By the middle of October of this year, it is likely we will know all of the nominees for this year’s Nobel Prizes. The announcements — and the awards themselves— have become global events, eagerly anticipated by the world’s leading media and excitedly awaited by the would-be recipients. While the Nobel Prizes are not the only measures of accomplishment in their respective fields, they are arguably the most significant. Indeed, for politicians and university administrators around the world, they are badges of national honour and pride, to be flaunted in the way that some countries might brag about winning a boatload of Olympic medals or football’s World Cup. In light of their timely significance, we are highlighting the Top 10 leading Nobel Prize-winning countries.
But before we get into the actual list and its methodology, we need some background on the Nobel Prizes. The origins date to the third and final will and testament of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite. It dictates that his entire remaining estate should be used to endow “prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind,” with the money going towards recognising achievements in physiology or medicine, physics, chemistry, peace and literature.
Founded in 1900, four years after Nobel’s death, the Nobel Foundation started bestowing the first awards in those categories in 1901. In 1968, the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was added. Overall, between 1901 and 2013, 851 laureates and 25 organisations have received the Nobel Prize. Of these, 74 are laureates in Economic Sciences. A small number of individuals and organisations have received a prize more than once, which means that 847 individuals and 22 organisations have received Nobels.
The Nobel Prizes are simultaneously a revealing and imperfect measure of scientific achievement and human advancement in several ways. First, they do not explicitly acknowledge mathematics, arguably the most universal of all human languages, next to music, and the basis of much of human inquiry and innovation.
Second, selectors have had a history of failing to acknowledge major breakthroughs in real time. Consider the following example. In 1905, Albert Einstein published four groundbreaking papers that revolutionised physics and our understanding of the universe. This quartet of publications included, among others, treatises on special relativity and the photoelectric effect. Yet it took the Royal Swedish Academy 16 years to recognise this work. And Einstein’s case is not even the most illustrative example. Peter Higgs, the co-discoverer of the “God” particle, waited nearly half a century to see his work recognised.
Granted, such delays are sometimes unavoidable, as discoveries undergo scrutiny and await confirmation. But these delays also speak to the larger point that the scientific enterprise is also subject to social pressures.
Third, the Nobel Prizes invariably recognise an impressive, but nonetheless constrained, period in human science, ingenuity and creativity. In light of all the hoopla and hype that surrounds the Nobel Prizes, it is easy to forget that modern science rests on a foundation built centuries, if not millenniums, ago in parts of the world that largely go unrecognised by this award today, such as the Middle East or China.
This comment does not mean to qualify or diminish the Nobel Prizes. It merely acknowledges that they exist within a specific context — a context largely dominated by Western ideas, thoughts and power throughout the prizes’ existence. Three Western powers — the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany — account for more than half (427) of the 851 individual Nobel laureates. Of the 10 countries on this list, only one — Russia — vaguely qualifies as a non-Western country. Asian powers — and Russia again vaguely qualifies as such — barely played a role in the history of the Nobel Prizes. Japan, China and India can claim 18, 11 and 7 Nobel laureates respectively, figures hardly commensurate with their respective populations, current economic power and past contributions to the sum of human knowledge. Also largely absent from the list of winners are citizens of countries from Africa and the Middle East.
Regrettably, these statistics and their interpretations have occasionally produced no small amount of less-than-intelligent punditry about the perceived vices and virtues of cultural and religious traditions. Last year, a row broke out when famed atheist Richard Dawkins suggested a link between the low number of Muslim Nobel laureates and Islam itself. Specifically, he said that “[all] the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.” While technically true — according to the Guardian, the number of Muslim Nobel laureates sits at 10, a number nowhere near the number of laureates with Christian or Jewish religious backgrounds — Mr. Dawkins’ analysis ignores the fact that the Nobels represent only one measure of scientific excellence.
As the Guardian’s Nesrine Malik has noted, “[the award] has only been going for a little more than a hundred years, the prizes it awards are for excellence in academic research, which is far superior in Western scientific and academic institutions due to the socioeconomic development of the north, rather than due to any inherent cultural-religious deficiency in the south — which, it should be pointed out, is made up not only of Muslims.” Christian Latin America speaks to her point. Indeed, 1,000 years ago, the centres of human inquiry and ingenuity were found in Muslim cities such as Mali’s Timbuktu and Iraq’s Baghdad.
And yet, the Nobel Prizes have also served as a fascinating indicator. If they reflect Western dominance at large, they also speak to the leadership changes within the Western camp. Even more broadly, they speak to the connection between political power and scientific leadership. Broadly trace the rise and fall of great powers against their respective numbers of Nobel Prizes and you will find a matching overlap. This list tries to recognise all of these considerations.
Readers, though, should be aware of several methodological issues before going further. First, the list sorts countries by the birthplace of individual laureates, as per data provided by the Nobel Foundation. This inevitably means it fails to account for Nobel Prizes won by international organisations. This approach can also create some interesting outcomes. Henry Kissinger, who co-won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1973, while serving as U.S. secretary of state, counts to the German total, while several laureates with “German” biographies may count towards the totals of Poland and France, thanks to changes in borders. Similar cases also exist for other countries.
The late Michael Smith, who co-won the 1993 prize for chemistry, counts towards the British total rather than the Canadian total, even though he was living in Vancouver and working for the University of British Columbia at the time of his award. The Nobel Foundation does track the affiliation of laureates at the time of their awards, but that approach itself does not resolve the question of which country can take credit for the accomplishment. Granted, this question is arguably becoming less relevant thanks to the increasingly cosmopolitan nature of scientific research. Indeed, some organisations, such as the BBC, have recognised this reality in crediting multiple countries for laureates, in case their respective countries of birth, citizenship and affiliation vary.
Readers should also be aware of other lists that attempt to accomplish what this list aims to do. In 2013, the Washington Post published a list that showed far different totals than the numbers found on the official Nobel Foundation site. Several attempts to contact the writer of the piece to understand the reasons behind the differences went unanswered.
This said, the Post’s list reads as follows (with the U.S. being No. 1) United States (347), United Kingdom (120), Germany (120), France (65), Sweden (30), Russia (27), Switzerland (26), Canada (23), Austria (22), Italy (20). So it largely overlaps with this list except for three differences — one major, two minor. First, the Washington Post list sees Switzerland replace Poland in the 7th spot with 26 prizes. Second, the Washington Post list shows Italy in 10th spot, with Canada narrowly ahead of Austria in the 9th place. Our list has Italy in 8th spot, with Canada and Austria tied for 10th.
Finally, it is also important to note the BBC’s list-of-countries by Nobel laureates per capita. Its Top 10 reads as follows (with Faroe Islands being No. 1): Faroe Islands, Saint Lucia, Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Norway, United Kingdom and East Timor. In other words, when it comes to brains, size truly does not matter.
United States (254)
A strange obsession has captured the chattering classes of Washington. At the centre of this self-obsessed parlour game lies a question whose answer once seemed self-evident since at least the days of Alexis de Tocqueville: Are the United States “exceptional”?
The roots responsible for this fit of narcissism arguably reach back to the early days of Barack Obama’s presidency when he answered a question about the subject with the following statement. “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” After highlighting the U.S.’s commitment to constitutionalism, Obama then said: “I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world.”
Subject to countless interpretations, these comments have subsequently fuelled a narrative about the role of the United States in international affairs. Is it “indispensible,” to borrow a phrase from Mr. Obama, himself a Nobel Peace prize winner, or is it a nation in retreat, as his critics might claim? The answer to those questions lies beyond the mandate of this list. This said, none of the following facts is disputable: No other nation has produced more Nobel laureates than the United States, by a long shot. According to the official records, it has produced more Nobel laureates — 254 — than the next four nations on this list put together — 252. This dominance increases when we include the number of laureates who were born in other countries, but won their prizes while working in the United States. Several reasons account for this record. They include: the ability to attract the best and brightest from around the world, superior resources for scientific research and a political commitment to scientific research. This virtuous combination was especially strong in the second half of the 20th Century, when the United States emerged as the dominant geo-political power, a fact it partly owed to its scientific leadership. Only time will tell whether the United States will maintain this exceptional level as other powers emerge in the 21st Century.
Key winners include: Robert Andrews Millikan (Physics, 1923), Owen Chamberlain (Physics, 1959, shared with Emilio Gino Segrè), Julian Schwinger and Richard P. Feynman (Physics, 1965, shared with Sin-Itiro Tomonaga), Jerome I. Friedman and Henry W. Kendall (Physics, 1990, shared with Richard E. Taylor), Steven Chu and William D. Phillips (Physics, 1997, shared with Claude Cohen-Tannoudji), Thomas H. Morgan (Medicine, 1933), Hermann J. Muller (Medicine, 1946), James Dewey Watson (Medicine, 1962, shared with Francis Crick and Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins), Kenneth Arrow (Economics, 1972), Milton Friedman (Economics, 1976), Woodrow Wilson (Peace, 1919), Martin Luther King Jr. (Peace, 1964) and Ernest Hemingway (Literature, 1954).
United Kingdom (93)
Two facts come into focus following a close reading of the official Nobel Prize winners since 1901. First, almost half of the 816 laureates were born in the Anglo-sphere, a reminder of the United Kingdom’s historical influence on the course of human affairs. Second, the U.K. has managed to maintain a small but notable lead over its European competitors, Germany and France, both of which have larger populations and GDPs than the U.K. In fact, British-born scientists can claim a run of good form. From 2009 through 2013, they won or co-won three out of the five prizes in medicine. And arguably the most important discovery about the nature of the universe yet — the Higgs (or “God”) particle — bears the name of an eccentric, but charming retired physics professor from Newcastle-upon-Tyne — Peter Higgs, the co-winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Physics with François Englert.
While Mr. Higgs’ discovery needs to be put into context — others had come up with a near-identical theory when Mr. Higgs submitted his co-authored paper in 1964 — it is also clear that Mr. Higgs’ prize gave British officialdom a chance to remind the world that British universities remain at the forefront of scientific research. Mr. Higgs, for his own part, accepted his accolades with a mix of anticipation and self-deprecating humour. While he told the Guardian he was not surprised by the Nobel Prize announcement, he also noted that no university would employ him today, because he would not be considered “productive” enough. In fact, Mr. Higgs considers his new-found fame to be a “nuisance.” But his place in the pantheon of science neatly underscores the larger point that the quality of research eventually trumps quantity.
Key winners include: Lord Rayleigh (Physics, 1904), Sir William Ramsay (Chemistry, 1904), J.J. Thomson (Physics, 1906), Sir William Henry Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg (Physics, 1915), Sir Alexander Fleming (Medicine, 1945, shared with Ernst Boris Chain and Sir Howard Walter Florey), Cecil Powell (Physics, 1950), Bertrand Russell (Literature, 1950), Winston Churchill (Literature, 1953), Fredrick Sanger (Chemistry, 1958), Francis Crick and Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins (Medicine, 1962, shared with James Dewey Watson), Sir Peter Williams (Medicine, 2003, shared with Paul C. Lauterbur) and Sir Martin Evans (Medicine, 2007, shared with Mario R. Capecchi and Oliver Smithies).
Germany (80)
With its cobblestoned core and medieval castle looming high above the Neckar River, picturesque Heidelberg ranks among the most popular destinations for foreign visitors to Germany. But this mid-sized city, with its sweeping natural surroundings, is more than just a must-see stop for students of architecture, lovers of fine wine and misty-eyed followers of German Romanticism, the 19th-Century artistic movement that placed feelings above reason. Indeed, once upon a time not so long ago, Heidelberg stood at the centre of the global academic universe, a reputation dating back to its founding in 1386. Historically described as the country of poets and thinkers, Germany dominated the Nobel Prizes during the first three decades of the 20th Century, particularly in physics and chemistry, with much of this success owed to the University of Heidelberg and universities located in lesser-known cities such as Göttingen und Freiburg, along with Berlin.
But if Germany was the world’s scientific superpower for the opening decades of the 20th Century, it is also a cautionary example that unbridled hubris can easily turn leaders into followers. The disastrous ambition of the Nazis for racial and global domination decimated Germany’s academic infrastructure, with many of its top scientists having left for foreign shores before and after the Second World War. Meanwhile, those who remained had to contend with unappealing and often justified charges of collaborating with the Nazi regime. This history, coupled with political infighting and incompetence, helps explain why universities from Europe’s most populous and economically most powerful nation frequently fail to crack the Top 50 of various rankings. Germany’s government has recently tried to remedy this situation through the creation of the Excellence Initiative, a program designed to create a German Ivy League. Not surprisingly, Heidelberg made the cut.
Key winners include: Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen (Physics, 1901), Robert Koch (Medicine, 1905), Max Planck (Physics, 1918), Albert Einstein (Physics, 1919), James Franck and Gustav Hertz (Physics, 1925), Werner Heisenberg (Physics, 1932), Carl Bosch (Chemistry, 1931), Otto Hahn (Chemistry, 1945), Gerhard Herzberg (Chemistry, 1971), Thomas Mann (Literature, 1929), Heinrich Böll (Literature, 1972), Willy Brandt (Peace, 1971), Gerhard Ertl (Chemistry, 2007) and Harold zur Hausen (Medicine, 2008, half share).
France (51)
Nobel-Prize-winning American economist Paul Krugman has called Capital in the Twenty-First Century by French economist Thomas Piketty “a magnificent, sweeping meditation on equality” that “will change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics.” Mr. Piketty’s “unified theory of inequality,” in the words of Mr. Krugman, argues that income inequality increases when the rate on the return of capital greatly exceeds the rate of economic growth, as it did during the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century and as it does today. Accordingly, Mr. Piketty has called for higher tax on the wealthy. Less favourable critics, meanwhile, have accused Mr. Piketty of manufacturing data for the purpose of promoting a neo-Marxist agenda of massive state intervention and interference in the economy. Writing on his blog, American economist and Ludwig von Mises disciple George Reisman noted that Mr. Piketty’s plan for global taxation on capital to combat inequality would be disastrous. “America and the world, above all the wage earners of the world,” Mr. Reisman writes, “need the abolition of taxes and regulations that stand in the way of capital accumulation and the increase in production. Capital accumulation and more production, not egalitarianism and its absurd theories and programs, are the foundation of the rising living standards in general and rising real wages in particular.”
Such vigorous disagreements nonetheless suggest that Mr. Piketty’s critique of contemporary capitalism is a serious, groundbreaking work. In his review, Bill Clinton’s former treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, notes that Mr. Piketty’s “tour de force doesn’t get everything right.” But he nonetheless praises Mr. Piketty for his decision to highlight the importance of inequality as an issue. “Even if none of Mr. Piketty’s theories stands up,” Summers writes, “the establishment of this fact has transformed political discourse and is a Nobel Prize-worthy contribution.”
If Mr. Piketty does indeed receive this honour this fall, he would join an illustrious list of names that include, among others, Antoine Henri Becquerel and Pierre Curie (Physics, 1903), Frédéric Joliot and Irène Joliot-Curie (Chemistry, 1935) and Jean-Paul Sartre (Literature, 1964). Other key winners include: Jean Baptiste Perrin (Physics, 1926), Louis de Broglie (Physics, 1929), Claude Cohen-Tannoudji (Physics, 1997, with Steven Chu and William D. Phillips) and Charles Richet (Medicine, 1913).
Sweden (28)
Sweden is, of course, the home country of 19th-Century industrialist and innovator Alfred Nobel, who inspired and initiated the awards that now bear his name. This fact alone grants Sweden a special place in the politics and pageantry that accompany the awards. All Nobel Prizes are awarded in Sweden’s capital, Stockholm, following deliberations by the respective Swedish committees, except for the Nobel Peace Prize, which is awarded in Oslo, by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. (This quirk reflects the historical fact that Sweden and Norway were united under one monarch until 1905 when Norway became an independent kingdom. Nobel’s will does not reveal why he wanted the Nobel Peace Prize awarded in Norway.)
Yet the influence of Sweden and Swedish researchers goes beyond the administrative and the ceremonial. With 28 laureates and a population of around 9.5 million people, Sweden can claim 3.33 laureates per one million people, running just behind Iceland, which can claim 3.36 laureates per one million, according to calculations by Guinness World Records. What explains Sweden’s high performance? It is notable that Sweden dedicates a relatively high percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP) to education — 7.3 percent, with the OCED average being 5.8 percent. Equally notable is the government’s commitment to high-end research. In fact, Sweden, along with Denmark, has been chosen to host the European Spallation Source, a pan-European, multi-disciplinary neutron research centre that includes a proton accelerator that may yield additional insights into the nature of the universe and, down the line, add to the already impressive list of Swedish Nobel laureates.
Key winners include Allvar Gullstrand (Medicine, 1911), Manne Siegbahn (Physics, 1924), The Svedberg (Chemistry, 1926), Hugo Theorell (Medicine, 1955), Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld (Peace, 1961), Ulf von Euler (Medicine, 1970, shared with Sir Bernard Katz and Julius Axelrod), Gunnar Myrdal (Economics, 1974, shared with Friedrich August von Hayek) and Tomas Tranströmer (Literature, 2011).
Russia (27)
If we accept the larger theory that the number of Nobel laureates over time helps us trace the rise and fall of great powers, Russia offers an intriguing piece of supporting evidence. The Czarist Russian Empire and its eventual successor, the Soviet Union, barely mattered in the scientific field during the first half of the 20th Century as the country was trying to catch up on various fronts following the First World War, the Russian civil war, Josef Stalin’s stifling tyranny during the 1930s and the Second World War.
Yet the worst conflict in human history largely played out on USSR territory and was a catalyst that catapulted the Soviet Union into the previously unknown position of global superpower, locked into a geo-strategic political struggle with the United States that was also waged across universities and laboratories. This status sparked a series of scientific investments in the USSR that eventually produced a notable bump in Nobel laureates in the scientific categories, particularly in physics. This said, the Soviet Union, on the way to losing the Cold War, largely failed to match the scientific ingenuity of the major Western powers. Once again besieged by economic and political turmoil following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian sciences entered a period of stagnation in the 1990s.
Conscious of these conditions, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin has tried to initiate a series of reforms designed to modernise the country, including its post-secondary institutions, where it is not uncommon to see students bribe underpaid professors in exchange for better marks. But this modernisation agenda, which depends on Western co-operation, may suffer a setback in light of the ongoing Ukraine crisis, only the latest in a series of irritations between Russia and the West. To be fair, Russian-born Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov recently allowed Russia to crow about its scientific achievements after winning the 2010 Nobel Prize for physics. That said, both received their award while working in the United Kingdom. Key winners include Ivan Pavlov (Medicine, 1904), Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov, Ilya Mikhailovich Frank and Igor Yevgenyevich Tamm (Physics, 1958) and Wassily Leontief (Economics, 1973).
Poland (26)
An interactive map produced by the Nobel Foundation shows Poland as the birth country of 26 Nobel laureates. But this record comes with a considerable caveat. A closer look reveals that most of them were born outside the contemporary borders of Poland, only to fall within them at a later stage, thereby reflecting the sweeping changes in Poland’s territory over its recent history, starting from the late 18th Century until 1945. Consider the following fact: At least 14 out of the Nobel laureates listed under Poland have ‘German’ biographies. In fact, Poland’s best-known scientist, Marie Curie, née Sklodowska (1867-1934) was technically born in the Czarist Russian Empire at a time when Poland had ceased to exist as an independent state, its territory spread across Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia.
Still, Curie’s biography is impeccably Polish, even though she largely worked in France, where she also died. Indeed, Curie’s native country loomed large in her thoughts and directly shaped her scientific work. After having co-won one half of the 1903 Nobel Prize for physics with her husband, Pierre — the other half went to Henri Becquerel — Curie won the 1911 prize for chemistry for her discovery of two new radioactive elements. She named one of them radium, the other one polonium after her home country, where she remains a revered figure, not just for her status as one of the most important scientists of modernity, but also for being a role model for female scientists and for her humanitarian work during the First World War.
Other key winners include Henryk Sienkiewicz (Literature, 1905), Isidor Isaac Rabi (Physics, 1944), Tadeus Reichstein (Medicine, 1950 shared with Edward Calvin Kendall and Philip Showalter), Lech Walesa (Peace, 1983) and Wislawa Szymborska (Literature, 1996).
Italy (19)
As with any measure, the Nobel Prizes are an imperfect indicator. They can only tell part of the story. To demonstrate this point, ponder the following hypothetical questions: What if a powerful patron had sponsored a comparable set of prizes during the High Middle Ages or the Renaissance? And if such an honour had existed, which states might have dominated these awards? While entirely speculative, it would not be unreasonable to imagine that the Italian city-states would have won their fair share as the scientific and artistic superpowers of those historical eras. In fact, Italian centres of higher learning are among the oldest in the world. Of course, much has changed since those days. Recent figures show that modern-day Italy spends about 4.7 percent of its GDP on education, well below the OECD average of 5.8 percent. In fact, as a percentage of total public expenditure, Italy’s (9 percent) was the second lowest after that in Japan.
While recent years have seen improvements, the number of students who graduate from Italian universities also ranks below the OECD average, with many actually leaving Italy for opportunities elsewhere. Yet the Italian imprint on the historical course of higher learning is inescapable and recent reforms may restore some of the lost lustre. Key winners include Guglielmo Marconi (Physics, 1909, shared with Karl Ferdinand Braun), Enrico Fermi (Physics, 1938), Emilio Gino Segrè (Physics, 1959, shared with Owen Chamberlain), Carlo Rubbia (Physics, 1984, shared with Simon van der Meer) and Mario R. Capecchi (Medicine, 2007, shared with Sir Martin J. Evans and Oliver Smithies).
Canada/Austria (17)
On the surface, these two countries share little in common. A closer look, though, reveals that both countries share the experience of living next to a larger neighbour with which they share many similarities but also rivalries — the United States in the case of Canada, Germany in the case of Austria. The deep, but complex relations between Canada and the United States on one hand and Austria and Germany, on the other, also extend to Nobel Prizes. A survey of the 17 Canadian Nobel laureates finds that 13 of them received their awards while working in the United States.
A look at the Austrian laureates reveals a comparable pattern. True to its status as the leading scientific power of the first half of the 20th Century, Germany also attracted some of the best and brightest Austrian scientists, including three of the eight Austrian Nobel laureates until 1945. And in line with the larger point that the U.S. now attracts the world’s top scientists, four of 11 laureates since 1945 received their prize while working at American institutions. Key Austrian winners include Wolfgang Pauli (Physics, 1945), Richard Kuhn (Chemistry, 1938), Friedrich August von Hayek (Economics, 1974) and Elfriede Jelinek (Literature, 2004). Key Canadian winners include Fredrick Banting (Medicine, 1923, shared with John James Rickard MacLeod for their discovery of insulin), Lester B. Pearson (Peace, 1957), Richard E. Taylor (Physics, 1990, shared with Jerome I. Friedman and Henry W. Kendall) and Alice Munro (2013, literature).
Wolfgang Depner recently defended his doctoral dissertation at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan, where he teaches. He is the co-editor of Readings in Political Ideologies since the Rise of Modern Science (Oxford University Press).
