A Nobel Prize could reduce a scientist's impact
A team of Stanford researchers finds that older scientists are less productive after winning major prizes like the Nobel and the MacArthur Fellowship.
Winning a Nobel Prize can change a life. Winners are thrust onto the global stage and, for many scientists, this recognition represents the pinnacle of their career.
But what is the effect of winning a prize? so prestigious? on science?
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University, wants to know. Awards like the Nobel Prize are “a major reputation tool,” he said, but he questions “whether they actually help scientists become more productive and more effective.”
In August, a team of researchers led by Dr. Ioannidis published a study in the journal Royal Society Open Science that attempted to quantify whether major awards moved science forward. Using the publication and citation patterns of scientists who won a Nobel Prize or a MacArthur Fellowship – the so-called genius grant – the team analyzed how post-award productivity is influenced by age and stage careers. Overall, the study found that winners of both awards had similar or less impact in their fields.
“These awards do not appear to improve productivity scientists,” said Dr. Ioannidis. "On the contrary, it seems to have the opposite effect."
The researchers' study adds to a body of work aimed at demystifying how rewards shape how science is accomplished, even though researchers have divergent opinions about which factors are most important.
Since 1901, the Nobel Foundation has awarded prizes for achievements revolutionaries in physics, medicine and chemistry (in addition the prizes for peace, literature and, since 1969, economic research). The MacArthur Fellowship was founded in 1981 and, unlike the Nobel Prizes, is awarded as an investment in an individual's potential.
Dr. Ioannidis' team studied the winners of the two awards to understand how age affects scientific productivity. On average, Nobel Prize winners are more likely to be older and further along in their careers than MacArthur Fellows.
For the study, the team selected a sample of 72 Nobel Prize winners. laureates and 119 MacArthur fellows of this century and compared the number of publications and citations of each laureate three years before he received the prize with after the recognition. Publications provided insight into the amount of new work a researcher produced, while citations quantified the impact of that work in the field, Dr. Ioannidis said.
His team found that Nobel laureates published roughly the same number of papers after receiving the prize, but this post-award work had far fewer citations than the pre-award work. MacArthur fellows, on the other hand, published slightly more, but their citations remained about the same. The citation rate per article for Nobel Prize winners and MacArthur Fellows decreased after winning.
A team of Stanford researchers finds that older scientists are less productive after winning major prizes like the Nobel and the MacArthur Fellowship.
Winning a Nobel Prize can change a life. Winners are thrust onto the global stage and, for many scientists, this recognition represents the pinnacle of their career.
But what is the effect of winning a prize? so prestigious? on science?
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University, wants to know. Awards like the Nobel Prize are “a major reputation tool,” he said, but he questions “whether they actually help scientists become more productive and more effective.”
In August, a team of researchers led by Dr. Ioannidis published a study in the journal Royal Society Open Science that attempted to quantify whether major awards moved science forward. Using the publication and citation patterns of scientists who won a Nobel Prize or a MacArthur Fellowship – the so-called genius grant – the team analyzed how post-award productivity is influenced by age and stage careers. Overall, the study found that winners of both awards had similar or less impact in their fields.
“These awards do not appear to improve productivity scientists,” said Dr. Ioannidis. "On the contrary, it seems to have the opposite effect."
The researchers' study adds to a body of work aimed at demystifying how rewards shape how science is accomplished, even though researchers have divergent opinions about which factors are most important.
Since 1901, the Nobel Foundation has awarded prizes for achievements revolutionaries in physics, medicine and chemistry (in addition the prizes for peace, literature and, since 1969, economic research). The MacArthur Fellowship was founded in 1981 and, unlike the Nobel Prizes, is awarded as an investment in an individual's potential.
Dr. Ioannidis' team studied the winners of the two awards to understand how age affects scientific productivity. On average, Nobel Prize winners are more likely to be older and further along in their careers than MacArthur Fellows.
For the study, the team selected a sample of 72 Nobel Prize winners. laureates and 119 MacArthur fellows of this century and compared the number of publications and citations of each laureate three years before he received the prize with after the recognition. Publications provided insight into the amount of new work a researcher produced, while citations quantified the impact of that work in the field, Dr. Ioannidis said.
His team found that Nobel laureates published roughly the same number of papers after receiving the prize, but this post-award work had far fewer citations than the pre-award work. MacArthur fellows, on the other hand, published slightly more, but their citations remained about the same. The citation rate per article for Nobel Prize winners and MacArthur Fellows decreased after winning.
What's Your Reaction?
