Preprint of a new paper examining the material conditions that give rise to internationally recognized scientists just came out. The authors argue that if we were actually recognizing and nurturing scientific talent, we'd expect the family income distribution of Nobel laureates to be roughly normal (i.e. most Nobel winners would come from families with incomes around the 50th percentile). Their results very much do not bear this out: the average Nobel winner grew up in a household in the about the 90th percentile of income no matter where they grew up, with disproportionately large numbers coming from the 95th percentile and up. This strongly suggests that academic achievement, especially at the highest levels, is not a meritocracy, but rather limited by the material conditions of birth.
I know, but the size of the effect is really staggering.
I think this is significant for two reasons. First, the size of the effect: I think we'd all have guessed that it would skew pretty heavily toward the top of the income distribution, but the degree to which it is skewed to the very, very top is still pretty staggering. Second, I think there's still a popular perception--both among the general public and parts of the scientific establishment itself--that science is the ultimate meritocracy: it doesn't care about who you are or where you come from so long as you're smart and interested in The Truth. This blows that narrative out of the water, which is a good thing.
Anyone who believes that narrative is a complete rube