Linus Pauling won two Nobel Prizes, not just one. In 1954, the American scientist won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in recognition of his research on the structure of chemical bonds, and eight years later, in 1962, he received the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his efforts to confront the nuclear arms race.
It is not just two Nobel Prizes, but two prizes that Pauling received without having to share any of them with anyone else. A position that is difficult for any scientist to surpass.
But the Nobel Prize does not only grant its winner scientific glory, but rather turns him overnight into a star whose words receive widespread attention, and whose opinions gain great weight even outside his field of specialization.
Nobilitis: Confidence that borders on paranoia.
Nils Hansson, a historian of medicine at the Institute for the History, Theory and Ethics of Medicine at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, warns that achieving an achievement of the value of the Nobel Prize may carry with it an unexpected danger, especially when the world begins to spread “crazy and unproven scientific theories.”
The difference is that the words of the Nobel laureate are heard. When the award recipient speaks, his words receive the attention of the media and the public, even when he speaks outside his scope of expertise, and Linus Pauling is a clear example of this.
Since the mid-1960s, Pauling began promoting the idea that vitamin C could be a comprehensive treatment, including in the face of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and degenerative diseases.
He also founded what is known as "molecular medicine", which is based on the use of vitamins and minerals to treat diseases. However, the scientific evidence to support this approach is still insufficient, and this is where the concept of “nobleitis,” or “Nobel’s disease” appears.
The term does not refer to a disease in the true sense of the word, but rather to a behavior that may appear among some Nobel laureates after receiving the highest scientific honor, which is represented by excessive self-confidence, and perhaps the belief that success in a certain field gives its owner cognitive authority in other fields. The term was coined by Paul Nurse, Nobel laureate in medicine and former president of the British Royal Society.
When scientific elites penetrate fields that are not their specialty
Nurse says that “constant questioning of everything, including self and ideas” is the quality of good scientists. But in the case of Nobletis, these questions begin to recede and sometimes disappear.
Other examples include virologist Luc Montagnier, who discovered the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 1983, and in 2008 won the Nobel Prize in Medicine, shared with his colleague Françoise Barré-Sinoussi.
But Montagnier later adopted positions in favor of what was described as homeopathy, and in interviews he went on to present ideas that sparked scientific controversy, including that improving nutrition and hygiene in Africa could reduce the transmission of HIV.
During the Corona pandemic, he went further, saying that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had been manipulated in the laboratory and that it contained sequences from the HIV virus.
German virologist Christian Drosten commented at the time on these statements by saying that it is difficult for a scientist active in the field of viruses to say that a Nobel laureate in the same specialty is “spreading this nonsense,” but he described the claim as “complete nonsense.”
In turn, James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1962, along with Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick, had his scientific reputation shaken after he made statements described as racist, including allegations that black people are less intelligent compared to whites.
The Nobel Prize does not mean escaping criticism
Not all responsibility lies with Nobel laureates, as Paul Nurse believes that public and media expectations may also contribute to the emergence of this phenomenon. After obtaining the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2001, he began receiving daily requests from the press to comment on various topics.
He told DW that he felt as if receiving the award suddenly meant that he was able to understand "everything that concerns humanity."
That's why Nurse advises researchers to be careful with what they say. He says, "Talk about the things you know, and if you don't know or aren't sure, say it clearly."
The problem, Hanson says, is that the media is overly interested in what Nobel laureates have to say, even when they go beyond their area of expertise. Nobel laureates are undoubtedly masters in their fields, and that is why they received the award. But in the end, they are human beings, and they are not immune to arrogance, poor judgment, or falling into unscientific ideas.
