Hidden Patterns Show Nobel Prize Science Trends

Time lags between discoveries and awards show how the Nobel Prizes reward science

By Sarah Lewin Frasier & Jen Christiansen edited by Clara Moskowitz & Jen Christiansen

Detail of three slope charts, labelled chemistry, physiology or medicine, and physics. — Jen Christiansen

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Meteorologist Syukuro Manabe shared the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work modeling gases’ movement through a column of atmospheric air—in the 1960s. His 60-year-old research had proved foundational for the computer models that scientists use today to interpret and predict our changing climate.

Manabe’s wait was particularly long, but there is often a substantial gap between the awarding of a Nobel Prize and the earliest work it honors—an average of 20 years across categories, Scientific American found. “It takes time to prove that something has impact beyond just curiosity,” says John Ioannidis, a Stanford University professor who has examined the Nobels’ distribution and influence. Although the awards are not a representative look at all of science, they reveal the trends and incentives shaping key scientific fields.

As Nobel season approaches, we at the magazine wondered what subfields of science have been most celebrated and whether there are visible patterns related to the amount of time between the research and the recognition. We used the official Nobel synopses and statements to sort the awards into our own subdiscipline categories and to inform research dates on a timeline that shows the trends.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

One clear pattern is the increase in multiple laureates per prize. Each award can be split among a maximum of three living researchers, but that rule is increasingly constraining as science becomes more collaborative. This stipulation may even skew what gets highlighted as the most significant research going forward, Ioannidis suggests, if a Nobel Committee cannot pick only three individuals responsible for a result. “It’s not easy to have someone who really stands out so separately from the rest of the world.”

Series of charts break down the Nobel prize in chemistry over time. Awards are sorted into eight subdisciplines: organic/biochemistry (43 laureates), organic/molecular (22), organic/other (33), inorganic/molecular (9), inorganic/other (14), physical/quantum (12), physical/other (50) and analytical (11). Time elapsed between earliest key research date and award year was a minimum of 1 year, a maximum of 49 years and an average of 21 years. — Jen Christiansen; Source: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-prizes/all/ (*primary reference*)

Series of charts break down the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine over time. Awards are sorted into eight subdisciplines: biochemistry/molecular (48 laureates), cellular (20), organs and systems (15), genetics (49), neuroscience (28), immunology and diseases (58), applied medicine (6) and ethnology (3). Time elapsed between earliest key research date and award year was a minimum of 1 year, a maximum of 56 years and an average of 20 years. — Jen Christiansen; Source: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-prizes/all/ (*primary reference*)

Series of charts break down the Nobel prize in physics over time. Awards are sorted into nine subdisciplines: nuclear and particle (67 laureates), atomic and molecular (18), condensed-matter (51), quantum (21), astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology (27), applied (21), classical (5), optical (12) and chaos (3). Time elapsed between earliest key research date and award year was a minimum of 1 year, a maximum of 61 years and an average of 20 years. — Jen Christiansen; Source: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-prizes/all/ (*primary reference*)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American