`After the euphoria of 2018, this year’s Nobel prize in chemistry, medicine and physics have again been awarded to men`, the Nature researchers write in the prestigious Science Journal.

Some would consider it a childish thought, but not when it’s proven by facts. It’s clear that the standards of the committee that awards the prize is stuck on a pattern when it comes to men. 

There were exceptions in the past, as Esther Duflo who was awarded jointly for work that used randomized controlled trials to find ways to alleviate poverty, becoming the second woman to win the Nobel prize in economic science, following the late Elinor Ostromin 2009, Nature points out. `But, as we celebrate all of this year’s inspiring Nobel prize winners, we should reflect on the fact that, once again, members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Nobel Assembly of the Karolinska Institute have been unable to find a single recipient for the chemistry, physics and medicine awards who is not a man.

More over, only one of the nine laureates in these categories — Japan’s Akira Yoshino, awarded a share in the chemistry prize for his work on lithium-ion batteries — is not from Europe or North America.` – says Nature.

Nobel: `We are trying!` 

The academy’s secretary-general Göran Hansson told Nature that they’re trying to ride the winds of change in this matter, and the Academy is focused on nominating more women for the prize. `They are advised to consider diversity in gender, geography and topic in their choices`, Hansson said.

A slap on the cheek from the working field

`As this journal | Nature |and many others have pointed out over the years, the lack of diversity among laureates is a systemic problem — and we accept it is not one that can besolved quickly. We know that today’s prizes are often based on work carried out decades ago, when barriers in academia to women and other under-represented groups were even more formidable than they are today. We also know that established institutions suffer from inertia and that selection processes have built-in biases, none of which can be overcomed over night. But even by the sometimes slow standards of change in science, the Nobel awarding bodies step towards reform are too incremental.`, wrote Nature. 

Clear message: You are scientists, give us data!

The medical and science journal gave a shush! to the Nobel committee, reminding the Academy that they are all scientists and they should use proven facts in their approach. On that note, Nature asks true data of the numbers of the female scientists and scientists from other under-represented groups that were nominated, numbers that will clearly speak out.  

A second relatively simple action would be to diversify the sources that nominations — which are by invitation only — are accepted from.

This month, many individuals and institutions will receive letters inviting nominations for the 2020 prizes. How many of these letters are sent beyond elite universities and academies isn’t known.

As a small test case, Nature approached three of the world’s largest international scientific networks that include academies of science in developing countries.

They are the International Science Council, the World Academy of Sciences and the Inter Academy Partnership. Each was asked if they had been approached by the Nobel awarding bodies to recommend nominees for science Nobels.

`All three said NO!`, proved!

United Journals

Everything that matters on the World Wide Web