[125 Years of the Nobel Era]⑦Will We Still Remember ‘One Name’ 125 Years From Now?

"A Nobel Prize-Worthy Discovery Will Emerge from Korea"
The Potential Seen by Laureates, the Challenges Identified by the Scientific Community

In an Age Where AI Finds Answers,

What We Need Is 'Ten Years to Ask Questions'

Beyond Short-Term Achievements, Guarantee Time for Research

Editor's Note125 years have passed since the first Nobel Prize was awarded in 1901. Science has shifted from the era of a single genius making discoveries to a time when thousands collaborate with artificial intelligence (AI). The Asia Business Daily will, over the course of seven articles, explore how the agents and methods of scientific discovery have changed over 125 years of the Nobel Prize and to what extent the prize reflects these transformations.

On the 20th, at COEX Seoul, attendees are discussing the future of science transformed by artificial intelligence (AI) during Session 4 "Preparing for the Future with AI" of the "Nobel Prize Dialogue Seoul 2026". From left to right: Adam Smith, Chief Scientific Officer (CSO and moderator) of Nobel Prize Outreach; David MacMillan, Professor at Princeton University, USA (2021 Nobel Prize in Chemistry); Craig Mello, Professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, USA (2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine); Brian Schmidt, Professor at Australian National University (2011 Nobel Prize in Physics). Courtesy of the Korean Academy of Science and Technology

"A Nobel Prize winner will emerge from Korea in the future. However, we must not be impatient about when that will happen; instead, we must wait with patience."

Brian Schmidt, professor at the Australian National University and the 2011 Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, commented on the high potential for a Nobel laureate to come from Korea, saying that Korea has a well-established science policy system. David Macmillan, Princeton University professor and the 2021 Nobel laureate in Chemistry, also cited a case in which a Korean scientist changed research practices in chemistry, stating, "Behind the paradigm shift was a Korean scientist," and adding, "It may take 10 or 20 years, but I firmly believe there is enough potential for a Korean scientist to win a Nobel Prize." The remarks of both laureates highlight the potential of Korean science.

It has been 125 years since the first Nobel Prize was awarded in 1901. The prize has etched the names of outstanding scientists in the annals of history. As today’s discoveries increasingly rely on large-scale collaborative research, cutting-edge equipment, and artificial intelligence (AI), Korea is by no means an exception in terms of potential. From the conversations the Asia Business Daily held with both domestic and international scientists as part of this series, a common point emerged: what Korean science needs most is to create a research environment in which world-class discoveries can be made.

The Age Where AI Finds Answers, Scientists Must Pose the Questions

AI is changing the way researchers work. Allison Noble, professor at the University of Oxford and vice-president of the Royal Society, illustrated this in an interview with the Asia Business Daily by describing an AI-robotics-amalgamated chemistry laboratory. In this system, AI reviews past academic papers to propose experiments, robots perform and analyze those experiments, and then report the results. Professor Noble explained that, in such research processes, some of the human roles could be replaced.

On the other hand, AI also creates new opportunities for researchers. Professor Noble noted, "In the past, researchers spent a lot of time on software tasks, but thanks to AI coding, more time can now be spent on creative work and experiment design." She added, "One person can now accomplish more and take on bigger goals."

AI generated image.

Faster research does not mean the review process can be simplified or skipped. Professor Noble, who has studied AI in medical imaging, emphasized, "If the AI delivers results that differ from human judgment, those results must be cross-checked with other experts," underscoring that, "results from AI that have not undergone proper validation should not be accepted as they are." She also made it clear that "patient safety is paramount in clinical settings."

Jinhui Yoon, professor at Inha University and president of the Korean Physical Society, also remarked, "Even if new discoveries are made through AI, there must be a process in which they are verified as fact, and only then can we recognize them as scientific discoveries." In other words, even as new tools emerge, the scientific principle that results need to be validated remains unchanged.

If AI formulates a hypothesis, designs an experiment, and produces important results, to whom does the credit for the discovery belong? Sooin Lee, professor at the University of Washington in the United States, said, "The credit goes to the person who designed the research until the AI made the discovery," adding, "It was only possible for the AI-led research to begin because the person asked the initial question, so the starting point must be recognized as the original research planner." Although AI may carry out the research, Professor Lee emphasized the critical role of the individual who first posed the question and initiated the research. Rather than replacing scientists, AI is reshaping the focus of their work. As the ability to quickly find answers to known problems becomes more common, the skills to identify questions that remain unanswered or to inquire anew when unexpected results occur have become increasingly significant.

Time Free from Distraction: What’s Needed for Discovery

AI Generated Image

Adam Smith, Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) of Nobel Prize Outreach (NPO), recalled the story of Oliver Smithies, the recipient of the 2007 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, in an interview with the Asia Business Daily. He said, "Smithies wanted to understand everything and spent his entire life experimenting and making new discoveries. He used to proudly say that he had never once taken up a managerial role at any institution."

CSO Smith explained the reason for sharing this anecdote: "Researchers need uninterrupted time to think and work. Rather than assigning additional responsibilities just because someone is highly capable, it is crucial to create an environment where they can focus on what they do best." He further emphasized, "Simply providing time to think, research, explore, and study is important."

It is difficult to predict when results from new discoveries will be achieved. Professor Lee stressed, "Scientific achievements often take a long time, with important discoveries coming suddenly after long periods without any visible progress." He added, "What matters is continual support that values the significance of long-term research over short-term gains."

This is also where reforms are needed in Korea's scientific landscape. Experts are unanimous that the issue is not just how much funding is injected, but also the conditions under which researchers can persistently pursue their own questions. Jin Ho Jung, president of the National Academy of Science and Technology of Korea, said, "Our research environment is still oriented toward short-term (three-year) projects and problems with predictable answers," and suggested, "We need a system that invests ten years in researchers who tackle massive questions without clear answers."

AI-generated image.

President Jung particularly focused on researchers in their 30s and 40s who have mastered AI as a research method. He stressed that the state must guarantee these researchers sufficient time to pursue their questions in independent laboratories. This is not only about using new tools, but also about creating an environment where they can take on challenges that others have yet to solve using those tools.

Taek-Hwan Hyun, professor at Seoul National University, also said that support needs to span the entire career of a researcher. He stated, "Comprehensive, full-career support for top scientists is absolutely essential," emphasizing that, "especially, junior researchers starting their careers should be provided with sufficient start-up funds, and the top senior scientists should be able to continue their research without facing retirement barriers."

The meaning is clear: those just starting out should have an independent foundation, those struggling with slow progress should be given opportunities to continue challenging themselves, and veteran researchers should be given time to develop their accumulated knowledge further.

What Remains Behind a Single Name

To say research takes a long time does not necessarily mean that every Nobel Prize takes several decades to be awarded. There can be institutional reasons for the delay, such as the need to confirm the impact of research, cumulative requirements for prize eligibility, rules awarding only living scientists, and a limit of three recipients per prize. For instance, while the Higgs boson was detected in 2012 and the prize awarded the next year, the theoretical proposal of the Higgs mechanism goes back to 1964. The length of the wait depends on what is defined as the starting point of the discovery.

The fact that the Nobel Prize commemorates up to three names does not reflect the full scope of research today. Behind an individual's insight are the ideas and failed experiments of previous scholars, the contributions of collaborators, and subsequent verifications. In an era where AI participates in research, attributing credit becomes even more complex.

Helping the next generation pose new questions is also part of creating the right research environment. President Jung stressed, "Training simply to find the right answer quickly is no longer competitive in the AI era," adding, "Practice that emphasizes pursuing open-ended questions, asking 'why,' and independently validating one's own answers must be at the center of education."

Even a century and a quarter from now, we may only remember the name of the lead discoverer. Yet, it is equally important to recognize that generations of researchers kept asking questions until that name was immortalized.

Having met around 350 Nobel laureates, CSO Smith identified the conditions that make groundbreaking discoveries possible as follows:

"It is important to provide people with uninterrupted time to think, research, and explore."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.