During the recent eight-day National Day and Mid-Autumn Festival holiday， the Nobel Prize selection committee members in Stockholm， Sweden， on the other side of the globe， were evidently not on vacation. They gradually announced the Nobel Prizes for 2025 during our National Day break.
Currently， all awards except the Nobel Peace Prize have been unveiled. However， it’s noteworthy that there hasn’t been as much online discussion about the awards themselves this year. Instead， public attention has gravitated towards news like Japan securing a “double Nobel Prize egg” this year or Google’s continued success.
Japan， our “good neighbor，” has now earned its 22nd Nobel Prize in 25 years. At the turn of the century， Japan proposed a plan to win 30 Nobel Prizes within 50 years， and it appears they are well on track to achieve this goal ahead of schedule. Meanwhile， Google has seen five of its scientists receive three Nobel Prizes within a mere two years. Historically， only esteemed institutions like Bell Labs and IBM surpass this number of corporate laureates.
This has led to widespread discussion about these two entities rather than the scientific breakthroughs themselves. In essence， these external conversations have little to do with the Nobel Prize’s core significance. Most Nobel Prizes reflect the culmination of past technological advancements and do not necessarily represent the current state of scientific prowess or research capability.
Therefore， instead of getting caught up in the buzz， it’s more worthwhile to delve into the fascinating stories behind these Nobel Prizes themselves.
Let’s begin with Physiology or Medicine. American scientists Mary Blenko， Fred Ramsdell， and Japanese scientist Shimon Sakaguchi have jointly won for their groundbreaking discoveries in peripheral immune tolerance mechanisms. Upon hearing terms like “immunity，” one might recall distant memories of biology classes. Indeed， even in a middle school classroom today， students can explain that the human body protects itself from external viral and bacterial invasions through its immune system.
The crucial question then arises: How does the body accurately distinguish between foreign invaders to avoid friendly fire， which could result in catastrophic damage? As early as 1995， Shimon Sakaguchi from Kyoto University， Japan， through studies on mice， discovered that the human immune system possesses a regulatory mechanism. These specialized cells， later named “regulatory T cells，” act as sentinels， monitoring other immune cells. When they detect friendly fire， regulatory T cells intervene to neutralize the rogue elements.
Following this， Mary Blenko， Fred Ramsdell， and their teams， through extensive research， eventually identified the master switch for regulatory T cells: the Foxp3 gene.
This discovery has already found significant practical applications in medicine. For instance， many immunodeficiency syndromes can be treated by enhancing the number and activity of regulatory T cells. Conversely， in cancer treatment， where doctors aim to have the immune system aggressively target cancer cells， the challenge lies in controlling regulatory T cells often found near tumors， which can suppress anti-cancer responses.
Now， let’s move on to the Chemistry prize. The recipients are Susumu Kitagawa from Kyoto University， Japan; Richard Robson from the University of Melbourne， Australia; and Omar Yaghi from the University of California， Berkeley. They have been awarded for their development of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs)， pioneering a new era of molecular architecture.
The term “molecular architecture” might sound abstract， perhaps even evoking images of construction. Indeed， metal-organic frameworks share a conceptual link with civil engineering: while civil engineers build structures in the physical world， MOFs construct buildings at the molecular scale. As early as 1974， Richard Robson contemplated the possibility of using the attractive forces between molecules and ions to construct frameworks， akin to the ingenious joinery in traditional Chinese architecture.
He formally began his research over a decade later， eventually succeeding in creating such structures. However， the initial frameworks developed by Robson were quite fragile， and many considered them mere curiosities with little practical utility.
Susumu Kitagawa and Omar Yaghi， however， saw far greater potential. In 1997， Kitagawa developed a “gland-and-gland” (or “host-guest”) type structure capable of reversibly absorbing and releasing methane， nitrogen， and oxygen at room temperature. This capability was revolutionary， transforming a purely academic pursuit into a material with commercial potential.
Around the same time， Omar Yaghi developed MOF-5， a material that is not only high in thermal stability but also possesses an astonishing internal surface area. Theoretically， a few grams of MOF-5 powder， when its pores are fully unfolded， could cover an area equivalent to a standard football field. This performance surpassed the gas adsorption capabilities of most existing materials at the time.
This breakthrough attracted significant investment， spurring the development of various new materials. Today， these novel materials are gradually being deployed and integrated into our daily lives. For example， Yaghi’s team has developed a material that can capture water vapor from the air and convert it into drinking water， with vast potential for arid desert regions to utilize clean energy for water collection.
Furthermore， these materials can directly capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere， contributing significantly to carbon neutrality efforts.
In contrast to the more “down-to-earth” research areas of the previous two prizes， the Physics prize winners， John Clarke， Michel Devoret， and John Martinis， have delved into the realm of the fantastical. They are recognized for their contributions to achieving macroscopic quantum tunneling effects and energy quantization in electrical circuits.
There’s a popular online saying， “If in doubt， blame quantum mechanics.” However， in reality， traditionally， the seemingly bizarre effects of quantum mechanics were widely believed to occur only at extremely small scales. This year’s physics laureates have challenged this perception.
Quantum mechanics offers a classic analogy: when you run into a wall， you’re likely to get hurt， your injury proportional to your determination. If you throw a ball at the wall， it bounces back. However， in the incredibly tiny and fascinating microscopic world， individual particles can pass directly through “walls” (equivalent to potential barriers) and appear on the other side – a phenomenon known as “tunneling.”
Between 1984 and 1985， John Clarke， Michel Devoret， and John Martinis， through a series of ingenious experiments， demonstrated that under suitable conditions， macroscopic systems could also exhibit tunneling (understanding the experimental details can be quite challenging， and interested readers are encouraged to explore further). The occurrence of this quantum phenomenon solidified their conviction: macroscopic quantum phenomena do indeed exist.
Driven by this insight， they continued their experiments and observations， discovering that the constructed system indeed exhibited other characteristics of the quantum world. This implies that， under appropriate conditions， macroscopic systems can possess the properties of quantum mechanics. Imagine， if one were to become a macroscopic quantum system one day， wouldn’t that be akin to Doctor Manhattan from DC Comics?
Of course， current quantum technology has not reached that level， but it has already opened up infinite possibilities for imagination. For instance， John Martinis directly utilized these superconducting circuits with quantized energy levels as information units – what we now commonly refer to as qubits. This has led to the development of quantum chips， quantum computers， and holds promise for future advancements in quantum sensing and quantum computing.
Perhaps， when in doubt， quantum mechanics is indeed the answer.
So， we have now reviewed the Nobel laureates announced for various categories this year. Oh， and just as this article was being written， the Nobel Prize in Literature was also announced. The highly acclaimed Hungarian writer László Krasznahorkai has won. While I’m here to report on the science prizes， I’ll simply say， “I see， I see” regarding the literature award.
Finally， a few more thoughts. Compared to last year’s awards， which had a touch of AI， this year’s Nobel Prizes seem to have fully returned to fundamental science， making the 2025 selections appear more pure. Therefore， as observers， perhaps we could engage in less “who won and who lost” bickering and cultivate more reverence for science itself.
The decades of focus and perseverance demonstrated by these scientists are undoubtedly the crystallizations of collective human intelligence， ultimately driving the progress of all humankind. This， perhaps， is the true core message that the Nobel Prize aims to convey year after year.
