Discovery or Reputation? Jacques Loeb and the Role of Nomination Networks

Abstract

© heiner fangerau, thorsten halling and nils hansson, ���9 | doi:�0.��63/97890044064��_007 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc-by-nc-nd 4.0 License.

The Uncertain Role of Nominations for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry†

“…Selections of Nobel Prizes have often been influenced by personal prejudices, for example, friendships, rivalries, nationality, and sadly, even religious-based discrimination, a conclusion supported by others. [5,14,33,[65][66][67] We also suggest that during the first seven decades of the Nobel Prizes in chemistry, there were some types of 'organized behaviors' by the Nobel Committee for Chemistry along with members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences directing the selection of many of the awards. Whether that behavior was motivated by legitimate and less so professional biases toward or against certain types of science or was influenced by more personal and potentially unethical biases, [5,33,59,65] the answer is likely "yes" to both.…”

“…Numerous nominations but unrequited accolade is not unique to the NPch. Jacques Loeb [14] had 78 nominations for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine between 1901 and 1924. In theory, the quality of a nomination, the research connected to it, and its consequences should be the controlling factors in the selection process.…”

“…[62] Personal characteristics have also been suggested to be influential in at least one instance for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. [14] In fact, the selection process is peopled by people! These individuals carry with them personal interests, research agendas, and other biases -and not all biases are strategically and operationally flawed.…”

“…(In contrast with the NPch, Hansson et al recently noted that in Physiology or Medicine, "it is unusual for a candidate to be awarded after only a few nominations." [14] )…”

“…Nonetheless, this up-down-up trend is observed sufficiently often to suggest that it is not a random pattern. In the NPphys/med, Hansson et al have suggested instances where colleagues from the nominee's institution work together under the "erroneous assumption" [14] that sheer numbers matter. [25,26] Additional research is necessary before firm conclusions can be made as to the cause(s) of this up-down-up pattern.…”