A Nobel Prize adds two years to your life
Scientists have long known that being rich makes you live longer. And rich people are often famous. But does fame itself help you live longer? It's hard to test this, because it's difficult to find the right sort of data. You'd need to find a large corpus of data about dead people that contains several individuals who suddenly and without warning became famous.
Except it turns out there actually is a good dataset for that: Winners of the Nobel Prize. Two economists at the University of Warwick looked at all the nominees and winners for physics and chemistry between 1901 and 1950 -- a total of 528 scientists. They controlled for the monetary effect of winning a Nobel, since it comes with a cash prize large enough to affect one's health.
The result? Those who won Nobel prizes lived up to two years longer, on average, than those who'd "merely" been nominated. As Andrew Oswald, one of the two economists, said in a press release:
Professor Oswald said: "Status seems to work a kind of health-giving magic. Once we do the statistical corrections, walking across that platform in Stockholm apparently adds about 2 years to a scientist's life-span. How status does this, we just don't know."
I read their paper, which is freely online here, and found out something else interesting: Apparently, the only research anyone's done similar to this studied the longevity effects of winning an Oscar -- another example of a prize that is suddenly conferred, and which abruptly teleports the winner into a quantum ring of fame far removed from their fellow actors. Anyway, it turns out the previous studies here are pretty inconclusive, because they diametrically contradict one another: One found that Oscar winners live 3.6 years longer than mere nominees, while the other found Oscar winners live 3.6 less.
Pretty fascinating area of work, eh? Now what I want to see is some comparison charts of how various activities stack up as life-extending activities. By which I mean, is it better to cut out fatty foods or, y'know, win a Nobel Prize? Because this would clearly change our to-do lists.
Posted by Clive Thompson at January 19, 2007 03:47 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1623
Winning the prize introduces another, subtler, factor than elevated status: it can drastically alter the prize-winner's research and lifestyle. A passage from a speech by my hero Richard Hamming:
In the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize. The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said, ``I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain.'' Well I said to myself, ``That is nice.'' But in a few weeks I saw it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems.
When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards.
This brings up the subject, out of order perhaps, of working conditions. What most people think are the best working conditions, are not. Very clearly they are not because people are often most productive when working conditions are bad. One of the better times of the Cambridge Physical Laboratories was when they had practically shacks - they did some of the best physics ever.
One thing this suggests is that the lifespan bonus may be less about social status and more a result of a less intense lifestyle and more comfortable working conditions.
Posted by: Bret at January 19, 2007 8:28 PM
The results of this study should be posted and reported far and wide, since not only is a Nobel Prize something that really stands out on a resume, and moves one to a higher tax bracket, but the world is in dire need of people actively working to make it a better, more peaceful place.
Posted by: zymase at January 19, 2007 8:51 PM
I have one concern about this study, but I'm not a statistician so maybe the authors address my concern in the paper and I'm not bright enough to recognize it.
A condition for winning the Nobel Prize is that you are living. Bias could then enter the study because there is a delay between the work and the recognition. Thus qualified nominees (who would have won an award if alive) who die early are not included in the sample skewing the age of the winners higher.
The difference in the mean age of nomination for winners and nominees may hint at this bias.
Posted by: nihryan at January 21, 2007 6:05 PM
So, my question is: how many Nobel Prizes do I need to win to offset the negative health effects of smoking? I'm thinking maybe five.
And then you have to wonder how long you'd have to live to come up with five Nobel worthy ideas or actions! Heh.
Posted by: johntunger at January 25, 2007 3:40 PM
Post a comment
Winning the prize introduces another, subtler, factor than elevated status: it can drastically alter the prize-winner's research and lifestyle. A passage from a speech by my hero Richard Hamming:
In the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize. The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said, ``I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain.'' Well I said to myself, ``That is nice.'' But in a few weeks I saw it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems.
When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards.
This brings up the subject, out of order perhaps, of working conditions. What most people think are the best working conditions, are not. Very clearly they are not because people are often most productive when working conditions are bad. One of the better times of the Cambridge Physical Laboratories was when they had practically shacks - they did some of the best physics ever.
One thing this suggests is that the lifespan bonus may be less about social status and more a result of a less intense lifestyle and more comfortable working conditions.
Posted by: Bret![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 19, 2007 8:28 PM
The results of this study should be posted and reported far and wide, since not only is a Nobel Prize something that really stands out on a resume, and moves one to a higher tax bracket, but the world is in dire need of people actively working to make it a better, more peaceful place.
Posted by: zymase![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 19, 2007 8:51 PM
I have one concern about this study, but I'm not a statistician so maybe the authors address my concern in the paper and I'm not bright enough to recognize it.
A condition for winning the Nobel Prize is that you are living. Bias could then enter the study because there is a delay between the work and the recognition. Thus qualified nominees (who would have won an award if alive) who die early are not included in the sample skewing the age of the winners higher.
The difference in the mean age of nomination for winners and nominees may hint at this bias.
Posted by: nihryan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 21, 2007 6:05 PM
So, my question is: how many Nobel Prizes do I need to win to offset the negative health effects of smoking? I'm thinking maybe five.
And then you have to wonder how long you'd have to live to come up with five Nobel worthy ideas or actions! Heh.
Posted by: johntunger![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 25, 2007 3:40 PM