Why did they not win the Nobel prize-about scientific research creativity, insight, and execution?

The thought of the monoclonal antibody technique is very simple: Fusion of plasma producing specific antibodies and Lymphoma Cells with unlimited value-added capabilities into a fusion cell with both characteristics. The fusion cells can be infinitely increased and produce specific antibodies. In 1984, three scientists won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and medicine for the Discovery.

 

According to the news, Professor A of a university was very excited because he thought of the same idea a few years ago and discussed it with LAB members. As a result, he announced: In fact, I can also win the Nobel Prize! My lab graduate students and postdocs can testify to me!

 

But why didn't Professor a win the Nobel Prize?

 

In fact, there are still many researchers in similar situations as Professor.

 

Professor B thought of this idea 10 years ago. However, he has too many ideas. This idea is only one of his many ideas. In his opinion, there is nothing special, so he quickly forgets it.

 

Professor C thought of this idea ten years ago and wrote down the inspiration. He also thought the idea was good, but he had other better ideas, so he decided to do what he thought was more important first. Those ideas are indeed good, and they have also published good articles, but they did not ultimately lead to scientific breakthroughs.

 

Professor D also had this idea for a long time. He not only discussed with LAB members, but also made experiments to achieve this idea. However, he finally gave up when he encountered many problems during the experiment.

 

Professor e not only thought of this idea, but also made an experiment. He knew the significance of this idea clearly. He fully understood this idea as a "Nobel Prize" level idea. He spent all his time and energy trying to implement this idea. Unfortunately, someone else did it before him.

 

(Note: This story is not purely fictitious .)

 

Why have they not won the Nobel prize? Based on creativity, insight, and execution, researchers can be divided into the following levels:

 

Level 1: There are no good ideas at all. Most researchers belong to this level, and they lack creativity.

 

Level 2: There are many ideas, a few of which are very good, but they cannot determine which one is important, and the result is a secondary idea. Professor ABC belongs to this category and is creative but lacks insight.

 

Level 3: There are many ideas, some of which are good ideas and can determine which one is most important. However, they cannot implement their own ideas. Professor E belongs to this category. Both creativity and insight are good, but execution is not enough. Professor D is between level 2 and level 3. If he knew that he could win the Nobel prize once he realized this idea, would he give up easily?

 

Level 4: There are many ideas, some of which are good ideas, and can determine which one is most important and overcome difficulties to make it. Creativity, insight, and execution are all good. Georges Köhler, César milstein and Niels Kaj jerne who won the Nobel Prize belong to this category.

 

Creativity is the foundation, and there is nothing without a good idea. Insight points out the direction. Otherwise, because there are too many idea instances, you do not know which one to start from. Execution is indispensable; otherwise, everything will be in the air.

 

Most people lack creativity. Most people with creativity lack insight and both insight and creativity, and most of them do not have the ability to execute. Therefore, there are only a few breakthrough scientific research achievements each year.

 

Mr Kong Xiaofei's blog "Dialogue David Baltimore" http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php? MoD = Space & uid = 219944 & Do = Blog & id = 444519 the two ideas mentioned are very simple. How many people can think? I thought it was really important. How many people started to be human?

The "Nobel Prize" in this article is only used to refer to major scientific discoveries. It does not mean that we must pursue the award for scientific research, nor do we think that scientific achievements without the Nobel Prize are unimportant.