Logical Biology 5(4): 279-286, 2005
http://logibio.com
© Truthfinding Cyberpress
SCIENTIFIC AWARD
ANALYSIS AND REPORT
105 Years of Nobel Prizes in Physiology/Medicine:
Basic Facts and Key Statistics
Shi V. Liu
Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
(Received 2005-07-15; revised 2005-09-25, accepted 2005-10-01)
(Published online 2005-10-02)
HIGHLIGHT
Since the first award in 1901, there have been 95 annual awards given to 182
individuals making important discoveries in physiology or medicine. As the first
part of a series of examination and analysis of Nobel Prizes in Medicine or
Physiology, the basic facts and some key statistics about the 95 awards and the 182
laureates are presented here.
KEY WORDS
Scientific award, Nobel Prize, Physiology, Medicine, Pioneering discovery
1. Introduction
Before his death Alfred Nobel gave his final will of establishing prizes for discoveries or
outstanding work made in five areas. Physiology or medicine is one of the original five
“parts” for such Prizes. “The domain of physiology or medicine” of Nobel’s will was
understood to encompass the theoretical as well as practical medical sciences.
Nobel Prizes is no doubt the most prestigious awards for scientific research. The
annual awarding events capture the attention of career scientists as well as public laymen.
Once crowned with such an honor Nobel laureates became instant celebrities and their
work became even more appreciated.
Numerous papers and books have been written about the individual Nobel Prizes and
their winners. However, it is rare to see collective presentation and systematic analysis of
Nobel Prizes, especially over a large duration of time span. However, such collection
and analysis would be valuable to observe the general features of the works and laureates
Liu
105 YEARS OF NOBEL PRIZE
280
awarded with the Nobel Prize. It also serves as a yardstick to measure the major
scientific advancement. In this communication, I have compiled a comprehensive
database of all Nobel Prizes in physiology or medicine over its entire 105-years of
history. Some basic facts and essential statistics are presented here as the first part of a
series of articles on this topic.
2. The age profiles of the winners
The ages of the 182 Nobel Prize winners at their time of winning the prizes, receiving the
highest degrees (usually means PhD or a doctorate degree), and making the discoveries
are presented in Fig. 1. The time span between making the discoveries and receiving the
prizes for each winner is presented in Fig. 2. The basic statistics are presented in Table 1.
From these presentations, it is clear that most winners earned their highest degrees at the
age around 26 years old, making their discoveries around 39 years old, and collect the
Nobel Prize around 56 years old. The average time interval between earning the degrees
and receiving the prizes is about 30 years. The average time interval between making the
discoveries and receiving the prizes is about 17 years.
Some noticeable extremes are seen as the maximums and the minimums in Table 1.
The youngest and the oldest age for winning a Nobel Prize winner in
physiology/medicine are 32 and 87 years, respectively. The youngest and the oldest ages
at making discoveries are 21 and 64 years, respectively. The shortest and the longest time
span between making the discovery and receiving the prize are 1 year and 55 years,
respectively.
Because it is not so obvious to see the general trends over time in the plots of
individual ages, a decade-level basic statistical analysis was performed and the results are
presented in Fig. 3. From this analysis, it is apparent that the minimum age for receiving
a Nobel Prize in physiology/medicine has a consistent increasing trend since 1950s. This
increase was not matched by the level of increase in the minimum age for making the
discovery. As to the degree-earning process, it appears that there was the least change in
the entire century.
The increased minimum age for receiving the Nobel Prize was well correlated with
the increasing time span between making the discovery and receiving the prize,
especially in the recent half of the century (Fig. 2). In a previous analysis over this half
century alone, this feature was already noticed. A conclusion was reached that this really
reflected a lost generation in winning the Nobel Prizes (Logical Biology 5: 200-202,
2005).
Logical Biology 5 (3): 279-286, 2005 (http://logibio.com)
©Truthfinding Cyberpress
Liu
105 YEARS OF NOBEL PRIZE
281
Fig. 1. The individual ages of Nobel Prize winners in physiology or medicine at their
receiving of award, completion of highest degree, and making the discovery.
Logical Biology 5 (3): 279-286, 2005 (http://logibio.com)
©Truthfinding Cyberpress
Liu
105 YEARS OF NOBEL PRIZE
282
Fig. 2. Time span between making the discovery and collecting the Nobel Prize
physiology or medicine.
Table 1. Basic statistics of Nobel Prize winners for Physiology/Medicine in past 105
years *.
1901-2004
AVG
Medium
Mode
Max
Min
Std
Age at
receiving
highest
degree
26.80
26
24
45
17
4.06
Age at
making
discovery
Age at
winning
prize
39.20
39
40
64
21
7.67
56.82
56
55
87
32
11.17
Time span between
receiving last degree
and winning
prize
30.03
29
27
63
1
11.71
Time span between
making discovery
and winning
prize
17.63
15
13
55
1
10.34
*All 182 winners were included in the above calculations.
Logical Biology 5 (3): 279-286, 2005 (http://logibio.com)
©Truthfinding Cyberpress
Liu
105 YEARS OF NOBEL PRIZE
283
Fig. 3. Decade statistics of Nobel Prize winners in physiology or medicine on their ages
at receiving the awards, completing their highest degrees, and making the discoveries.
Logical Biology 5 (3): 279-286, 2005 (http://logibio.com)
©Truthfinding Cyberpress
Liu
105 YEARS OF NOBEL PRIZE
284
3. The areas of the winning works
Although Nobel Prize committee does not limit what areas and topics are eligible or more
worthy of consideration, it appears that some areas and topics were heavily represented
than others in the past 105-year history of Nobel Prize in physiology/medicine. There
were also some temporal trend in the changing of areas and topics. For examples,
discoveries in identifying infectious agents, understanding and treating infectious
diseases won many of the early prizes (Table 2). Identifying key nutrients and using
them for treating nutrient-deficient disorders also claimed many of the prizes in the first
half century.
Table 2. Areas and topics for past Nobel Prizes in physiology/medicine.
General areas
Specific topics (award year)
Infectious
agents, Diphtheria (1901), malaria (1902), lupus vulgaris (1903),
disease and treatment
tuberculosis (1905), protozoa (1907), typhus (1928), yellow
fever (1951), cochlea (1961), dissemination (1976), prions
(1997)
Surgery
Vascular suture (1912), leucotomy (1949), organ
transplantation (1990)
Medicine,
nutrition, Vitamin (1929), anemia therapy (1934), vitamin C (1937),
poisons
antibacterial prontosil (1939), vitamin K (1943), penicillin
(1945), DDT (1948), streptomycin (1952), synthetic inhibitors
(1957), prostaglandins (1982)
Methods, technology Electrocardiogram (1924), radioimmuno assay (1977), CT
and instrumentation
(1979), MRI (2003)
Immunity
Immunity (1908, 1919), anaphylaxis (1913),
malaria
inoculation (1927), immunological tolerance (1960), cell
surface antigen (1980), antibody diversity (1987), cellmediated immunity (1996)
Physiology
Digestion (1904), respiration (1922), muscle heat production
(1922), regulation of respiration (1938), heart catheterization
(1956)
Biochemistry/
Respiratory enzyme (1931), catalytic conversion of glycogen
metabolism
(1947), co-enzyme A, citric acid cycle (1953), oxidation
enzyme (1955), cholesterol and fatty acid metabolism (1964)
cholesterol metabolism (1985), protein phosphorylation
(1992), G-proteins (1994)
Hormone system
Thyroid gland (1909), insulin (1923), hormone of anterior
ٛ pituitary lobe (1947), adrenal cortex (1950), action of
hormone (1971), monoclonal antibody (1984)
Circulation system and Capillary regulation (1920), blood group (1930)
blood
Nervous system
Structure (1906), junctions of neurons (1932), chemical
transmission (1936), single nerve fiber (1944), interbrain
cooperation (1949), ionic mechanisms (1963), Humoral
Logical Biology 5 (3): 279-286, 2005 (http://logibio.com)
©Truthfinding Cyberpress
Liu
105 YEARS OF NOBEL PRIZE
285
transmitter (1970), peptide hormone in brain (1977), cerebral
functional specialization (1981), nitric oxide signaling (1998),
signal transduction (2000)
Vision,
hearing, Dioptrics (1911), vestibular apparatus (1914), visual processes
smelling
(1967), information process (1981), odorant receptors in
olfactory system (2004)
Cancer/tumor/
Carcinoma (1926), mutation (1946), prostatic cancer and
oncogenesis
tumor-inducing virus (1966), oncogene (1989)
Virus and virology
Cultivation (1954), virus synthesis (1965), replication
mechanism (1969), interaction between tumor virus and
genetic material (1975)
Heredity/genetics
Chromosome (1933), genetic recombination (1958),
RNA/DNA synthesis (1959), DNA structure (1962), genetic
code and protein synthesis (1968), restriction enzyme (1978),
mobile genetic element (1983), drug development principles
(1988), split genes (1993)
Cell and cell cycle
Cell chemistry (1910), structure (1974), growth factor (1986),
ion channels (1991), protein localization (1999), key regulator
of cell cycle (2001),
Development biology
Organizer effect in embryo (1935), genetic control in early
embryonic development (1995), organ development and
programmed cell death (2002)
The changing in the areas and topics also reflected the general progress in scientific
research as our understanding of life went deeper and deeper from phenotypic physiology
and biochemistry to genetic cell biology and molecular biology. However, several
systems seemed maintained sustained interests of the Nobel Prize committee. For
example, once a while, progresses made in understanding immunity were picked up for
awarding. So was the advance in understanding and treating cancers. Something that
touched the nerves, released some hormones, or affected some senses (vision, hearing or
smelling) also seemed to be able to push the “right” buttons. Heredity, genetics,
molecular biology and related virology appeared to be the heart of biology that harvested
a significant Nobel Prizes in the recent half century. Cell biology and developmental
biology appeared to be the home places for integrating biological information at the two
different levels and appeared to be the current focus as the molecular era of biology is
being replaced with the systematic (cellular or organismal) biology.
4. Conclusions
The examination of the past 105 years of Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine
revealed some basic age profiles for the Nobel Prize winners and some heavily
represented areas of researches. The century long data showed that there was not much
difference in terms of when the winners finished their education and start working on the
discovery. However, there was apparently some increase in the minimal age to be
awarded with a Nobel Prize. This increased time span between making discovery and
collecting award was most obvious for the recent half of the century. This situation may
Logical Biology 5 (3): 279-286, 2005 (http://logibio.com)
©Truthfinding Cyberpress
Liu
105 YEARS OF NOBEL PRIZE
286
indicate the longer time required to assessing the value of the discoveries or the lack of
better discoveries in recent time over the past time. If this latter situation is true, then it
really reveals a very significant problem for our modern research system.
The century-long view of Nobel Prize in physiology/medicine also revealed two
“golden valleys” for young scientists to shine. One was in the 1920s where the youngest
winner (32 years old when won the prize) and the shortest time-span between discovery
and award (less than 2 years) was seen. The other was around 1960s where young
scientists dominated the discoveries related with genetic materials and mechanisms.
However, these good days for young scientists seemed gone. The question for all of us is
how could we get it back?
Logical Biology 5 (3): 279-286, 2005 (http://logibio.com)
©Truthfinding Cyberpress