were glaring omissions (like not giving Mendeleev the award for the Periodic Table), and a few glaring commissions for things that turned out to be wrong! And in other more subjective fields, the award is heavily criticized:

-       Literature: “going to obscure, unreadable writers” but not to Twain, Tolstoy, Joyce or Graham Greene;

-        Peace: Given to Arafat and Kissinger but not to Gandhi.

-       Economics: Often goes to economists with “different, and to an outside, contradictory views of their field”. The 2013 Prize, for example, was shared by two guys, which was like “Darwin and Lamarck sharing a prize for evolution”.

And then there are the “arbitrary rules”:

-       No more than three recipients: “In 1901, scientists worked in relative isolation” but today “it is not always clear whether the original idea or some later contribution was the truly groundbreaking advance”.

 

But regardless of the criticism, in public perception, winning the Nobel puts one in the “pantheon of the greats”. Unfortunately, after winning the prize comes a disease called “post-Nobelitis”:

“Suddenly scientists are thrust into the limelight and bask in the public admiration that goes with it. They are asked for their opinion on everything under the sun, regardless of their own expertise, and it soon goes to their head.”

 

So are prizes a good thing or not?

“They may be good for science, but they are not so great for scientists. They distort their behavior and exacerbate their competitive streak, creating a lot of unhappiness.”

On the other hand:

“All cultures want their heroes and role models, so maybe prizes are a reflection of some deep-seated aspect of human nature and are not going to go away. Their intrinsic unfairness may simply be another manifestation of the fact that life is unfair.”