nobel scientists berry 1981 britishjournalsociol

8/2/2019 Nobel Scientists Berry 1981 BritishJournalSociol

1/12

The Nobel Scientists and the Origins of Scientific AchievementAuthor(s): Colin BerrySource: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1981), pp. 381-391Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/589284 .

Accessed: 05/04/2011 09:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/589284?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/589284?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/12

Colin Berry

T h e N o b e l s c i e n t i s t s a n d t h e o r i g i n s o fsclentlhc achlevement

Sociographicanalysisof the originsof high achievers,besidesbeingrelevantto the formation and functioningof elites, can suggestfactors that may be importantin promotingoutstandingachieve-ment. AlthoughCattelll has shown that creativeresearch cientistsshare a quite well defined personalitystructure,and tend to bestable,self-sufficient,dominantntroverts,weknowratherittleof thesocialandculturalcontextwithinwhichsucha personalitydevelops.The presentpaperattemptsto shed light on this. Althoughearlierworkhas suggested omesocialandbiographicalommonfeaturesofdistinguished cientists,it has tended to be limited by incompletesamples(e.g. Moulin2 or by the use of nationalsamples, e.g. Roe,3Zuckerman4), hichleavesunclear he generalityof findings.Nobel scientistshavebeen chosenas a data-basebecausethey re-present a wide samplingacrosscountries and across time (birthdatesrange rom1835 to 1940).The criteriaappliedby the Nobel committeesare not revealed,but they probablyremain ixed overlong periods,andit is notablethat, comparedwith awards n other areasof humanachievement,the Nobel scienceawardsareremarkably on-contentious.Whilst tis true that a considerable umberof 'prize-worthy'cientistsdo notwinthe Prize,veryfewwinnershave,withhind-sight, otbeendeemedworthy of it, a fact which helps account for the prestige t enjoysamongprofessionalcientists.The areasof achievement or which Nobel awardsaremadeareboth broad and fairlywell-defined,andwithin-science omparisonscanbe made,aswellascomparisonswithachieversn the non-scienceareasof PeaceandLiterature.The present work examines the culturaloriginsof the Nobellaureates in terms of national, regional,institutionaland familybackgrounds.A statisticalcompilationwas made of the basic bio-graphicaldata of winnersup to 1977 frompublishedsources,sup-plementedby shortquestionnairesentto aboutfifty livinglaureates.Consequently, ull informationon place and date of birth,placesofBritishJournalof Sociology Volume32 Number3 September1981C)R.K.P. 1981 0007 1315/81/3201-0381 $1.50

381


3/12

382 ColinBerrysecondaryeducation,universitiesattendedand father'soccupationasavailableor allbut a dozenor so winners.Religiousandnationalrigins, he earlyloss of a parent,specialdistinctionof aparentandncidenceof seriousearlyillnesswerenoted wherethe informationasavailable.NATIONAL,REGIONAL AND RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCESToderiverationalandconsistentindicesof scientific'productivity'asedn culturalorigins,attentionwasgivento nationalandregionalackgrounduringthe futurelaureate'schildhood,rather hantheountryn whichthe Nobel Prize-winning orkwasdone.Laureatesere llotted to a particularcountry if they were both born andeceivedheir secondaryeducation there and at least one parentas national of that country. (Fifteen individualswho did noteethis criterionwere omitted from the national and regionalnalysis.)Productivity indices for countries and regions withinountriesere obtainedby calculating he numberof winnersperillionf the relevantpopulation n 1900, a year for whichdemo-raphicata are readilyavailable,and close to the mediandate ofirthorsciencewinnersn mostcountries.USindiceswerebasedon10population figuresbecause most AmericanScience winnersereornsome time after 1900. To maximizeethnichomogeneity,othermanyand Russiaweredefinedby their 1919 frontiersandlsace-LorrainemittedfromFrance ndGermany.Austria-Hungary,ackingsinglepredominant thnicgroup,was treatedas an entitynheationalanalysis.As firststep in comparing ulturalbackgrounds,eparateyield-er-millionndices were calculatedfor prize-winnerseared n therincipalesternreligioustraditions.A Jewishculturalbackgroundasscribedon the basisof entries n standardworksof referenceoreportn the questionnaire.Thirteenlaureatesof mixed descentrrom family havingembracedan alternative raditionweremittedromthe initialanalysison thiscriterion.ableshows the productivityndicesfor those countrieswhichaveroduced orethanoneNobelscience aureate. tisimmediatelypparenthat 'protestant'societiesaremorefruitfulthan 'catholic'nes.he differenceis statisticallysignificant,both for the datahown,nd for all countrieswith Sciencewinners(Mann-Whitney-tests;< 0.02). Theproductivity ndicesforJewishcommunitiesreverallsignificantlygreaterthan among compatriot gentilesWilcoxonMatched-PairsSigned-Ranksest;p < 0.05).egionalnalysis of productivity (Table II) shows the yieldseliablyigher in the major metropolitan centres than inheiregions,nd againhigher n predominantlyprotestant hanin


4/12

TABLE I Number of Nobel Scientists per million of 1900 pop1llationforcountrieswith more than one native-educatedaureate to 1977).Protestant Catholic Orthodox Jewish

Switzerland 1.8 66.7Nctherlands 1.8 0.0Denmark 1.7Sweden 1.6Norway 1.4Australia 1.4UK 1.3 5.0USA 0.8 20.0Germany 0.7 20.0Belgium 0.4Austria-Hungary 0.3 6.3France 0.3 17.7Italy 0.1 33.4Spain 0.1 -Russia 0.05 0.8Sources of underlying population estimates: Mitchell's European Statistics,US Bureau of the Census, EncyclopaediaJudaica.Note: Dash indicates aJewish minority of less than 20,000.

TheNobel scientistsand the ortginsof scientificachievement 383

predominantly atholic regions.As before, for each type of source,the rangeof the scores is again ow. Marked egionaldifferencesareevident n Germany nd the USA. In the latter case (seemap)regionalvariationsare not accounted for by protestantwatholicdifferencesalone because extremely low productivityis characteristicof theprotestant('Fundamentalist')outh.The extremeregionalmbalanceis reflected n thefact that about 60 per cent of American-born obelscientists come from only two areas:New York City andthe statesof the Mid-West. he lattersourcehasbeenpredominantly rotpstant,the formerJewish.Althoughthe disproportionate ontributionof the Jewish culturaltradition to the ranks of the Nobel laureates s clear, the evidencefor the importanceof religioustradition is circumstantialor prot-estant-catholic differences. The question remains whether theindividual aureatesare of predominantlyprotestant family back-ground. Direct evidence on this point is hard to obtain, and thedata are as yet incomplete. However,of the 'christian' aureateswhose family tradition is known, 59 are of protestantorigin (2 of


5/12


6/12

:> \ M 1 {.\2.0 2 . Q \\ r XJN

FIGURE I Nobel Prize-winners in Science: regional productivity in the USA (yield-per-millio


7/12

TABLEIIt Percentagebreakdownof fathers occupationsPhysics Chemistry Medicine

Academicprofessional 28.0 17.0 20.1Non-academic rofessionals 20.4 31.1 36.3Business 27.6 29.3 21.8Employees 11.2 7.8 6.4Others(inc.land) 7.8 2.8 3.8Lostfathersby age of 16 years 2.0 10.7 6.9*Derived rom Chinay,E., Society: An Introduction to Sociology, New York,1961.Note: Columnsdo not total to 100 becauseoccupationsof somelaureates' athers arenot kn


8/12

TheNobelscientistsandthe originsof scientzficachievement 387that the childrenof academicprofessionalsachieve success over-whelmingly n the sciencesandhardlyat all outsidethem, whereaschildrenof non-academic rofessionals ontributeat least as heavilyto non-scienceareas seeTableIII)*EARLY EXPERIENCESThere is a markedcontrastin the early experiencesof the NobelScienceand LiteraturewinnersX ver30 per cent of the lattereitherlost at least one parentthroughdeath or desertionor experiencedthe father'sbankruptcyor impoverishment,whereasScience Prizewinnershave experiencedsuch 'fiisorderand early sorrow'ratherrarely. The physicists, in particular,seem to have remarkablyuneventful lives. Some suggestionremains that losing a father,especiallyaroundthe earlyteens, may tend to pushfuture aureatestowardsachievementn medicineor chemistry.Also, althoughhardto index clearly,a risingsocio-economicbackgrounds a frequentfeature of scientists' family backgrounds.In general, successfulscientists tend to be producedwithin risingstable backgrounds,often academicor technical,whereasLiteraturewinnersmoreoftenoriginate from disturbedor decliningbackgroundsof traditionalnon-academic,professionaloccupationalfocus. These possibilitiesremaintentativeat presentand need to be tested on morewidely-definedsamplesof highachievers.Only a tiny handfulof Sciencelaureateswere found to havesuf-fered from physicaldisabilityor from seriousor prolongedillnessin childhood.DISCUSSIONA salient featureof the Nobel data,when analysed n a way whichtakesaccountof culturalorigins, s the narrow angesof productivityvaluesfor each type of countryor region.This suggests hat Nobelawards are probably unrelatedto national characteristicser se.Rather,national 'success' s related fairlydirectlyto the numericalstrengthswithin a country of protestant and Jewish traditions.Individualuccess endsto be related o certain lassandoccupationalfamilybackgrounds.In asking he questionwhatmakesscientistsof highachievement,Krebss has pointed to the significanceof researchsupervisionbyeminentolderscientists.Weare now on firmerground n answeringthe furtherquestionofwhogets accesstoand,moreimportantly,benefits from contact with these distinguishedsupervisors?Toan overwhelming xtent, the answerseems to be those in radical


9/12

388 Colin Berryprotestant and Jewish family traditions from middle-classback-grounds. So powerful are the religioustradition effects, that 'pro-testant' and 'catholic'societies are distinguishedmore clearlyon thislimited data than by the measuresof economicperformance sed inMcClelland's6 ell-known tudy.It has variously been suggested from past work that besidestending to be of protestant or Jewish origin, the fathers of Nobellaureatesare almost always of 'very high social position' (Moulin7),and that a sizeablepercentage f scientistscome from the middleandlower classes (Mahoney8):also that loss or absenceof the father orphysical handicap n childhood is common (Roe,9 Eidusonl). Roealso claimed that geographical rigin is not important.The presentresults, based on an almost complete analysis for over 300 Nobelscientists, represents a larger and more exhaustive sample thanRoe's and Moulin'sstudies together. Moulin, who reported on theorigins of Nobelists up to 1950, was able to discover the father'soccupation for only 77 of his 164 winners, and his conclusiononclass clearly illustrates he dangersof samplingbias with incompletesamplesof biographical ata.Little evidencewas found here to support Roe's findingthat dis-tinguishedbiological cientistshave frequently ufferedearlybereave-ment or that physical ailment was a factor with eminent chemistsand physicists. Likewise,her conclusion about the unimportance fgeographical actors is not supported.It should be noted that if, asmuch evidence, including Roe's, suggests, most eminent scientistshaveJewish or radicalprotestant origins, the 'success'ofcountriesor regions in producing hem should reflect the relative numericalstrengths of these traditions geographically.In fact, when dif-ferences in population size are taken into account, Roe's own datagive a very similar distribution of origins to that shown here, in-cluding the over-contribution f the Mid-Western egion which isalso apparentfrom the work of Knappand Goodrichll on the col-legiatesourcesof sciencePh.Ds.The improbable-lookingtability of the productivitydata referredto might suggest that quotas of awardswere being allocated. It ishoweverdifficult o see why the Nobelcommitteeswoulddifferentiatebetween countrieson the basis of their prevailing eligious raditionor individualson the basis of their personalbackgrounds, r howthey could do so, since any operation of quotas would requireelaborate ompilationof information ndextendedcollusionbetweendifferentNobel committees.The rarity of blue-collarbackgTounds mong the prize-winnerscan hardly be due to lack of potential ability in view of estimatesof the incidence of very high intelligence n national populationsoutside the professional and higher business classes. (Terman'sCalifornia tudy suggests romaboutone third;Parkyn'sNew Zealand


10/12

TheNobelscientistsand the originsof scientificachievement 389study about two thirds.) It appears hat fairly high financialandsocial status per se may be important,as the winnersas a groupclearlycome from limitedtypes of social background.The uneven-ness in the contributionsof middle-classoccupationalbackgroundseems to rule out simple notions of gross differencesin socio-economic status. However,occupationalfocus alone also does notappear o providean adequateaccounteither.Forexample,mostofthe academic-sectorathersof Nobel scientistshavebeen universityprofessors rather than schoolteachers or even non-professorialacademicstaff. A possiblefactormay thereforebe related o 'model-ling' or 'levelof aspiration'basedon parentalachievement,and it isnotable that a large proportion(about 30 per cent) of laureates'fatherswere themselvesdistinguishedn some way. Some stimulusto achievementmay also be providedby culturallymixed back-grounds n childhood,which abouta quarterof the Science aureateshaveexperienced.As Zuckerman12asshown, he recruitment f theelite in Americanscience is a stronglymeritocraticprocess,in whichthe initiallyless'privileged' ain steadily on those with greatersocial and financialadvantages.By this process, future laureatestypically gain accessto one of about a dozen elite institutions(Harvard,Columbia, tc.),more often at the graduateschool or post-doctoralphase than atundergraduateevel. EuropeanNobel Prizescientistshavea similarhistoryof associationwitheliteuniversities.These'elite'associationsextend in some cases to schooling,e.g. in the case of Englishpublicschools,outstandingRealgymnasienn NIunich ndHamburg, ndtoa handfulof science-oriented ublichighschoolsin NewYorkCity.It is not clear what the successfulsystemshavein common,buteducationalpracticessuch as scholarshipprovisionand early pro-motion probablyplay a role. It may be significant hat the Americanlaureatesboth come predominantly romthese regionswhereearlyschoolpromotionhas long beenpractisedandare distinguishedromthe generalityof theircolleaguesn the NationalAcademyof Scienceby theirprecocityat every stage n theiracademicprogress.Althoughthe privatesecondaryschool system providesa mechan-ism of socialprivilegen the UK,there s, even withincompletedata,an obvious over-representationf protestant (i.e. Iow churchandnon-conformist) backgrounds,reflecting the pattern noted byHagen13among the leading innovatorsof the British IndustrialRevolution.Thus if social privilegeplays a role, it does so ratherselectively, in ways which it seems we should relate to 'culturaladvantage'-a conceptthat needsto be enlargeduponin developinga 'psychologyof achievement'.b line with this notion, the evidenceon familycultural actors nscientificachievementn the presentdatapoints strongly o the greatimportanceof religious'corevalues'discussedby McClellandn his


11/12

'psychologising' f the ProtestantEthicnotion.Theseculturalvaluesincludestresson the value of educationandknowledge or theirownsakes, and have little to do with religiousbelief or observanceassuch, surviving ecularizationovergenerations.A model figuremayagainbe an important lement n transmittinguch values.If the interpretationsdrawnfrom the dataare substantially or-rect, the pattern of social origins of eminentscientistsshould beunlikely to change radically with the spread of opportunityineducationand generalrise in livingstandards.A comparisonof dis-tribution of fathers' occupationsfor those laureatesborn before1914 and those born between 1914 and 1935 in the UK and theUSA (the only countrieswith a substantialnumberof post-1914winners)gives no indication of change (Table IV) except amongAmericanJewish laureates,who show an increasing socio-economicTABLE IV Changesin social origznsof Nobel Scientists:percentage break-down of fathers' occupationalclass for laureatesborn before andafter 1914. (a) Gentiles(USAand UK); b) JewishLaureates USAonly)

(a) (b)Pre-1914 Post 1914 Pre-1914 Post 1914Professional 58.2 58.1 7.6 38.5Business 26.4 22.6 5 7.1 53.8Employees 9.1 9.7 14.3 7.6Land 4.5 3.2 0.0 0.0Others 1.8 6.5 14.3 0.0In contrast to Table III, fathers dying duringfuture laureate'schildhood areincluded n the appropriateoccupationalcategories.status of the fathers between these periods. Although it may beargued hat the impact of the extensionof educationalopportunityhas been too recent to be reflectedin this data, the rigidityof thepatternand the absenceof differencesbetween the USA and othercountriesis consistentwith the 'caste' Savourof the data, and thefact that the son's performance s related to particularparentalreligiousand occupationalbackgrounds.

The main changethat has occurredover the years has been thedemiseof a numberof countriesas contributors o the ranksof theNobel Scientists.Once-fruitfulEuropean regionalsources suc-hasParis,Berlin,Silesiaand Vienna have provednotablyvulnerableosocialandhistoricalchange.The distribution f yearsof birth of thelaureatesprovidesa picture which is discouragingor every majorcountry except the USA. Comparedwith 17 Nobel scientistsbornsince 1920 in the USA, the UK has so farhad 3, andGermany2.

390 ColznBerry


12/12

TheNobelscientistsandthe originsof scientificachievement 391Post-1930, the correspondingElgures re 10, 1 and 0. Evenin theUSA the output remainsdependenton two geographicallynd cul-turallycircumscribedources;JewishNew Yorkand the small-townprotestantMid-West.Hence,both scientifictheoriesof achievementand nationalplanningin science should take account of the verynarrow ulturalbaseon whichmajorcontributionso sciencerest.

ColinBerryPsychologyDepartmentNorthEastLondonPolytechnic

NOTESSociety, New York, Van Nostrand,1961.7. Moulin,op. cit.8. M. J. Mahoney,Scientist as Sub-ject: The Psychological Imperative,Cambridge, Massachusetts, BallingerPublishingCo , 1976.9. Roe, op. cit.

10. B. T. Eiduson, Scientists: TheirPsychological World, New York, BasicBooks, 1962.11. R. H. Knapp & H. B. Goodrich,Origins of American Scientists, Univer-sity of ChicagoPress,1962.12. Zuckerman, p. cit.13. E. E. Hagen, On the Theory ofSocial Change: ffiIowEconomic GrowthBegins, Homewood, Illinois, DorseyPress,1962.

1. R. B. Cattell, 'The Personalityand Motivation of the ResearcherfromMeasurements f Contemporariesand from Biography',n Taylor,C.W.,and Barron,F. (eds), Scientific Creat-ivity: Its Recognition and Develop-ment, New York,Wiley,1963.2. L. Moulin, 'The Nobel Prizes orthe Sciences from 1901-1950 - AnEssayin SociologicalAnalysis',BritishJournal of Sociology, 6, 1955, pp.246-63*3. A. Roe, The Making of a Scient-ist, New York,Dodd Mead,1953.4. H. Zuckerman,Scientific Elite:Nobel Laureates in the United States,New York, FreePress,1977.5. H. Krebs, zThe Making of aScientist',Nature, 215, 1441-5, 1961.6. D. C. McClelland,The Achieving

nobel scientists berry 1981 britishjournalsociol

Documents