Your Questions about the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

---

Question: Dear Sir,
I am from India. I have learnt that Mr Luc Montagnier discovered the HIV virus long back. Then why the prize is given after a long time?

Answer: Before giving an award in relation to any discovery, we investigate that the discovery is solid and correct, that it is relevant and of lasting medical importance, and that we have identified all who are involved and what each one did. All this sometimes takes time, and it did so this year, too. In the process, we study all documents and ask for expert opinions from evaluators. All our evaluations are archived in written form and open to historic research after 50 years. The long confidentiality is to protect the evaluators so they dare give their true opinions, and the written form is to secure careful considerations.

---

 

Question: The discoveries of HIV and HPV are made pretty long time ago. Why did it take so long to recognize the scientists?

Thanks, Keng

Answer: Please see the previous question and answer.

---

 

Question: What I understand from this site that Nobel Prizes are awarded to the inventor who discovered something new or mechanisms of some basic cellular processes. This year's award goes to discoverer of human papilloma virus and AIDS. Still I believe that there are many pioneerings works in the field of cancer research such as discovery of p53, discovery of tyrosin kinases responsible for breast cancers and so many others outstanding basic research works done in the field of medicine or physiology. I am curious to know about the prime criteria for the selection of Nobel winner in the field of medicine.

Thanks for your time.

Answer: You are correct that we aim for the top discovery of greatest importance to mankind each year. You are incorrect in your wording for this year: this year we awarded the discovery of two new viruses: the HPV types causing cervix cancer, and the HIV. We did not award the discovery of AIDS, did not mention that in the quotation, but awarded the discovery of the two viruses, discoveries which we consider fundamental to the further handling of infections by these viruses in mankind.

Yes, many other factors are also important for cancers and diseases, but we vote for the discovery and discoverer(s) we consider most important, and the majority vote wins. The maximum number of Awardees is three according to our Statutes.

---

 

Question: - Based on the discovery of cause of cervical cancer is there a way to identify a individual who would or could be prone to cervical cancer? Is there a cure found for the cervical cancer.

- As regards to the HIV, there has been no complete cure for the disease. Do the winners or the Nobel Prize feel that there could be a possibility to completely cure HIV or do Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier feel it is difficult to defeat nature?

- What is the future direction of research on HIV related area going to be?

Thanks, Ramani

Answer: Part one: yes, HPV is a decisive risk factor for contracting cervix cancer. That was the concept behind the Award this year. Cure: yes, we and the medical world hope for the ongoing vaccination programs to be the long-term prevention.

Part 2: The HIV virus is definitely difficult to defeat and a working vaccine has not yet been found. Personally, I am always optimistic, and believe that further research and clever scientists will eventually defeat the virus! It may take some time, but in the end mankind has thus far shown an enormous capacity!

---

 

Question: Professor:
I want you to explain what is the main difference between discover and characterized a virus and a bacteria in the context of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Many thanks,
Cecilia Rosen
Reforma Newspaper, Mexico

Answer: There is no difference in relation to a discovery of a new disease-causing virus or bacterium as regards the concept of a Nobel Prize. These two types of infectious agents have been recognized by both recent and distant Nobel Prizes to their discoverers.

---

 

Question: Dr Robert Gallo was excluded from this year's award. Was it that he was not nominated? Was it that you concluded that he did not have a part in the discovery of HIV?

Answer: No-one is excluded (your word!) from any award any year. Dr Robert Gallo is an excellent researcher who has made many important contributions to science.

– Who were nominated or not, we are inhibited to disclose according to our Statutes.

– Regarding discoveries recognized, our Statutes state that they must be published or else reported to the scientific world. Otherwise they are not official and not available to evaluations. Therefore, regarding any discovery we always scrutinize the authors of the original publications.

– The present Awardees are three of the authors.

– Of course, we realize that non-authors or generally available concepts might also be contributing in one way or another each year, but for general recognition as an official discoverer it is difficult to include non-authors on the original publications of new discoveries.

---

 

Question: Why wasn't co-discoverer of HIV Dr Robert Gallo awarded the prize also?

Answer: Please see the previous answer.

---

 

Question: Why no recognition of Dr Gallo for his great and important HIV work? I am wondering why Dr Robert Gallo was not recognized for his contribution on HIV research. Although he may not be the first one to discover the virus, he is the first one to link HIV to AIDS. I believe the name of HIV was proposed by his group as well. I am very disappointed with the unfair selection process this year.

Answer: Please see the previous answer. Also, please notice that the present award was recognizing the discovery of the virus. We did not quote the discovery (but also not denying it) as being detection of the link between the virus and the disease, neither as recognizing contributions to HIV research in general, or to the naming of the virus. We are sorry if you are disappointed, but we cannot satisfy all opinions, only recognize what we consider as a decisive step, and the discovery of the virus is a decisive step, as quoted.

---

 

Question: Dear Prof. Jornvall

I would like to know if you agree that the most important common denominator of all discoveries that were awarded Nobel Prize in medicine and/or physiology so far is that these discoveries in some way brought about paradigmatic shift into mainstream science? Thanks.

Answer: Yes, I agree that this is our main aim each year, and the standard we try to achieve.

---

 

Question: I would like to know if it is necessary a big number of reviews (in particular on "Science" and "Nature") to win a Nobel Prize.

Best regards.

Answer: No, the number is not important, neither the journal of the publication of the discovery.

The quality and strength of the discovery are important, not the number of partial discoveries. One clear discovery is a requirement, rather than several stepwise contributions.

Many original discoveries are published in rapid-publishing journals rather than the "heavy" ones, presumably the authors wish to achieve priority by rapid publications. This is not meant to disqualify any journal, and of course we prefer excellence and completeness in any report, as also favoured by all journals.

---

 

Question: Why the emerging field of systems biology is not considered in Nobel Prizes in recent years?

Answer: Every field is considered. But only one can be awarded each year, and apparently it has not been exactly that field thus far.

---

 

Question: How do you motivate young students and prospective scientists to pursue research in the sciences when the Nobel money prize is well below the money prize of most poker tournaments today, and it takes 25 years for the Nobel Prize Assembly to recognize the discoverers/researchers of the HIV virus?

Answer: Yes, I would be happy if the Awards were higher, but we are limited to the present situation. Regarding the Nobel Award, I do not think the sum of the money is the decisive factor, at least not the important one. Rather, it is the tradition, and the original ideas of Alfred Nobel. He initiated international awards, and they have won recognition because of long-time careful selections and written documentations each year.

Young students are presumably not driven into physiological or medical research because of the Nobel Prizes each year, but rather because of personal curiosity on how humans work and function and how we can protect and treat ourselves against diseases. The Awards do not form the individual drive, but help the research in general by giving increased recognition and official support to research.

---

 

Question: Is it possible to confirm whether someone who has been widely celebrated as a nominee has in fact been nominated?

Answer: No, not until 50 years have passed after any supposed nomination can anyone find out if the nomination exists or not. The confidentiality is kept because of a wish to secure true opinions of all involved in the nominations and evaluations each year (please see also the answer to question 1, above.)

---

 

Question: The discoveries of all the winners of the Nobel Prize for medicine were amazing and well deserving. However, I feel that the prize is losing its credibility as it offers more and more people Nobel Prizes each year. The Nobel Prize should represent the best and most important work in medicine. 3 winners for 2 subjects in 1 category (medicine) is err ... well ... anticlimax! I thought the prize was supposed to be for the one and only best discovery in medicine. For a person to have to share it is weird. Anyway, what do I know, I'm just a lowly undergrad. But u can take my opinion as just the average man´s 2 cents worth.

Answer: Thanks for your comment. Yes, strict selection is probably beneficial. To a large part, this is also kept by our statutes, limiting our recognitions each year to few people (three) and one field (divided or not).

---

 

Question: It is any chance that epidemiology could be ever laurated with the nobel prize? It´s deniable that laboratory discoveries are a "must" to elucidate the etiology of a disease. However, and taking as example the Nobel Laurates of 2008, epidemiology has given the evidence to support laboratory findings in large scale manner. This kind of evidence, at population level not only laboratory, has given key information to develop RVD for the case of HIV and Vaccines for HPV, Such developments close the cycle of Research: To Place science discoveries into the hands of society.
Sincerely yours,
Gustaf Suarez
MD MSc.

Answer: Yes, all fields should be included and are included, also epidemiology. One of the members of our Assembly is Professor of Epidemiology.

---

 

To all, thanks for all your questions. I have been trying to answer, following both my own conscience and that of the Committee and the Assembly. I have been Secretary of both these bodies for 9 years.

Yours sincerely,
Hans Jörnvall
(Secretary of the Nobel Assembly and Committee at Karolinska Institutet)

 

Interview with Professor Jan Andersson after the announcement of the 2008 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine

Articles about the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine

Search in the 1901-1951 Nomination Database!