5, PRIZES AWARDED TOO LATE?

Another recurring criticism, one that crepped
up again last year with the award to 87-year-old
Peyton Rous, is that some persons receive the
honor too late (SR, Dec ’66, 37). Here it should
be made clear that Nobel’s original stipulation
that the prize go to those who made their dis-
covery “during the preceding year” was modified
in the statutes drawn up before the awards began
to be made. This provision states that Nobel’s
words are, in effect, to be interpreted to allow
inclusion of works whose significance has only
recently become apparent.

Thus the rather extreme case of Rous’ recog-
nition 55 years after his discovery can be de-
fended quite adequately. “Even as late as 1959,”
says Friberg, “some scientists were vehemently
refuting the contention that viruses could give
rise to cancer.” It is only in “recent” years that
the significance of Rous’ discovery has become
generally accepted. Another Karolinska professor
says that had the institute given Rous the prize
in 1957 “the world would have said we were
crazy.”

Tiselius fails to see any trend toward increas-
ingly late recognition, although he does admit
that the average age of last year’s awardees was
rather high. It is true, he says, that the prize has
very seldom been given to a young man. Alfred
Nobel’s original desire to reward a young and
promising scientist and enable him to continue
his research with financial independence is now
an outdated philosophy. No longer need a brilliant
young scientist fear for his personal or protes-
sional livelihood. What with government grants
and universities clamoring for top research talent,
the problem that confronted the scientist of
yesteryear no longer exis¢s.

Another reason recognition tends to come as
late, at least, as middle age is simply that it takes
longer nowadays to produce. Education takes
longer and there is an ever-expanding body of
knowledge to be absorbed before new paths can be
explored and conquered. Furthermore, Tiselius in-
sists, there are discoveries “whose full significance
nobody—not just the Nobel committees and in-
stitutions—can realize until some 20 or 30 years
later, and then it may be too late.”

6. MISTAKES?

Have the prize-awarding bodies made mistakes?
Of course, they have. Gustafsson, for one, is
amazed that they have not made more. And this
may be the remarkable factor behind the success
of the Nobel Prize as an institution.

Most would agree that the choice of Fibiger for
the 1926 medicine prize was regrettable: his “dis-
covery” turned out to be wrong. “I think it is safe
to say,” Theorell declures, “that we don’t feel any
serious mistakes have beon made. Perhaps in a
few cases we agree that a better choice could have
been made.” Erie Rudberg, chairman of the

OCTOBER, 1967 « SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

‘

x

+ .
ULF VON EULER, chairman,
board of directors, Nebel
Foundation; ex-secretary,
Nobel medicine committee

\ 1 ee? 3
\ a

x ye

x

ee tes bic tc ihe i aA wana LK ak 22, wd

ERIC RUDBERG, member,
board of directors, Nobel
Foundation; chairman, No-
bel physics committee

physics committee, member of the Nobel Founda-
tion’s board of directors and permanent secretary
of the Academy of Sciences, thinks there have
been some afterthoughts, but not very strong ones.

Certainly some of the professors who bear the
burden of selection responsibility resent a lack of
imagination on the part of some critics in not be-
ing able to appreciate the difficulty of weighing
achievements in fields that are not at all compar-
able but which must compete for the same prize.
How does one compare accomplishments in thor-
acic surgery, for instance, with those in molecular
bivlogy?

Tiselius feels that some mistakes are unavoid-
able. He cites the case of O. T. Avery, who dis-
covered that DNA was the carrier of heredity,
and whose failure to receive the prize many have
considered a glaring oversight. “That Avery
never received the prize is lamentable.” Tiselius
admits, “and had he not died when he did I think
he would almost certainly have gotten it. However.
he was an old man when he made his discovery.
Most people believed he was right. but there was
still some doubt. By the time his achievement was
confirmed, he had died. This is one case I regret
very much.”

Some observers—-perhaps especially laymen—
vonder why such relatively weil-known scientists
as developers of the various polio vaccines, vita-
mins and new antibiotics have not received Nebel
prizes. In fact. some vitamin and antibiotic dis-
coveries have been honored, but if every such dis-
covery were to qualify automatically for a prize,
there would not be enough prizes to go around
and none left over to honor other achievernents
in medicine. It is significant to note, too, that
three American investigators received the medi-
cine prize in 1954 “for their discovery of the
ability of poliomyelitis viruses to grow in cultures
of various types of tissue,” a discovery that paved
the way for development of polio vaccine.

Suppose someone in top contention for a prize
happens to be a member of a prize-awarding body
or of its Nobel committee? This was the case with
Tiselius in 1948 (Theorell was not a full facuity
member at Karolinska when he received his prize
in 1955). If one is nominated oneself, explains
Tiselius, one either withdraws from further com-

{tect continucs en page 54)

53