Current CXmwn43rM@ EUGENE GARFIELD INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATIONCP 3S41 MARKET ST., PHIL40ELPHIA, PA 19104 Theoretical Medicine’s Special Issue on the Nobel Prizes and Their Effect on Science Number 37 September 14, 1992 h the last two issues of Current Contents@ (CC @),we reptited an article by myself and my scientificassistan~Al&d Welljams-llorof, on “Of Nobel Class: A CitationPerspectiveon High Impact Research Authors.’’2.2The essay that follows focuses on the articles in the spe- cial June issue of llieoretical Mediciw+ in which our article appeared. The special issue, published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in The Netherlands,is devoted entirely to paptm coneeming the factors infhreneing the selec- tion of Nobel prize winners, or with the effect of the awards on scienee. An abridged version of the introduction to the issue follows. It has been specially prepared for CC by B. Ingemar B. Lindahl, the journal editor. He rdso edhed the special issue. We’ve also included abstracts and au- thor affiliations for the papers appearing in B. lngemar B. Lindahl the issue, other than our own, in the table. I was pleased to learn from Lindahl that can be tracked over time, showing the criti- earlier citation studies published in CC, es- cal point in the path of discovery.7,s But pecially those forecasting Nobel prize win- even these do not include necessarily the ners, were the prime source of inspiration identification of important qualitative links. for this speeiai issue. He parrictdarly referred As Llndahl points out below, the five ar- to an early paper Ofmine in Nature,5 which ticles in this special issue of Theoretical discussed the use of citation indexing for Medicine highlight the interaction between historical research. This paper was preceded internal and extemrd factors in the evolu- by my 1963 paper in American Documenta- tion of scientific knowledge. Interestingly, tion in which I proposed a “critical path” Stephen Toulmin’s notion of the importance method of evaluating the impact of scien- of studying this interacting is the same per- tific discoveries. I stated back then that it spective that sociologist Robert Merton might be possible, using computers and com- brought to his 1938 seminal work “Science, prehensive citation indexes, to produce dia- Technology and Socie@ in Seventeenth-Cen- grams or “maps” that would not only show tury England,” 10Touhnin, it seems, arrived the chronological relationships between pa- at the same conclusion as Merton did, albeit pers and discoveries, but also implicit im- by a different path. pacts. Since then, ISI@has indeed devel- Harriet Zuckerman of the Andrew W. oped a method to generate cluster maps Mellon Foundation and Columbia Univer- based on co-citation analysis of papers that sity, who is one of the authors in thk is- 137 —. Table. Author affiliations and abstracts of papers appearing in the special June issue of Theoretical Medicine 13(2), on Nobel prizes, except for Gtileld and Welljams-Dorof, whose abstract was published with their paper in Part 1 of this series, Current Confenfs (33):3- 13, 17 August 1992, Franz Luttenberger Department of History of Science smd Ideas, University of Uppasda, Slottet, S-75237 Uppaabs, Sweden This study forms part of a larger research project examining the election process for the Nobel prizes for Physiology or Medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and the role and function of the prizes in early 20th century Swedish and international medicine. The purpose of the study is to clarify the decision- making process which led to the Nobel prize for Paul Ehrlich in 1908, ‘for work on immunity’. His award was preceded by the most dramatic conflict within tie prize authority concerning any pnzewimer prior to World War I, and thus is apt to illuminate both the implicit and explicit criteria and the strategies used in the prize deliberations. Ehrlich’s chemical ideas on the immune response were criticized by the physicaf chemist Svante Arrhenius who recommended the application of his disciplines’ methods and principles on imnmnologi- cal problems, This criticism was brought into the Nobel prize debate by J.E. Johsnsson, a physiologist who asserted that Ehrlichs research was of little scientific value and therefore not worthy of a prize. Yet the majority of the Institute, led by its chairman, the chemist K.A.H. Momer, succeeded in awarding Ehrlich. An anatysis of the controversy shows it to be primarily based upon ( 1) a difference of scientific styles between the antagonists, resulting in incongruous definitions of immunology as a research field, and of the proper aims and methnds of immunological studies. Other factors influencing the final decision were (2) the Institute’s negative reaction to what was considered an intrusion in medical Nobel prize matters by a chemist, (3) Arrhenius’ and Johansson’s diverging views on what kind of work should be awarded a prize, and (4) Johansson’s position as a non-conformist at the Karotinska. Kemetb F. Schaffner Department of History and Phibxsopby of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 1017 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA This two-part article examines the competition between the clonal selection theory and th-einstructive theory of the immune response from 1957-1967. In Part I the concept of a temporally ‘extended theory’ is introduced, which requires attention to the hitherto largely ignored issue of theory individuation. Factors which influence the acceptability of such an extended theory at different temporat points arc also embedded in a Bayesian framework, which is shown to provide a rational account of belief change in science. In Prut 11these factors, as elaborated in the Bayesiao framework, ace applied to the case of the success of the clonal selection theory and the failure of the instructive theory. Harriet Zuckerman Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 140 East 62nd Stree~ and Colmnbm Uofversity New York, NY 10021, USA In the last two decades, prizes in the sciences have proliferated and, in particular, rich prizes with large honoraria. These developments raise several questions: Why have rich prizes proliferated? Have they greatly changed the reward system of science? What effects will such prizes have on scientists and on science? The proliferation of such prizes derives from marked tirrritarions on the numbers and types of scientists eligible for Nobel prizes and consequent increases in the number of uncrowned laureate- equivalents. These would-be surrogates for Nobel prizes extend the reward system of science in its upper reaches but this change is not fundamental. The spread of rich prizes to new fields provides added incentives to potential winners, which has its own dkutilities; it reinforces competitiveness, concern for priority and attendant secrecy, all this amplifying ambivalence toward the reward system in science. There may also be modest positive effects of such new awards in the form of heightened popular esteem for science and interest in it. sue,II rdso has commented on the btterac- Lindahl’s Biography fion theme, with an emphasis on the factors The journal 7?teoretical Medicine was external to science that have affected its evo- launched 13 years ago. LindahI became its lution. Her conceptions are contained in a editor in 1989. He received his BA in theo- lengthy review article in the Handbook of retical philosophy from Strxkholm Univer- Sociology. 12 sity. His intrcdtrction to the theory of medi- 138 tine came in 1978 when he joined a rE- Lindahl has made most of his contribu- search project of the philosophy department tion to the theory of medicine in the field of on the concepts of health and disease and causality. In his dissertation, he derdt with causal explanations in medicine. Through the problem of selecting the principal cause this project, he made his first contacts with of death from a chain of events or a combi- the medical faculty. nation of concurrent conditions. In a series In 1979, he became engagedin along- of papers following his dissertation, he has term project on mortality inrheumatoidar- shown how this selection and weighting of thritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. causes create artificial trends in national sta- This was in the Department of Social Medi- tistics and influence the scientific value and cine at the Karolinska Institute, where he practical relevance of cause-of-death data. received his doctor of medical science de- Lindahl also has served as temporary ad- gree in 1985. That same year, he joined the viser to the World Health Organization on editorial I.mardof Theoretical Medicine. the cause-of-death registration rules for the In 1986, Lindahl was appointed to a three- loth revision of the International Classifi- year research position at the Swedish Medi- cation of Diseases. cal Research Council. He helped found the In addition to his research, he also has European Society for Philosophy of Medi- developed curricula for education in the cine and Health Care in 1987 and still serves theory of medical science, both at the gradu- as a member of the Executive Committee as ate and postgraduate levels, at the Karolinska well as on the advisory board of the Journal Institute. of Medicine and Philosophy, also published by Kh.twer. ***** In 1988, he became docent (associate pro- fessor). He is presently in the Department My thanks to Paul R. Ryan and Eric of Geriatric Medicine, researchhg theoreti- Thurschwell for their help in the prepara- cal problems in diagnosing Alzheimer’s dis- tion of this introduction. ease 0 19921s1 REFERENCES 1. Garfield E. ‘~iVobel ch.rs’: Parts I &2. Current Contents (33):3-13, 17 August 1992;(34):3-12, 31 August 1992. 2. Gatileld E & Wetfjmrrs.tkmaf A. Of Nobel class: a citation perspective on high impact research arrthora. Theor. ,+ferl 13(2): 117-35, 1992.