杏吧原创

LAST year, a group of 10 scientists brought together by New 杏吧原创 wrote an open letter to the Nobel Foundation calling for an overhaul of the Nobel prizes. The group suggested that to keep the Nobels relevant, the foundation should introduce prizes for the environment and public health, and open them to institutions as well as individuals. It also suggested reforming the existing physiology or medicine prize to recognise contributions from across the life sciences, especially neuroscience and genetics.

The letter was taken very seriously. Marcus Storch, chairman of the board of the Nobel Foundation, discussed it in his in Stockholm.

Michael Sohlman, executive director of the Nobel Foundation, wrote to the letter鈥檚 signatories to explain why the foundation had decided to reject the group鈥檚 suggestions.

We can now publish his in full.

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter suggesting several new Nobel prizes. First we note with satisfaction the high esteem in which you hold the work of the Nobel committees in the 鈥淣obelian鈥� disciplines over the past 108 years.

Your suggestion to introduce a new Nobel prize, however, does not pass the 鈥淥ccam鈥檚 razor鈥� of our statutes, which are based on the last will of Alfred Nobel in which he prescribed the five areas which he wanted to be covered by the prize. It is true that in 1968 the Sveriges Riksbank prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel 鈥� not a Nobel prize sensu stricto 鈥� was adopted into the 鈥渇amily鈥� and the procedures underpinning it are similar to those of the other scientific prizes. The board of directors of the Nobel Foundation later decided not to accept any further additions.

But even if one would, hypothetically, put these formal considerations aside, we take the liberty to disagree with your assessment of the flexibility, or lack of it, that the Nobel committees show in relation to the continuous progress in science.

You are perfectly right that Alfred Nobel could not foresee climate change or HIV/AIDS. In both areas, however, Nobel prizes have been awarded (Crutzen, Molina, Rowland, chemistry 1995; Maathai, peace 2004; Gore and IPCC, peace 2007; Barr茅-Sinoussi and Montagnier, physiology or medicine 2008).

Neuroscience, contrary to what seems to be the assumption in your letter, is hardly neglected: in the past 30 years, 11 neuroscientists were awarded the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine (Sperry, Hubel, Wiesel, Neher, Sakmann, Prusiner, Carlsson, Greengard, Kandel, Axel, Buck) and one received a Nobel prize in chemistry with important implications for neuroscience (MacKinnon). Genetics, another area you proposed for a new Nobel prize, has also been recognised several times in recent years (eight Nobel prizes in physiology or medicine, 17 laureates in the past 30 years). And there has been no prerequisite that the work is done in humans. Research performed on yeast, flies and other organisms has been recognised when it has proved to have general relevance.

As for awards to institutions, our statues include that alternative, but until now only the Norwegian Nobel committee [which awards the peace prize] has been using that possibility, not the other committees. One explanation is probably the criteria set in Nobel鈥檚 will. For the scientific disciplines it is 鈥渄iscovery or invention鈥� for physics, 鈥渄iscovery or improvement鈥� for chemistry and 鈥渄iscovery鈥� for physiology or medicine.

For literature and peace, the corresponding words are 鈥渙utstanding work鈥� and 鈥渂est work鈥�, respectively. It seems the scientific-prize awarders have the conviction, which was Nobel鈥檚, that inventions and discoveries are made by creative individuals, not by institutions. Without predicting the future, we think the continuous interpretation of Nobel鈥檚 will by the committees has been reasonably successful up till now in tracing major developments of modern civilisation.

鈥淚t was Nobel鈥檚 conviction that discoveries are made by creative individuals, not by institutions鈥�