Plant Cuttings

This image, captioned “Winners of the Ig Nobel Prize are awarded a banknote for the amount of 10 trillion Zimbabwean dollars” by Meduzot, is in the public domain.

About the Nobel Prizes…

As I pen this post 2025’s Nobel Prize awarding season (Yashraj Sharma) has just ended, and that set me thinking about prize-winning work in botany.

The Nobel Prizes – established by the will of Alfred Nobel – are awarded to “those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind”. The five original Nobel Prize fields are: physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. A sixth – for Economics – was added in 1969, and is called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Technically, it is not a Nobel Prize (it’s a memorial prize), but is “awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901”. It therefore has the same status as if it were a true Nobel [Ed. – as, I feel sure, all of its recipients would agree…] (although it has been called a “a pseudo Nobel for a pseudo science” by Ward Chesworth).

Slim pickings for plant science

“Popularly thought of as the highest accolade that a scientist can receive”, several areas of scientific endeavour are appropriate for Nobel Prizes*. Sadly, botany or plant science or almost anything ‘planty’ (or purely zoological for that matter) is not one of those areas that are specifically mentioned. Nevertheless, that hasn’t prevented some plant scientists from achieving Nobel status.

The most notable recipients of Nobel Prizes awarded for plant-based work that readily come to my mind** are: Melvin Calvin “for his research on the carbon dioxide assimilation in plants” (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1961); Barbara McClintock “for her discovery of mobile genetic elements” (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1983); Tu Youyou “for her discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria” (half share in The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015); and Norman Borlaug “for having given a well-founded hope – the green revolution” (Nobel Peace Prize 1970)***.

The Igs…

One group of awards where plant-based work [Ed. – however tenuous that may be – do read on(!)…] is most definitely a candidate, and which has had a bumper year in 2025, is the Ig Nobel Awards. Unlike the true Nobel Prizes, the Ig® Nobels – affectionately known as ‘Igs’ – are presented “for achievements that first make people LAUGH then make them THINK”. And they didn’t disappoint on that score. Plant-based work took awards in five categories, Nutrition, Pediatrics [sic.], Peace, Aviation, and Physics. And the principal plants involved were bread wheat, alcohol (from fermented plant products), and garlic. The prize-winning work – which probably falls more naturally in the plants-and-people category – in a little more detail is as follows.

Pizza-based work

Pizza is “one of the greatest gifts of Italy to the world” [source: Anon.]. At its heart is a circular base made with flour from wheat, yeast [another – honorary – plant ingredient], salt and water (Alexandra Stafford), and maybe some olive oil [also plant-derived] (Elise Bauer). This foundation is then completed with a range of edible toppings, which can vary tremendously (Georgia Mizen; Heidi Swanson) according to individual preference/taste but which must include a tomato-based sauce (more plants), and some cheese (made with fungi…). [Ed. – but, must NEVER include pineapple (Jules Heskia; Jessica Krueger; Maureen O’Hare) as typified by so-called Hawaiian pizza – however plant-based that may be!].

So, much for the object of interest’s plant credentials. What did the team do? The 2025 Nutrition Prize was awarded for “studying the extent to which a certain kind of lizard chooses to eat certain kinds of pizza” (Daniele Dendi et al., 2023). And, what did they discover? Several rainbow lizards (Agama agama) were observed to regularly feed on “non-natural human-made food (pizza)” and showed “a clear preference for a given type of food versus others that were offered (‘four cheeses’ being the preferred one)”. Which work led Dendi et al. (2023) to suggest that the pizza “may have some chemical cues attracting them”. So, some reptiles are much like people and are attracted to particular types of pizza. And the work also confirms that rainbow lizards aren’t fans of pineapplified pizza(!): Rational reptiles.

Pasta-based work****

When I think of Italian food, two ‘dishes’ come to mind. The first – pizza – was considered above. The second – pasta – is dealt with here. Like the pizza base, the main – and pleasingly botanical – ingredient in pasta is also wheat flour. But, pasta on its own is not a terribly satisfying meal. What makes it appealing is to combine the pasta with an appropriate sauce (Catherine, Guido Pasquariello, J Kenji López-Alt). Delving into the science of pasta sauce – more specifically “for discoveries about the physics of pasta sauce, especially the phase transition that can lead to clumping, which can be a cause of unpleasantness” – is what gained 2025’s Physics Prize. To achieve this feat, a determined – and very dedicated – team of eight men cooked and consumed many batches of the spaghetti-based pasta dish known as pasta alla cacio e pepe in Italian, and all in the noble cause of science.

Notoriously, this dish requires considerable skill to make because “achieving a smooth and creamy texture during preparation requires special attention, as the cheese is prone to becoming lumpy” (quoted from here). Probably needless to say, but the team claim to have come up with a foolproof way to create a perfect dish every time. And the proof of that particular ‘pudding’ is there for all to see in their scientific paper which presents “a scientifically optimized recipe based on our findings, enabling a consistently flawless execution of this classic dish” (Giacomo Bartolucci et al., 2025) [Ed. – Although the scientific paper includes a section headed “SCIENTIFIC RECIPE”, that doesn’t provide what I recognise as a step-by-step ‘this is how to make the perfect sauce’ recipe. What it does offer is this, “A true Italian grandmother or a skilled home chef from Rome would never need a scientific recipe for Cacio e pepe, relying instead on instinct and years of experience. For everyone else, this guide offers a practical way to master the dish. Preparing Cacio e pepe successfully depends on getting the balance just right, particularly the ratio of starch to cheese” (Bartolucci et al., 2025). For those interested in rising to the challenge, a recipe can be found in Laura Baisas’ article about this work.

For a scicomm article about this particular polished piece of palatable pasta work, see Stephanie DeMatco.

Garlic-based work

A good pasta sauce – and probably pizza topping too – needs a decent amount of garlic (Allium sativum). But, one of the consequences of consuming food that contains garlic is the accumulation of garlic-derived compounds in the body of the consumer, which manifest themselves in the sweat (Juniper Russo) and breath (Veronique Greenwood).

Whilst those above a certain age can avoid the garlic-emanating person – should they so wish – nursing infants can’t. An investigation that looked at “what a nursing baby experiences when the baby’s mother eats garlic” earned the 2025 Paediatrics Prize for researchers Julie Mennella & Gary Beauchamp (1991). The impetus for the investigation was the paucity of information regarding the sensory qualities of human milk and how such qualities are affected by maternal diet and of any consequences for babies who are breast-fed for the first few months of life.

Accordingly, Mennella & Beauchamp (1991) investigated the effects of garlic ingestion by the mother on the odour of her breast milk and the suckling behaviour of her infant. The main outcome of the work is that, although the nursling [i.e., the baby] detected garlic-induced changes in the mother’s milk, it didn’t seem to mind. So much so that “infants were attached to the breast for longer periods of time and sucked more when the milk smelled like garlic”. Which must be good news for nursing mothers who don’t need to avoid their favourite garlic-laced foods. However, it should be noted that the sample size was 8 ‘mother-infant dyads’ from “the University of Pennsylvania community and local La Leche groups” (Mennella & Beauchamp, 1991 ). General – and more widely geographically – applicability of the findings must therefore be considered somewhat limited.

Alcohol-based work, No. 1

I’ve often convinced myself that I speak French much better when I’ve had a few beers or glasses of wine. But, am I just deluding myself, or might that actually be the case? I’m persuaded that it may be the latter thanks to work which gained the 2025 IgNobel Peace Prize. This Ig was awarded to an international team, from The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Germany, “for showing that drinking alcohol sometimes improves a person’s ability to speak in a foreign language” [Ed. – do note use of the word ‘sometimes’…].

A summary of the outcome of the work is provided by Dr Jessica Werthmann [one of the research team that did the work], ‘Our results suggest that moderate alcohol consumption can reduce inhibitions when speaking a foreign language and lead to more fluent pronunciation, although these findings only apply to German students who spoke Dutch and therefore cannot be generalised” (quoted from here) [Ed. – so, maybe, not for Mr Cuttings and his attempts at French..?]. And showing a commendable sense of humour, the title of the scientific article that reported the work was “Dutch Courage? Effects of acute alcohol consumption on self-ratings and observer ratings of foreign language skills” (Fritz Renner et al., 2017).

For scicomm items about this work – both for the original 2017-published work, and specifically about its 2025 Ig award, see here, here, Ben McPartland, here, Hoger Onderwijs Persbureau, here, Rebecca Whittaker, and here.

Alcohol-based work, No. 2

Alcohol features in another prestigious Ig, the 2025 Aviation Prize. This was awarded to the multi-international team of Francisco Sánchez, Mariana Melcón, Carmi Korine, and Berry Pinshow for studying “whether ingesting alcohol can impair bats’ ability to fly and also their ability to echolocate” [Ed. – as for many Ig-worthy work, you really couldn’t make this stuff up…]. I don’t think I’m giving too much away by telling you that research study concluded that “ethanol can be toxic to fruit bats; not only does it reduce the marginal value of food, but it also has negative physiological effects on their ability to fly competently and on their calling ability” (Francisco Sánchez et al., 2010). It seems that the human researchers had merely confirmed something that the bats already knew because they tell us in their Discussion that “the deterrence perceived by Egyptian fruit bats for ethanol-rich fruit is justified in that its ingestion can result in impaired flight and echolocation skills” (Sánchez et al., 2010). Whilst one is all for scientific enquiry, surely this fact raises ethical concerns about the study?

More background

For more on the 2025 IgNobel story generally, see David Mouriquand, Ian Sample, Bethany Halford, Laura Baisas.

And don’t forget 2024

As much as 2025 was a bumper year for – loosely(!) – botanically-inspired award-winning work, it has yet to beat the research that was awarded the Botany Prize in 2024. That year, the recipients were Jacob White & Felipe Yamashita, “for finding evidence that some real plants imitate the shapes of neighbouring artificial plastic plants”, which is proper plant science.

I had intended to write a post about that work – which deals with the intriguing plant, Boquila trifoliolata – in 2024, but that never happened. And we’re running out of space to say much about it in this post. The best I can do on this occasion is to point interested readers in the direction of other sources that will give more background to the work originally published in Jacob White & Felipe Yamashita (2021): here, Benji Jones, here, here, Ernesto Gianoli & Fernando Carrasco-Urra, 2014, John R Pannell (2014), John R Pannell & Edward E Farmer (2016), here, and Christie Wilcox. Enjoy.

You may have to wait a while…

Looking at the publication dates for the work that won Igs in 2025 and in 2024 (e.g., 1991 for the ‘garlic milk work’, and 2010 for the ‘drunken bats’ study), it seems that, just as for a real Nobel (Santo Fortunato, 2014; Lilly Tozer; Rasmus Bjørk, 2019; Pandelis Mitsis, 2022), it can take several years before research is recognised as being prize-worthy. The exception appears to be the pasta sauce work – published in 2025, with its Ig awarded in the same year. But, the take-home message must be to encourage all who carry out research that their time may yet come: Don’t give up hope [Ed. – although one sincerely trusts that science is undertaken for much loftier ambitions and more worthy reasons than ‘to win a prize’…].

Science can be fun

Even though the proper Nobels may attract most of the media attention, the “Ig Nobel awards are arguably the highlight of the scientific calendar” (Helen Pilcher). And it’s nice to know that scientists have a human side and it’s good to see some laughter in the lab (Helen Pilcher). And, humour aside, all the research featured is legitimate science and may lead to some serious outcomes. But, what I’d really like to know is whether any IgNobel-winning work has subsequently gone on to earn a proper Nobel*****.

* For those readers who are interested in going down a rabbit hole (Elaine Zelby), you might like to look at the Wikipedia ‘page’ entitled “List of awards considered the highest in a field” for more insights into prizes for high-achieving individuals in non-Nobel subjects (plus more on the Nobels). And for those who like a good dose of scandal and controversy – and maybe even some conspiracy theory (JovanByford; Jan-Willem van Prooijen & Mark van Vugt, 2018; Benjamin Radford & Stephanie Pappas; Scott A Reid) – surrounding the awards of the proper Nobel Prizes, you might like to start with “Nobel Prize controversies”…

** For a fascinating review of “research on plant materials in a wider sense (including that of photosynthetic bacteria), that received Nobel prize recognition” up until 2017, see Natsuki Hayami & Sachi Sri Kantha (2017). In broadening the scope of what is meant by plant-based research, the number of Nobels awarded for ‘botany’ is quite impressive. And, for some insight into plant scientists whose work would be in contention for a plant science Nobel Prize if it existed, see Mary Williams’ interesting article.

A non-Nobel Prize, but one that is known as the Nobel Prize for Agriculture, is the World Food Prize. This award “recognizes — without regard to race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs — the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world” (quoted from here). In 2025 it was awarded to Dr Mariangela Hungria for her “extraordinary scientific advancements in biological nitrogen fixation, transforming the sustainability of soil health and crop nutrition for tropical agriculture” (quoted from here).

*** Comfortingly, and somewhat reassuringly, Google’s AI overview in response to the search term “nobel prizes for work on plants” came up with that quartet, but also Chemistry Nobel laureates, Richard Willstätter (1915) (for his research on plant pigments, particularly chlorophyll), Hans Fischer (1930) (for his research on the structure of haemin and chlorophyll), Sir Robert Robinson (1947) (for his investigations into plant products of biological importance, such as alkaloids) [Ed. – and which list is the same as that teased out by old-fashioned human endeavour for the blog post “Noble plant wins Nobel prize!” by Mr P Cuttings almost 10 years ago]. Interestingly, the AI listing also included Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber & Hartmut Michel (1988) for determining the structure of a photosynthetic reaction centre. However, although that work is related to photosynthesis – one of the fundamental characteristics of a plant (or an alga or a cyanobacterium) – it was undertaken in a bacterium whose particular form of photosynthesis doesn’t produce oxygen. In other words, it’s the wrong kind of photosynthesis for a botanist. So, Mr Cuttings – quite correctly – excluded it from his list. [Ed. – does that make Mr Cuttings better than AI? Or is AI just not as good as Mr Cuttings..?]

**** Although not Ig Nobel-winning work (in 2025 anyway…), but on a pasta-physics-related note, work by Judith E Houston et al. (2026) reveals that gluten plays a vital role in keeping spaghetti intact while boiling. Although this was a very technical study – that involved use of “small-angle neutron scattering and X-rays … to study foods at the microscopic level – down to a billionth of a meter – and link these findings to product characteristics such as texture, shelf life, and glycaemic index” (quoted from here) – it provided insights into the role of the gluten matrix in preserving starches during cooking, plus suggestions on how to improve and develop high quality gluten-free alternatives (and the effect of salt on the structure of regular and gluten-free pasta). For a more user-friendly article about this work see here.

***** Well, guess what? There is a winer of both an Ig and a proper Nobel. Andre Geim received “both a Nobel Prize (this year [2010], together with Konstantin Novoselov, for experiments with the substance graphene) and an Ig Nobel Prize (in the year 2000, shared with Sir Michael Berry, for using magnets to levitate a frog)” (Marc Abrahams).

And, Geim is not the only Ig winner to have also won a Nobel. Bart Knols, together with Ruurd de Jong was awarded the 2006 Ig Nobel Prize in Entomology (for showing that the female malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae [sic.] is attracted equally to the smell of limberger cheese and to the smell of human feet) (Marc Abrahams). However, and importantly, whilst Knols was a named individual receiving an Ig, he was only “one of the hundreds of employees of the International Atomic Energy Agency who together were awarded a Nobel Prize in peace in 2005 [jointly with Mohamed El Baradei]” (Marc Abrahams). Which is distinct from Geim, who was a named individual for both of his prestigious awards, and earned them in the order of Ig first, Nobel second that I was pondering [Ed. – which should not detract unnecessarily from Knols’ impressive achievement].

However, as interesting as that information is, and returning to the original question, we don’t appear to have the same work earning both an Ig and a true Nobel (so far…).

REFERENCES

Giacomo Bartolucci et al., 2025. Phase behavior of cacio e pepe sauce. Phys. Fluids 37: 044122; doi: 10.1063/5.0255841

Rasmus Bjørk, 2019. The age at which Noble Prize research is conducted. Scientometrics 119(2): 931-939; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03065-4

Daniele Dendi et al., 2023. Opportunistic foraging strategy of rainbow lizards at a seaside resort in Togo. African Journal of Ecology 61(1): 226-227; https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.13100

Santo Fortunato, 2014. Growing time lag threatens Nobels. Nature 508: 186; https://doi.org/10.1038/508186a [https://www.nature.com/articles/508186a]

Ernesto Gianoli & Fernando Carrasco-Urra, 2014. Leaf mimicry in a climbing plant protects against herbivory. Current Biology 24(9): 984-987; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.010

Natsuki Hayami & Sachi Sri Kantha, 2017. Nobel Prizes for research in plant science: Past, present and future. Reviews in Agricultural Science 5: 83-99; https://doi.org/10.7831/ras.5.0_83

Judith E Houston et al., 2026. A small-angle scattering structural characterization of regular versus gluten-free spaghetti. Food Hydrocolloids 172(1): 111855; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2025.111855

Julie Mennella & Gary Beauchamp, 1991. Maternal diet alters the sensory qualities of human milk and the nursling’s behavior. Pediatrics 88(4): 737-744.

Pandelis Mitsis, 2022. The Nobel Prize time gap. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9: 407; https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01418-8

John R Pannell, 2014. Leaf mimicry: Chameleon-like leaves in a Patagonian vine. Current Biology 24(9): R357-R359; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.066

John R Pannell & Edward E Farmer, 2016. Mimicry in plants. Current Biology 26(17): R784-R785; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.04.005

Fritz Renner et al., 2017. Dutch courage? Effects of acute alcohol consumption on self-ratings and observer ratings of foreign language skills. Journal of Psychopharmacology 32(1): 116-122; doi:10.1177/0269881117735687

Francisco Sánchez et al., 2010. Ethanol ingestion affects flight performance and echolocation in Egyptian fruit bats. Behavioural Processes 84(2): 555-558; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.02.006

Jan-Willem van Prooijen & Mark van Vugt, 2018. Conspiracy theories: Evolved functions and psychological mechanisms. Perspect Psychol Sci 13(6): 770-788; doi: 10.1177/1745691618774270

Jacob White & Felipe Yamashita, 2021. Boquila trifoliolata mimics leaves of an artificial plastic host plant. Plant Signaling & Behavior 17(1): 1977530; https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2021.1977530