What is the “Nobel Prize” disease that can afflict the brightest minds

“Don’t expect very smart people to do stupid things. But the fact that there are Nobel Prize-winning scientists who are also known to advocate outlandish ideas and harbor false beliefs shows that there is a disconnect between science or scientific success and rationality,” argues Sebastien Diguez, a research neuroscientist in the Science Lab. Cognitive and neurological at the University of Friborg, Switzerland, to BBC News Mundo, the BBC’s Spanish-language news service.

Shauna Bowes, a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Emory University in the United States, adds that the surprising number of Nobel Prize winners who espouse theories bordering on absurdity show that “critical thinking is related to a specific field of knowledge and not to science in general.”

That is, someone (not necessarily a Nobel laureate) could have great knowledge of biology, history, psychology, or something else, but that does not mean that he will apply critical thinking when it comes to astrophysics or other topics outside his reach.

When it comes to topics outside our field, we tend to resort to biases or mental shortcuts to make decisions or make sense of the world, and we don’t subject these concepts to rigorous evaluation (as we do with subjects we are familiar with).

“In fact, applying the critical thinking engine takes a lot more effort and awareness than we probably realize,” says Bowes.

In short: intelligence does not protect us from crazy ideas.

Furthermore, Bowes adds, “A lot of research shows that critical thinking is far from intelligent.”

“While intelligence is a skill that helps us solve problems and obtain information, critical thinking is about what we do with that information and the meaning we attach to it.”

“Intelligence most likely makes us able to think critically, but it certainly does not guarantee that we will be good critical thinkers, especially when emotions and intuition play a role.”

Although we can all fall into the trap of casually trying to discuss incomprehensible topics, Eleftherios Diamandis, professor and chair of clinical biochemistry in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at the University of Toronto, Canada, believes that the Nobel case is special, and the “gentry” is limited. Exclusively for the award.

“A Nobel is very different from any other prize a scientist can win. It is a unique distinction that makes a winner ‘immortal’. No one will remember you if you win a major prize elsewhere, but the whole world will remember you if they are Nobel laureates.”

“This honor means that award recipients are treated differently, as if they are celebrities, and the danger is that some, but not all, believe that the medal gives them the opportunity to undertake projects and activities that they are not familiar with,” he added.

“A classic example is Frederick Banting, who discovered insulin in the early 1900s. Once he treated some diabetics, he thought it could cure cancer.”

“He tried,” he says, “but since he knew so little about the subject, of course he couldn’t.”

For Diamandis, nobility is a narcissistic behavior (similar to arrogance or arrogance syndrome, a concept describing extreme pride, arrogance, and overconfidence associated with power) postulated by some winners, who believe they have superpowers and the ability to solve anything. problem that comes your way.

Linus Pauling (1901-1994)

American scientist who won two Nobel Prizes (Chemistry in 1954, Baz in 1962), pioneered modern chemistry with his discoveries about the nature of chemical bonds and the molecular structure of matter, and the application of quantum mechanics.

In parallel, Pauling advocated that high doses of vitamin C could be effective in treating diseases such as cancer and the common flu. His studies had multiple errors, and the efficacy of vitamin C in treating these ailments was not proven.

James Watson (1928-present)

American scientist, who received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1962 (which he shared with Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick) for his discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, which is considered a turning point in modern science.

Watson endorses racist pseudoscientific ideas, arguing, for example, that blacks are less intelligent than whites – and that differences in IQ are due to genetic factors.

The biologist also stated that exposure to sunlight in regions close to the equator increases libido, and that fat people are less ambitious.

Luc Montagnier (1932-2022)

French virologist Luc Montagnier received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2008 for his first successful isolation of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

A year after receiving the award, he asserted, without any evidence, that water retained the memory of electromagnetic waves supposedly emitted by the DNA of viruses and bacteria.

He also recommended eating fermented papaya against Parkinson’s disease and criticized vaccines against COVID-19, which he baselessly accused of being the cause of new strains of the virus.

Ivar Guievre (1929-present)

American physicist of Norwegian descent, who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Leo Isaki and Brian Josephson in 1973, for “their discoveries relating to tunneling phenomena in solids”.

On several occasions, the researcher has expressed skepticism about global warming, which he said does not constitute a problem, calling it the “new religion”.

On the other hand, Diamandis points out that a Nobel Prize is usually awarded several decades after a researcher makes his discovery, which is not exactly when his cognitive abilities are at their peak, an observation Diguez agrees with.

“The average lifespan of Nobel laureates is about 70. These people’s brightest years have already passed,” says the neuroscientist, who also questions the view of the award as a sign of intelligence or genius.

“You might discover something because you were lucky, because you were the right person in the right place.”

“There has also been an increasing number of criticisms of the Nobel Prize, at least in the scientific field, because it rewards the individual, and we know that science is generally a social process,” Diguez says.

The bigger problem, he argues, is that some of these people with deep knowledge in a particular area that most of us don’t understand become an important voice in the public debate.

Diegues concludes, “The fact that you have made an important discovery in a very specific subject does not give you the right to think that you have better ideas than others in other areas.”

Humility, even now, remains one of the best medicines.