What do the 2024 Nobel prizes tell us about human society?

The 2024 science Nobel prizes (in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine, and economics) have been won by 10 scientists and academics from just three countries – the United States, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

The prizewinners’ current affiliations to academia and-or industry are also limited to a largely similar list of just three countries – the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

As the Nobels are the world’s most prestigious recognition of scientific achievement, they have important lessons for universities worldwide, and it is worth looking at the results and the background in terms of who won (and their career trajectories) and what they won for.

This year, we highlight a few significant ‘takeaways’: (i) the continued importance of basic research and its influence on fundamental change in science, business and society; (ii) the prevalence of the AI wave in the Nobels and its potential contributions from basic science to applied innovation, among other controversies; (iii) the complete male domination of the 2024 awards; and (iv) a monopoly by top universities in the US and the UK in both the training and location of Nobelists – and this year with affiliation to some prominent private sector companies.

As noted in previous editions of our annual Nobel analysis (2021, 2022 and 2023), perhaps what really stands out in the awarding of Nobel prizes is the recognition of the great value and contribution of the lifework of scientists involved in basic research.

At a time when the support (financially and structurally) for basic research in both the sciences and the arts, within universities and more broadly in society, is under threat, the Nobels focus on fundamental science as a central investment for the future of human society.

Controversies

Controversies abound in this year’s Nobels. Echoing the wider cultural moment, the Nobel authorities seem to have decided that AI is the real winner this year – not only the direct application of AI-modelling to predict protein structures that led to prizes for two out of three awardees in chemistry, but also research into building the structural foundations for machine learning in the physics prize.

Some question the ethics behind a chemistry prize given based on an AI-model trained on the years of research of many other scientists.

Inequality issues are once again at the heart of the economics prize, this year on the role of institutions in economic development.

The 2023 Nobel also focused on inequality – in that case, on labour outcomes for women, and was won by Claudia Goldin at Harvard University.

Notably, reactions to this year’s economics award include academic criticisms of the prize-winning work referencing a Western bias when legitimising effective institutions and the lack of a normative analysis of the costs of the brutality inherent in colonialism.

Male domination

All the science prizes were given to male awardees this year. This is unsurprising on the one hand, as analysis of the prizes has shown that there is significant underrepresentation in terms of gender and ethnicity in the Nobels – although there has been marginal improvement with 15 prizes awarded to women in physics, chemistry and physiology since 2000, while only 11 were awarded between 1900-2000.

However, on the other hand, there was some rankling around this year’s physiology or medicine prize as the first author of the paper cited by the Nobel committee was the wife of one of the winners (as tweeted by the Nobel X account).

This points to some of the structural challenges of the statutes and nomination process of the Nobel prize itself, which may only be shared by up to three people, as well as the highly complex and often disputed arranging of article authorship, in addition to the noted gender imbalance in the selection committees drawn from the fellows of the Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Western domination

Even more than in some recent years, top universities in the Anglosphere dominate the Nobels. All of the 2024 winners received their PhDs from US or UK top-ranked universities – seven in the US and three in the UK. All but one Nobelist (Turkey) were born in the US or UK. All studied in the US or UK for their undergraduate degrees – with half British and half American – at respected institutions.

Their careers have been much more Anglocentric than some other Nobel cohorts. Only a few have spent time outside the Anglosphere – short stints in Denmark, Russia and France. Seven are based in the US – and four of them in the Boston area – two at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one at Harvard Medical School and one at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School.

Unusually for Nobelists, two are at Google DeepMind in the UK, although this increase in full-time or part-time private sector affiliations of prize winners underscores the likely consequences of multi-decade low funding of basic research within academia.

Structural strengths – and weaknesses

As we, and many others, have noted, there are obvious reasons for the continuing dominance of the Anglosphere in the Nobels – and nothing much has changed. The small group of top research-intensive universities, perhaps 100 in total and mostly recognised in the global rankings, are largely located in the Anglosphere or Western Europe.

Only 20 out of the top 100 in the current Shanghai Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU) are in Asia, and only eight in the top 50. Why?

These top institutions are able to attract the best talent globally by a combination of attractive salaries, brilliant colleagues, well-established laboratories, reasonable access to competitively awarded research funding and strong traditions of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It helps that they often operate in English, the global language of science.

The current attacks on universities in many countries by populist political parties or governments may, in time, weaken the academic system and reduce financial support. There is already evidence that this is happening in some countries.

Further, the commitment to basic ‘Nobel-producing’ research requires a commitment to science – something that is often anathema to populists. The appearance of the private sector as an employer of Nobel winners this year may portend future developments, although that kind of long-term commitment to basic science is unlikely.

What about Asia?

Much has been said about the rise of science in China and elsewhere in Asia. China has indeed spent billions improving its top universities and has impressive programmes to attract and support top scientists from abroad, especially from the Chinese diaspora.

This investment has reaped rewards. Since 2022, China has topped the charts of the Nature Index of top-cited research in the natural sciences and health.

Other countries in Asia, such as Japan and South Korea, have also massively invested in research, and have been listed in the top 10 of the Nature Index in recent years.

And yet, when it comes to the recognition of ‘truly innovative’ basic research of the sort that wins Nobels, China has not yet been successful – which may reflect the increasing ‘Nobel prize delay’
between research and award, from 14 years between 1901-1910 to 29 years between 2011-2019.

Furthermore, some analysts note that the organisation and politicisation of Chinese universities and science may hinder ‘Nobel-quality’ research. Thus, while Chinese scientists may be producing Nobel-quality research, it may not be recognised for some years yet.

India – the other emerging superpower – has vastly underinvested in research (though it is listed in the top 10 of the Nature Index), which may further delay a Nobel recognition for Indian scientists working in India.

‘Nobel gazing’

Unsurprisingly, like our addiction to university rankings in academia, there is a minor industry of ‘Nobel gazing’ and an entire discipline of scientometrics.

These endeavours are salient, as science and its assessment have become increasingly important for society.

As the necessity of time, funding and academic spaces committed to basic science is increasingly contested, with access to these opportunities becoming more and more elite – though critical to securing humanity’s future – the Nobel prizes give us universal pause to consider what we, as a human society, want to invest in.

In this way, understanding the nature of the prizes themselves, how they are awarded and the increasingly complex scientific systems from which they emerge is of great importance.

Philip G Altbach is professor emeritus and distinguished fellow at the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, United States (E-mail: [email protected]). Tessa DeLaquil is postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Education, University College Dublin, Ireland (E-mail: [email protected]).

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.