The Causes Of Success Of The Nobel Prize Laureates In Physiology And Medicine

Purpose:This study is to make an investigation, by going deep into the causes of their success in winning the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine, of how the few scientists in the group of sciences of biology and medicine with creative originality have become outstanding figures. Why is there such a big gap between them and the other scientists in their achievements? Are their development, success and road of accomplishment in any way related to social development? By exploring the development of the Nobel Prize for physiology and Medicine, the author is making a study of modern and contemporary biological and medical sciences in the world and in China. In the light of the chief problems in the scientific researches of biological and medical sciences at Nobel Prize level, some suggestions are made for innovation and reformation, so as to provide some basic ideas of strategic administration in this field.Objects of StudyThe basic information of the scientific output of the 184 Nobel Prize laureates between 1901 and 2005 and the general information of the scientific output of 55 Nobel Prize laureates between 1981 and 2005 in physiology and medicine are the basis of this study.Sources of Information1. The original data are collected and synthesized by entrusting the Information Center of The Chinese Academy of Sciences.2. The annual reports "Chinese Scientific and Technical Essays with Analysis" written by the Chinese Scientific and Technological Information Research Institute between 1987 and 2003.3. "Statistical Data of the Items of Grants Provided by China National Commission of Natural Sciences" compiled by China National Foundation fro Natural Sciences between 1995 and 2004.4. Books and other publications including newspapers, journals and magazines on the Nobel Prize winners. Method1. Retrieval of literature including both paper and electronic publications.2. Comparison: Education, technology, economy and culture in the chief developed nations are compared with those in China.3. Seminar: Views on the specific issues are exchanged and discussed freely, profoundly and widely and the investigator makes an analysis and a summary of the different views and opinions.4. Spearman relevant analysis: Derivative targets are selected from both representation and independence. The relationship between the different targets is described and explained with relevant efficiencies and drawing of scattered spots.5. Classification: Certain statistical figures objectively reflecting close or remote relations between the objects of study are found out by dynamic classification. Then the objects of study are classified according to the close or remote relations on the basis of these figures.6. AHP: By systematic analysis, the objects for assessment are continuously analyzed in the light of the objectives of assessment, arriving at the two levels of assessment levels and reaching the assessment goals with the second as the aim. Then on the basis of these goals, a comprehensive assessment index is found and this index is used to evaluate the general targets. The objects of assessment aregraded. The formula of comprehensive analysis index GI is: Results1. Educative value of Nobel Prize in physiology and Medicine. To be concrete, the positive effects include correct scientific ideas, active innovative way of thinking, profound practical foundation, noble ideal state of mind, high sense of responsibility to the society. The Prize winner may have a vivid optimistic experience of success.2. Value of investigation of the Nobel Prize in physiology and Medicine. Research in this respect may involve strategic decision-making in increasing China's scientific power, increasing national dignity from psychological point of view; This research also to find out whether and when biological and medical scientific level can catch up and surpass the international advanced standard. It will improve the medical education and its development; it will help sciences in China will reflect the world's important scientific development and introduce significant achievements of sciences and distinguished scientists of the world.3. The best age range for creation and the peak age of scientific output in the Nobel Price laureates in physiology and medicine. The best age range for creation among the Nobel Prize winners in physiology and medicine should be at least 5-10 years earlier, that is between 31 and 55 years of age. The peak age for scientific output among the Nobei Prize winners in physiology and medical sciences on the basis of SCI number of essays, times of citation and influence factor of the journals is 51.00 47.71 and 48.62 years old respectively. There are positive relations between the three factors. The differences between the age at which the Nobel Prize was won and the peak age at which SCI essays are published, the peak age at which SCI essays are cited, and the SCI essays influence factor of the journals are 9.76 years, 13.05 years and 12.15 years respectively.4. The relationship between the quality and quantity of the essays written by the Nobel Prize winners in physiology and medicine. The number of their SCI essays, times of citation and the influence factor of the journals have positive and proportionate relationship. The peak of quality is 2.39 - 3.29 years earlier than the peak of quantity.5. The main age of the Nobel Prize winners in physiology and medicine and the focus of the age for study at which the Nobel Prize was won. The main age of Nobel Prize winners in physiology and medicine are 53.62 and 75.15. The focus ages for study are 35.52 - 39.52 and 57.05 - 61.05 years old.6. General causes of success of the Nobel Prize laureates in physiology and medicine. Time and space features: The age of these winners is between 32 and 87. The years of their birth has a span of 110 years. More such people were born in changing times and in most populated, economically developed and fast social developing regions. The characteristic feature of age presents an irregular curve with a younger age in earlier years and an older age in later years. The minimum and maximum positions of the periodic curve are basically equal, averagely, 56.66 years, and 3 quarters concentrated between 41 and 70 years. Both the minimum age and maximum age show a tendency to increase. Their average life span is 78.73 years. The annual number of winners. During the past 50 years, there are more than two persons each year. As for the disciplines, the prizes were not equally distributed among the different disciplines. Among the first-class disciplines, biology has had the most, accounting for 65%; among the second-class disciplines, biochemistry and molecular biology have had the most, accounting for 28.33%. Biological medicine and other sciences have the tendency to cross each other. Since the middle of 20^th century, this has become more obvious. The number of winners in the disciplines has positive relations with the disciplines' position in the sciences.7. The inner cause of the Nobel Prize winners in physiology and medicine. Fundamental education: 97.29 of them have received their doctor's degree, and at a younger age too. Most of them received their doctor's degree between 23 and 27 years of age, and most of them are from the world-famous universities. Motivation for creation: They have curiosity about the natural phenomena, a strong desire for learning as well as interest in what they study, and a strong sense of responsibility, all of which are not for personal profits.Scientific character: Proper scientific education at school laid a good foundation for them. After they started working, averagely, they were hired as professors at the age of 39.5 years and at world-renowned institutions of learning. As a result, they had more accumulation than the others.Cultural qualities. The basis is conscious initiative. Cultural consciousness is obvious in them and their good cultivation is their inner motivation. Their success lies in the combination of scientific creation with their conscious hard work. 8. The external factors for winning the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine.Academic environment for accumulating experience and knowledge in research. These Nobel Prize laureates studied in international or national academic institutions when they worked on their degrees. After they started working, they continued to enjoy such advantage. Before winning the Nobel Prize, they had averagely worked at 2.05 institutions of higher learning, 1.33 research institutes and 0.57 clinical institutions, gaining experience of 20.18 years, 7.29 years, and 2.38 years at institutions of higher learning, research institutes and clinical facilities respectively. On the average, they had worked in 1.75 countries for 29.84 years. Since the 1950s, the number of institutions in which they worked, and the number of years of their working have been on the increase.Background of advantageous academic accumulation. The country provided good conditions for developing, economy, education, science and technology macroscopically, so that sufficient funds could be allocated, more talented distinguished scientists were enrolled at home and from abroad, and there could be a large team of world-level biological and medical scientists. Furthermore, emphasis was laid on intensifying popular education and increasing the scientific level of the entire nation and people; Higher education was strengthened and large-scale universities were founded; a good administrative system for science and technology as built up so that a brand new scientific management system would play an important part.Conclusion1. A proposal for cultivating Nobel Prize laureates in physiology and medicine. To enable the scholars to have scientific innovations, they should start their scientific career early with high expectations. They should lay a good foundation for plenty of regular routine academic research and pay special attention to the researches going in the world. Their conditions for experiments should not be worse than those in highly developed countries, for their labs are the base for creations. There should also be a good academic atmosphere; there should be sufficient research funds to produce high-level scientific output. They should have good aptitude for science so that they may have creative accomplishments. They should also have a good cultural background. The country should have comparatively good development of social economy, education and technology to cultivate a team of world-level scientists in biomedical sciences. 2. A new way of thinking in strategic administration for producing Nobel-Prize-level biomedical achievements in research. A high percentage of research expenditure is a must, and the fund should come from various sources. It should be allocated to key projects and programs. The university plays a key role in basic researches. Biomedicine should enjoy priority. There should be a group of world-level biomedical scientists so that they may have new environment in which to compete, cooperate and innovate.SuggestionsThis study makes the following suggestions for producing Nobel-Prize-level scientific achievements:1. Pace should be accelerated to build up world-level research universities and speed up the education reform of the PhD or MD candidates.2. New creative national system should be re-structured; Funds for basic research should be increased to a higher proportion and come from different resources and used for key projects.3. The priority should be given to life science of all sciences.4. A team of world-level biomedical scientists should be brought up as a faster speed.5. Administration in science and technology should be renovated so that there can be a better environment for scientists to make their advantageous accumulations.6. Popular scientific education should be enhanced and the scientific quality of the people should be improved.New points of view in this study1. It is the first time to mention the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine as a kind of system and make a thorough systematic study of it both qualitatively and quantitatively.2. It is the first time to propose that the age for top-level biological and medical creative output should be 5 - 10 years earlier, between 31 and 55 years of age.The average differences between the peak age, the age of being granted the Nobel Prize are discovered, and peak productive age of the Nobel Prize laureates. The age focus and main years of the Nobel Prize winners are suggested; also the peak age for turning out scientific papers should be 2.39 - 3.29 years earlier.3. This study mentions the law of cultivating Nobel Prize winners in physiology and medicine .4. This study also mentions the causes of their successes including the general causes (time and space features, age features, the annual number of winners and the distribution of winners in different branches of medical sciences), inner causes (fundamental education, motivation of creation, scientific aptitude and cultural qualities), and external factors (research environment and conditions for advantageous academic research accumulation).5. This study is the first to discuss systematically the issue that it is worth studying the Nobel Prize laureates in physiology and medicine, for it is of great value in education. It also systematically puts forward a way of thinking in innovative strategic administration of scientific research in Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine.Conceptions for making further investigations1. The essential factors set for evaluating the scientific output of the Nobel Price winners Prize in physiology and medicine before they won the Prize should be further investigated.2. More work should be done to collect the data and materials in order to make a thorough study of the scientific output of all the Nobel Prize winners in physiology and medicine before they won the Prize.