The award needs to be more receptive. It must adapt to the existing realities of life
When Kazuo Ishiguro was named as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature this year, there was a comforting sense of fulfillment over a return to classicism, the celebration of an author's body of work and a transcendent acknowledgment of an outsider who could become an insider of the Western world and still peel the layers of human emotion. Critics heaved a sigh of relief as the Nobel committee refused any candidacy from popular culture as it did with musician Bob Dylan last year. In short, the Nobel in this category returned to the tried and tested. However, the Nobel recognised very contemporary breakthroughs in science, taking note of molecular mechanisms controlling circadian rhythms for our long-term sleep hygiene, a gravitational wave detector that would transform our view of the universe and a bio microscope that would analyse the way proteins behave. In their choices here, the committee investigators did not necessarily rely on long years of research and instead put a premium on the civilisational impact of innovations on humankind. A Nobel determines funding and interest for research and the committee, therefore, upheld transformative technologies that could have a concurrent spinoff in our lives.
Has the Nobel panel, therefore, stuck to tradition, as evidenced by its choice of literature or moved on as the science wins proveIJ Does the Nobel, looked upon as a global axis of human excellence, need to changeIJ For all its meticulousness, the Nobel is yet to adapt itself to certain realities though. First, in an age of multi-disciplinary and allied research, the sciences can no longer be credited to the lone genius of mostly White men. Except the Peace Prize, where the committee recognises institutions, every other category caters to individuals or a maximum of three. This institutionalised outlook would encourage more global-oriented research and give it a legitimacy rather than feting the monopoly of an exclusivist mind. There has been no contemporary acknowledgement of women and Black men in science. Diversity and gender neutrality have been the preserve of only the softer, philosophical categories. Of the 206 physics laureates, only two have been women. Many women scientists have been shortlisted as potential recipients in previous years but have lost out, either because they were part of a larger team or because the committee doesn't allow a posthumous roll call. The scientific community is already pointing out how Vera Rubin's death in 2016 means that her work on dark matter is now ineligible for recognition. Social media is demanding answers on quantifying the contribution of the leaders of a scientific study when a whole team is invested in it. All of this makes us wonder whether the awards for a global citizenry are truly all-embracing in nature or a subscription to a precise formula. Will the Nobel now determine relatable talking points or be consigned to an anachronistic shelf lifeIJ