11 October 2004	Monday	25 Shaban 1425

There is a terrible joke much loved by scientists, but not many others. A man spots a farmer standing in a field in the rain. 'Why?' he asks. The farmer replies: 'I am trying to win a Nobel Prize. You get one for being out standing in your field.'

If only it was that easy. As researchers will tell you, the real thing requires decades of commitment, hard graft, luck, and some grey matter - although these days you will need another key qualification: a US passport, or at least a US chequebook.

Just take a look at last week's batch of Nobels in chemistry, physics and medicine. Medicine went to American smell researchers Richard Axel and Linda Buck; physics went to a trio of US quark physicists, David Gross, David Politzer and Frank Wilczek; while chemistry was awarded to cell researchers Dr Irwin Rose (from California) and two Israeli researchers, Prof Avram Hershko and Prof Aaron Ciechan over.

The Israeli pair, it should be noted, were backed by generous US research funds, and have spent a great deal of time working in America (though it should be acknowledged that they carried out some key research in their home country).

Americans have dominated the world's three most prestigious science prizes for more than two decades, but now things seem to be getting out of hand. All the 2004 science Nobels were backed and directed by American cash, a point noted by UK cancer researcher Tim Hunt, winner of the 2001 Nobel medicine prize.

It is certainly startling and worrying. Nobel destinations fluctuate a fair bit. Britain did quite well in 2003, and who knows what might happen next year. However, Nobels are just tips of a science iceberg. The more tips, the bigger must be the iceberg underneath. All this preponderance of Nobels really shows is how vast is the US science hegemony.'

But what does this near monopoly mean for the rest of the world, and how, exactly, has the US managed to achieve it? The second question is the easier to answer: because America commits such a large percentage of its vast wealth to science. The $27 billion budget of the National Institutes of Health dwarfs that of any other organisation in the world, and US backing for other sciences is equally lavish.

But this begs a subsidiary question: why the largesse? That is trickier to answer though observers agree it reflects a deep American interest in the universe, a lack of the anti-science snobbery that pervades Europe, and a justified belief that discoveries can be exploited to improve life and make money.

Which takes us to the global implications? 'Numbers of prizes don't matter,' says UK Nobel chemistry winner Sir Harry Kroto. 'What is important is America's commitment to turning discoveries into products. Here, they are also utterly dominant. Technologically, they are far more vigorous and aggressive.'

British scientists will doubtless argue we still do pretty well Nobel-wise. Maybe, but not that well. Since 1990, Americans have won 24 physics Nobels, 19 for chemistry and 21 for medicine.

No other country has got more than three in any category except for Britain which has won, very creditably, six for medicine. It is still no contest, of course. Today, if you want to do science, America is the only destination.

Once young US researchers headed to Europe to learn basic research. Now the direction is reversed. Forty per cent of scientists in the US were born in Europe. Few are expected to return.

The black hole of US science is simply sucking in money and talent, leaving Britain more and more isolated. We are trying hard but if we are not careful our best Nobel chances may one day be restricted to joining farmers in their fields. -Dawn/The Observer News Service.