# Pick the Nobel Prize Winner (Medicine)

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pick-the-nobel-prize-winner-medicine/391052>\
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion\
**Created:** [February 6, 2007, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pick-the-nobel-prize-winner-medicine/391052 "2007-02-06T08:08:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rayray5884](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@rayray5884](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayray5884)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pick-the-nobel-prize-winner-medicine/391052/1 "2007-02-06T08:08:37Z")

</div>

In discussing a friends goals in life she mentioned curing diabetes. I decided that would be an accomplishment worth a Nobel Prize in Medicine. Now I’m not that familiar with the rules and how the prizes work but in my mind something like curing diabetes would be at least worth a nomination. She remarked that with just her luck someone would find a cure for cancer or something and they would pick that cure over the cure for diabetes.

So, to me a cure for diabetes, aids, any/all major cancers would easily be up for nomination. But from what I can tell only one can be chosen for a Nobel prize. Say they are all cured in the same year.

Here’s the question. Which breakthrough in modern medicine gets the prize? Do they do away with the 1 prize per year per category rule and decide that these discoveries are all worth a prize or do they really just pick one? If so, which one would win?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pick-the-nobel-prize-winner-medicine/391052/2 "2007-02-06T18:27:50Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=rayray5884]  
If so, which one would win?  
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think diabetes would have a chance. It would coime down to exactly how the “cure” for cancer and HIV/aids worked? Either would be remarkable, in any capacity, but the ultimate utility of each cure, beyond the disease they target, would depend on how it worked.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pick-the-nobel-prize-winner-medicine/391052/3 "2007-02-06T19:41:01Z")

</div>

The Nobels aren’t like the oscars, it’s not a prize for the greatest accomplishment in the previous year so a diabetes cure isn’t going to get “overshadowed” by a cancer cure. Nobel prizes are notoriously conservative in recognising the notability of key research. If you come up with a cure for diabetes, my guess is that eventually, your ticket will come up and you’ll be recognised for it.