There has been some discussion that the next-generation research on human stem cell-based embryo models (SCBEM) could someday warrant a Nobel Prize for some of those involved.
At this point, however, I believe that’s unlikely.
How do we evaluate the worth of and reward innovative biomedical research?
Let’s start by talking a bit about Nobel Prizes.
Nobels above all else?
I was a technician in a couple of labs at UC San Diego Medical School in the 90s before I started grad school there.
You meet tons of people working in a lab. Some conversations back then at UCSD still stand out to me now. I remember one guy told me, speaking intensely, that his goal was to win a Nobel Prize. That was the main reason he was in a lab, he said. That sounded pretty naive or ambitious to me, but, heck, I thought, knock yourself out.
Do a lot of biomedical scientists dream of getting one? For whatever reason, I never have.
I also met a very successful scientist with an amazing track record. This person told a few of us that one day they got an early morning call and for a moment thought it might be from Stockholm. Nobel on the mind?
Everyone still fusses over Nobels.
SCBEM are a technology (and arguably an old one)
Could embryo model research qualify? These embryo-like structures made from stem cells have many powerful applications. They can teach us about the development of actual human embryos. However, there are several key reasons that SCBEM are unlikely to get a Nobel prize. This tells us something about rewards in science.
One factor is that embryo models have been around for decades. Many of you may be aware of rather basic but useful embryo models called EBs or embryoid bodies. Whether started with ES cells or iPS cells, EBs look like blobs. Despite their blob-like nature, many experimental methods rely on EBs. Also, EBs have some molecular features of actual embryos like containing different lineages and unique patterns of gene expression. EBs are crude, but they represent the earliest ancestral prototypes of SCBEM, even if they are not typically classified as SCBEM models today.
What is new here in recent years with embryo models?
Why all the buzz around the newer embryo models or SCBEM?
Some recent protocols for making the models generate relatively elegant outcomes. The result is that these next-gen embryo models, relatively speaking (especially for mouse and primate) are much more similar to real embryos than ever before.
The human embryo models have become far better too and that trend will continue. These models will catalyze many discoveries in science and could have clinical applications too (more to come).
I’d say that SCBEM are a bioengineering triumph, but one built almost entirely on previously discovered biological principles like pluripotency and self-organization. Historically, even the most highly sophisticated optimization of or new applications of biomedical technology are rarely enough to win a Nobel.
Self-organizing properties of stem cells: not a new idea
I mentioned self-organization. A big part of what makes such excellent SCBEM possible is the ability of pluripotent stem cells to organize in an autonomous kind of way. This is what we mean by self-organization and it’s an idea that is sometimes pointed to when people muse about SCBEM getting a Nobel in the future.
Under the right conditions (media, etc.), iPS cells and ES cells just start trying to make embryo-like structures. They are mimicking what pluripotent and then later other kinds of stem cells are doing in vivo in actual embryos.
To me as a biologist, the self-organizing property of these stem cells is fascinating. Still, this kind of general phenomenon has been known in some form in biology for more than a century. It may be manifesting now in much more powerful and elegant ways with today’s innovative embryo model technologies, but conceptually it’s not new. For example, EBs are arguably trying to self-organize even if it’s a struggle for them. Dissociated sponge cells will self-organize (think of H.V. Wilson’s work).
As noted earlier, it seems like a fundamentally new idea is needed for a Nobel and both SCBEM and self-organization aren’t inherently novel.
Other examples of amazing tech that probably won’t get a Nobel
This is telling us something broader about the emphasis of Nobel Prizes in physiology or medicine.
Take the example of CAR-T cells.
Although CAR-T cell therapy has achieved dramatic clinical successes, including durable remissions and even many apparent cures in cancer patients who would have previously quickly died, it has not been recognized with a Nobel Prize. It could be someday, but I doubt it.
By contrast, in arguably the same general field, James Allison and Tasuku Honjo were awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize for discovering immune checkpoint regulation, and Mary Brunkow, Fred Ramsdell, and Shimon Sakaguchi received the 2025 Nobel Prize for their discoveries concerning regulatory T cells and peripheral immune tolerance.
Together, this fits the pattern of Nobel decision makers tending to recognize foundational insights into biological mechanisms rather than downstream technologies or therapeutic implementations. If this historical pattern continues, SCBEM are probably out of luck.
Clinical impact not tied to Nobel likelihood?
However, beyond being a tool to advance knowledge of developmental biology and related diseases, there is another big area of hoped-for impact here with SCBEM.
Some researchers hope that the models could be a general source of transplantable material for the clinic.
It’s an intriguing idea, but one that raises complex ethical questions. For instance, should these human SCBEM, if grown extensively for potential tissue harvesting, be called fetal models? Would that complicate the ethical picture?
Also, if these models have no brain, does that make their potential use for organ sourcing less ethically thorny? No heart? As human SCBEM continue to become relatively closer to real embryos, how do we tell the difference and navigate the ethical complexities?
Even if the newer human models become a regular source of successful transplant material in future decades and it can be done in what is generally recognized as an ethical manner (even if there are a few detractors), it still seems unlikely to win a Nobel because again these prizes are focused on big, new ideas.
Nobel Prizes already given in general area
Speaking of newness, there have been related Nobel Prizes in this general sphere already, which makes future prizes less likely.
John Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka won for reprogramming.
Then earlier, Mario Capecchi, Martin Evans, and Oliver Smithies shared the 2007 Nobel Prize related to mouse ES cells and making targeted mice. An official Nobel document on this prize even mentions embryoid bodies made from ES cells. That seems like another direct hit to the novelty of more recent sophisticated SCBEM.
Of course, Spemann got a Nobel for the organizer effect (and let’s mention Hilde Mangold, who did much of the actual work as a grad student).
These earlier prizes cover the most of the core concepts here.
Future Nobels in the stem cell and regenerative medicine space?
Whether you think SCBEM should get a Nobel or not, more broadly what other biomedical research do you think could or should get one in the near future?
Optogenetics? Does this remarkable field transcend being a tool into the realm of new conceptual discoveries? It arguably does, but kind of indirectly through the new discoveries and knowledge it makes possible. The Nobel committee might reward something like that, but it’s hard to say.
What if we narrow my question to potential future Nobels just in the stem cell and regenerative medicine space?
Organoids?
Some might argue that if organoids are positioned for a potential Nobel, SCBEMs should be too. Both rely on self-organization. Overall, I feel like organoids could have a better chance for a Nobel though.
Remarkably, more broadly, even if specific stem cells or other cells provide treatments or cures for serious diseases in the next 5-10 years (we already have that for sickle cell disease with combined cell and gene therapy), it feels like the Nobel Committee probably won’t acknowledge that.
Nobels in Physiology or Medicine too limited to ideas rather than impact?
Part of what this discussion is telling us overall is that the Nobel Prize in “Physiology or Medicine” traditionally has been awarded very narrowly. It centers on conceptual discoveries rather than groundbreaking new technologies or applications. Is that the way it should be?
After all, medicine is by definition an applied space focused on technology, but how often do purely medical advances get Nobels? It seems like almost never and I doubt the Nobel folks will change in that regard.
One could argue that biomedical science has outgrown the unwritten constraints set up long ago for Nobel Prizes in physiology or medicine, especially the medicine part. Today, there are many other top honors, like the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, that transformative biotechnologies can win.
In that sense, this piece is not a critique of SCBEM technology at all but rather a reflection on the limitations of the Nobel Prize itself in the life sciences space. Imagine if the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was more focused on overall impact rather than conceptual novelty.