Nobel Prize Winners Live Longer

anthemaniac writes "A new study finds those who won Nobel Prizes between 1901 and 1950 lived about 2 years longer than nominees who didn't win. The researchers conclude that the instantly conferred social status leads to health benefits. From the story: 'The research rules out the possibility that intervening prize-related money itself adds the years through improved prosperity.' If you're thinking of aiming for the prize, pick the right field. Nobel laureates in physics lived nearly a year longer than winners in chemistry."

Comments

They live longer

[Who235]

Except for the 1903 and 1911 winner.

Re:They live longer

[maroberts]

Well, Pierre Curie got run over by a Carriage. Could've happened to anyone.

Marie Curie had only herself to blame; winning the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1911 obviously cancelled out the beneficial effects of winning the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1903.

Junk Science about Junk Science

[haakondahl]

What this scant research has found is a correlation between Nobel winners and longer life. What it has NOT proven is a causal relationship. The weak-kneed nonsense about "social benefits conferred" is a presumed conclusion laid on top of some research which may or may not support it.

This is a better conclusion: People who tend to win also tend to live longer, due to a separate causal factor.

Now gimme my Nobel Prize. I just corrected a bunch of Junk Scientists.

so many things wrong

[dheera]

there are so many things wrong with such an analysis. the fact that Nobel prize winners live longer is a correlation, not a cause-and-effect relationship.

You can't immediately blame it on social status. For all we know, it could be because they're being shuttled around the world giving lectures everywhere, such that they get better exercise; it could be that they're being given more money and have a more relaxed personal life to eat better; it could be a lot of other things.

Bill Sharpe

[Mean Variance]

I work for a company founded by Bill Sharpe (NP in Economics shared with Markowitz). Obviously an empirical observation, but the guy is in his early 70's and is still actively involved with research with the company and just did a private book signing for the employees.

I think it goes with that theory of the brain's "use it or lose it" feature. I bet you live a little longer when you feel you have a reason to get up in the morning and do something. This guy does.

Re:Another reason I hate science "reporting"

[sam_handelman]

I'd guess that it's around the border of statistical significance.

  The standard deviation in the life expectancy of the general population is about 10 years (meaning - 2/3 people die between 67 and 87), although IIRC it's got a lot of skew.

  Anyway, the smaller of the two samples is 135 people, so the error in the estimate of that mean is roughly 10 / sqrt(134) ~= 10/12, so two sigma is about 20 months, and the life expectancy difference is 24 months, so it's significant to 5%.

  Well, okay, you can't be "more" or "less" significant (something is either significant, to any particular threshold, or it isn't), but is this the only hypothesis he tested on this data? How many data sets of similar size did he comb through? And why only physics and chemistry?

  OTOH, if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it stands to reason that ordinary claims should be able to phone it in on paltry evidence like that, so I'm willing to believe that the winners lived longer.