[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 Sh

Editor's Note125 years have passed since the first Nobel Prize was awarded in 1901. Science has shifted from an era of individual geniuses making discoveries to an era where thousands of people and artificial intelligence (AI) conduct research together. The Asia Business Daily is presenting a seven-part series reflecting on how the subjects and practices of scientific discovery have changed over 125 years of the Nobel Prize, and to what extent the Nobel Prize captures these changes.

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

"There will be Nobel Prize winners from Korea in the future. However, rather than being impatient about when this will happen, we should wait with patience."

Brian Schmidt, professor at the Australian National University and recipient of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, assessed that Korea’s science policy system is well-established, making the possibility of a Korean Nobel laureate very likely. David MacMillan, professor at Princeton University and recipient of the 2021 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, also cited cases where Korean scientists have changed research methods in the field of chemistry, saying, "There was a Korean scientist behind the paradigm shift," and noted, "It may take 10 or 20 years, but I believe there is ample possibility for a Korean scientist to win a Nobel Prize." The comments of these two laureates highlight the potential of Korean science.

125 years have passed since the first Nobel Prize was awarded in 1901. The Nobel Prize has etched the names of scientists with groundbreaking discoveries into history. Now that today's discoveries are made through large-scale joint research, advanced equipment, and the help of artificial intelligence (AI), Korea cannot be an exception in terms of its potential. The scientists, both in Korea and abroad, who were interviewed by The Asia Business Daily for this special report, converged on the same point: what Korean science needs most, in the absence of Nobel laureates, is to create a research environment where world-class discoveries can be born.

In the Era Where AI Finds Answers, Scientists Must Ask Questions

AI is transforming the way researchers work. Alison 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 a chemistry laboratory where AI and robotics are integrated. In this model, AI reviews existing literature to propose experiments, then robots conduct and analyze the experiments, reporting the results. Professor Noble explained that some roles humans have traditionally taken on can be replaced in this research process.

On the other hand, AI is also giving researchers more time. Professor Noble said, "In the past, researchers had to spend much of their time on software development, but now, thanks to AI coding, they can focus more on creative work and experimental design," noting, "Individuals can now accomplish even more and take on bigger goals."

AI generated image.

That the pace of research has increased does not mean that the verification process can be simplified or omitted. Professor Noble, who has researched AI in medical imaging, emphasized, "If the results of AI differ from human judgment, they must be reviewed by another expert," and, "The results of AI that have not undergone proper verification should not be accepted as they are." She also made clear that "Patient safety is the top priority in the clinical setting."

Jinhee Yoon, Professor at Inha University and President of the Korean Physical Society, also stated, "Even if a new discovery is made through AI, it still requires a process of confirmation for it to be acknowledged as a scientific discovery." In other words, the fundamental principle of science that results must be verified remains unchanged, even with the introduction of new tools.

If AI sets hypotheses and designs experiments that lead to significant results, to whom should the credit go? Sue-In Lee, professor at the University of Washington, stated, "Credit goes to those who designed the research that made the discovery possible through AI. Since the person who asked the original question enabled the research to begin, they should be considered the starting point." In other words, even if AI carries out the work, the focus should remain on those who ask what to explore and initiate the research. Rather than eliminating the work of scientists, AI is changing the focus of their work. As the ability to quickly find answers to known questions becomes less critical, the ability to find unsolved problems and to keep asking questions—especially when unexpected results arise—becomes increasingly important.

What Discovery Requires Is Time Free from Disruption

AI Generated Image

Adam Smith, Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) of Nobel Prize Outreach (NPO), mentioned Oliver Smithies, the recipient of the 2007 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, in an interview with The Asia Business Daily. He recalled, "Smithies wanted to understand everything, spent his whole life experimenting and making new discoveries, and used to proudly say he had never taken on the role of an organizational leader."

When asked why he brought up this anecdote, CSO Smith replied, "Researchers need time to think and work without interruptions. Rather than assigning them additional responsibilities because of their excellence, it is crucial to create an environment that allows them to focus on what they do best." He added, "Simply giving them the time to think, research, inquire, and study is important."

It is impossible to predict when a new discovery will bear fruit. Professor Lee stressed, "Scientific achievements often take a very long time, and sometimes, after a long period without results, an important discovery will suddenly emerge. It is important to focus on the value of long-term research and offer continued support, rather than aiming for short-term gains."

This is precisely the area where the Korean scientific community needs reform. Experts agree that the critical factors are not only the amount of research funding provided, but also the conditions under which researchers can persistently pursue their own questions. Jin Ho Jung, President of the Korean Academy of Science and Technology, remarked, "Our research environment is still geared towards short-term (three-year) projects and questions with anticipated answers," and proposed, "There should be a system that invests ten years in researchers who persistently tackle massive, unanswered questions."

AI-generated image.

President Jung placed particular emphasis on researchers in their 30s and 40s who have mastered AI as a research tool. He stressed the need for the nation to guarantee these scientists extended time for research in independent laboratories so they can pursue their own questions over the long term. Institutions must not merely encourage the use of new tools, but also create an environment where researchers can tackle problems that others have yet to solve.

Taek Hwan Hyun, Professor at Seoul National University, also emphasized support spanning the entire career of researchers. He said, "Comprehensive support for top scientists is desperately needed," and pointed out, "In particular, early-career researchers must receive sufficient start-up funding, and outstanding senior scientists should be able to continue their research without being compelled to retire."

This means providing a foundation for independence to those just beginning research, opportunities for continued challenge to those whose results have been slow, and time to deepen accumulated knowledge for long-serving researchers.

What Remains after a Name

The need for extensive time in research does not mean it always takes decades to win a Nobel Prize. The time lag between discovery and award results not only from the need for verification and confirmation of its impact, but also from institutional factors such as the cumulative nature of eligible research, the principle of only awarding living recipients, and the limit of up to three laureates per award. For instance, while the Higgs boson was detected in 2012 and the Nobel Prize followed the next year, the theoretical proposal of the Higgs mechanism dates back to 1964. The duration of the wait depends on where one considers the starting point of the discovery.

The fact that the Nobel Prize recognizes only up to three individuals does not capture the full extent of today’s collaborative research. Behind the insights of one individual lie the ideas of previous researchers, failed experiments, the contributions of collaborators, and follow-up validation. In an era when AI contributes to research, the question of how to assign credit for contributions becomes even more complex.

Helping future generations to ask new questions is also part of creating a productive research environment. President Jung stressed, "In the AI era, training to quickly find the answer to a given question is no longer a competitive advantage. Educational priorities must focus on grappling with unanswered problems, asking 'why,' and practicing self-verification."

Even after 125 years, we may remember the name of an individual representing a discovery. However, we must also recognize that the continuation of questions across generations of researchers lies behind each name.

CSO Smith, who has met around 350 Nobel laureates, highlighted the following as essential for achieving groundbreaking discoveries:

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

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