Charlton Bruce G
Med Hypotheses. 2007;68(3):471-3. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2006.11.003. Epub 2006 Nov 28.
The four science Nobel prizes (physics, chemistry, medicine/physiology and economics) have performed extremely well as a method of recognizing the highest level of achievement. The prizes exist primarily to honour individuals but also have a very important function in science generally. In particular, the institutions and nations which have educated, nurtured or supported many Nobel laureates can be identified as elite in world science. However, the limited range of subjects and a maximum of 12 laureates per year mean that many major scientific achievements remain un-recognized; and relatively few universities can gather sufficient Nobel-credits to enable a precise estimate of their different levels of quality. I advocate that the Nobel committee should expand the number of Nobel laureates and Prize categories as a service to world science. (1) There is a large surplus of high quality prize candidates deserving of recognition. (2) There has been a vast expansion of research with a proliferation of major sub-disciplines in the existing categories. (3) Especially, the massive growth of the bio-medical sciences has created a shortage of Nobel recognition in this area. (4) Whole new fields of major science have emerged. I therefore suggest that the maximum of three laureates per year should always be awarded in the categories of physics, chemistry and economics, even when these prizes are for diverse and un-related achievements; that the number of laureates in the 'biology' category of physiology or medicine should be increased to six or preferably nine per year; and that two new Prize categories should be introduced to recognize achievements in mathematics and computing science. Together, these measures could increase the science laureates from a maximum of 12 to a minimum of 24, and increase the range of scientific coverage. In future, the Nobel committee should also officially allocate proportionate credit to institutions for each laureate, and a historical task force could also award institutional credit for past prizes.
四项科学诺贝尔奖（物理学、化学、医学/生理学和经济学）作为认可最高水平成就的一种方式，表现极为出色。这些奖项主要是为了表彰个人，但在整个科学界也具有非常重要的作用。特别是，那些培养、培育或支持了许多诺贝尔奖获得者的机构和国家，可以被视为世界科学领域的精英。然而，由于学科范围有限且每年最多只有12位获奖者，这意味着许多重大科学成就仍未得到认可；而且相对较少的大学能够积累足够的“诺贝尔学分”来精确评估它们不同的质量水平。我主张诺贝尔委员会应该增加诺贝尔奖获得者的人数并扩大奖项类别，以服务于世界科学。（1）有大量高质量的奖项候选人值得认可。（2）现有类别中的研究大幅扩展，主要子学科激增。（3）特别是，生物医学科学的大量发展导致该领域诺贝尔奖认可的短缺。（4）出现了全新的重大科学领域。因此，我建议即使物理学、化学和经济学奖是针对不同且不相关的成就，每年在这些奖项类别中也应始终授予最多三位获奖者；生理学或医学“生物学”类别的获奖者人数应增加到每年六位，最好是九位；并且应增设两个新的奖项类别，以表彰数学和计算机科学领域的成就。综合起来，这些措施可以将科学领域的诺贝尔奖获得者人数从最多12位增加到至少24位，并扩大科学覆盖范围。未来，诺贝尔委员会还应正式为每个获奖者按比例向机构分配荣誉，一个历史特别工作组也可以为过去的奖项授予机构荣誉。
