Thirty years ago today, on September 7, 1995 (August 13, 1995 lunar calendar), Sweden's Daily News reported on the inside story of the 1986 Nobel Prize in Medicine. The Swedish Daily News came to an end on September 7 after four consecutive days of reporting on the inside story of the 1986 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. These full-page reports not only revealed the relationship between the Italian company FIDIA and the Nobel Prize judges, but also put a very serious question in front of the reader: How can we ensure the fairness of the Nobel Prize selection? The incident began when the head of Italy's national medical administration was arraigned last year on suspicion of bribery, and he revealed the relationship between FIDIA and the award of the 1986 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine to the Italian biochemist Ta Levi-Montalcini. Anderson, a journalist who wrote the reports, said it took him more than a year to master the material: FIDIA decided in 1983 to fully support Meng's Nobel Prize. "The company invested a lot of money. In the network of relationships woven by the company, the opinions of Swedish professors about FIDIA and its main products changed 180 degrees." The report cites the relationship between Heckfeldt, a member of the Nobel Committee at the Caroline Institute of Medicine in Sweden, and FIDIA as an example. He was elected to the Nobel Committee in 1981. The following year, FIDIA sent $5,000 to his account in the United States as a sponsorship for a seminar he held in Gothenburg. In 1985, the company invited Herr to Madrid to attend the seminar, and Herr agreed and asked for a plane ticket for his wife. In May 1986, the Herr and his wife went to Madrid again, and the expenses were paid by FIDIA. Herr participated in the selection of the Nobel Prize after returning to Rui, and he was the only member of the committee with the same profession as Meng. In June, Herr received the Gurki Prize ($2,000) from FIDIA. In September, the Nobel Committee identified Meng as one of the winners. In October, Herr chaired a symposium the company held for Meng. Two days later, the Nobel Committee publicly announced Meng's award. He appeared in one of the company's commercials in 1987. In 1992, He became a consultant for the company's research institutes in the United States. So what benefits did FIDIA get? FIDIA in the early 1980s was relatively well-funded, but the foundation was not necessarily solid. The key was that new drugs could not break into the market. Chief among them was a drug called CRGASSIAL. This drug has not yet been tested in clinical trials. It was originally intended to treat neurological diseases, but when it was registered in Italy, it became a drug for low back pain and other diseases. FIDIA's boss saw that the nerve growth factor (NGF) discovered by Meng in the 1950s had something to do with the drug. They hoped that by strengthening their relationship with those who hold the power of the Caroline Institute of Medicine in Sweden, they would promote Meng's award, and then expand the sales of this drug. After Meng's award in 1986, the new drug really opened up the market, and the company's sales doubled in the second half of the 1980s. However, over time, doubts arose about the efficacy of this drug. The drug has long been discontinued. Later, an expert from Lund University Medical School reviewed the relevant literature and said that since 1992, some European countries have stopped selling this drug. In 1994, medical experts in Italy conducted animal experiments on the drug again and found it ineffective. The drug soon disappeared from the Italian market. The "myth" of FIDIA was shattered. The company went bankrupt and had to be handed over to the state for supervision. The main person in charge of the company has been accused of bribery. According to relevant reports, Montalcini still insists that she deserves the Nobel Prize in terms of research results. But she admits that she has a close relationship with the head of FIDIA. The Nobel Committee at Caroline College of Medicine has also issued three consecutive press releases in recent days, refusing to admit that the 1986 award has any connection with FIDIA's activities. But it confirmed that Professor Heckfeldt had served as a consultant to FIDIA's research institute in the United States. It also confirmed that he had received the Gurki Prize from the company, but did not mention that He and his wife traveled to Spain in 1986. In the Daily News report, two people's comments on this matter attracted attention. One is Lamar, a former executive director of the Nobel Foundation. He said that among the Nobel Prizes in natural sciences, the physiology and medicine prizes are the closest to business. A new discovery or new achievement may mean the emergence of a new drug, which has a certain market value for pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, it is not surprising that pharmaceutical companies are keen to nominate someone for the award. Another is Kass, a Swedish anti-bribery expert. He said that an important prize like the Nobel Prize should give the awardee a clear demarcation of what is legal and what is not. Obviously, He has put himself in a very difficult position when judging the prize. When Mr. Anderson, who wrote the reports, was asked about the two men's views, he was said to have only wanted to make two points: first, that he had only made public the material he had, and because the award process was completely confidential, he could not get any more proof; and second, that the issue concerned how to ensure the fairness of the Nobel Prize. The committee for the Physiology and Medicine Prizes, whose members are all from the same medical school and know each other very well, many of whom have been members for a long time, and the selection process is very secret. How to ensure that there is no corruption is a very worthy question.