NEWS CENTER

新闻中心

首页

The Closed Loop of Award Evaluation and Cognitive Barriers: A Paradigm Lock of the Nobel Prize System from the Perspective of the History of Neuroelectrophysiology

发布时间：

2026-05-26

The Closed Loop of Award Evaluation and Cognitive Barriers: A Paradigm Lock of the Nobel Prize System from the Perspective of the History of Neuroelectrophysiology

Sun Zuodong

The Nobel Prize system has both historical value and inherent limitations. As one of the world’s most influential scientific honors, the Nobel Prize recognizes cutting-edge research achievements across eras and embodies profound respect for the spirit of exploration. It stands as a witness to scientific breakthroughs and a driver of academic inheritance. Looking back on the long course of scientific development, we should honor the pioneering contributions of predecessors while rationally examining the structural limitations of this award system, and objectively understand the profound logic behind the formation and solidification of mainstream academic paradigms.

The Hodgkin-Huxley (HH) model represented a major scientific breakthrough in its time but was born with theoretical flaws. In 1952, Alan Lloyd Hodgkin and Andrew Fielding Huxley developed the HH model based on experiments on the squid giant axon, laying the foundational theory of modern neuroelectrophysiology. Constrained by the technology of that era, this work pioneered the translation of neurophysiological phenomena into computable mathematical models, greatly advancing the field and marking a milestone in humanity’s exploration of the nervous system. Viewed from today’s perspective, however, the theory had striking limitations from the start. At the time of modeling, the sodium–potassium pump mechanism was undiscovered; the molecular structure of potassium ion channels, the regulation of channel gating, and the mechanisms of ion transmembrane transport were all unknown. Lacking support from microstructures and core mechanisms, researchers could only infer ion dynamics from measured potential waveforms and fill theoretical gaps with extensive mathematical formulas. As an empirical data-fitting model rather than one derived from fundamental physical and chemical laws, the HH model has innate defects in its theoretical foundation and cannot fully reproduce the true mechanisms of neural electrical activity.

Research on the sodium–potassium pump patched theoretical gaps in the HH model and also revealed the closed-loop nature of academic award evaluation. In 1957, Jens Christian Skou discovered the mechanism of the sodium–potassium pump, resolving the model’s failure to explain ion concentration homeostasis and becoming a critical supplement to the early theoretical framework. Revising past understandings with new research is normal in scientific progress. Yet Skou’s Nobel Prize was enabled by the review and endorsement of leading scholars including Hodgkin and Huxley. Mutual recognition and support within academic circles sustain the order of academic inheritance but also create a relatively closed evaluation loop. Early theories with initial cognitive biases, after layers of revision and community endorsement, gradually solidified into an unshakable mainstream research paradigm.

Despite deeper research into ion channel structure, classical models still leave many questions unanswered. As detection technology advanced, Roderick MacKinnon resolved the fine structure of ion channels and proposed the paddle model and the selectivity filter model. These confirmed that channels gate, subunits act in synergy, and channels select specific ions, filling long-missing structural knowledge. Even so, the two classical models remain incomplete: the paddle model describes conformational motion but not the fundamental driving force for gating; the selectivity filter model explains selectivity but cannot fully account for the full dynamic process of ion exchange and permeation.

By integrating fragmented research across generations, the origami windmill model achieves a theoretical breakthrough in dimensionality. Successive scholars have gathered fragmented data but never built a logically consistent, comprehensive theoretical framework. Scientific development combines continuity and contingency: predecessors lay groundwork for later exploration, yet technological and cognitive constraints trap models within unbreakable boundaries. Drawing on all accumulated knowledge and breaking free from traditional model thinking, we propose the potassium channel origami windmill model. This new model comprehensively explains channel gating, subunit synergy, and ion exchange–permeation mechanisms, integrating fragmented findings into a unified framework, breaking the constraints of old paradigms, and establishing a new theoretical system for understanding the essential workings of ion channels.

Paradigm solidification creates invisible barriers that long suppress the vitality of disruptive scientific innovation. Once a theory gains Nobel Prize recognition, it easily shifts from a tentative hypothesis to an accepted industry standard. The prestige of the Nobel Prize creates an implicit bias: research funding, academic evaluation, and resources overwhelmingly favor established paradigms. Incremental work within existing frameworks gains easy approval, while original research that challenges foundational assumptions and reconstructs core logic often faces severe resistance. Over time, the diversity of scientific exploration shrinks, reflection and disruptive innovation weaken, and the harms of paradigm lock become clear.

Only by examining authoritative awards with dialectical thinking can we approach the fundamental truth of science. In the end, the Nobel Prize reflects a temporary consensus shaped by its historical context and review perspectives—not an eternal, ultimate truth. Even the world’s leading scholars are limited by the observation tools, equipment, and cognitive frameworks of their time, and their work cannot be perfect. In science, doctrines once regarded as final are constantly revised as new technologies and ideas emerge. We should view authoritative awards and classical theories with objectivity: respect the hard work of pioneers without dismissing historical achievements anachronistically; uphold the pursuit of truth and refuse blind obedience to authority or rigid adherence to old paradigms. A genuine scientific vision means building on the work of predecessors, breaking through cognitive circles, and clearly distinguishing original theories from later patches. Patchwork corrections are not the same as natural fundamental mechanisms, nor is academic consensus equivalent to objective scientific truth. By maintaining critical, reflective, and truth-seeking rigor, we can continuously transcend cognitive limits and uncover the most essential laws of nature.