The last 100 years have seen many changes in science and technology that have directly impacted our lives. Today, the click of a mouse instantly connects us to a friend halfway around the world. There are many worries: alien genes in our food, terrifying new viruses. There are also benefits: we live longer and healthier lives. Yet many of the perennial questions in science continue to vex us. The physical, chemical and biological worlds continue to mystify us; debilitating human disease continues to stump our best medical efforts. In many ways, the world is much the same as it was in 1901, except perhaps for the advent of the Nobel Prizes. 2001 marks the centennial of the Nobel Prizes, the international awards instituted by Alfred Nobel. Albert Nobel was a cosmopolitan, a man of the world. He spoke five languages - his native Swedish, English, French, German and Russian. His commitment to the internationalism, rather than narrow nationalism, was obvious in his last will. He expressed his wish "that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not."
In this year's recipients, we see evidence for the international nature of scientific discovery. In all, there are 9 prizewinners in the sciences this year: 3 each in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine. Of the 9, 5 are Americans, 2 are British, 1 is Japanese and 1 is German. The lineup is certainly a reflection of American scientific dominance, and a reflection as well of the virtual monopoly the world's developed nations have in scientific discovery. However, it was an international trio of scientists who completed the work for these honors. For the Physiology/Medicine prize, American Leland Hartwell did the initial work that defined the studies in the cell cycle crucial to our current understanding of cell division and cancer, while Britons Paul Nurse and Timothy Hunt followed up on Hartwell's work and more clearly defined the nature of the cell cycle in a variety of organisms. For the Chemistry prize, American William Knowles made the initial discovery of using transition metals to make chiral catalysts for hydrogenation reactions, while Japanese Ryoji Noyori further developed the process. American Barry Sharpless, on the other hand, developed chiral catalysts in oxidation. The Physics prize was awarded for work on the Bose-Einstein Condensate. Bose was an Indian scientist who sent his initial theoretical work relating to the condensate to Einstein, a German Jewish ÈmigrÈ to the US, who expanded upon Bose's work. In 1995, Americans Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman succeeded in using rubidium to produce the Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). Wolfgang Ketterle is the German physicist working at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who independently worked on experiments using sodium atoms to achieve the BEC. He went further than Cornell and Wieman and managed to create the first primitive laser beam made up of atoms of matter rather than light photons.
The centennial Nobel Prizes provide clear evidence that science is not conducted in a nationalistic vacuum. Some work is done in an obviously international collaboration, such as the original theoretical calculations by Bose and Einstein. As we stand upon the cusp of a new millennium, and probably the cusp of the next scientific revolution in the life sciences, it would serve us well to remember that.
Yet, as an international student in America, the insular tendencies of the United States are a cause of worry. Quite apart from the notorious insularity of segments of the American political spectrum, it seems to me that there is a general tendency to blissfully ignore the rest of the world. A friend from my home country on a study abroad program at the University of Sydney recently regaled me with tales of American exchange students who thought Australians rode kangaroos to school. I have found the narrow focus on America in some Cornell classes, while understandable, to be somewhat irritating. In my upper-level biology classes, where we begin to consider original work rather than mere textbook knowledge, I am occasionally left wondering whether it is only America that is out of the Stone Age. I do not in any way suggest that the American scientific community is xenophobic or paranoid about foreigners; indeed, Cornell's laboratories account for a huge chunk of the significant international presence on campus, and I do not believe Cornell is unusual in that respect. Moreover, prestigious publications in most scientific fields cater to an international audience. However, I think the problem is that in the midst of the American dominance of science, it becomes too easy to lose sight of the achievements of scientists from other countries. As this year's Nobel Prizes demonstrate, while American science is the reigning champion of the international scientific community, it is by no means the only producer of scientific knowledge. I think that ignoring the rest of the scientific world is counterproductive for a number of reasons.
First, given that the science done in other countries is published in journals of international repute and is equal to the best American work, there may well be opportunities for collaboration with foreign scientists. Such collaboration holds the prospect of producing even better science. Of course, while we might say that science, as an objective search for the truth is a fallacy, I think that effective collaboration can only have a positive outcome for scientific discovery. Even in the absence of opportunities for direct collaboration, simply being conscious of important findings made by other scientists contributes to American scientists' understanding of their field as a whole.
Quite apart from any direct benefits that may accrue to scientific discovery in America, I would argue that having an international outlook benefits the world. Cornell is setting up a medical college in Qatar, and one of its aims is to carry out biomedical research relevant to that region. Cornell is also sponsoring a new medical school in Northern Tanzania. Given the strength of American science, I suspect that if American scientists take more interest in scientific research around the world, there is huge potential to develop and improve the research capabilities of scientists in other countries. If we can elevate the quality of scientific research in the world to something approaching current American standards, our understanding of the natural world, and our ability to harness that understanding to humanity's benefit can only be helped. I must emphasize that I am not advocating the advancement and spread of science as any sort of panacea for the world's ills. We live in a troubled world, one in which science and technology provides only part of the answer to our problems. We must acknowledge, however, that science and technology do have a significant role to play in dealing with the common problems that the human species faces. American scientists who take an active role in reaching out to the world should continue to do so. And, American scientists who do not currently do so should begin to look beyond the shores of this nation and take advantage of opportunities both to seek fundamental answers to scientific questions and to improve the lot of humanity.
As evidence from the human genome project begins to be understood more clearly, we should come to realize that our genes unite us more than the current racial, social, cultural, national and religious divisions might suggest. Alfred Nobel's commitment to the world and to humanity should serve as a reminder to us on this centennial year of the Nobel Prizes, that in a world troubled by internecine strife and international conflict, developmental crises and disease epidemics, that science and technology can play a powerful role in the solution to global problems.