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*)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American