Statistics show that scientists experience a decline in research productivity and the number of new ideas after winning the most prestigious award in science.
For many scientists, there is no greater achievement than winning a Nobel Prize. Since its inception in 1901, the Nobel Medal has recognized breakthroughs that have expanded humanity’s understanding of the world.
However, this award is also a “productivity killer.” The research output of scientists tends to decline after they win the Nobel Prize, according to new statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Research.
The Nobel Prize, one of the most prestigious scientific awards, is associated with a decrease in the research productivity of laureates. (Photo: AP).
Data on Nobel laureates in Physiology and Medicine from 1950-2010 reveals three factors of decline after a scientist receives the award: the number of published papers, the impact of those papers based on citation counts, and the novelty of ideas, according to Science.
Nobel Prizes are often awarded to scientists in the later stages of their careers, which is also when productivity typically declines. To illustrate the correlation between the Nobel Prize and productivity rather than age, statisticians compared Nobel laureates with recipients of the Lasker Award, another prestigious medical award that is also frequently given to older scientists.
Before winning the award, Nobel laureates published more frequently than Lasker recipients. Their papers were also more novel and received more citations.
However, after winning the Nobel Prize, this trend reversed. On average, Nobel laureates experienced a drop in productivity, novelty, and citation counts, bringing them in line with Lasker recipients, and in some cases, even lower than them.
Compared to Lasker recipients, Nobel laureates published about one more study per year in the ten years leading up to their award. However, in the ten years following their award, the Lasker group published about one more study per year than their Nobel counterparts.
The productivity of the Lasker group also experienced a slight decrease after winning the award, indicating that this productivity reversal is entirely attributed to the decline among Nobel laureates.
“I expected the decline in productivity, as award-winning scientists would spend more time on other commitments, but I was truly surprised by the decline in novelty,” said Jayanta Bhattacharya, a health economist and epidemiologist at Stanford University.
Kirk Doran, a social scientist at the University of Notre Dame, who has studied the career impacts of winning the Fields Medal, which is equivalent to the Nobel Prize in mathematics, noted that the new statistical findings align with previous research indicating that mathematicians also seem to experience a productivity decline after winning the Fields Medal.
The research team noted that these results do not imply a causal relationship between winning the Nobel Prize and a decrease in productivity. However, according to Doran, receiving such a prestigious award is a life-changing event for most scientists. They may have to dedicate time to numerous speaking engagements, media interviews, book launches, all of which take away from the time and energy available for research.
While the Lasker Award is esteemed in the medical field, it does not confer the same level of public fame as the Nobel Prize. Nobel laureates often become celebrities. As the authors of the study suggest, the question remains whether the benefits conferred by the award outweigh the drawbacks in research productivity.
