Nominations for the 2027 Dreyfus Prize in the Chemical Sciences close on 3 December 2026. The award recognises exceptional research in Chemical Probes of Biological Systems, a topic distinct from imaging technologies, with the winner expected to be announced in May 2027.
A nomination-based research honour
The prize consists of US$250,000, a medal and a certificate, awarded to an individual. International nominations are welcome, but self-nominations are not accepted. Eligibility exclusions include Nobel laureates, previous Dreyfus Prize winners and specified Foundation insiders.
The dossier requires an online nomination form, a nomination letter of up to three pages, a CV of up to five pages, up to ten relevant papers or patents, and a provisional citation of up to thirty words. Supporting letters are sent separately under the Foundation’s instructions. The principal materials are submitted as one PDF.
This is recognition of established achievement, not a student scholarship or an open research-project grant.
Independent nomination-planning guidance
Begin by deciding whether the candidate’s contribution genuinely fits the selected topic. Write a short account of the scientific advance before assembling a long publication list. What became possible because of the work, and what evidence demonstrates its influence on the field?
For interdisciplinary achievements, identify the chemistry precisely. Explain the candidate’s individual contribution within collaborations and distinguish original discoveries from later applications by others. Clear attribution protects the credibility of the nomination and respects the work of collaborators.
Choose publications or patents for the story they establish together. A compact set showing the original advance, its validation and its broader consequences may be more useful than selecting solely by citation count or journal prestige. Check that every reference is accurate and that the dossier explains its relevance.
Ask supporters to address complementary aspects of the contribution. One may be well placed to discuss the fundamental advance, another its use across a field, and another the change it enabled in scientific practice. Give them enough factual background to prepare informed letters without scripting praise or suggesting claims they cannot substantiate.
Use the short provisional citation as an editing test. If the achievement cannot be expressed clearly, the nomination letter may still be too diffuse. Replace sweeping adjectives with concrete explanations of what the researcher discovered or developed and why it mattered.
Before submission, review eligibility exclusions, file format, page limits and the separate delivery route for support letters. Coordinate deadlines with everyone involved and retain a record of what was sent. A prestigious prize nomination requires careful scientific judgment as well as administration; the goal is to present a defensible account of an individual’s contribution rather than to overwhelm reviewers with a complete career archive.
Use an evidence map to keep the nomination precise
This is independent editorial guidance, not an extra Foundation requirement. Draft a working matrix with one row per major claim about the candidate. Alongside each claim, record the supporting paper or patent, the candidate’s specific role and a source that helps establish the broader effect. The matrix need not enter the submitted dossier; its purpose is to make unsupported assertions visible before the final letter is written.
Distinguish three kinds of evidence. A discovery paper can establish what was introduced. Follow-on work can demonstrate that the result was reproducible or useful. Independent adoption can help explain influence beyond the original research group. These are different questions, and a single publication may not answer all of them. Avoid treating a long citation list as an explanation of scientific importance.
Ask a scientifically informed colleague outside the immediate collaboration to read the draft. Can they identify the central advance and the individual’s contribution without additional explanation? If not, revise the structure before adding more detail. Then perform a separate administrative review: confirm document versions, reconcile names and dates, and check that each supporter knows how to submit their own material. Scientific clarity and a complete submission are separate responsibilities.
Read the official programme details and application instructions. Check the current instructions before submitting, including any conditions specific to your circumstances.
