The Nobel Prize as a Reward Mechanism in the Genomics Era: Anonymous Researchers, Visible Managers and the Ethics of Excellence
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (3):299-312 (2010)
| Abstract | The Human Genome Project (HGP) is regarded by many as one of the major scientific achievements in recent science history, a large-scale endeavour that is changing the way in which biomedical research is done and expected, moreover, to yield considerable benefit for society. Thus, since the completion of the human genome sequencing effort, a debate has emerged over the question whether this effort merits to be awarded a Nobel Prize and if so, who should be the one(s) to receive it, as (according to current procedures) no more than three individuals can be selected. In this article, the HGP is taken as a case study to consider the ethical question to what extent it is still possible, in an era of big science, of large-scale consortia and global team work, to acknowledge and reward individual contributions to important breakthroughs in biomedical fields. Is it still viable to single out individuals for their decisive contributions in order to reward them in a fair and convincing way? Whereas the concept of the Nobel prize as such seems to reflect an archetypical view of scientists as solitary researchers who, at a certain point in their careers, make their one decisive discovery, this vision has proven to be problematic from the very outset. Already during the first decade of the Nobel era, Ivan Pavlov was denied the Prize several times before finally receiving it, on the basis of the argument that he had been active as a research manager (a designer and supervisor of research projects) rather than as a researcher himself. The question then is whether, in the case of the HGP, a research effort that involved the contributions of hundreds or even thousands of researchers worldwide, it is still possible to individualise the Prize? The HGP Nobel Prize problem is regarded as an exemplary issue in current research ethics, highlighting a number of quandaries and trends involved in contemporary life science research practices more broadly | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAve Mets & Piret Kuusk (2009). The Constructive Realist Account of Science and its Application to Ilya Prigogine's Conception of Laws of Nature. Foundations of Science 14 (3).
Malhar N. Kumar (2008). A Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (3).
Harriet Zuckerman (1992). The Proliferation of Prizes: Nobel Complements and Nobel Surrogates in the Reward System of Science. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13 (2).
Douglas Allchin (2002). To Err and Win a Nobel Prize: Paul Boyer, ATP Synthase and the Emergence of Bioenergetics. Journal of the History of Biology 35 (1):149 - 172.
Frank Portugal (2010). Oswald T. Avery: Nobel Laureate or Noble Luminary? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53 (4).
Franz Luttenberger (1992). Arrhenius Vs. Ehrlich on Immunochemistry: Decisions About Scientific Progress in the Context of the Nobel Prize. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13 (2).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-07-19Total downloads3 ( #202,107 of 550,917 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
