AY S ¢

 

THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY

1230 YORK AVENUE - NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

July 13, 1978

Dr. Harriet Zuckerman
Department of Sociology
Fayerweather

Columbia University
New York, NY 10027

Dear Harriet:

These are just a couple of comments a few hours after having read
your piece on Nobel Prizes II. I have not rechecked the original text
to see whether my comments are totally fair, namely that you may have
already covered these points to your satisfaction.

As you know, I fully share your scepticism in the last sentence of
your paper. Having had to confront the question of whether to accept
the Prize, as you also know, I also had to question myself about the
social functions of the system and I will again send you a copy of the
sermon that I composed for that occasion. Leaving to that text the
arguments about support for a global culture, I wonder if you would not
consider in Nobel Prizes III some further examination of their social
function. Try to do the contrafactual exercise of a world in which
neither the NP's nor any of their imitators could plausibly have emerged?

I have never doubted that the net utility of the Prizes within the
scientific system are negative but one would have to explore how far
this is balanced by their impact on the other side. By providing an
index, however precarious, for acheivement the Prizes have been a
reward and incentive much more for institutions and countries probably
even than for individual scientists. That brings us back to a very
interesting question about the overall role of net indicators and the
side-effects of their imperfections. It is also interesting how often
we need to have some way of keeping score in order to stay in the game
at all.

But undoubtedly the most important role of the Prizes has been as
public relations for science and especially for the inspiration of
youngsters contemplating entry into a scientific career. Here I think
we do have a paradox: From my own experience both introspectively and
with students, very few of us ever identified directly with the Prize
or could seriously anticipate a chance of achieving one. However, the
culture hero provides an access of aspiration where virtual unattainability
still does not diminish the attraction of the goal. Even without winning
a Prize there is some gratification in the very process of emulation and
aspiration: One might have to look into hagiography to get the next
best metaphores.

 

te

Ronen Ser of Sci Ame (1961)

6:490 £278

L117: mt! -33
page 2
H. Zuckerman
7-13-78

Whether the net balance here is altogether positive, and whether
it balances out the substantial internal costs of the Prize system
are worthy subject for further discussion.

Back to your last sentence, I wonder by what procedure it would
ever be possible to know "whether the Prize's have actually advanced
science". That point is of course, quite different from the manifest

rationale for reforming the criteria for the Prizes as you also
suggested.

Yours

Joshua Lederberg

JL/gel