Euro Nobels

This year Nobel prizes, to date, are a sweep for Europe.
Is this a trend, or a fluke?



Before world war 2, Europe dominated Nobel prize winnings, in the sciences and medicine, after the second world war, the US rapdily developed dominance, partly by virtue of having brought over a lot of the best European scientists - the US paid better, had more and more stable research funding, and had much better research facilities.
List of Nobel prize winners by nationality - note that a lot of the winners post-WWII lived in the US at the time they won the prize. eg in the 70s, 6 out of 20 US winners in the sciences were foreign, as were 13 out of 29 in the 80s (I counted foreign scientists but all Nobels - so the eco/peace/lit Nobels are in the total but the foreign recipients that were in the US at time of winning are not in the list of foreigners).
Things get complicated - eg Sydney Brenner is a South African, educated in the UK and had positions in the UK and US when he won the prize. You win a prize, everyone wants a piece of you. Interestingly, a quick scan suggests the UK, of all the other countries, is the only one with comparable fraction of foreign nationals winning for work done in the UK.

It took Europe 20-40 years to recover from the war, but starting in the 60s research was built back up to serious levels and is now, in my judgement, broadly on par with the US - in some areas Europe is ahead, in some areas the US is ahead.
This is partly seen in a reverse brain drain that I have argued is slowly developing.
That there was a brain drain from Europe to the US for decades in unarguable - I myself came to the US in part because conditions for research were better, there was simply more funding and more flexibility back when I were a lad.
I do not know that is the case any more.
The rest of the world is also catching up, and Asia will have a serious presence starting a few years ago.
We must remember that, contrary to Alfred's original intention, the prize is a lagging indicator, often the award lags the research by 20-40 years.

So, let's take a look at this year:
in Medicine we had two Brits and an Italian for stem cells - two of them are in the US, at Utah and UNC, one is at Cardiff.
Capecchi came to the US after the war as a child, and did all his work in the US; Smithies did his DPhil at Oxford post-war and then went to the US for a postdoc and stayed; Evans is the youngest, PhD from UCL in the 60s and he stayed in the UK.
Work was done in the 80s, when resources in the US were still clearly superior.

For physics, Fert and Grünberg are post-war students, PhD in the 60s, stayed in their home country, research done in the 80s.

In chemistry, Ertl has the same pattern. PhD in 60s, stayed at home for research.

It is too soon to call it a trend, the US will win plenty more Nobels, but it won't have the dominance it had in the 80s and 90s.
Interestingly, per capita the US doesn't look so hot. Even in the low decades, the UK and Netherlands have comparable per capita number of winners - overall in Europe the per capita win rate is lower, but post war that is driven by the big dip in per capita winners for Germany and France and Eastern Europe.
Scandinavia always had anomalously high per capita win rates, which may be a proximity effect, certainly it was in the early decades.

Interesting times.

PS: I should mention two other issues - large chunks of Europe were essentially out of the running for several decades, France and west Germany bounced back relatively quickly, but eastern Europe did not. Italy was also relatively unproductive, they lost a lot of their pre-war generation of scientists and post-war their science budget was poor and there were institutional problems - not enough openness and meritocracy within the universities and research institutions; Spain was worse, during Franco's era research suffered badly, and they are just now really recovering (but they really are, some excellent Spanish science being done now, with aggressive recruitment of Spanish expats).
Further, the EU has got into the fundamental research business in a serious way, and they provide better merit awards, more incentives for junior faculty, more mobility and more stable long term funding. It also makes it harder for US institutions to recruit future Nobel prize winners, which is a game they have played a lot, as noted in the comments.

All of this serves to make it likely that Europe will be, and remain, competitive on per capita or per economic size basis for research in the current era. The US is just now reacting to this, and both the US and Europe are starting to realise the East Asia is entering scientific research as a serious competitor.
All of this will reduce the US share of the Nobels compared to their peak, and I would not be surprised to see a clean sweep for Asia some year, maybe 20-30 years from now.

Tags

More like this

[Aufmerksamkeit! Begrüßen Sie deutsche Freunde und Leser des Focus Wissenschafts-Community. Glückwünsche zu Profs Ertl und Grünberg auf dieser enormen Ehre!] I'm intentionally being dramatic but an interesting discussion emerged in the comment thread of my post on the work of Germany's Gerhard Ertl…
I somehow managed to lose track of time for a bit, and forgot that it was Nobel season until I saw this morning's announcement that the 2007 Nobel Prize in Medicine hase just been announced, going to Mario R. Capecchi, Sir Martin J. Evans, and Oliver Smithies, for their discoveries of principles…
We've got a question going around: it's been a good year for Europe in the Nobel Prizes, so what does it mean for American science? Are we slipping? Is there a European bias? I'm going to go way out here on a limb and say the obvious: it means nothing at all. Winning a Nobel does have a political…
The winners of the 2007 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine were announced this morning. The prize went to Mario R. Capecchi (University of Utah), Martin J. Evans (Cardiff University), and Oliver Smithies (UNC), all for their work contributing to knockout (and knock-in) mice becoming one of the…

I cannot think that this would be anything but good.

The share of the world's GDP made up by the US has been shrinking, for example. That alone will mean that more Nobels will come out of places like Asia and Europe.

By Brad Holden (not verified) on 11 Oct 2007 #permalink

I wonder have the Swedish Academy been reading "The Republican War on Science"? It is not unknown for the prize-givers to make a political statement.

Along with some other signs (European schoools are not arguing about what to teach in biology class), it is probably just an indicator of a deeper trend.

If the Peace prize is to include a "political" message (i.e. confer stature and authority and its recipient), then either the IPCC or Al Gore are front-runners. Giving the prize to Gore might also be a negative way of commenting on Bush's policies.

However, there is a dark horse: the Finnish diplomat Ahtisaari, who might benefit from a "proximity effect".

"note that a lot of the winners post-WWII lived in the US at the time they won the prize"

and

"but the foreign recipients that were in the US at time of winning are not in the list of foreigners"

This is highly problematic for reasons you cite yourself:
"We must remember that, contrary to Alfred's original intention, the prize is a lagging indicator, often the award lags the research by 20-40 years."

This also means that a researcher might have done groundbreaking research in Europe, which aroused interest in his person in the US, resulting in offers too good to refuse -then he gets the Nobel prize when he is already in the US, but the work it is given for was done in Europe.

In any case, now that a former vice president of the US was awarded the Nobel peace prize, the US can't complain ;)

Trend? Just last year, there was a sweep by Americans (except for Literature and Peace). It could be argued that the rest of the world is catching up US in science, but the Nobel prizes awarded for very selective works done many years ago are unlikely to be a good indicator of that.

In fact, am I too cynical to suspect that the Nobel committee wanted to balance it after giving too many prizes to US last year? It seems that many chemists are puzzled why Somorjai, an American, didn't share the chemistry prize. And the rest of the world, especially Asia, which doesn't have quite the political muscle could be easily left out of the power game between US and Europe.

In any case, we should always keep in mind that the Nobel prize is not the ultimate arbiter of science.