ノーベル賞と研究者の生活
Hello, Len!
Hello, Asami! How it goes?
Alright, things are going fine. This is where we do our usual feel of monthly installment of
科学系ポッドキャストの日. This is one for the October 2025, and this time it's hosted by
the 青春アルデヒド. I don't know if you heard what I just said, アルデヒド,
but it's aldehyde, and so one of them is an organic chemist. It's a funny part of Japanese
chemistry lingo being partially German transcription, so instead of it's aldehyde,
it's アルデヒド, which sounds closer, I think, to the German pronunciation of the word.
Not even going to try and attempt saying that.
No, we can invite a guest if we need that.
Yeah, but so the theme is これができたらノーベル賞. That's the theme. So,
the idea is like, you know, what do you think are like sort of unsolved mystery of the universe that
needs Nobel attention, or a current ongoing research that you think deserves Nobel attention,
or, you know, what do you think it takes to get a Nobel Prize? And of course,
I shared this with you, and what you hit me immediately with was what happens to Nobel
laureates after they get one. It's this Harvard Gazette, it's a little article.
Now that you mention it, I'm not sure if that's like their sort of uni newspaper.
Yeah, some kind of online publications, and it was basically like a collection of interviews of
Nobel laureates, and asking them, you know, how has your life changed? Of course their lives
change, but like, in what way? And it's fun. This was like a little, you know, anecdote collections,
I guess, but given that there's only been like, I don't know, like 500-ish, maybe a little more,
I'm not sure how many people have received Nobel Prize up until now. Not that many.
Can't be that many, but you've just asked a question where I'm like,
we're looking at upwards of about 1000. But I got sort of bits of pieces of numbers from
all over the place, so I was just giving it a half second there. I think we've got the
nobelprize.org says, between 1901, which, at least on one source, there was actually a few years
before this that that was active, but anyway, from 1901 to 2024, Nobel Prizes and the Sveriges
Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences. I guess they're looping those two together. It's still the
Nobel, like, insider. Right, okay. Okay, I've never seen that. 1012 people in organizations.
Right, yeah, yeah, I could do this quickly with a Google to the Wikipedia. And yeah,
627 prizes shared amongst about 1000, well, 1012 people up until 2024.
Yes, that's I hesitated because I was on the Wikipedia page, but the page itself was like,
it's out of date by a few years. So they only have, I think, 892 Nobel laureates listed. So
I don't know if we found different sets of pages. So anyway, we're on the same page with
1012. Well, yeah, in the ballpark of 1000 ish. And so that's like, I mean, you know, considering
that 1000 is a very small number of people that has lived over the past 125 ish years.
So so very small number of people who get to have this honor, but it was interesting to sort of like
hear what, you know, how their lives have changed, like people have, you know, obviously get started
to get a lot more attention than they previously were. Even I think those who are used to being
kind of respected in the field, don't typically get this kind of like international and beyond
science community recognitions and attentions. So that's what they seem to mostly note.
Sometimes that helps them get a new collaborators. Sometimes that helps them get started with a
charity organization that they've wanted to start, things like that. And, you know, being able to
give back to what they have always wanted to to the community that they've always wanted to,
but perhaps didn't have the bandwidth for, you know, they now at least have the financial means
to do so. And, yeah, I guess a lot of them have to go on this press tour, you know,
a lot of the honorary degrees, as if they don't already have enough degrees on them. So
and whatnot. But yeah, no, I like the idea of thinking about not just what could be getting
Nobel Prize, like in a future-oriented fashion. But I like that you brought up about what happens to
ノーベル賞受賞者の影響
the Nobel laureates after their award, basically. So that was interesting. And that got me
into kind of looking at some quick googling research on, has anyone collected data on what
people do after Nobel laureates? Not just like a collection of qualitative anecdotes
from interviews, but as a meta-analysis you can do with 1000 people, which is, you know,
not that much. No, no, you don't have you don't have a lot to work off of. But it the question
became like, how can we sort of measure or look at what happens afterwards? Because there is,
so as you were pointing out, right from the Harvard Gazette one, there's like that span
of time where you sort of have received money and like things are happening and you have to sort of
maybe go around and talk about it or something, right? It varies from person to person.
But then that, you know, sort of ends. And like the experiences are different, both in
the, I guess, how the people are engaging, you know, but also with their work, right? So is
their work changing? Is their research changing? Is there the way that people perceive their research
changing? I guess this links back to that idea of contribution, right to the... Yeah, yeah, yeah. And
I have to say, like, like from the get go, being recognized for Nobel laureate is definitely one
of the biggest honor as a scientist, especially if you're, you know, research concerns more about
the basic science, where you may be working on the Nobel worthy project 50 years before you actually
get one. It's very rare that that kind of contribution gets recognized in timely fashion,
let alone to this level of international fame. And especially this tends to happen in Japan,
where, like somebody gets a Nobel Prize, the research area that were like previously not
a headline maker, would get a lot of attention all of a sudden. And that kind of reinvigorates
sort of public discourse around the topic, or sometimes inspires younger generation to want
to explore that research area, which is a massive contribution that you cannot simply
measure by taking data points from these laureates. But having said that, it is a very, very small
slice of science, you know, it's not the nature of it being typically focused on basic research,
at least for the physics, chemistry. And I don't know about econs, maybe about like these awards,
like medicine award is sort of it feels more applied, but it's still I think, basic within
the medical discipline. So it's, it's still very, like tiny slice of what the entire field is doing.
And I do think it's kind of hard to decide like, whose research is more, quote, unquote, impactful
than the others. Right? Because that means different things to different people.
Right. I mean, this is, this is perhaps a different central question. But the, yeah,
the wondering of, you know, us selecting who we think is the most impactful by we I mean,
like, you know, some subset of the already subset of the population, selecting, you know, impact,
which I think, maybe depending on the field, there are, of course, a criteria of trying to see
how, like one paper led to other findings in a way that led to contributions, but, you know,
it's still an attempt to it's a it's a making of a judgment or quantification of impact, which
still comes with whatever the people are maybe slightly biased towards. But that's a Yeah,
it might be a whole other question. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I don't want to dive too,
too deep into this. But I just wanted to like quickly flag saying that Nobel laureates and
Nobel Prize. Yeah. And all of the cacophony around it is certainly great PR for science most of the
time. Not the whole story of what science is doing is, is what I just wanted to flag. But yeah,
anyway, so going back to you know, what do happen to these laureates once they get these awards?
Other than like, you know, random bouts of fame, money, and I think one or two of them in that
Harvard Gazette got knighted. I'm not sure. But like, you know, yeah, I think if you're British,
then you have a high chance of becoming a knight, maybe. Just for funsies. Just for funsies, you
受賞者の研究活動の影響
know. And it's it is, yeah, whatever. But so I found one paper that looked at impacts of these
major awards being given to the recipients. And I was surprised to find that this is by no means
one of the only few research like one of the only research that's been done on this topic,
like a quick Google Scholar research, just like Nobel laureate post award, something like those
keywords, gives you a lot of sort of articles that attempts to sort of untangle the question of, you
know, what happens to Nobel laureates afterwards? And you know, does that inform us about who should
who we should be selecting for the future prizes? And this particular paper by Andrew Nepomuceno
and others have sort of looked at Nobel Prize winners as well as MacArthur fellows. So another
major grant that's given to younger or not doesn't have to be young, they don't neither of them have
age gaps, but caps, but they they have they typically give it to the scholars who are very
promising to, you know, realize their full potential and further their research. And I
think unlike Nobel Prize, where there's somewhat of a rigid definition of the sub disciplines,
I think MacArthur fellows don't have any limits on what the discipline needs to be. So it can be
an academic research, it can be scientific research can be, you know, social sciences,
it can be even creative projects, like people who have like who are musicians, actors, things like
that. So, but those are sort of major awards that are internationally recognized. If one gets one,
it's a huge honor and has potential to change their research productivity, or so they thought,
or so it sounds like. And this paper seems to show basically that there's not a statistically
significant changes in their publication behavior before and after the awards being received.
And that's seems to be consistent with the previous research that has been done and also
been cited. And, you know, we're not doing super careful critical look at this paper to like,
you know, scrutinize their methodologies and whatnot. But generally, I think, the takeaway
is that with or without this, you know, international recognition, you just keep
chugging away, I think is the idea. And I think it also has to do with a little bit of age
bias, I guess, like the timing at which these awards are typically given.
So, what is it? Figure one of this paper gives you a population, you know, bar chart of
the age of the awardees, and when they get an award and between MacArthur and Nobel Prize.
And yeah, and do you want to explain what it looks like?
Yeah. So, you know, so we're mentioning these two different fellowships, right? The MacArthur
Fellows and the more fellowships and awards, and the Nobel laureates who received the Nobel Prize.
And you see a curve that is not one curve, but it is two, right? So if you were to consider these,
yeah, if you were to consider these part of, you know, one data set, I think the word is like a
binomial distribution, right? It's got two peaks that occur within the set. It's not just a simple
it's not just a simple bell curve or something else. Of course, by themselves, you know, the
Nobel and the MacArthur are bell curves, right? They have a sort of slightly more. Yeah, they have
ignoring the MacArthur, which I think I have suspicions on why it sort of drops harshly
before 30 years old. You need some type of, you know, research, impact and development. And that
doesn't necessarily happen until like your 20s, late 20s sort of thing, you know, if you follow
the PhD track, right. But you have like the Nobel, which is a few percent of people down in the sort
of 40s range, you get most of them somewhere between 60 to 70. And then you have like another
dipping off, you know, after that, right up to, yeah, so years old, and like, obviously, that's
expected. But to see the two fellowships are generally given to populations that are at least
from their peaks, you know, 20, 30 years apart, in age gap, is pretty, pretty striking. I took that
as one of the more interesting pieces, you know, just from this paper. I think that's, I think
ノーベル賞とマッカーサー奨学金の比較
that's also testament to sort of criteria of these awards being given, you know, if the idea is to
give awards to people who you want to continue working, you know, you probably don't want to give
them to the retirees. And... Right. Did we, did we mention the quote for the Nobel laureates? I think
that was an important one here, while you were describing the prize. What was the, I think the
quote from their paper mentions that the award was designed both, this is a quote, as a reward
for past major contributions to science and as incentive for future ones. End quote, which is
getting at your point of like, this doesn't seem, this seems counter to what we would inherently
expect to happen. If you give an award of this, you know, capacity, magnitude, whatever for work
that has been done in the past to somebody that is like entering at least early stages of heading
towards retirement, like not somebody who is, and I'm not saying that, you know, a person could not
be incentivized to do more at this point, but I am saying that you've already done a lot. Yeah. What
do you expect to happen when you are finally acknowledged for some achievements that you had
in a certain way, and you are coming towards the end of your career? I do not expect them to go out
of their way to try and do another magnum opus, right? Another masterpiece work, right? And I just
found this quote from MacArthur Foundation's website. It says, MacArthur Fellowship is not
a lifetime achievement award. We're looking for individuals on the precipice of great discovery
or a game-changing idea. So like, I think this really defines that this is not like a good job,
good on you award. This is like, here's the money we're just going to inject you with, do more of
what you're doing, right? Like that's the idea. Intentionally being like, you are mid or cusp level
from what we're seeing. We think that if you had a little bit more support, you might be able to get
something real good out. Do that, right? Attempt to do that. Yeah. So the idea is like, we have to
first recognize that MacArthur and Nobel have very sort of different distinct characters and the
purpose for giving recognitions to their awardees. So that's one thing. And that kind of
explains this binomial distribution curves. I don't know if you can say binomial when we're
comparing two data sets, but oh well. It's why I specified that if they are sort of one,
they would be called binomial. But they are two data sets and they just look that way. It's just
to describe the two clearly different ages related to what you said, right? We're aiming for people
who are like cusp or like in the midst of that work that might do something specifically interesting
afterwards. Well, but interestingly, there's not much difference between
the Nobel laureates group and MacArthur recipient group in pre and post award behavior. So
regardless of which sort of group you fall into, and this is especially the case if you cap
the very early and very late stage of life people and just focus on mid-career recipients,
there's sort of statistically insignificant difference between the two awards and how they
behave before and after. And they're mainly looking at the citation count, which is yes,
one of the reliable data you can get, but not the whole story as we frequently
mourn about off mic. Yeah. They also, I just noticed it as you were mentioning this,
they added, they weren't even doing anything but citation counts until they had feedback from peer
reviewers who recommended adding at least publication counts and the ratio of citations
per publication as additional metrics. So this is in their section 2.4 statistical analysis,
their first sentence and says, we were originally only doing citation counts, which is crazy to me,
but we added publication counts. Okay. Probably good. And then a ratio of citations per publication,
which you'd think would maybe be an obvious like ratio to include, but.
Yeah. I mean, good job on the reviewer. That sounds like a good enhancement to this.
ノーベル賞受賞者の思考
Right. To at least make it like somewhat, yes, an analysis of the citation counts is one thing,
but I feel like you're missing a lot of the story or you better not be making large claims in your
conclusion without having at least some way of looking at the nuance in things that have been
published. So yeah. Yeah. So this is just like a sort of jumping point from our discussion here is,
I guess it's interesting to think about who deserves these kinds of big media attention
awards, not just MacArthur, but like Fields Medal for Maths and other awards of this
caliber. And I think it's, it really depends on the nature of one's research and which award
wants to highlight. We briefly mentioned basic research typically takes decades for it to show
their true impact in what it means. And it's really hard, like nobody, none of these laureates
probably when they were doing their research, it's like, oh yeah, like 60 years from now,
this is going to be important as Nobel prize worthy. They surely believe that it's meaningful
and important, but whether they can predict a priori that this is a Nobel worthy project,
I think very little. Yeah, I, you said something that made my brain sort of start on a question
that I would like to know more about, which is how many of the people who have received the Nobel
prize were like, like considering or like thinking about it really strongly, like early on in their
careers versus being like, kind of ambivalent to it or like just it not being the major part. Like,
you know, I think there was one other that I don't have the citation on something that was
talking about, you know, the trajectories of those that have achieved the Nobel versus those
that haven't, or have gotten other things. And that's kind of interesting, um, in terms of
how were you shooting for it? Right. Yeah. Because you're, you're right. It's like, well, yeah,
you wouldn't expect you're like 60 years down the road. And you're like, I don't, I don't know if I'm
going to get anything for that. You know, like, I'm, I'm, I'm decades removed from that. Right.
Even if I did get something, like the crucial thing about Nobel laureate database, right,
is that the population is only like this prize is only given to people who are still alive.
So it misses a whole bunch of recognition of people who like just didn't make it that far.
Yeah, they could have done really important research that are super impactful,
you know, and passed away earlier than average population for whatever reason.
Yeah, part of it is just stay alive, right?
Part of the game is to stay alive. And I wonder if that has anything to do with like,
unusual representation of Japanese population and Nobel Prize. We famously live long.
Yeah, okay. Okay. Okay. Yep. Yep. Well, now we know another way to game the system. That's the
part. Do the most important work in your 20s and live, live, live.
You just just stop at that point. Actually, it's not even important. Like as long as you put out
some work with that's an interesting thought, right? Like, I mean, I guess there are those
that have shifted to like companies and stuff like that. But, you know, would they consider
a Nobel Prize for somebody who had like, a really impressive like result in creation within like
20s to 30s? And then they just stopped and like, went and became? I don't know, like, just super
chill. They went and like bought a farm. Yeah. I mean, we don't know that right? Like, and also
it's like, like Nobel Prize and Nobel worthy projects tend to be, for the lack of a better
word, like one hit wonder, you know, that's like their one most significant work and doesn't mean
that they consistently produce that level of results. You know, it could have been their
highlight of their life. And that's it. Yeah. And perhaps if you sort of like net out
the benefits, and not so beneficial thing about keeping this particular individual
in academic sphere, right? Maybe some of them don't have a net positive effect.
I mean, that's, yeah, like, that's, oh, that's so crucial. Because this,
ノーベル賞の意義と誤解
this, again, doesn't take into account anything else, but that one moment, right? Fine,
right. But like, that person is probably having done a whole bunch of other things. And also,
this, this feels like it's tangentially related to the idea of, I wouldn't say the idea,
the way that sometimes a Nobel laureate is treated as if like their opinion on anything,
like somehow had, you know, any, any topic, any idea, it's like, well, now this, this Nobel
laureate has told me this thing that authority means something. Some people in like the Harvard
is that thing? Not at all. Like, there was one, I think, guy who was just like, none of my students,
right, like, you know, are like, oh, he's a Nobel laureate. So I just trust it. I still have to
come in with, but there are people who are asking for those opinions. It's true. Yes. Like, you
know, you let's say you get a medal in chemistry. And I wouldn't go to you and ask for your opinion
on my stock profile, you know, that's right, right. I don't want to give you an opinion on
your stock profile. I'll just be like, I'll just be like, just put it all right. Or like,
I wouldn't even go to you for like, vaccine advice, even if like, because because I know
that you didn't get a medal in physiology. If you spend your days doing ab initio calculation,
I'm still not going to trust your ability on deciphering biochemical research. No, no, you
like there is you should not just be like, oh, I wonder what he thinks about this biochemical
research stuff. Like, there's a there's a crucial, maybe nuance, but maybe it's just a it's just a
line, right? That says, like, it might be interesting to talk to someone who has who has
a way of thinking, which would be interesting if you are both coming in with like information about
the topic that you would like to discuss, right? And with a very deciphering minds that this person
could be wrong. Right? Yes. Yeah. Like it's we're coming in and I want to talk to you about the way
you see it. But also like, do you recognize as the person I'm talking to Nobel laureate that you
could be wrong? If you say yes, okay. Do I recognize that you could be wrong? And I could be wrong?
Yes. Okay. So like, we're just talking about it to think about it. But the conclusions don't have
that relevance unless we bring in the expert who is then able to also, like, connectively, you know,
probably has a better idea about what to do with your vaccine than a Nobel laureate.
Right? Right. Like, and, like, at that baseline, it's like those people are just there, they have
at least the thing that has been told, this is what you should do. It's the thing that we knew
best was able to keep people safe, etc. Right? Like, trust that if you're going to trust anything.
Like, and if you're, if you're not going to trust that, maybe I guess you should just rely
more on your own thinking than on just like some random Nobel laureate message about something that
they're not a specialist in. Right? That's like a, that's like a do your own research type deal.
But I hope you do your own research by also looking at what the experts are saying.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, we digress. But I still think your question about people,
you know, were you aware that this grad school project of yours is going to be Nobel worthy?
Like, did you know this? Yeah. Like prior to getting one, you know, typically 30, 40, 50 years
ahead of its recognition? I think that's like a really hard question. And if we knew them,
governments and funding agency would know where to put the money on. And basic research will be
funded better. But yeah, I think the whole point is that we don't know. Like, I completely agree.
The relation between basic research to application is going to be faster and faster,
but also more and more chaotic in today's time than it was when Nobel Prize started 125 years ago.
Because the level of interdisciplinariness and the level of the speed at which innovation is
happening is unprecedented, to the point that I think Nobel Selection Committee 100 years ago
ノーベル賞とその影響
probably had a better idea of like, what research is, it was easier to track the lineage of research
and what made what kind of impact. Whereas now, I think it's really hard. It's a bit of a gamble,
you know, whether this is a legitimate recognition or not. Like, you know, like,
things like artificial neural network is like, a classic example. Like they're they have gone
through so many winter periods, as the research field where like, nobody paid attention to it.
Yeah, once in a while, they'll be like, Oh, it's new thing. And then people get excited for a
little bit. And then like, 10 years later, they're like, Oh, are you still working on that? That's
stupid. Like, that's a dead end research. And like, look at where it's came now, you know. So
it's really, really hard to predict that. Yeah, yeah, don't Yeah, nobody. If anybody out there
says we can predict that this is I wouldn't even take that with a grain of salt, I would simply
just ignore them. There is something that we probably similar arts like March madness brackets.
Yeah, exactly. Right? Like, there's just not only, I don't want to say there's just too many
factors, right? Because I think that implies to some people that if we had enough information,
and you might be able to see where I'm going with this, if we had enough information of data,
right, we might be able to train a machine learning, you know, model to like, figure out
the pattern. That that doesn't work. Like, there are there are things that you can train
an ml for. But there are also ones you can't. And this is like, sort of these fundamental
problems with the actual question, right? Like the prediction of something.
The prediction of, say, you know, your likelihood to succeed in school is faulted,
like, several different ways, if you try to, like, collect data. And there are,
we don't, we won't talk about this in this one. But there are there are studies that have
attempted to simply collect more data. And they great, right, it was a good attempt, but it,
they all demonstrated that nothing worked. Nothing worked even better than just like a simple
regression. Yeah, right. Like, and it was just like, yeah, and that was like equivalent to a
coin flip anyway. So like, yeah, no, it's like, this, and that doesn't seem like the direction
to head, right? It doesn't have you questioning what factors help people the most, right? Or how
do I, how do I better support those to like, not even just succeed, but to find their own ways
of succeeding, right, which totally breaks down the whole, you know, meaning of that message.
Yeah. I mean, after, well, not the same, but like, after sort of, like, critically looking at the
impact of these, like major awards, I do have to say that it does highlight the research,
and especially in the case of Nobel Prizes, a lot of basic research is in like a major headline way
that no other science story gets told to the general public. And yeah, absolutely. If the
Nobel Laureate comes from your country, or your university, or your research area, it's super
exciting. Right. So like, it has a big PR value for science, which is probably also the reason
why it should be very carefully selected. But it has such impact. And I think very few other awards,
or other sort of like infrastructures of scientific communication have this kind of impact.
So I do think that we should still continue doing this. And like, I will be kind of curious
how, like, I would like to see a bit more transparency on how these people are selected,
who selects them. Kind of like, I want people to think more about that than who, as a result,
gets the award. Okay, that's one thing. That's exciting. Sure. And I love learning about the
research field that I never knew existed through those Nobel News. But I'm personally curious about,
you know, who gets to have a say? And should we really be giving awards to people who are like,
pretty like they just met the cut of the posthumous award? And like,
they might just want to chill in their retirement and like, you know, not be pulled out into the
public and do some charity work. So yeah, those are my yeah, our two cents a little rambling.
ノーベル賞の感情と認識
But let me let me let me close maybe this episode with Do you have any favorite Nobel moments?
Or laureate stories? I do. Yeah. Because would you like to give yours first before I give mine or?
I can give mine first. So when I was a freshly joining PhD student in the lab that I joined,
when I had zero clue, really, now that I think about it, of what they do,
I just thought it sounded cool. And yeah, I was reading some of the papers that you know,
the advisors give you first, like, this is just a general gist of what we do.
Here's some papers go read. We were discussing over these papers, like,
hey, like, why? Like, do who they do people do this kind of thing? Like, I asked, like,
hey, like, we do this awful lot in a unimolecular way, like, meaning only we only look at one
molecule reaction, like, but like, most of the chemical reaction we're interested in
involves two molecules, like, like, like, who looks at two molecules in this way?
And my advisor just like laughed at me and be like, if you figure that out, we'll get a Nobel
Prize. Right. Okay.
And I was like, Oh, yeah, not not bad.
Right. But in that moment, right, a recognition of I see the grandness of the problem you have
right like this. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that's, I don't think I had this thought earlier
with it. But the two things one that people will refer to something as that'll get us the
Nobel Prize when they see it as like, especially difficult, right? Like their field specific
challenge, right? That's one thing perhaps that can be identified as a possible Nobel.
But then the question is whether or not it, you know, truly drives the rest of the impact later.
And that, like, this brought an awareness right to you of this question of like, yeah,
that does seem valid, but we can't solve it. Right? Like, we can't, like, so, you know,
good luck. If you choose to take that direction. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's, yeah, it's,
like, that was the first sort of shocker into my system of like,
how difficult what I'm about to spend five years on really is. Right. And I did end up writing my
final thesis on a unimolecular reaction. And it was hard enough. Yep. Okay.
Oh, God. Yeah. Yeah. So your favorite sometimes, you know, what? Hard enough is good. Yeah, my
my favorite, huh? I'll be a little less crass than I think I planned on being. So
in terms of receiving this question, you know, many people have asked and many people talk about
the Nobel Prizes. And they, you know, some people even enjoy. I mean, especially you,
because your your field has more recently got a lot of sort of attention. Right? Yeah. So there
was a there was a guy research. Yeah, there's a guy in the program, you know, who like also
grabbed a, you know, Nobel, like, and was wandering around and stuff. And everybody was very excited.
And I will admit during that moment, I felt nothing. I was not enthused nor excited. I was
like, I guess it's really neat. Like, I don't even having it happen. Right. It's like trying to grasp
what everybody else seems to sense as this. I don't think they sense it. I think they've been told
right of like the major deal and like the impact of the important but even like the guy who got it.
There's still this sense of like, I was like 40 years ago or something. I don't think he himself
said this. But I think there's always this disconnect. Yeah. And like, it's hard to
this again, kind of goes back to the irony of Nobel Prize projects that most people don't even
think about getting one when they're doing it. And yeah, I would have done this research with or
without Nobel Prize in like being dangled in front of me. So yeah, what gives? Yeah, that's that's
where it blows my mind that the Nobel is at all like, you know, we want to incentivize greater
contribute. No, you stop, stop talking. Just stop at the point where you like, recognize the work
that had been done by these person or these people within that time period, because it's something
ノーベル賞についての考察
that people can strive for early on, right to think about, like, I want to be impactful. But it's like,
it's likely not going to be what everyone's striving for all the time. And there's certainly
not going to be like, it's time for me to go back to my work that I did 40 years ago.
And like, restart the, you know, the field on that. So, yeah, anyway, that's my, my two cents
on the Nobel Prize there. I think it's like a healthy way. And on that note, we should stop
chatting about Nobel Prize, then we should stop routing, we should get a Nobel Prize for knowing
when to stop talking.
Yeah, BRB, I'm gonna go pick up my Nobel Prize. I'll go knock on their office door and say,
where's my medal?
That's it for the show today. Thanks for listening and find us on X at Ego de Science.
That is E I G O D E S C I E N C. See you next time.
