2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: Here’s Our Best Guess — and Some Potential Contenders

Jeya Chelliah B.Vsc Ph.D.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is the pinnacle of scientific recognition, honoring discoveries that have reshaped our understanding of life and brought lasting benefits to humankind. The Nobel Assembly weighs originality, durability, global impact, and clear attribution before selecting the winners — a process that is famously secretive and sometimes unpredictable.

In this blog, we outline the Nobel Committee’s criteria for selection and explore how our best-guess candidate, along with several potential contenders, fit these standards. We also highlight an important caveat: even if a discovery meets the criteria perfectly, the scientists behind it may still not win the prize this year. Timing, nomination dynamics, or the committee’s desire to spotlight less obvious areas of science can all shift the outcome.

The 2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine will be announced on Monday, October 6. Until then, we offer our reasoned prediction — not certainty, but an informed guess — on who could receive this year’s most prestigious scientific honor.

What the Nobel Committee Looks For

To predict a Nobel, it’s helpful to remember what kinds of accomplishments the Nobel Assembly (and its underlying Committee) typically rewards. Based on Nobel rules, published interviews, and historical patterns, here are key criteria:

1. “Discovery” rather than incremental advance
   Nobel’s will specifies that the prize is for a discovery in physiology or medicine. The committee tends to favor breakthroughs—new principles, novel mechanisms, paradigm shifts—not merely better versions of known therapies. NobelPrize.org+2NobelPrize.org+2

2. Benefit to humankind / translational potential
   The discovery should have tangible relevance: either opening new routes toward diagnosis, therapy, prevention, or understanding disease. Nobel’s text emphasizes “the greatest benefit to humankind.” EBSCO+3NobelPrize.org+3PMC+3

3. Durability / standing the test of time
   Before being awarded, discoveries are often matured and validated across multiple cohorts and systems. The Committee prefers things that have proven broadly reproducible and withstood scrutiny. Many laureates had their critical work done years (sometimes decades) before receiving the award.

4. Original insight, opening new fields or reframing old ones
   The Nobel tends to favor work that changes how scientists view a foundational problem — opening new frontiers, rather than “just another advance.” NobelPrize.org+2PMC+2

5. Clarity of attribution / limited authorship
   Because at most three people can share the prize, the committee is more comfortable when there is relatively clean attribution of the core insight to a small set of individuals (though this is often a contentious point). Wikipedia+2NobelPrize.org+2

6. Nomination / visibility / recognition
   A strong nominee will already be well known in the field — often winners of other top awards, heavy citation footprints, being on “Citation Laureate” lists, etc. (Though this is not an official rule, it correlates). SSRN+2ResearchGate+2

7. Timing / “moment” alignment
   The Nobel sometimes responds to fields that are reaching maturity or high prominence; a period when many supporting advances converge, making the foundational discovery newly resonate for medicine and public health.

To win, a candidate must ideally satisfy multiple of those axes: deep insight, widespread impact, long validation, and strong recognition.

---

My Best Guess for 2025: Joel Habener / Drucker / Mojsov (GLP-1 / incretin biology)

Why this is my top pick

Of all the possibilities, I lean hardest toward the GLP-1 / incretin biology axis (i.e. the scientists who elucidated the physiology of GLP-1 and pioneered its therapeutic use). In particular, Joel F. Habener, Svetlana Mojsov, and Daniel J. Drucker make a compelling trio. Here’s how they might align with the Nobel criteria:

• Discovery + paradigm shift: The identification of GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide 1) as an incretin hormone, and mapping how it regulates insulin secretion, was a conceptual shift in metabolic endocrinology. That insight transformed our view of gut–pancreas signaling, metabolic regulation, and opened a new class of drug targets.

• Clear translational benefit: The GLP-1 pathway is now central to blockbuster therapies for type 2 diabetes, obesity, and associated cardiometabolic disease. These drugs (e.g. semaglutide, tirzepatide) have had dramatic public health impact. The link between the basic discovery and clinical benefit is clean and strong.

• Durability / validation: Over decades, many labs have confirmed and extended GLP-1 biology (receptors, signaling cascades, physiology). The therapeutic successes validate the pathway’s robustness.

• Recognition / prominence: Habener, Mojsov, Drucker are already well known in the endocrine and metabolism communities. Their names appear on “Nobel watch” lists. Indeed, the 2025 Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences was awarded for work connected to GLP-1 biology (a strong signal).

• Attribution fits small team: Though many contributed, one can reasonably identify a few pioneers who played the foundational roles. That fits the Nobel’s preference for limited recipients.

• Timing / momentum: The meteoric rise of GLP-1–based therapies, especially in obesity, gives the field high public and medical attention at this moment. The “window” seems ripe for a Nobel acknowledgment.

Therefore, I propose as my best-guess laureate group for 2025:

Joel F. Habener, Svetlana Mojsov, and Daniel J. Drucker for their discovery and characterization of GLP-1 as a gut hormone regulating glucose and enabling a new therapeutic paradigm in diabetes and obesity.

If only one or two of those names are selected, I’d expect Habener + Drucker as the most likely pairing.

---

Why Other Strong Contenders Were Also in My Earlier List (and Why They Might Be Less Likely)

Before finalizing my guess, it’s worth revisiting other candidate themes and assessing their risk.

• cGAS–STING / innate immunity (Chen, Barber, Ablasser)
  Pros: Deep mechanistic insight into cytosolic DNA sensing; high relevance for immunology, infection, cancer. Already flagged in Citation Laureate lists.
  Risks: The translational (clinical) impact is strong but still emerging; attribution among multiple labs is diffuse.

• Biomolecular condensates / phase separation (Hyman, Brangwynne, Rosen)
  Pros: Paradigm shift in cell biology, reshapes thinking about membraneless organelles, disease implications.
  Risks: Translational applications (therapy) are less mature; many contributors have broadened the field, making “who deserves it” more ambiguous.

I rate GLP-1 biology as safer — because we already see real medicines benefiting millions. The interplay of basic physiology + drug translation is especially compelling to Nobel.

---

Possible Objections & Risks to My Prediction

• The Nobel committee sometimes favors less obvious fields (even “dark horse” picks), especially when they want to reward neglected basic science.

• The drug side (GLP-1 therapeutics) is crowded; some may argue the incremental improvements overshadow the original discovery, and thus the committee might prefer a more “pure discovery” angle.

• If some effective contributor to GLP-1 physiology (outside Habener/Mojsov/Drucker) is omitted, controversies may arise over author credit.

• The committee’s internal tastes and nomination landscape may unexpectedly favor immunology, neuroscience, or gene therapy areas in 2025 — we know past surprises abound.

Given all considerations, I consider Habener / Mojsov / Drucker (GLP-1 / incretin biology) the most likely winners for the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Their work neatly combines a fundamental biological discovery with transformative medical impact, and the field is at a tipping point.