Lost in the shuffle of the unusually long Chuseok holiday, the key phrase for this year’s Nobel Prizes in Science (Physiology or Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry) is 'slow basic science.'
This is a complete reversal from last year when Artificial Intelligence (AI), which has taken the world by storm since its debut, swept both the Physics and Chemistry prizes. As someone who has made a career in chemistry, it was especially welcome news that the Chemistry Prize, which had been awarded to an American life scientist (David Baker) and an AI software expert (Demis Hassabis), has returned to traditional chemists.
The New York Times reported, "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which selects the Nobel laureates, has finally recognized the importance of slow, fundamental research that reflects a desire to better understand the world based on curiosity." The reaction from Korean media was not much different, noting that the Nobel Prizes in Science have “returned to the original spirit of the Nobel Prize, which emphasizes solving humanity's great challenges over industrial achievements.”
● The Remarkable Achievements of Slow Basic Science
All of the achievements awarded Nobel Prizes in Science this year have matured for over 30 years. Of course, the long time it took to receive the prize is not the only thing that stands out. Rather, what is remarkable is that all of this year's awarded achievements began with modest interests that were difficult to assign clear meaning to, both scientifically and in terms of economic potential.
In other words, they were typical basic science projects that lacked any justification or prospect for investing precious research funds and effort. They were purely basic science research that began solely with a simple curiosity about humanity and nature.
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Mary Branco (US), Fred Ramsdell (US), and Shimon Sakaguchi (Japan) for their 'breakthrough discoveries in the field of peripheral immune tolerance, which prevents the immune system from attacking the body.' They uncovered how our immune system works and why autoimmune diseases do not occur under normal conditions.
It all began in 1995 when Shimon Sakaguchi (坂口志文), an immunologist at Japan’s RIKEN, discovered the existence of 'regulatory T-cells,' which suppress excessive immune responses, while studying autoimmunity in mice that had their thymus removed. Sakaguchi's simple curiosity eventually led to over 200 valuable clinical treatments for autoimmune diseases, cancer, and organ transplantation.
The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to John Clarke (US), Michel Devoret (US), and John Martinis (US) for confirming the phenomenon of macroscopic quantum tunneling. The microscopic quantum tunneling phenomenon, where microscopic particles like electrons, atoms, and molecules pass through an energy barrier that is insurmountable according to classical mechanics, has been known for over 100 years since the establishment of quantum mechanics. The scanning tunneling microscope (STM), developed in 1981 and awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986, is a representative technology that utilizes the quantum tunneling effect of electrons.
However, in 1984, America’s Clarke observed the quantum tunneling effect in a macroscopic electronic circuit. He discovered that in a macroscopic Josephson junction made of a superconductor at cryogenic temperatures, 'Cooper pairs' of electrons could pass through an insulator, which acts as an energy barrier.
Professor Clarke, who was the advisor to Devoret and Martinis, recalled that at the time, “there was no realistic way to understand its importance, and we could not have predicted today's applications.” This implies that it is impossible to predict from the outset what technologies a new scientific phenomenon will be used for.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry will be awarded to Richard Robson (Australia), Omar Yaghi (US), and Susumu Kitagawa (Japan) for developing the chemistry of 'Metal-Organic Frameworks' (MOFs), which have porous 3D structures. The Nobel Committee's evaluation was that they “fundamentally expanded the way atoms and molecules bond, opening an era where humanity can freely design materials with desired properties.”
It began with a clumsy MOF first synthesized by Robson of the University of Melbourne, Australia, in 1989 using copper ions and organic ligands. The first MOF Robson made was very unstable and useless. However, it demonstrated the possibility of freely synthesizing 3D porous structures like naturally occurring zeolites in the laboratory.
Eventually, the robust and stable MOFs perfected by Susumu Kitagawa (北川進) of Kyoto University and the Palestinian-born Omar Yaghi are now widely used in the synthesis of various catalysts. The ability to extract water from dry desert air is also thanks to MOFs.
● A Rekindled Thirst for the Nobel Prize in Science
With two Japanese scientists winning science prizes this year, our long-standing thirst for a Nobel Prize in Science is being rekindled. Japan is now a 'Nobel powerhouse' with 31 Nobel laureates. It ranks sixth in the world, following the United States (425), the United Kingdom (144), Germany (116), France (78), and Sweden (34). The country boasts an impressive 27 laureates in the science categories alone.
Yet, we in Korea are still eagerly awaiting a science laureate. Although author Han Kang won the Nobel Prize in Literature last year, it did little to quench the Korean public’s thirst for a Nobel. Moreover, this thirst for a Nobel Prize in Science is now spreading to the medical community.
This is because it became known that this year’s Physiology or Medicine laureate, Shimon Sakaguchi, is a so-called physician-scientist (MD-PhD) who graduated from Kyoto University’s medical school. The 2012 laureate Shinya Yamanaka and the 2018 laureate Tasuku Honjo are also physician-scientists who graduated from medical school. In fact, some point out that 30% of the Physiology or Medicine laureates are physician-scientists.
Although Korea began training physician-scientists in 2019, the outlook is not bright. Of the 77 who have completed the physician-scientist training program so far, only 34 are said to be true physician-scientists who are continuing with research. In a situation where researchers' incomes are abysmally low compared to clinicians and future career paths are not guaranteed, it is difficult to expect news of a talented physician-scientist winning the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
The science community's excuse is a lame one. Japan's rapid rise in the Nobel science prizes is said to be the “result of consistent investment in basic science while tolerating failure.” Indeed, after its defeat in World War II, Japan made science and technology a pillar of its reconstruction. It established a Science and Technology Agency in 1956, more than a decade ahead of us, and began investing in earnest in the 1980s. Japan's emergence as a Nobel powerhouse in the 21st century is said to be the result of that investment.
It is regrettable that we have not received a Nobel Prize in Science. However, it is not that we have been lazy in our efforts, nor is it that our scientists lack ability. It was in 1958 that we began to take an interest in unfamiliar modern science and technology.
That was the beginning of our investment in nuclear energy to solve a severe power shortage. It was a bold choice for us to become a founding member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) when we had no proper thermal power plants, let alone nuclear ones.
For the half-century that followed, what our society expected from scientists was not the 'science' that wins Nobel Prizes. The supreme mandate given to scientists was to urgently develop 'industrialization technology' to save the national economy, even if it meant copying and imitating others' technologies.
And we succeeded on a level that amazed the world. The 'Miracle on the Han River,' which saw us rise to become a 'top-10 global economic power' in just half a century from a time when we had to survive on one dollar a week, is the very result of that.
We have now secured world-class nuclear power technology, which a law-graduate president and a minister of climate, energy, and environment are determined to dismantle. The same goes for our semiconductor, automobile, battery, and shipbuilding technologies, which former US President Trump is pestering us to return.
Of course, it is a clear fact that we lag behind Japan in Nobel Prizes. But there is no reason to despair. The demand to catch two rabbits—a 'Nobel Prize' and 'economic growth'—with just half a century of investment is clearly an excessive and unreasonable greed.
We must now begin to invest seriously in basic science for the Nobel Prize. It is an impossible task with the kind of fleeting interest in basic science that flares up only during the Nobel season in October and then disappears.
Considering the public's thirst for a Nobel Prize in Science, we need a social consensus that 'winning a Nobel Prize in Science' is a more urgent goal than becoming a 'top 3 AI powerhouse.' Furthermore, we must correct the absurd perception in the political sphere that frames basic science investment as a 'predatory cartel of vested interests.'
We must also completely discard the naive illusion that a Nobel Prize in Science will develop our society. The Nobel Prize is by no means a goose that lays golden eggs. Receiving a Peace Prize does not immediately bring peace to our land, nor does receiving a Literature Prize instantly make us a cultural superpower. These are facts we have clearly confirmed.
The Nobel Prize in Science is no different. This means that winning a Nobel Prize cannot be our ultimate goal. Rather, through the effort to win a Nobel Prize in Science, we need to establish the true goal of an advanced nation: to contribute to the advancement of humanity's scientific knowledge.
※About the author
Lee Duk-hwan is a Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Science Communication at Sogang University. He served as the president of the Korean Chemical Society in 2012 and has published over 3,200 columns and papers on social issues including science and technology, education, energy, environment, and public health. He has translated works such as 《A Short History of Nearly Everything》, 《The Atoms That Make Us》, 《The Alchemy of Disease》, and 《Science, Now》. His major authored work is 《Lee Duk-hwan's World of Science》.
