But as with every year, one must keep up with the annual tradition of grumbling about the idea of individual awards and how they influence modern perceptions of research work. Because for years, such awards for research accomplishments have been lambasted for misrepresenting the nature of modern science. A common thread behind the criticism is that many research ventures are more akin to team sports whereas awards almost always recognize individual brilliance.

This naturally distorts the public’s myth into one where a lone genius is crucial in pulling through brilliant ideas. In reality, it often takes an army of scientific and support staff to come up with ideas and see things through; research papers from fields like astrophysics often carry several hundred authors. By continuing this anachronistic tradition, awards often disproportionately focus on the accomplishments of the few, while creating disincentives for the many.

The Nobel has also annually taken flak for awarding a maximum of three living individuals, which tends to disregard the important contributions of others, a fourth or a fifth, or someone deceased. In many ways, therefore, John Goodenough’s greatest accomplishment was to live long enough to be able to win the chemistry Nobel in 2019, at the age of 97.

Another award carries equal glitz every year. A couple of weeks prior to the Nobel, the highly coveted Ig Nobel prizes were also awarded for various works that first made you laugh, then think. Among the 2022 recipients, a curious inclusion was a research study on how luck trumps talent in matters of success and wealth.

Simulations showed that average or above average talent was often enough for success in one’s career, as long as a few lucky events helped. It’s a commonly agreed upon opinion in casual discourse, and the study fundamentally undermines the common belief that accomplishment equals talent; luck is at least the supporting if not the main cast. And looking at awards through that lens of true serendipity, the fact that most Nobel laureates in science are white, male and typically born in high-income nations changes the picture quite a bit.

Individual awards such as the Nobels must thus evolve from their archaic norms to keep with the times, update the message they send, and correct the culture they create.

The Nobels, based (largely) on Alfred Nobel’s will, were first awarded in 1901. At that time, a significant chunk of the world was under colonial rule, gender norms were starkly skewed, and top-notch science was often done by individuals mucking around in unsafe laboratory environments. The world has since changed for the better, as has science, and the people who run it. Recognition ought to get with the program too.