Nobel insulin 1
Title:
Contested Credits: Nobel Prize Controversies in the Discovery of Insulin and Beyond
Abstract
The Nobel Prizes, though widely revered, have frequently been the object of intense historical and ethical scrutiny. This article examines controversies around Nobel allocations, focusing first on the case of insulin’s discovery—especially the contested priority claims of Nicolae Paulescu, Georg Zülzer, Ernest L. Scott, and others—then comparing it with other high-profile Nobel disputes (e.g. DNA structure, Lise Meitner, pulsars, political or cultural prizes). We analyze structural features of the Nobel system (e.g. the three-person limit, no posthumous awards, nomination secrecy, disciplinary boundaries) and illustrate how social, institutional, and political factors influence who is remembered. The insulin case, in particular, reveals how claims of priority, publication practices, scientific purity, and national prestige generate enduring debates. The article concludes with reflections on reform proposals that might reduce future controversies.
Keywords
Nobel Prize · Insulin · Nicolae Paulescu · Scientific priority · Credit attribution · Prize controversies
1. Introduction
The Nobel Prize has long symbolized the pinnacle of recognition in physics, chemistry, physiology/medicine, literature, and peace. Yet every October, when new laureates are announced, historical flashbacks arise: who was neglected? Whose contribution was undervalued? This introspection is not accidental. Because scientific and cultural discovery is often collective—crossing disciplinary, institutional, and national boundaries—the simplifications required by a prize (few names, discrete contributions, retrospective judgment) invariably produce tensions.
This article uses the insulin case as a detailed anchor, adding Nicolae Paulescu and other earlier claimants to a more complete historical picture, before broadening to examine analogous “Nobel controversies.” The goal is not to indict particular committees, but to understand the recurrent patterns and structural pressures that make such disputes nearly inevitable.
2. The Discovery of Insulin: Scientific, Historical, and Priority Context
2.1 Predecessors and early pancreatic hormone research
Long before the 1920s, investigators had speculated that the pancreas contained an “internal secretion” regulating blood sugar. For example, experiments of pancreatic removal in animals had shown glycosuria and metabolic disruption. By the early 20th century, various researchers (e.g. Oskar Minkowski, E. L. Scott, Zülzer) made attempts to isolate pancreatic extracts that normalized blood glucose, but these extracts were often impure, toxic, or experimentally inconsistent. Journals+3PMC+3Karger Publishers+3
Georg Ludwig Zülzer (Germany) had in the 1900s experimented with pancreatic extracts (termed “acomatol”) and reported some hypoglycemic effects in animals, though side effects limited clinical adoption. Later, Ernest L. Scott (USA) published on pancreatic extract experiments around 1911–1913. Both Zülzer and Scott later raised claims of priority when the insulin laureates were announced. www.elsevier.com+3SpringerLink+3Karger Publishers+3
2.2 Nicolae Paulescu and his “pancreine” experiments
Nicolae Constantin Paulescu (Romania, 1869–1931) is perhaps the most contentious figure in the insulin priority debates. He published in 1921 a series of papers (April–June), culminating in the 22 June 1921 submission to Archives Internationales de Physiologie of Recherche sur le rôle du pancréas dans l’assimilation nutritive, published August 31, 1921. In these works he described an aqueous pancreatic extract (“pancreine”) that, when injected into pancreatectomized (diabetic) dogs, produced reductions in glycemia, glycosuria, ketonemia, and other metabolic effects. PMC+6PMC+6PMC+6
That said, Paulescu’s preparations also produced toxic side effects in animals; in his own admission he considered them not directly translatable to human use without further purification. When he attempted human administration (initially via rectal route, later intravenously), he reported glycosuria reductions, even to “zero,” but did not document expected hypoglycemic comas or safety margins. PubMed+6Wikipedia+6PMC+6
In November 1923, Paulescu formally wrote to the Nobel Committee claiming priority over Banting and Macleod, but his claim was dismissed. PMC+5www.elsevier.com+5SpringerLink+5
Later assessments have sometimes acknowledged that Paulescu’s “pancreine” and the later insulin (by Banting/Best) were biochemically very similar, but maintain that Paulescu’s lack of a clinically viable, purified, reproducible formulation limited his priority case. rjdnmd.org+4PubMed+4PMC+4
Further complicating his legacy is that Paulescu published political and ideological works (notably anti-Semitic tracts), which have led many modern institutions to distance themselves from memorializing him. SpringerLink+4Encyclopedia Britannica+4PubMed+4
2.3 The Toronto breakthrough and subsequent purification
In May 1921, Frederick G. Banting (Canada) and Charles H. Best commenced work under John J. R. Macleod’s auspices in Toronto, aiming to isolate a pancreatic antidiabetic substance. Their innovation involved ligating pancreatic ducts to reduce destructive proteases and using alcohol-based extraction. By August 1921 they reported in dogs that their extract lowered blood sugar. NobelPrize.org+5ScienceDirect+5PMC+5
Crucially, James B. Collip (biochemist) joined the team and developed purification schemes that removed toxic contaminants, yielding a formulation safe enough for human trials. On January 11, 1922, Leonard Thompson (age 14) became the first human treated with insulin—initially with a reaction, then, after refining, successfully. NobelPrize.org+3HISTORY CHANNEL ITALIA+3PMC+3
Because of the success in human therapy (reliable dosing, safety, reproducibility), the Toronto group’s work closed the translational gap that earlier investigators (including Paulescu) had not. PMC+3PMC+3SpringerLink+3
2.4 Nobel award and immediate disputes
In 1923 the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Banting and Macleod for “the discovery of insulin.” The choice was controversial. Banting resented Macleod’s inclusion (he viewed Macleod’s role as administrative). He was also angry that Charles Best was excluded. Banting reportedly threatened to decline the prize. Subsequently, he split his prize money with Best; Macleod in turn shared his share with Collip. PMC+6PubMed+6AHC Leeds+6
In later years, the Nobel Foundation’s historical office acknowledged that excluding Best was an oversight. Wikipedia+2SpringerLink+2
After the Nobel announcement, at least four researchers publicly protested their omission: Paulescu (Bucharest), Georg Zülzer (Berlin), Ernest L. Scott (Chicago), and John Raymond Murlin (New York). www.elsevier.com+3SpringerLink+3PMC+3
Some contemporary historians have characterized that, while Paulescu’s biochemical work was substantial, his practical and translational limitations, as well as weaker dissemination and recognition, made his claim insufficient under Nobel criteria (“successful application in humans”) compared to the Toronto group. rjdnmd.org+3SpringerLink+3PMC+3
Thus the insulin case remains a paradigmatic example of how scientific credit, priority, and practical implementation intersect—and how a Nobel committee must choose among imperfect candidates.
3. Comparative Cases of Nobel Controversy
3.1 DNA structure (1962) and Rosalind Franklin
As you noted earlier, crystallographic images by Rosalind Franklin (notably “Photograph 51”) were critical to Watson and Crick’s model-building, yet she was not among the 1962 laureates. Because she died in 1958, she was ineligible (the Nobel is not given posthumously). Moreover, she was not formally nominated, and the norms of publication and data-sharing in her lab and between colleagues (M. Wilkins) constrained recognition. This case remains emblematic of gender bias and the opacity of credit in collaborative science.
3.2 Lise Meitner and nuclear fission
Meitner, Otto Hahn, and Fritz Strassmann collaborated on nuclear fission. After she fled Nazi Germany, Hahn continued and was awarded the 1944 Nobel (announced 1945) alone. Meitner’s exclusion has often been read as reflecting her exile, gender, and displacement in wartime science. The committee’s preference for chemists (Hahn) over theoretical interpreters (Meitner) exacerbated the exclusion.
3.3 Jocelyn Bell Burnell and pulsars (1974)
Bell discovered pulsars in 1967 as a graduate student; the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics went to her supervisor Antony Hewish and Martin Ryle. Many have decried the omission as an example of bias toward supervisors and senior scientists, particularly when students and women make critical contributions.
3.4 Cultural and political Nobel controversies
Non-science prizes also invite disputes. Bob Dylan’s 2016 Literature Prize raised questions about whether songwriting fits the Nobel’s rubric of literature, and whether the award overstretched the category. Barack Obama’s 2009 Peace Prize drew controversy over timing and political symbolism: was the award aspirational rather than recognition of concrete achievements? These cases illustrate how Nobel committees sometimes use their awards as normative or geopolitical instruments, inviting backlash.
4. Structural and Institutional Causes of Nobel Controversies
From the insulin case and other examples, some recurring structural causes emerge:
Three-person (or single organization) cap. Many scientific advances are team-based. The Nobel limit forces committees to exclude deserving contributors by fiat.
No posthumous awards (with limited exception). This automatically excludes deceased contributors, even if their work was central (e.g. Franklin, sometimes Meitner).
Emphasis on successful translation or application. The Nobel often privileges discoveries that led to practical, demonstrable impact (therapeutic efficacy, or widely accepted theory), disadvantaging more speculative or partial contributions.
Nomination and deliberation secrecy. Nomination records are sealed (usually 50 years), reducing accountability and making retrospective assessments difficult.
Institutional, social, and political biases. Gender, institutional prestige, nationality, rank (senior vs student) influence visibility, networks of nomination, and historical memory.
Selective canonization and memory. A laureate’s fame amplifies later recognition; once a narrative is fixed, revising it is hard. Those omitted (“silent actors”) often fade from canonical histories.
Geopolitical and reputational signals. Especially in Peace and Literature categories, the Nobel committee sometimes uses awards to make normative or international statements, which invites contestation of legitimacy, timeliness, and motive.
5. Discussion and Recommendations
The insulin case notably shows how a prize committee must weigh not just priority but usability, translation, reproducibility, and impact. Paulescu’s work was pioneering, but his extract lacked the safety, consistency, and adoption that the Toronto team accomplished. Still, the exclusion—especially when combined with the exclusion of Best and the protest of others—highlights how no prize can perfectly capture the complexity of scientific progress.
To mitigate future controversies, several reforms are often proposed:
Relax the three-person limit (or permit more “team” acknowledgments).
Allow limited posthumous recognition in exceptional, previously unnoticed cases.
Greater transparency in nomination and deliberation (with delays to protect privacy).
Explicit criteria that recognize collaborative, cross-disciplinary work beyond the traditional model of “single discoverer.”
Review and correction mechanisms (e.g. retrospective “honorary additions”) though these carry risks to the prestige and finality of the prize.
In any case, controversy is unlikely to disappear: the very act of naming and commemorating is partial and retrospective. Prizes like the Nobel crystallize memory; their absences and silences often tell as much as their selections.
6. Conclusion
The Nobel is not just a reward — it is a historian’s lens. The tale of insulin’s discovery, with competing claims by Paulescu, Zülzer, Scott, and the Toronto team, embodies the complexities of attribution, translation, and recognition. When set alongside other Nobel disputes (Franklin, Meitner, Bell Burnell, Dylan, Obama), one sees that controversies are not anomalies but structural artifacts of how prizes must simplify history. A more self-aware Nobel system—attuned to team science, hidden contributors, and shifting norms—might reduce but never eliminate the tensions of commemoration.
References (suggested, not exhaustive)
The discovery of insulin revisited: lessons for the modern era. PMC. PMC
Nicolae Paulescu—between scientific creativity and political fanatism. PMC. PubMed
Centenary of Insulin Discovery (1921–2021): Nicolae Paulescu’s contribution. PMC. PMC
The Nobel Prize of Physiology or Medicine, 1923: controversies on selection. Springer article. SpringerLink
The controversy of insulin and its Nobel Prize: 100 years on. University of Leeds. AHC Leeds
Science History Institute, Frederick Banting, Charles Best, James Collip, and John Macleod. Science History Institute
Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Frederick Banting. Mayo Clinic Proceedings
The History of a Wonderful Thing We Call Insulin, Diabetes Association blog. American Diabetes Association
Be Careful What You Wish For | Insulin (Oxford). OUP Academic
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Nicolas Constantin Paulescu. Encyclopedia Britannica
Comments
Post a Comment