Abstract
Contemporary Sociology 8(2) (March 1979):271–72.
Zuckerman’s well-written book provides a comprehensive study of Nobel Laureates in the United States. The process by which the Nobel Prize is awarded is examined as a case study of the reward and evaluation system in science. Analysis is based on an impressive array of data. These include interviews with forty-one Laureates (and, incidentally, the fine appendix on interviewing the elite will be of interest to anyone planning to interview scientists or elites in other areas), studies of biographies and autobiographies of Nobel Laureates, reviews of the Laureates’ publications and citations to these publications, and comparative data from secondary sources on average members of the scientific community and other elite, albeit non-Laureate, scientists. Arguments are based both on tabular data and qualitative information. While the tabular results are often interesting and informative, the personal histories and quotes from the interviews are the strongest and most informative aspects of the book.
Following a brief overview in chapter 1, chapter 2 provides a history of the prize from its first presentation in 1901 to the present. Chapters 3 through 7 contain analyses of the various stages of the Laureates’ careers, beginning with their social origins, moving through their education, initial employment and prize-winning research, and ending with their experiences after the prize. Two fundamental questions underlie these chapters. First, why did the Laureates get the prize, or, conversely and perhaps more instructively, why didn’t other eminent scientists receive the prize? Second, what are the consequences of the prize for the operation of the social system of science? Does the prize fulfill its initial intent to foster research?
In dealing with the first question, two major foci emerge: scientists of the forty- first chair and the accumulation of advantage. The notion of the forty-first chair is drawn from the forty-member French Academy, where eminently qualified scientists were excluded from the Academy solely because of the lack of available places. This phenomenon also holds for the Nobel Prize, and provides a useful perspective for examining the inequities associated with the prize. The second phenomenon considered in the allocation of the prize is the accumulation of advantage, the process by which the initial advantages a scientist may have (e.g., propitious social origins, prestigious mentors, prestigious doctoral institutions) are used in the achievement of greater success, and as an end product, increased advantage. Zuckerman emphasizes the operation of this process as fundamental to understanding the success of Nobelists. She concludes: “The processes involved in the accumulation of advantage cast considerable doubt on the conclusion that marked differences in performance between the ultra-elite and other scientists reflect equally marked differences in their initial capacities to do scientific work” (p. 250). This raises an important, albeit unanswered question—what accounts for the success of the Nobel Laureate compared to scientists from similar backgrounds, trained by equally eminent mentors, and located at similarly prestigious universities? While this question is raised early in the book, it is never satisfactorily addressed. Comparative data on scientists trained in the same environments by the same mentor as the Nobelists would have been extremely informative on this point. A certain ambiguity also exists in distinguishing between cause and effect in many stages of the career. Is the eminent mentor instrumental in the training of an exceptional researcher, or must a student be exceptional to obtain the training from the mentor? Does the environment provide the catalyst for prize-winning research, or is the capability for doing prize-winning research necessary for gaining entrance into the environment? Zuckerman provides evidence on both sides of these and similar questions, but this important ambiguity is never clearly addressed.
The second major concern involves the consequences, anticipated and unanticipated, of the prize. A convincing argument is made, supported by figures on the changing productivity of prize-winners and interviews with the Nobel Laureates, that the consequences are not all positive. This topic, addressed primarily in chapter 7, provides an interesting new perspective on the prestigious prize.
The book contains many other insights into the Nobel prize and the operation of science among the very elite. It raises many questions, perhaps more than it answers, but as such it provides interesting and worthwhile reading. Scientific Elite will be of particular interest to sociologists of science, but will also be of interest to all sociologists, scientists, and laypersons interested in the operation of the scientific community.