Polio and Nobel Prizes

I often lecture about polioviruses and poliovirus vaccines, and I am frequently asked why Salk or Sabin did not receive the Nobel Prize. I usually tell students because Salk did not discover anything new, but simply put together existing technologies in a productive way. Sabin once said that Salk didn’t invent anything, what he did was pure kitchen chemistry. An article in the Annals of Neurology, “Polio and Nobel Prizes: Looking Back 50 Years”, by Erling Norrby and Stanley Prusiner, directly addresses this question.

The authors took advantage of the fact that the Nobel Archives are open to scholarly investigation 50 years after the Prize is awarded. They looked into the written record surrounding the 1954 Nobel Prize, which was awarded to John Enders, Thomas Weller, and Frederick Robbins for their discovery of the ability of poliovirus to grow in cultures of various types of tissue. This discovery was a milestone in virology because it not only lead to the production of both killed and live poliovirus vaccines, but it allowed the growth of many other viruses.

Examination of the Nobel Archives reveals that Dr. Sven Gard, Professor of Virology at the Karolinska Institute, convinced the Nobel Committee to name Enders and his colleagues recipients of the 1954 Prize. He wrote that ‘the discovery by Enders’ group is the most important in the whole history of virology…The discovery has had a revolutionary effect on the discipline of virology’. Salk was nominated for the Prize in 1955 and in 1956. The first time, it was decided to wait for the results of the clinical trial of Salk’s killed poliovaccine, which was in progress. In 1956, Gard wrote an 8-page analysis of Salk’s work, in which he concluded that “Salk has not in the development of his methods introduced anything that is principally new, but only exploited discoveries made by others.” He concluded that “Salk’s publications on the poliomyelitis vaccine cannot be considered as Prize worthy”.

In the late 1960s, Salk, Sabin, Koprowski, and Gard were nominated for the Nobel Prize for poliovirus vaccines. Gard refused to be nominated, saying that the work was not primary but depended on accomplishments of those who had already received the Prize; this effectively killed the nomination. The developers of the poliovaccine were never again seriously considered for a Nobel Prize.

From now on, when asked why Salk did not receive the Nobel Prize, I will have the right answer.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Victor 28 October 2014, 6:10 pm

    But why not the Nobel Peace Prize. By not even attempting to Patent this and thus avoiding litigation; Salk did speed up the eradication efforts immensely. I am not saying Salk deserved a Patent, or he was persuaded against it. I am saying that by simply not even getting the patenting Process started; he allowed for a faster eradication effort.

  • Altu Phaltu 28 October 2014, 11:07 pm

    Really! Is the award for novelty alone OR for creating something that touched the lives of millions around the globe. I guess awards don’t matter beyond a point for such personalities.

  • Manuel RK 30 October 2014, 4:19 pm

    The Nobel Prize has a lot of political interest. Why they did not give Nobel Prize to Salk and Sabin, why did they did not give the Nobel Prize to Lejeune????. The problem is the political interest of this award.

  • Torbjörn Reitberger 10 January 2015, 2:19 pm

    Is it not the purpose of the Nobel Prize to honor persons who have contributed to the benefit of mankind ?

  • Walter Kyle 26 April 2015, 9:41 pm

    In the early 1970`s during the polio vaccine trial of Griffin v United States which proved the FDA failed to f, follow its own regulations in release of Sabin polio vaccines, Sven Gard testified as an expert for the paralyzed Plaintiff against the Sabin live vaccine. Gard accepted no money for his expert testimony and paid for his own airfare and expenses. Gard commented to the lead attorney, Avram Adler, that `Salk`s polio vaccine probably caused more cases of polio than it prevented.”
    A Committee appointed by the US Claims Court investigating polio following Salk vaccine administration concluded that the Salk vaccine caused polio in many cases other than in the Cutter Incident and the facts covered up by CDC, then the Communicable Disease Center. The Committee also determined the reaction rate in Cutter similar to the reaction rate in the Francis Field Trial where twice as many contact cases of vaccine caused paralysis arose than in direct recipients.
    The placebo`s in the Francis Field Trial suffered polio at twice the rate of recipients, but the placebo`s were classmates subject to infection from close personal contact.
    Salk eliminated recipient cases of polio within 14 days of vaccine administration during the Francis Field trial – the time period in which most recipient cases of polio arose in Cutter. Salk touted the `fact` that twice as many placebos acquired polio compared to recipients as proof of his vaccines safety.
    WHO polio monograph 6 wrongfully attributes only 78 recipient cases of polio to the vaccine but over two hundred family and community contacts were also paralyzed.
    Sabin pulled a similar trick in the Soviet Field Trials where all cases of polio within 28 days of vaccine administration were defined as pre-existing polio.
    Sven Gard knew this – that is why neither Sabin or Salk received the Nobel Prize.

  • Likell 24 September 2015, 10:46 am

    It’s not like he invented something new like President Obama. Wow; if it wasn’t for Obama’s discovery and using new methods of negotiations we’d have a mess in the Middle East.

Next post:

Previous post: