Science by Nobel committee: decision making and norms of scientific practice in the early physics and chemistry prizes

Abstract

This paper examines the early years of decision making in the award of the Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry, and shows how the prize became a tool in the boundary work which upheld the social demarcations between scientists and inventors, as well as promoting a particular normative view of individual scientific achievement. The Nobel committees were charged with rewarding scientific achievements that benefited humankind: their interpretation of that criterion, however, turned in the first instance on their assessment of the groundbreaking nature of the ‘science’, with the applied or practical ‘benefits’ of that discovery being treated as very much secondary factors in the award. Through an interrogation of the reports sent by the committees to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, this paper shows how committee members depended on a notion of ‘post-dated utilitarianism’ in reconciling potential tension between rewarding basic and applied science, and explores the ways in which the annual prize both shaped, and was shaped by, media perceptions of scientific virtue.

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine and chemistry

“…Even though the Nobel committees' mandate is to honor scientific achievements for the benefit of humankind, their interpretation of this criterion was primarily based on their assessment of the groundbreaking nature of the science, while the applied or practical utility of this discovery or bibliometric values such as number of publications, citations, or H-index assessed in the current study are at best secondary factors when awarding the prize (Källstrand 2022). In fact, some Nobel Prize laureates (e.g., 17, 18, 23, 26, 40) have only few publications or no publications.…”

On the nonexistent Nobel Prizes for two pioneers of modern physical organic chemistry: Sir Christopher K. Ingold and Saul Winstein†

“…The Nobel Prize Nomination Archive incorporates a 50-year information blackout and was first made available in 1974, 42 though little used until much more recently. 5,[43][44][45][46] Speculations as to why Ingold was never selected for the NPch by Nobelist Derek H. R. Barton 24,47 (NP 1969) and others were often made in the absence of any idea as to the enormous volume of Ingold's Ingold's nomination chronology continued into the year after he died; in fact, it accelerated in his later years (Figure 5). That Ingold received 16 nominations in 1969, the year before he died, was certainly a message delivered to the Academy-a message that was ignored.…”

“…The Nobel Prize Nomination Archive incorporates a 50‐year information blackout and was first made available in 1974, 42 though little used until much more recently 5,43–46 . Speculations as to why Ingold was never selected for the NPch by Nobelist Derek H. R. Barton 24,47 (NP 1969) and others were often made in the absence of any idea as to the enormous volume of Ingold's nominations.…”