Working Paper: NBER ID: w31352
Authors: Jay Bhattacharya; Paul Bollyky; Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert; Geir H. Holom; Mikko Packalen; David M. Studdert
Abstract: The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is the most prestigious and coveted award in medical research. Anecdotal evidence and related research suggest that receiving it may adversely affect research productivity. We compared the post-Nobel research output of laureates (prize years: 1950-2010) with their pre-Nobel output and with the output of a matched control group consisting of winners of the Lasker Award, another highly prestigious medical research prize. Pre-Nobel, laureates’ publications were more voluminous, highly cited, and novel than those of (future) Lasker winners. Post-Nobel, laureates’ productivity decreased sharply, eventually falling below that of Lasker winners on all three measures. These declines may reflect diversionary effects of the Prize, changed incentives, or intrinsically different career arcs for medical researchers who win the Nobel Prize.
Keywords: Nobel Prize; research productivity; Lasker Award; biomedical research
JEL Codes: I1; I23; O3
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| Winning the Nobel Prize (A14) | Decreased research productivity (D29) |
| Winning the Nobel Prize (A14) | Fewer papers published annually (A14) |
| Winning the Nobel Prize (A14) | Decrease in first-authored and last-authored papers (A14) |
| Winning the Nobel Prize (A14) | Decrease in novelty of ideas in publications (O32) |
| Career age and calendar year of publication (C41) | Research productivity (O47) |
| Winning the Nobel Prize (A14) | Shift in productivity dynamics (O49) |
| Prior citation rate (A14) | Research productivity (O47) |