4 ms·

The nature of scientific work has changed significantly since 1895, when the Nobel Prizes were established. 100 years ago, lots of scientific work really were

The nature of scientific work has changed significantly since 1895, when the Nobel Prizes were established. 100 years ago, lots of scientific work really were driven forward largely by a singular person. That's rarely true today for groundbreaking research. I don't know if this means the Nobel needs to change or we need a another prize that reflects the collaborative work of modern science.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> The nature of scientific work has changed significantly since 1895, when the Nobel Prizes were established. 100 years ago, lots of scientific work really were driven forward largely by a singular person. That's rarely true today for groundbreaking research. The question is: is this a necessity for doing good science today, or rather an artifact of how important research is organized today (i.e. an artifact of the bureacratic and organizational structure that you have to "accept"/"tolerate" if you want to do want to have a career in science)?
- DevX101 2y ago
  So I did a mini research project on Claude to answer your question. From 1900-1930, 87% of Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine were awarded to individual contributions, 13% were awarded to collaborative contributions. This ratio has flipped in the past 30 years, from 1994-2023, where 17% prizes were individual, 83% collaborative. So I'd say yes, collaborative work is increasingly a requirement to do groundbreaking research today. The organizational structures and funding are a part of the reason as you mention. But it's also that modern scientific problems are more complex. I used to have a professor that used to say about biology "the easy problems have been solved". While I think that's dismissive to some of the ingenious experiments done in the past, there's some truth to it.
  - afthonos 2y ago
    This begs the question. If all science is now structured as big research teams, we'd expect the breakthroughs to come from such teams. That doesn’t necessarily imply that teams are needed.
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      Your argument is exactly a central part of the point that I raised.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago

> The nature of scientific work has changed significantly since 1895, when the Nobel Prizes were established. 100 years ago, lots of scientific work really were driven forward largely by a singular person. That's rarely true today for groundbreaking research. The question is: is this a necessity for doing good science today, or rather an artifact of how important research is organized today (i.e. an artifact of the bureacratic and organizational structure that you have to "accept"/"tolerate" if you want to do want to have a career in science)?

DevX101 2y ago
So I did a mini research project on Claude to answer your question. From 1900-1930, 87% of Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine were awarded to individual contributions, 13% were awarded to collaborative contributions. This ratio has flipped in the past 30 years, from 1994-2023, where 17% prizes were individual, 83% collaborative. So I'd say yes, collaborative work is increasingly a requirement to do groundbreaking research today. The organizational structures and funding are a part of the reason as you mention. But it's also that modern scientific problems are more complex. I used to have a professor that used to say about biology "the easy problems have been solved". While I think that's dismissive to some of the ingenious experiments done in the past, there's some truth to it.
- afthonos 2y ago
  This begs the question. If all science is now structured as big research teams, we'd expect the breakthroughs to come from such teams. That doesn’t necessarily imply that teams are needed.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    Your argument is exactly a central part of the point that I raised.