> The only evidence for this is Nobel Prizes won, split up by decade, and polled!? Biology, arguably one of the most exciting fields right now, doesn't even get

> The only evidence for this is Nobel Prizes won, split up by decade, and polled!? Biology, arguably one of the most exciting fields right now, doesn't even get considered in the Nobel Prizes! You can get a Nobel Prize in medicine/physiology for biology-related efforts (see GFP), but there's no Nobel Prize for plant-related biology (that's what the Kyoto medal is for, which isn't mentioned here?!?) It's also a metric that lags by decades, the authors say that "This is too few to get a good quality estimate for the 1990s, and so we didn’t survey those prizes." So even if this metric is useful, it is measuring what was going on in academia through the 1980s.