Is the Nobel Prize Broken?

⏱️ 17 min read              

It’s the most distinguished prize on Earth. It can define a legacy in seconds. But critics say the Nobel Prize is stuck in the past — overlooking collaboration, new fields, and entire groups of scientists — while the future of discovery looks nothing like the world it was designed for.

Let’s cut to the chase, the Nobel Prizes need a makeover.

The world’s most honored prize no longer reflects how science is done or what fields matter, and it has been notably biased against women. It’s time for reform. 

Welcome to That's Life, I Swear. This podcast is about life's happenings in this world that conjure up such words as intriguing, frightening, life-changing, inspiring, and more. I'm Rick Barron, your host. 

That said, here's the rest of this story :   

The Nobel Prizes: A Tradition Struggling to Evolve

Once a year, the Nobel Prize announcements are delivered to the world. Over an eight-day period in their customary marathon fashion, the awards for Physiology or Medicine begin on a Monday, Physics on Tuesday, Chemistry on Wednesday, Literature on Thursday, Peace on Friday, and Economics the following Monday. 

The majority of the winners receive the life-changing news through phone calls minutes before public announcements. Occasionally, miscommunications occur—as in 1987, when a Los Angeles carpet cleaner named Donald O. Cram received a call intended for UCLA chemist Donald J. Cram. The surprised tradesman told reporters, "Now, I do a good job on carpets, but this seemed a little excessive."

The Nobel Prizes have long maintained their traditions while resisting major changes. Historically, criticism focused on the secretive selection process. Nominations remain sealed for 50 years—and on controversial honorees, particularly in the peace and literature categories. The peace prize committee drew fire for repeatedly rejecting Mahatma Gandhi while honoring figures like Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat, and for selecting Barack Obama early in his presidency. The literature prize has recognized only three Americans in three decades, including Bob Dylan, whose 2016 award raised eyebrows and whose subsequent absence from the ceremony—citing a prior commitment—suggested the committee's publicity gamble had backfired.

As of late, criticism has shifted toward the science prizes, particularly the Physiology or Medicine Prize. A 2017 Atlantic article by Ed Yong called out the situation, in an article he wrote, titled "The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science." Ed stated that the core issue lies not with the selection committees' judgments but with the fundamental mismatch between modern scientific practice and the archaic rules established by Alfred Nobel over a century ago.

Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite, left his fortune to establish five annual prizes, which are:

1.      Chemistry

2.      Economics

3.      Literature

4.      Physics

5.      Physiology or Medicine

6.      Peace
Footnote here, the sixth category for Economics joined the list in 1968. 

Nobel’s motivations remain fuzzy. Some historians point to his genuine appreciation for arts and sciences, while others note that an 1888 obituary for his brother, Ludvig Nobel, published years before Alfred's 1896 death, mistakenly described Alfred as a "merchant of death." This error allegedly prompted Nobel to obsess over his reputation after his death, leading him to rewrite his will accordingly.

The original document specified that prize money be "divided into five equal parts" for "those who during the preceding year shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." 

The phrasing "whether he be Scandinavian or not" clearly assumed male recipients. Each category could have only one winner.

Since the first prizes in 1901, modest improvements have emerged. Today three nominees may now share each award, and prize-worthy contributions can occur at any point in recipients' careers rather than solely "during the preceding year." However, the committee has also imposed stricter rules, declaring that prizes cannot be awarded after a person's death or revoked.

The no-revocation policy has proven particularly contentious. While science prizes have gone to Nazis, racists, and misogynists whose discoveries nonetheless benefited humanity, the reverse scenario raises thornier questions. In 1949, Portuguese neurologist Antonio Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for introducing the lobotomy. His Nobel almost single-handedly legitimized this horrible, irreversible procedure, which 20,000 Americans—mostly in state asylums—underwent over the next four years. Periodic calls for revoking Moniz's prize continue to this day.

The science committees have consistently favored individuals over groups, reflecting Nobel's original preference for single winners per category. This made sense when scientists typically worked alone and luminaries like Louis Pasteur or Joseph Lister could achieve breakthroughs single-handedly. Times have changed dramatically, yet the rules—amended only to allow three annual recipients—still project a winner-take-all mentality in an increasingly collaborative scientific landscape.

The committee's preference for "original discoveries" over "practical applications" has compounded this problem. This attitude resulted in Jonas Salk, developer of the polio vaccine, being denied the Physiology or Medicine Prize. Recently discovered files reveal that Salk faced repeated nominations and rejections, with one juror insisting his work relied too heavily on others' building blocks and provided "nothing new." 

Guess we’re splitting hairs here.

Many scientists consider this a severe misreading. Salk's discovery not only saved countless children from paralysis and death but also proved that killed-virus vaccines could provide immunity equal to natural infection—something previously thought unlikely or impossible. 

The typical Nobel science laureate fits a distinct profile: a middle-aged American man from elite institutions whose eureka moment occurred roughly 15 years before receiving the award. The United States has claimed nearly half of all Nobel Prizes in science since 1901. 

The reasons are clear: 

1.      Billions in federal funding for basic research, supplemented by [Non-Government Organization] NGOs and universities. 

2.      Nine of the world's top 10 universities with the most science Nobel laureates are American: Harvard, MIT, Caltech, UC Berkeley, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, Princeton, and Rockefeller. Only Cambridge breaks the monopoly.

Notable exceptions exist. Between 1930 and 1943, the City Colleges of New York produced 10 future Nobel winners—nine in the sciences—a pretty stunning achievement that surpassed the combined undergraduate totals of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton for that period. These fiercely competitive children of immigrants faced religious bias, limiting access to elite private institutions. All 10 were Jewish—an ironic detail given the insulting antisemitism found in Alfred Nobel's private correspondence.

America's dominance partly stems from its role as a haven for scientists seeking freedom and opportunity. What began as a trickle of refugees from 1930s Nazism became a steady stream by the 1960s as immigration laws liberalized. Since then, immigrants have won nearly 40% of science prizes awarded to Americans in the 21st century. 

The U.S. and much of Europe, including Scandinavia, now hold a virtual monopoly. A few exceptions exist—Australia, Israel, and Japan have won multiple awards—but the world's two most populous nations, India and China, have been almost entirely shut out. India lacks competitive infrastructure, while China suffers from a state-run scientific system plagued by limited creativity and corruption.

The Gender Gap: Systemic Bias and Structural Barriers

The most glaring inequity for the science awards remains the scarcity of women winners, a pattern rooted in deeper structural and cultural biases that have persisted for over a century.

The prizes began with promise when Marie Curie shared the 1903 physics prize with her husband, Pierre, and won the chemistry prize outright in 1911, becoming the only person to receive Nobel Prizes in two scientific fields. But this early success proved deceptive. 

No woman won another chemistry prize until 1935 or physics until 1963. The Physiology or Medicine Prize was awarded to no female researcher until 1947.

This wasn't due to a lack of deserving candidates. Historical record reveals a pattern of systematic exclusion and marginalization. Lise Meitner, who discovered nuclear fission with colleague Otto Hahn, exemplifies this bias. Albert Einstein called her the "Marie Curie of Germany." She received 48 Nobel nominations without success. Hahn alone received the 1944 chemistry prize—a decision many historians now view as emblematic of the institutional sexism pervading 20th-century science.

Facts

As of 2026, the Unique Nobel Prize laureates include 894 men, 64 women, and 27 organizations (Wikipedia).

Total individual male laureates: approximately 894

Final breakdown:

• Men: 93.3%
• Women: 6.7%

That’s a very lopsided room if you ask me.

The reasons for this gender disparity are multiple and interconnected. 

First, women scientists have historically faced enormous barriers to entry and advancement in academic and research institutions—the very environments that produce Nobel-worthy work. They've been systematically excluded from elite universities, denied access to laboratories and equipment, and relegated to supporting roles regardless of their contributions.

Second, the Nobel selection process itself has reflected the biases of its predominantly male committees, who have operated within professional networks and "old boys' clubs" that have historically excluded women. 

Third, the long delay between discovery and recognition—averaging 15 years or more—has disproportionately harmed women, whose careers have been more frequently interrupted or derailed by institutional barriers, discrimination, and family responsibilities in an era lacking adequate support structures.

The landscape has begun improving. 

1.      The number of female science laureates since 2000 equals the entire previous century's total. In 2022, Carolyn Bertozzi won for biorthogonal chemistry work enabling scientists to build complex molecules and map cell function. 

2.      The 2020 chemistry prize went to Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna for breakthrough gene-editing work, while the physics prize was shared by Andrea Mia Ghez for discovering a "supermassive compact object" at the galaxy's center.

Women are rapidly entering formerly male-dominated fields. According to the National Science Foundation, the percentage of academic doctoral positions held by American women in engineering and sciences increased from 26.4% in 1991 to 38.5% in 2019. This may not translate into immediate Nobel gains, given that the average science laureate is nearly 60, but change appears inevitable.

So, What is The Path Forward?

The problems plaguing today's Nobel science prizes rest not with winners—who represent their professions' cream—but with the outdated process rewarding them: obsolete rules, disinterest in collaboration, limited categories, the gender gap, and focus on academic pedigree. Few critics advocate eliminating the prizes, which celebrate scientific achievements on the grandest scale. The goal is modernizing the Nobels to better represent how cutting-edge research now occurs.

This would require, first, increasing winners per category. The "lone wolf" scientist is disappearing; collaboration is now standard. Some suggest science juries follow the peace prize jury's lead in selecting entire organizations—Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, or the 2022 winner, Ukraine's Center for Civil Liberties. Why not award laboratories where groundbreaking discoveries occur, or at least major contributors, rather than single stars?

Expanding prize categories would also help. The Nobels haven't kept pace with a rapidly changing world. "The environmental sciences—oceans and ecology—aren't covered," writes distinguished astronomer Martin Rees. "Nor are computing, robotics, and artificial intelligence." Given Nobel prestige, he adds, "these exclusions distort public perception of what sciences are important."

Alfred Nobel might have rejected some of these changes, but the prizes he endowed have already evolved beyond his original instructions and 19th-century social views. What remains, and should guide the prizes forward, is the noble goal of his bequest: honestly recognizing those whose work has "conferred the greatest benefit" on humankind. 

What can we learn from this story? What's the takeaway?

The big takeaway? Great institutions can become outdated—and when they do, they start misrepresenting the very excellence they’re supposed to honor.

Well, there you go, my friends; that's life, I swear

For further information regarding the material covered in this episode, I invite you to visit my website, which can be found on Apple Podcasts, for show notes and the episode transcript.

As always, I thank you for the privilege of you listening and your interest. 

Be sure to subscribe here or wherever you listen to podcasts so you don't miss an episode. 

See you soon.