The publications so far regarding insulin are the results of a collaboration among several authors, but I really think that the prize should go to Macleod and Banting, and the other authors be passed by.
According to the information I personally obtained in Toronto, and as is also contained in the publications, though not so distinctly, the situation is that credit for the idea for the work that led to the discovery unquestionably goes to Dr. Banting. He is a young and apparently very talented man. But he would surely never have been able to carry out the experiments on his own, which from the beginning and at all stages were directed by Professor Macleod. The other authors should be considered as Macleod’s and Banting’s collaborators, but there is reason for specially mentioning the chemist J.B. Collip. He has made a very important contribution in the method of producing insulin in a major practical way, beginning with the adult animal pancreas. But I do not think that is sufficient ground for the award of a prize.
Macleod’s special contribution in the experimental work has been only partly published at this time (Jan. 31, 1923). It is about locating insulin in the pancreases of several species of fish (and thereby proving the character of the hormone), and then exploring insulin’s action on the total system and the respiratory quotient, and ongoing exploration of its action on carbohydrate metabolism – these explorations all show clearly the action of the hormone, though as yet there is no explanation of its action.
In April the committee reduced the horde of nominees to a short list of nine, counting Macleod and Banting as one, whose work would receive special appraisal or investigation. Perhaps because there were two nominees for insulin, it was decided to have two appraisals of the discovery, one by John Sjöquist emphasizing its physiological importance, another by J.C. Jacobaeus on its practical application. In addition, the committee’s secretary, Goran Liljestrand, wrote a special report on the insulin sessions of the congress at Edinburgh.
Nobel appraisals are detailed, expert studies of the work of the nominees. Sjöquist and Jacobaeus read very widely in the publications on insulin. While the former attended the Edinburgh congress, the latter went to Copenhagen to see the results of clinical tests there and to meet other European specialists who were using insulin. Both investigators were particularly concerned to find out whether enough was known about insulin, both experimentally and clinically, to justify the very major claims being made about it. Past experience had taught Nobel nominators and examiners that it was almost impossible to assess the results of medical discoveries so quickly. One year was almost always too soon to tell. Often it took ten or twenty years or more for the true importance of a fundamental discovery to be realized.
In their several-thousand-word reports, the examiners described the work with considerable thoroughness. Sjöquist discussed the work of several predecessors, especially Zuelzer, but seemed particularly impressed by the investigation of the respiratory quotient, glycogen formation, and other experiments, including some of Banting’s recent work on insulin in the blood (which Banting had discussed in Edinburgh). Sjöquist seemed to see these follow-up studies as vital proof that the discovery was soundly buttressed in physiological investigation. Jacobaeus reported on the most recent conclusions by clinicians, and cited several European and American experts on insulin’s value. Both examiners concluded that the discovery of insulin was of fundamental importance, worthy of a Nobel Prize. The Liljestrand report on Edinburgh was very factual, not arriving at any conclusions or recommendations.
Who should get the prize? Sjöquist accepted the suggestion of dividing it between Banting and Macleod:
Banting had the distinction of having had the idea and the initiative. If you look at the publications and comments by observers, Macleod has been the leader of the scientific work, which has been done in his laboratory, and it is beyond doubt that without his major contribution this discovery would not have had the importance it now has. I should also say that it was not a coincidence that Banting went with his idea to Macleod, who had earlier made many very important studies in carbohydrate metabolism.
Jacobaeus was more puzzled by the difficulty of assessing Macleod’s role, but reached the same conclusion:
Dr. Banting, who undeniably first had the idea and did the exploratory work, has the first claim to the prize. On the other hand it is difficult to judge Macleod’s contribution. It is not clear from an examination of the literature. Macleod, who is the head of the physiological institution in Toronto, has worked before with blood sugar studies. Banting came with his idea to Macleod and completed his work on insulin under Macleod’s guidance. It has been said to me that it is very possible that the discovery would not have been made or at least not made as quickly, were it not for Macleod’s guidance. It is even said that Banting was about to make an experiment which would not have led them to the goal, until he was corrected by Macleod.
The question is, therefore, whether Banting alone should be awarded a prize, or if it should be given to Banting and Macleod. I conclude that Banting and Macleod should share the Nobel Prize.
Others on the short list had been deemed worthy of a Nobel Prize. Fortunately the committee had two prizes to dispose of, having postponed any decision the year before. On September 22, 1923, the Nobel Committee decided to recommend the award of the 1922 prize to A.V. Hill and Otto Meyerhof for their work on muscular action, and the 1923 prize to Banting and Macleod.35
The recommendations had to go to the Nobel Assembly, which at that time consisted of all faculty members of the Caroline Institute, for final approval. There was no problem with the Hill-Meyerhof recommendation. But at its October 11 meeting, the Assembly decided that there were difficulties with the Banting-Macleod recommendation. Having been challenged, it was sent back to the committee for reconsideration.
Professor Alfred Pettersson had objected most strenuously to a Banting-Macleod award. He formally explained his objections in a letter to the committee. “It is quite clear to me that a fundamental requirement in awarding a person a Nobel Prize is knowledge of what part the person has actually taken in the work being honoured,” Pettersson wrote. He quoted the references to Macleod in the two appraisals, and went on,
During the time I have participated in the awarding of the Nobel Prize, the justification for the award has never been based on hear-say evidence from unknown persons, on statements like “it is beyond doubt”, on things that are thought of as “very possible”. In my opinion, it is very necessary that the Assembly adhere only to verifiable facts. Otherwise the Assembly risks the development of unpleasant discoveries at a later date. I also point out a certain contradiction in Professor Jacobaeus’s final judgment about Macleod’s part in the work relating to insulin production. Banting is said to have been ready to make an experiment that would not have led to the goal, and to have been corrected by Macleod. But before that, Jacobaeus writes that Banting came with his idea to Macleod and worked through to insulin under Macleod’s direction. If the work was totally under Macleod’s direction, then Banting could hardly be made responsible, at least not alone, if they, in the beginning, started out on the wrong road.
The committee met again, reconsidered, and reaffirmed its recommendation. In a formal letter to the Assembly it named the provider of “hearsay” evidence as August Krogh, and emphasized that he had originally made the joint recommendation based on his visit to Toronto. Pettersson was wrong to interpret the difficulties in apportioning credit mentioned by the examiners as an indication of any hesitancy or doubt on the committee’s part, its members wrote. They described Banting’s coming to Toronto with his idea, and quoted the explicit statement in Banting and Best’s first paper that the work was done under Macleod’s direction. The short published statement about the work (the abstract of the New Haven paper), they added, carried Macleod’s name as an author. The committee went on:
At the international physiological Congress in Edinburgh in July this year, where Banting was present, it was Macleod who in his formal
lecture at the congress’s opening summarized the situation regarding insulin. He started his lecture with these words, “Speaking for my collaborators as well as myself…”
Krogh, who personally visited Toronto and there for a time followed the work, discusses the prize-award very thoroughly and concludes that Macleod’s part in the work merits the prize.
From studying the relevant literature, Sjöquist, as written in his investigation, has reached the firm opinion that the idea was Banting’s alone, to be sure, but that it was Macleod’s guiding hand that helped Banting’s idea reach such a happy culmination in the beautiful result which we now see. It is beyond doubt, according to Sjö. quist, that the award should go to Banting and Macleod together.
The undersigned were at the physiological congress in Edinburgh and the Committee’s chairman and secretary had the opportunity of attending Macleod’s formal lecture and also two short papers of Banting’s and some discussion about the discovery of insulin. The information we received there confirms what has just been said.
…it is not possible to make a more thorough investigation of this discovery and the relative parts of Banting and Macleod, nor is it necessary.
The Nobel Assembly had a special meeting to discuss the recommendation on October 18. No record of that discussion survives. But the force of Pettersson’s objection to Macleod seems to have been blunted by the fact that he was advancing it largely to further a somewhat quixotic crusade to have the prize awarded to R. Pfeiffer, a German bacteriologist who thought he had discovered the cause of influenza. Pfeiffer’s “discovery” had been made back in the 1890s, was of current interest because of the flu epidemics of 1918–20, and was later shown to be erroneous. Nobody but Pettersson seems to have supported him for the prize. On October 25 the nineteen assembled professors of the Caroline Institute voted by secret ballot to award the 1923 prize to Banting and Macleod.
V
Fred Banting drove down to Toronto from Alliston early in the morning of Friday, October 26, after spending a day with his parents. He got to the city about nine o’clock and went straight to his office. Hearing his telephone ringing, he went inside, tucking his morning paper under his arm. An excited friend was on the phone: “Congratulations…where have you been… trying to get you… have you seen the newspapers?”
“Calm down and tell me what you’re talking about.”
“You damned fool, didn’t you know you and Macleod got the Nobel Prize?”
“Go to hell.”
Banting hung up and opened his paper. There it was – the Nobel Prize, and Macleod! Macleod! Macleod!
I rushed out and drove as fast as possible to the laboratory. I was going to tell Macleod what I thought of him. When I arrived at the building Fitzgerald was on the steps. He came to meet me and knowing I was furious he took me by the arm. I told him that I would not accept the Prize; that I was going to cable Stockholm that not only would I not accept but that they and the old foggy Krogh could go to hell. I defied Fitzgerald to name one idea in the whole research from beginning to end that had originated in Macleod’s brain – or to name one experiment that he had done with his own hands. Fitzgerald had no chance to talk…
Nobody had ever seen Banting quite so angry. “He was furious,” an eighty-year-old lady who was there that day told me, her voice rising to imitate him. “Oh, he was furious,” she repeated, clenching her fists. “He could have torn the whole building down…Oh, he was helling and damning…” When Fitzgerald was finally able to interrupt Banting’s tirade he told him that Colonel Gooderham was waiting for him in his university office. Banting went in to see Gooderham. “The weight of his presence cooled me down. He was one man whose calm and strong personality always reminded me of my father.”
Gooderham congratulated Banting, told him to get to Stockholm on the first boat so he could get the prize in person, and offered to pay all his expenses. Banting replied that he was going to turn down the Prize. Gooderham, according to Banting,
was one of the few men who knew the whole story and he said words to the effect that he understood my feelings and that he agreed with me but that there were other considerations that must be taken into account. I must think first of my country- what would the people of Canada think if the first Canadian to receive this honour were to turn it down? Then there was science to consider – what would the world think of scientists who would because of differences of opinion disagree about a Prize. I had not thought of this aspect of the situation. He did not ask me to decide immediately but asked me not to do anything rash & “better wait 24 hours.”
Banting did not need the twenty-four hours. On the spot he decided to share the cash and the credit too.36
Best was in Boston that day to address the Harvard medical students. He had not heard of the prize. After his talk, Elliott Joslin got up and read a telegram just received from Banting: “At any meeting or dinner please read following stop I ascribe to Best equal share in the discovery stop hurt that he is not so acknowledged by Nobel trustees stop will share with him.”37
J.J.R. Macleod heard about the prize on his way back to Canada from Britain. When he landed in Montreal on November 2, he was met by a Star reporter anxious for his side of the Nobel story. Macleod had heard about Banting’s decision to share with Best. He was going to take a few days to think about how he would dispose of his share, he told the reporter. “You may be sure, however, that my decision will be in no way influenced by the action of others.”
If Macleod was being quoted correctly, the reporter had caught him in one of his iciest moods. “It was very handsome of Dr. Banting to divide that amount of money. It is very handsome indeed. A fine thing to do. But Dr. Banting is a very wealthy man now.” The reporter also asked Macleod if he had seen a statement Banting had just made in London, Ontario, that he had been given a time limit of six weeks to make the experiments for his discovery. “I have no doubt that every statement Dr. Banting makes is accurate in every particular,” Macleod answered.38
Either that day or within the next two or three, Macleod telegraphed Collip from Montreal asking the chemist to share his half of the prize money. Collip accepted. On November 7 Macleod gave a statement to the press:
It would be invidious and quite unnecessary to try to dissect or divide up the work on insulin among the various men who were engaged in it.
The University of Toronto has been given a great deal of credit for this discovery and it would like to emphasize that it is team work that did it. We found that we were engaged on a work that appeared to have in it great benefit to mankind and our aim was to hurry it along as fast as we could to completion. Other work was dropped while this was proceeded with. It was on this basis of understanding that Dr. Collip, who was on leave of absence from Alberta university, came into the work with us.
Dr. Collip made a very important contribution to the work and his share was equal to that of the others.
When the reporters pointed out to Macleod that he had said nothing about his own share in the work, he laughed and said he was only “the impresario – the managing director.”39
The Star’s journalists seem to have smelled another story underneath the Nobel Prize story, but were unable to ferret it out, perhaps because the reporter row assigned to it, a future Nobel laureate himself named Ernest Hemingway, was both overworked and unhappy in Toronto. Earlier, a seventeen-year-old University of Toronto student, Charles Stacey, who was a cub reporter for the Varsity, almost got the grand story when Best told him that Banting was thinking of making his anger public and would give him, Stacey, the statement. Stacey was dazzled at the prospect of a world scoop, but when told that Banting had changed his mind accepted the decision and probed no further.
Banting refused to comment on Collip’s part in the work. Privately there may have been yet another angry confrontation between Banting and Macleod. Macleod had said that Collip’s share was “equal.” A day later the last public word from the new Nobel laureates was a correction by Macleod
:
The statement that Dr. Collip was entitled to an equal share of credit for his part in the work was not quite properly phrased. It might be more accurate to say that he is entitled to a fair share of the credit. I would be glad to correct any misapprehension. If I used the word “equal” I should not have done so.40
Privately, J.J.R. Macleod was unrepentant. A few months later he wrote a friend in Scotland that by dividing his share with Collip, “I think I have succeeded in getting people here to realize that his contribution to the work as a whole was not incommensurate with that of Banting. It is of course sad that it should require such drastic methods to persuade people of this fact but it could not be helped, it was the only thing to do under the circumstances.”41
Both Banting and Macleod received many letters of congratulation. One of Macleod’s first was from August Krogh, who was “greatly pleased that they have not in Stockholm taken a formal point of view but recognized explicitly your great share in the great discovery…we feel proud indeed in counting you among our personal friends.”42 Rawle Geyelin, on the other hand, wrote Banting saying how disgusted he was with the award to Macleod and the nerve Macleod had shown in accepting it. Geyelin had drafted a letter to the press attacking the Nobel trustees as either ignorant or woefully misinformed. Did Banting think he should publish it?
Banting had finally calmed down. On November 10 he wrote Geyelin that although he agreed with his views, the letter should not be sent. “While I feel that the whole thing has been a great injustice to Best, and whereas I cannot understand Professor Macleod in this matter, I would beg of you not to publish this letter because the University of Toronto and Science in general would be discredited for their rangling. At the present time the outburst of indignation is subsiding, and any additional controversy would do only harm, since nothing can actually be done about the award.”43
The Discovery of Insulin Page 32