win the Nobel Prizewhich since 1901 recognizes discoveries and research that contribute significantly to the understanding of our reality, has a unwanted side effect: drastic decline in productivity. This is confirmed by a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Researchin United States.
Researchers analyze data on category winners physiology and medicine between 1950 and 2010 to find out how they had been altered three variables after the award: the amount of documents published, innovative ideas and their impact, measured in number of citations.
37 years ago, César Milstein received the Nobel Prize in Medicine, the last Argentine to achieve it
These data were compared with those of the lasker award, another prestigious medical recognition. Before being chosen, the future Nobels published their works more frequently than those of the Lasker, in addition to being more cited and innovative.
After maximum recognition, the trend reversed. During the decade after each award, Lasker winners published, on average, one more paper per year than their peers. at least in part, the results were predictable.
Winners “may be inundated with opportunities for speaking engagements, interviews, or publishing deals, all of which waste time and energy doing original science,” he explained. kirk doranresearcher of the university of notre dameto the magazine Science.
An Argentine won the most important prize in the world for young scientists
The conclusion is logical and challenging at the same time: Rewarding scientists at the end of their careers would be a highly beneficial idea. and although winning the Nobel Prize is an indisputable honor, this study points out that it can also have a negative impact in scientific production of the awards
Awarding it at a very young age may deprive young researchers of a promising careerand to society of the benefits that come when knowledge is shared.
VF JL
