How much is a Nobel worth? A lot more than the prize money

Oct 02, 2011 by Rita Devlin Marier

The prestigious Nobel science awards are worth far more than the $1.5 million prize money: they can pad a company's coffers with $24 million and even add two years to a laureate's life, experts say.

While each Nobel prize laureate receives a diploma, a gold medal and a cheque worth 10 million Swedish kronor ($1.5 million, 1.0 million euros), several studies show the award is worth far more to the winner and companies and universities with which they are associated.

Nothing beats having a onboard for instance when a young biotech firm is trying to raise money ahead of an , according to a study published in May by scientific review Research Policy.

"In this first period, when they had very few tangible assets like patents or drugs in clinical trials, the Nobel prize (winner associated with the company) appears to have given them a significant $24-million (17-million-euro) boost in ," explained Paula Stephan, of Georgia State University, who co-authored the study.

It is a valuable asset "being able to say right up front that you have a affiliated with the firm," the economist told AFP, pointing out that "everybody has heard about the Nobel prize (and) I just don't think ... that Wall Street knows nearly as much about the other kinds of prizes as the Nobel."

However, her study also showed that once a biotech firm is more established, investors want proof of concrete achievements and advances, rendering a Nobel laureate affiliation worthless.

More interesting for the laureates themselves perhaps is another study showing that Nobel physics and chemistry prize winners live between one and two years longer than their unlauded peers.

"We don't think it's the value of the money (that makes them live longer)," explained Andrew Oswald of the British University of Warwick, who co-authored the study published in the in 2008.

"We think its the value of the prestige, how it changes peoples' minds," he told AFP, explaining the findings of the research that compared the life spans of winners of the physics and chemistry prizes between 1901 and 1950 with their colleagues who were only nominated but never won a Nobel.

In fact, of all the world's science prizes, "none of them come anywhere close to the Nobels in terms of impact and influence," Roger Highfield, the editor-in-chief of New Scientist, told AFP in an email.

"The physics, chemistry and medicine Nobels are the supreme awards, the ones for which scientists would happily sell their grandmothers on eBay," he said.

Universities too benefit enormously from having Nobel laureates on their payroll.

"A laureate is a wonderful mascot, a symbol of success, an emblem of international prestige," Highfield said, pointing to the example of last year's Physics laureates Andre Geim and Konstantin Novosselov, who were the first researchers based at Manchester University to win.

"The University of Manchester was, I know, overjoyed... The fact that these brilliant Russians were lured to Manchester sent out a clear message that it is a brilliant university," he explained.

The winners themselves also see their personal prestige soar once they have pocketed a Nobel, said Gary Becker, who won the 1992 prize for Economics.

"Your lectures are solicited a lot more, your opinions are listened to a lot more... You get money and you get more lucrative lecture invitations," he told AFP, adding: "Most important for me was that the type of work I did was held in higher esteem."

But there is a downside, he said, pointing out that the added prestige can stifle debate in the classroom.

Students "treat you with more awe... For a while when I said something, they were reluctant to question it because I won a Nobel , which I think is unhealthy," Becker said.

"I know a lot of Nobel laureates," he pointed out, "and yeah, they're pretty smart, but they make a lot of mistakes, too, just like other people."

Explore further: Best of Last Week—Confirmed Earth-sized planet, testing twin paradox w/o a spaceship and news we all peak at 24

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

'Narrow' Nobel Prize categories stir debate

Oct 01, 2010

The Nobel Prize categories have basically remained unchanged for more than a hundred years and some critics are calling for them to be expanded to better reflect the modern world.

Recommended for you

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

PhotonX
not rated yet Oct 02, 2011
I would think a lot more of this article if it was written by a Nobel laureate.
Callippo
not rated yet Oct 02, 2011
Self-proclaimed inventor Viktor Petrik claimed that he first discovered how to produce the unique material that won two Russian-born physicists the Nobel Prize.

http://rusmafiozi...-to.html
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
I would think a lot more of this article if it was written by a Nobel laureate.
IMO it's a way of religious meritocratic thinking, which relies on the opinion of authorities instead of matter of facts arguments. The people like you can be easily manipulated with charismatic leaders just because many people are already listening them. This is simply wrong attitude. You should learn, how to use your OWN head and after then the question about authors of information will become marginal.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2011
You get money and you get more lucrative lecture invitation
IMO the significance of Nobel price for further carrier depends on the nature of work. If you're a theorist (you shouldn't get a Nobel price at all in such case), then everything what you need for your work is (basically) just a pencil and paper. In this situation the popularity connected with Nobel prize is rather bothering (but you can pay more postdocs, who will work instead of you). But if you're doing an experimental research requiring expensive equipment - then the prize popularity is worth of every additional dollar from grants.
PhotonX
not rated yet Oct 23, 2011
I would think a lot more of this article if it was written by a Nobel laureate.
IMO it's a way of religious meritocratic thinking, which relies on the opinion of authorities instead of matter of facts arguments. The people like you can be easily manipulated with charismatic leaders just because many people are already listening them. This is simply wrong attitude. You should learn, how to use your OWN head and after then the question about authors of information will become marginal.

.
I guess I should have put a /sarcasm tag on for those of who who couldn't tell....

More news stories

Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes

(Phys.org) —Inspired by the fist-like club of a mantis shrimp, a team of researchers led by University of California, Riverside, in collaboration with University of Southern California and Purdue University, ...

Volitional control from optical signals

(Medical Xpress)—In their quest to build better BMIs, or brain-machine-interfaces, researchers have recently begun to look closer at the sub-threshold activity of neurons. The reason for this trend is that ...