On December 10th, 2015, the world stood up. It applauded a young Chinese scientist, Tu Youyou, for her discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria, announcing her as the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize.
Tu Youyou was one among the many scientists and researchers who were recruited as a part of Project 523, a secret proposal of allyship between North Vietnam and the Republic of China. The project was a colossal network consisting of almost 500 scientists, recruited from over 50 Laboratories, Clinics, and academic institutions in China. What began as a secret military operation turned the world upside down with its massive discovery of a life-terminating disease.
In 1979, after two collective years of research, Tu Youyou and her teammates found a breakthrough for the ailment after a deep communal reading of 2,000 historical remedies and 100 plant species. The archaic remedy carefully imprinted in a fourth-century book played a crucial role in providing a cure under the name Artemisia, which was later experimented on animals and on Tu Youyou herself, for which the young scientist claimed, ‘As head of this research group, I had the responsibility’.
However, the collective effort of the team was dismissed completely by the Nobel Foundation, narrowing down the success to a single face, Tu Youyou. The Chinese media, alongside the laureate herself, criticised how the success was personalised when, in truth, it was a long-term collective effort. This selective spotlighting opens up a much more cultural divide.
The Nobel Foundation’s identification of a sole achiever for a collective, long-term effort is what the world addresses as the Western philosophy of Individualism. Individualism as a concept prioritises personal autonomy and individual achievement as opposed to the Eastern philosophy of collectivism, which nurtures community, interconnectedness, and shared resources.
The discovery of the ailment illustrates this contrast well. The massive victory was published under a collective publication titled Qinghasou Antimalaria Coordinating Research Group, in the Chinese Medical Journal, recognising the national effort and honouring the penny-worth of each individual who was part of the project. However, the narrative quickly took a turn after an archival investigation led by the National Institute of Health credited Tu Youyou from the hundreds as the sole recipient of the discovery.
As observed, success in an individualistic framework solely focuses on tracking a particular identity and naming their insight of novelty as the source of discovery. This perception sets out the collective hardships and communal effort that arose to make the idea an ultimate success. However, the collectivistic framework, on the other hand, as observed in Asiatic societies, always credits success to the eternity of the process rather than to a single individual.
Tu Youyou’s very own claim, ‘we believed in collectivism…foreigners read the historical records and picked me,’ proves the point where one regards collective credit and the other tilts to singular heroes.
Furthermore, an individualistic mindset focuses on personal merit. The Nobel Prize, despite being a symbol of grand recognition and achievement, also bestows financial merit to the achiever. This particular fallout fosters a capitalist ideology, where one is uplifted, and the others are left behind, forming an imbalance in monetary gain.
Similar to the Chinese scientist, the major Austrian Economist and Nobel Laureate, Friedrich Hayek, also criticised the Foundation as it ‘confers on an individual authority which in economics no man ought to possess’. Hayek's words pinpoint the systematic fallout behind the foundation’s awarding structure that limits up to only three recipients for an award that unwittingly disregards the intelligence and capability of the majority who worked for the primary cause.
Tu You You’s case stands as a matter of discussion as to how an awarding system based on limited merit and recognition builds up the spirit of individualism systematically. It calls for recognising the ‘big sciences’ practised today that call for collective experimentation and contributions. Narrowing out accolades erases the hundreds of faces and minds that worked vigorously to contribute towards a major success. Hence, bringing a change in the structural awarding system is indeed a reform worth considering.
References: