BIG09.NOBELS & an ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE PRIZE

BIG09.NOBELS & an ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE PRIZE

“Everyone knows that the social sciences are hypercomplex.They are inherently far more difficult than physics and chemistry, and as a result they, not physics and chemistry, should be called the hard sciences.” – Edward O. Wilson

Should there be an Economics and Social Science Nobel Prize?
BIG outline: You'd think the idea of winning a Nobel would be a big thing, and you'd be right. The BIG institute however is dealing with 11 BIGS that are BIGger than big. The central idea here is that while there is currently a Prize in Economic Sciences, there is no Economics Nobel for the social sciences and to be honest with you, I think that is wrong. For me, the Nobels are kind of like the Olympics of thinking (and/or a body of work) and the current Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace do just that. However, there is something missing and this BIG provides a remedy for that.

In 1968 the central bank of Sweden created a new prize, "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". While the financial/funding commitment came from the bank, the award is given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences according to the same principles for the Nobel Prizes since 1901. The award itself though it not a Nobel. What is being proposed in this BIG would change that. The goal of this BIG would be to replace its original sponsored name of The Sveriges Riksbank and reposition it alongside the original Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace. This new, bigger Nobel would be administered and managed fully by The Nobel Committee in the same way, with the same standing of the other five Nobels. These are the other five Nobels that have not generated the BIGs that are being advanced here. That is not to downplay their contribution to knowledge and society, but to highlight the relevance of The Nobel for Economic and Social Sciences.

BIG outcome: When we say the social sciences we mean the human sciences, and its always worth reminding ourselves of that. The current Economics Prize is not just a newer award from 1968, but from February 1995 the criteria of the Economics Prize was widened to include contributions from the social sciences, like sociology, psychology and political science, albeit relating to economics.

When you work on a body of work like what is being outlined here for 20,000+ hours you’re aware that this is Nobel-level thinking, but its bigger than that. It is BIG enough to redefine the Nobel awards themselves. Moreover, by stressing the importance of the social sciences (and I consider myself to be rooted in the social sciences) I think I’m giving something BIG back to the field of social sciences. Newton and Darwin didn’t ‘end’ thinking across their domains, something wonderful started with them. To have a Nobel prize, the Olympics of thinking and science, recognising their contribution, can encourage more BIG thinking and work across the social sciences. It will also enrich the Nobel awards themselves and pay renewed and lasting testimony to Alfred Nobel’s legacy that the prizes were awarded for those who had “conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”. The social sciences really are ‘the human sciences’ and becoming an acknowledged sixth Nobel would encourage bigger, broader thinking from across the entire spectrum of social science, not just economics.