Eyes on ice: On the Nobel Prize for physics

The Nobel Prize for physics to Francis Halzen recognises a clever idea: to use the Antarctic landmass to detect one of the universe’s most elusive particles. Halzen’s efforts helped create the IceCube observatory, which went on to detect high-energy particles from astronomical sources thousands to billions of light-years away and transformed astronomy. Yet, the committee’s decision to award Halzen alone also perpetuates a deleterious tradition in how the institution has been recognising scientific achievement. The observatory consists of thousands of sensors embedded up to 2.5 kilometres beneath the South Pole, connected by cables to a laboratory aboveground. When subatomic particles called neutrinos interact with atoms in the ice, reactions lead to a small flash of light. Sensors detect and record it, allowing scientists to reconstruct the incoming neutrino’s energy and direction. Since coming online in 2011, IceCube has detected neutrinos of extremely high energy, giving scientists stronger clues about the crucibles in which these particles were created, and strengthening neutrino astronomy. The IceCube collaboration consists of over 400 experts from 14 countries, spanning astrophysics, engineering, and software development. Halzen’s leadership was necessary to create this entity.However, the need to build IceCube at its scale should also have rendered the collective nature of its success impossible to ignore. The Nobel Foundation’s statutes prohibit dividing each prize among more than three individuals. So, in 2017 as well, the physics prize was awarded to three scientists for the detection of gravitational waves, which really required a collaboration of hundreds of researchers. The rules that govern prizes are human arrangements, and the Foundation’s choices are not explained away by its fealty to its traditions; in fact, its statutes allow prizes to be awarded to organisations as well — an option repeatedly overlooked. Every new science prize begins with distinguishing itself by identifying the ‘right’ laureates; the Nobel Prizes did so, too, until their accumulated prestige became so great that laureates were distinguished by receiving the prizes rather than distinguishing the prizes. Thus, even when the prize-giving committee follows an outdated model of scientific recognition, in the present instance by reinforcing the notion that exceptional scientific achievements can be cleanly attributed to exceptional individuals, it suffers minimal reputational damage. The institution is using its prestige — owed to the science it celebrates — to entrench a distorted understanding of how science works, more so at a time when scientific progress increasingly depends on extensive cooperation. No man is an island, least of all in science. Published - October 08, 2026 12:20 am IST