Article URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49166918 Points: 49 # Comments: 37

Nobel disease or Nobelitis is an informal term for the embrace of strange or scientifically unsound ideas by some Nobel Prize winners, usually later in life.[1][2][3] It has been argued that the effect results, in part, from a tendency for Nobel winners to feel empowered by the award to speak on topics outside their specific area of expertise,[4][5] although it is unknown whether Nobel Prize winners are more prone to this tendency than other individuals.[6] Paul Nurse, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, warned later laureates against "believing you are expert in almost everything, and being prepared to express opinions about most issues with great confidence, sheltering behind the authority that the Nobel Prize can give you". Nurse also noted the media's role in reinforcing this tendency, observing that after receiving his Nobel Prize, journalists had begun to take him seriously when he commented on issues about which he knew little.[7] While it remains unclear whether Nobel winners are statistically more prone to critical thinking errors than other scientists, the phenomenon provides an existence proof that being an authority in one field does not necessarily make one an authority in any other field, and, to the extent that winning a Nobel Prize serves as a proxy indicator of scientific brilliance and high general intelligence, such characteristics are not incompatible with irrationality.[8][6] Nobel disease demonstrates that, for some prize winners, being universally hailed as correct appears to bolster the individual laureate's confirmation bias more than it does their skepticism.[9] Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1976, said this of the Nobel disease as it relates to his economic thinking towards an "antidote":[10] I myself have been asked my opinion on everything from a cure for the common cold to the market value of a letter signed by John F. Kennedy. Needless to say the attention [from receiving a Nobel prize] is flattering, but also corrupting. Somehow we badly need an antidote for both the inflated attention granted a Nobel laureate in areas outside his competence and the inflated ego each of us is in danger of acquiring. My own field suggests one obvious antidote: competition through the establishment of many more awards. But a product that has been so successful is not easy to replace. Hence, I suspect that our inflated egos are safe for a good long time to come.[10] Phillip Lenard won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on cathode rays. He was a supporter of the Nazi party, and promoted the idea of Deutsche Physik and Jewish physics.[8] Alexis Carrel, winner of the 1912 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the invention of the perfusion pump, became an advocate of eugenic policies in Vichy France.[8] Charles Richet won the 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on anaphylaxis. He also believed in extrasensory perception, paranormal activity, dowsing, and ghosts.[6] Linus Pauling won the 1954 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on chemical bonds and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1962 for his peace activism. A decade before winning the first prize, he was diagnosed with Bright's disease, which he treated in part by ingesting vitamin supplements, which he claimed dramatically improved his condition. He later espoused taking high doses of vitamin C to reduce the likelihood and severity of experiencing the common cold. Pauling himself consumed amounts of vitamin C on a daily basis that were more than 120 times the recommended daily intake. He further argued that megadoses of vitamin C have therapeutic value for treating schizophrenia and for prolonging cancer patients' lives. These claims are not supported by the best available science.[8][1][2]