The 2024 Nobel prizes reflect several trends. This year, more than usual, top universities in the English-speaking world dominated the prizes, and all of the awardees were male. Artificial intelligence was recognized in two of the awards, as was economic inequality (for the second time in two years). A private sector company was home to joint winners, perhaps reflecting a new trend.

The 2024 science Nobel prizes (in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine, and economics) have been won by 10 scientists and academics from just three countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Turkey. The prize winners’ current affiliations to academia and/or industry are also limited to a largely similar list of just three countries: the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. As the Nobels are the world’s most prestigious recognition of scientific achievement, they have important lessons for universities worldwide.

This year, we highlight a few significant “takeaways”: the continued importance of basic research; the prevalence of the artificial intelligence (AI) wave in the Nobels, among other controversies; a complete male domination in the 2024 awards; and a monopoly by top universities in the United States and the United Kingdom—and this year with affiliation to prominent private sector companies.

The Value of Basic Research to Human Society

As noted in previous editions of our annual Nobel analysis (2021, 2022, 2023), what really stands out in the awarding of Nobel prizes is the recognition of the great contribution of the lifework of scientists involved in basic research. At a time when the support (financially and structurally) for basic research in both the sciences and the arts is under threat, the Nobels focus on fundamental science as a central investment for the future of human society.

Controversies in This Year’s Nobels

Echoing the wider cultural moment, the Nobel authorities seem to have decided that AI is the real winner this year, awarding the direct application of AI-modeling to predict protein structures as well as research into building the structural foundations for machine learning. However, some have questioned the ethics of giving a chemistry prize for an AI-model trained on the years of research of many other scientists.

Inequality issues are once again at the heart of the economics prize, this year on the role of institutions in economic development. (The 2023 Nobel also focused on inequality—in that case, on labor outcomes for women.) Notably, reactions to this year’s economics award include academic criticisms of the prize-winning work demonstrating a Western bias when legitimizing effective institutions and lacking a normative analysis of the costs of the brutality inherent in colonialism.

Male Domination

All the science prizes were given to male awardees this year. This is unsurprising as analysis of the prizes has shown significant underrepresentation of gender and ethnicity in the Nobels—although there has been marginal improvement with 15 prizes awarded to women in physics, chemistry, and physiology since 2000, while only 11 were awarded between 1900–2000. However, this year’s physiology and medicine prize caused a stir, as the first author of the paper cited by the Nobel committee was a winner’s wife (as tweeted by the Nobel X account). This points to structural challenges of the statutes and nomination process of the Nobel prize itself, which may be shared by up to three people, as well as the complex, often disputed arranging of article authorship, in addition to the noted gender imbalance in the selection committees from the Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Continued Western Domination: Who Are the Winners This Year?

More than in some recent years, top universities in the Anglosphere dominate the Nobels. All the 2024 winners received PhDs from top-ranked American or British universities—seven in the United States and three in the United Kingdom. All but one Nobelist (from Turkey) were born in the United States or the United Kingdom. Their careers have been much more Anglocentric than some other Nobel cohorts. Only a few have spent time outside the Anglosphere—short stints in Denmark, France, and Russia. Unusually for Nobelists, two are at Google DeepMind in the United Kingdom, although this increase in full-time or part-time private sector affiliations of prize winners underscores the likely consequences of limited funding for multi-decade basic research within academia.

Structural Strengths and Weaknesses

As we, and others, have noted, continuing dominance of the Anglosphere in the Nobels is likely, and little has changed. The small group of top research-intensive universities are largely located in the English-speaking world or Western Europe. Only 20 out of the top  100 in the current Shanghai Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU) are in Asia, and only eight in the top 50. Why is change unlikely? These top institutions are able to attract the best talent globally by a combination of attractive salaries, brilliant colleagues, well-established laboratories, reasonable access to competitively awarded research funding, strong traditions of academic freedom, and institutional autonomy. It helps that they often operate in English, the global language of science.

However, change of a different nature is more likely. Current attacks on universities in many countries by populist political parties or governments may, in time, weaken the academic system and reduce financial support, as is already happening in some countries. Further, commitment to basic “Nobel-producing” research requires commitment to science, which is often anathema to populists. The appearance of the private sector in the Nobels this year may portend future developments, although long-term commitment to basic science is unlikely.

Internationalization of Nobel Prizes?

Much has been said about the rise of science in China and elsewhere in Asia. China has spent billions improving its top universities and has impressive programs to attract and support top scientists from abroad, especially from the Chinese diaspora. This investment has reaped rewards. Since 2022, China has topped the charts of the Nature Index of top-cited research in the natural sciences and health. Other countries, such as Japan and South Korea, have also massively invested in research and recently been listed in the top 10 of the Nature Index. Yet, when it comes to recognition of Nobel-winning basic research, China has not yet been successful, which may reflect the increasing “Nobel prize delay” between conducting research and receiving the award – a gap that has increased from 14 years between 1901–1910 to 29 years between 2011–2019. Furthermore, some analysts note that the organization and politicization of Chinese universities and science may hinder “Nobel-quality” research. Thus, while Chinese scientists may be producing Nobel-quality research, it may not be recognized for some years yet.

A Look Under the Hood at the Nobel Empire and Global Science

Unsurprisingly, there is a minor industry of “Nobel gazing” and an entire discipline of scientometrics, as science and its assessment have become increasingly important for society. As time, funding, and academic spaces committed to basic science become increasingly contested—though critical to securing humanity’s future—the Nobel prizes give us universal pause to consider what we as a human society want to invest in. In this way, understanding the nature of the prizes themselves, how they are awarded, and the increasingly complex scientific systems from which they emerge is of great importance.

Philip G. Altbach is professor emeritus and distinguished fellow at the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, United States. E-mail: [email protected].

Tessa DeLaquil is postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Education, University College Dublin, Ireland. E-mail: [email protected].