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.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Search This Site


Bio:

I'm Clive Thompson, a writer on science, technology, and culture. This blog collects bits of offbeat research I'm running into, and musings thereon.

Currently, I'm a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a columnist for Wired magazine. I also write for Fast Company and Wired magazine's web site, among other places. Email or AOL IM me (pomeranian99) to say hi or send in something strange!

More of Me

Twitter
Tumblr
Flickr


Recent Entries

Teleportation, the last battle, and the Creator talks: How the world ends inside an online game

My latest Wired magazine column: Troll taming at Whitehouse.gov

Apparently NASA is filled with Joss Whedon fans

Incredibly weird, inch-wide single-celled creatures discovered rolling across the sea floor

In praise of the 3-hour game: My latest Wired News video-game column

» visit the Collision Detection archives

Clive Thompson's Tumblr
a bunch of stuff

March 25, 2009 » 05:10 PM
I had to ask! I was investigating getting DirecTV for my new office when I saw this pop-up window …

March 22, 2009 » 08:54 PM
““From an acoustical perspective, music is an overstructured language, which the brain invented and which the brain loves to hear.”” - Basics - In One Ear and Out the Other - NYTimes.com

March 20, 2009 » 04:48 PM
“No wonder young people find mainstream journalism uninviting; it would almost be more frightening if they embraced what passes for news today.” - The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers (Page 2)

March 19, 2009 » 01:12 PM
Printing The NYT Costs Twice As Much As Sending Every Subscriber A Free Kindle

March 18, 2009 » 08:44 PM
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” — Edward Abbey” - Via Thor Muller’s twitter stream.

» visit my Tumblr

Recent Comments

Photos

» see all of my photos on Flickr

Collision Detection: A Blog by Clive Thompson