I agree that the metric they use is basically useless. One of the reasons the Nobel Prize committee tends to skip a decade or two, is that the impact of certai

I agree that the metric they use is basically useless. One of the reasons the Nobel Prize committee tends to skip a decade or two, is that the impact of certain discoveries just cannot be assessed right away. If a discovery is made, but the test requires technology that takes decades to develop and build, no prize can be awarded yet. It was of course simpler back in the beginning of the 20th century, when unexplained observations were the test and models that could fit them could be judged right away. Particle physics, for example, has exhausted the low energy domain and there's nothing more to be found there. New discoveries would require monstrous machinery that takes decades to design, plan, and build. So to conclude that a decade was less productive just by counting the Nobel Prizes awarded to discoveries made in that decade is flawed. The "lag" just increases with difficulty so to speak.