It's no secret that I think the Nobel prizes misses the mark. I first wrote about it in 2015 in the New York Times when I was in Oregon and people thought Brian Druker would win that year (more on that). But Optogenetics just makes my point(s) all the better.
Before I work up to to my main thesis let's agree on a few things/ subtheses.
Everyone agrees some people are snubbed
First, consider yesterday's Nobel. Everyone agrees that some people were left out who should have been included. Ed Boyden. Feng Zhang (snubbed also for crispr). The Wayne State University professor who actually did everything first who wasn't well published because he was at a second tier school. I forget his name—that’s how bad he was screwed over. Etc etc. The list goes on and on. I am even snubbing many of those who were snubbed yesterday. Sorry about that. But I made my point. Have to move on.
Did Optogenetics save lives? (Aka who decides which discoveries are great?)
Optogenetics is cool— very interesting biology— and might someday save lives, but so far hasn't lead to any commercially approved products. (Am I wrong?). GLP-1s saved a lot of lives and might win in the future. TKIs saved many lives but probably Brian Druker will never win, having missed his window (aka annoyed someone in Stockholm). Jim Alison won for CTLA-4 but that is a way worse target than PD-1. All recent winners did cool science (not true historically—the lobotomy dude was crazy) but not all of it has equally improved the human condition. Don't @ me. It's true. My point is just which discoveries matter is ultimately subjective.
If you deleted all yesterday's winners and all those who were snubbed, would Optogenetics have been discovered? If so when?
If you deleted the top 30 people who worked on optog—- Optogenetics would still have been discovered (+ or -) 5 years. If you deleted Brian Druker, Lydon, Sawyers, CML would still be drugged (+/-) 3 years. If you deleted Doudna/ Charpentier, Crispr would still be a thing +/- 0 years.
I think the lay person doesn't realize that science is often a forced move. Because of advances in computer chips, and a theory of neutral networks, it is imminent that someone makes an LLM, Dario and Sam did, and so did Mark and Sundar, and China. Etc etc.
Similarly a lot of science is just around the corner whether by the winners or someone else. This threatens the hero narrative of science but is totally logical that technology builds on each other.
Nobel prizes aren't like being the first to climb Everest, they are like being the first to sleep under this tree.
Edmund H and tenzig norgay (snubbed) were the first to summit Everest. They had a team helping them, but I can't remember their names… sorry Wayne State professor and Ed Boyden. Walter Bonati never got credit for K2.
But everyone knows what a mountain is. And it was known that Everest was the tallest. Science is often more unpredictable. The Nobel isn't like being the first to top Everest, it is like being the first to sleep under this tree. Not that tree.
Imagine I find an oak tree in California and said: who was the first to sleep under this tree?
Well in 1883, 17 people slept under the tree but 2 didn't get their legs fully under. So Ed Boyden and the Wayne State professor don't win the prize.
The reason the tree analogy is better is often in science we don't know what is going to be the useful discovery when it is first made. Cripr immediately had implications but this wasn't true of all prizes. For others the importance took decades to realize. Ironically crispr work in the 80s fits this bill. Some discovered were like Everest (watson and crick) but others were like this Oak tree.
Nobel winners aren't the smartest or best they were smart and also lucky
Not only were they lucky not to be snubbed, they were also lucky to sleep under the right tree. Many great scientists never slept under that Oak. But lots of scientists sleep under trees.
Nobel prizes reflect poor scientific understanding
Sometimes I see a smart person in medicine saying something embarrassing. Our observational study shows that flu shots sare associated with less Alzheimers — ergo flu shots slow Alzheimers! (Not healthy user bias). I ask myself, how does a scientist not know this? How can they make this mistake?. Then I realize you can be a scientist with a poor grasp of the history and implications of science. Dare I say belief in Nobel prizes is the same thing. It shows someone who doesn't understand the retrospective nature of how importance is assigned (it's a tree not Everest), the luck to sleep under it, the luck not to be snubbed (your head wasn't under), and that discovery is not the measure of being a good scientist— which is about a process and not an outcome, which is about a lifetime of work, and not 2-3 years of effort (in your early career)
Should we ban Nobel prizes?
No of course not, but we should treat them the same way we treat that observational study linking the flu shot to Alzheimers. With a grain of salt.
I look forward to your angry comments.
PS. Read my nytimes essay. I said this a decade ago. Sadly Brian probably will never win. He probably angered the wrong voting person or they think his work is too clinical (another irony). Silly Nobel committee.
Academic politics are the lowest kind bc the stakes are so low.
Reformed scientist here; this article is absolutely on the button. Needed to be said -- well done.
This email brought to mind Linus Pauling....who won a Nobel prize... twice. Double luck? And if I remember correctly, he was eventually thrown under the bus when he started using vitc and lysine for heart health issues.