Biomedicine (also referred to as Western medicine, mainstream medicine or conventional medicine) is a branch of medical science that applies biological and physiological principles to clinical practice.
Biomedicine stresses standardized, evidence-based treatment validated
through biological research, with treatment administered via formally
trained doctors, nurses, and other such licensed practitioners.
Biomedicine also can relate to many other categories in health and biological related fields. It has been the dominant system of medicine in the Western world for more than a century.
Biomedicine is based on molecular biology and combines all issues of developing molecular medicine into large-scale structural and functional relationships of the human genome, transcriptome, proteome, physiome and metabolome with the particular point of view of devising new technologies for prediction, diagnosis and therapy.
Biomedicine involves the study of (patho-) physiological processes with methods from biology and physiology. Approaches range from understanding molecular interactions to the study of the consequences at the in vivo level. These processes are studied with the particular point of view of devising new strategies for diagnosis and therapy.
Depending on the severity of the disease, biomedicine pinpoints a
problem within a patient and fixes the problem through medical
intervention. Medicine focuses on curing diseases rather than improving
one's health.
In social sciences biomedicine is described somewhat differently.
Through an anthropological lens biomedicine extends beyond the realm of
biology and scientific facts; it is a socio-cultural
system which collectively represents reality. While biomedicine is
traditionally thought to have no bias due to the evidence-based
practices, Gaines & Davis-Floyd (2004) highlight that biomedicine
itself has a cultural basis and this is because biomedicine reflects the
norms and values of its creators.
Molecular biology is the process of synthesis and regulation of a
cell's DNA, RNA, and protein. Molecular biology consists of different
techniques including Polymerase chain reaction, Gel electrophoresis, and
macromolecule blotting to manipulate DNA.
Polymerase chain reaction is done by placing a mixture of the desired DNA, DNA polymerase, primers, and nucleotide bases
into a machine. The machine heats up and cools down at various
temperatures to break the hydrogen bonds binding the DNA and allows the
nucleotide bases to be added onto the two DNA templates after it has
been separated.
Gel electrophoresis
is a technique used to identify similar DNA between two unknown samples
of DNA. This process is done by first preparing an agarose gel. This
jelly-like sheet will have wells for DNA to be poured into. An electric
current is applied so that the DNA, which is negatively charged due to
its phosphate
groups is attracted to the positive electrode. Different rows of DNA
will move at different speeds because some DNA pieces are larger than
others. Thus if two DNA samples show a similar pattern on the gel
electrophoresis, one can tell that these DNA samples match.
Macromolecule blotting
is a process performed after gel electrophoresis. An alkaline solution
is prepared in a container. A sponge is placed into the solution and an
agarose gel is placed on top of the sponge. Next, nitrocellulose paper
is placed on top of the agarose gel and a paper towels are added on top
of the nitrocellulose paper to apply pressure. The alkaline solution is
drawn upwards towards the paper towel. During this process, the DNA
denatures in the alkaline solution and is carried upwards to the
nitrocellulose paper. The paper is then placed into a plastic bag and
filled with a solution full of the DNA fragments, called the probe,
found in the desired sample of DNA. The probes anneal to the
complementary DNA of the bands already found on the nitrocellulose
sample. Afterwards, probes are washed off and the only ones present are
the ones that have annealed to complementary DNA on the paper. Next the
paper is stuck onto an x ray film. The radioactivity of the probes
creates black bands on the film, called an autoradiograph. As a result,
only similar patterns of DNA to that of the probe are present on the
film. This allows us the compare similar DNA sequences of multiple DNA
samples. The overall process results in a precise reading of
similarities in both similar and different DNA sample.
Biochemistry is the science of the chemical processes which takes
place within living organisms. Living organisms need essential elements
to survive, among which are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, calcium,
and phosphorus. These elements make up the four macromolecules that
living organisms need to survive: carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and
nucleic acids.
Carbohydrates, made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, are energy-storing molecules. The simplest carbohydrate is glucose (C6H12O6) which is used in cellular respiration to produce ATP, adenosine triphosphate, which supplies cells with energy.
Proteins
are chains of amino acids that function, among other things, to
contract skeletal muscle, as catalysts, as transport molecules, and as
storage molecules. Protein catalysts can facilitate biochemical
processes by lowering the activation energy of a reaction. Hemoglobins are also proteins, carrying oxygen to an organism's cells.
Lipids, also known as fats, are small molecules derived from biochemical subunits from either the ketoacyl or isoprene groups. Creating eight distinct categories: fatty acids, glycerolipids, glycerophospholipids, sphingolipids, saccharolipids, and polyketides (derived from condensation of ketoacyl subunits); and sterol lipids and prenol lipids (derived from condensation of isoprene
subunits). Their primary purpose is to store energy over the long term.
Due to their unique structure, lipids provide more than twice the
amount of energy that carbohydrates
do. Lipids can also be used as insulation. Moreover, lipids can be used
in hormone production to maintain a healthy hormonal balance and
provide structure to cell membranes.
Nucleic acids
are a key component of DNA, the main genetic information-storing
substance, found oftentimes in the cell nucleus, and controls the
metabolic processes of the cell. DNA consists of two complementary
antiparallel strands consisting of varying patterns of nucleotides. RNA
is a single strand of DNA, which is transcribed from DNA and used for
DNA translation, which is the process for making proteins out of RNA
sequences.
The NIH conducts its scientific research through the NIH Intramural Research Program
(IRP) and provides significant biomedical research funding to non-NIH
research facilities through its Extramural Research Program. As of 2013, the IRP had 1,200 principal investigators and more than 4,000 postdoctoral fellows in basic, translational, and clinical research, being the largest biomedical research institution in the world, while, as of 2003, the extramural arm provided 28% of biomedical
research funding spent annually in the U.S., or about US$26.4 billion. Basic research by the NIH contributed to every new drug approved by the Federal Drug Administration over the period 2010–2016.
In 2019, the NIH was ranked number two in the world, behind Harvard University, for biomedical sciences in the Nature Index, which measured the largest contributors to papers published in a subset of leading journals from 2015 to 2018.
History
Origins
Ida A. Bengtson, a bacteriologist who in 1916 was the first woman hired to work in the Hygienic LaboratoryNIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland, in 1945
In 1901, the Division of Scientific Research was formed, which
included the Hygienic Laboratory as well as other research offices of
the Marine Hospital Service. In 1912, the Marine Hospital Service became the Public Health Service (PHS). In 1922, PHS established a Special Cancer Investigations laboratory at Harvard Medical School. This development marked the beginning of partnerships with universities.
In 1930, the Hygienic Laboratory was re-designated as the National Institute of Health by the Ransdell Act, and was given $750,000 to construct two NIH buildings at the Old Naval Observatory campus. In 1937, the NIH absorbed the rest of the Division of Scientific Research, of which it was formerly part.
In 1938, the NIH moved to its current campus in Bethesda, Maryland. Over the next few decades, Congress would markedly increase funding of
the NIH. Various institutes and centers within the NIH were created for
specific research programs. In 1944, the Public Health Service Act was approved and the National Cancer Institute became a division of the NIH. In 1948, the name changed from National Institute of Health to National Institutes of Health.
Later history
In the 1960s, virologist and cancer researcher Chester M. Southam injected HeLa cancer cells into patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital. When three doctors resigned after refusing to inject patients without
their consent, the experiment gained considerable media attention. The NIH was a major source of funding for Southam's research and required all research involving human subjects to obtain their consent before any experimentation.
Upon investigating all of their grantee institutions, the NIH
discovered that the majority of them did not protect the rights of human
subjects. From then on, the NIH has required all grantee institutions
to approve any research proposals involving human experimentation with review boards.
In 1967, the Division of Regional Medical Programs was created to administer grants for research for heart disease, cancer, and strokes. That same year, the NIH director lobbied the White House
for increased federal funding to increase research and the speed with
which health benefits could be brought to the people. An advisory
committee was formed to oversee the further development of the NIH and
its research programs. By 1971, cancer research was in full force, and President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act,
initiating a National Cancer Program, President's Cancer Panel,
National Cancer Advisory Board, and 15 new research, training, and
demonstration centers.
Funding for the NIH has often been a source of contention in the US Congress,
serving as a proxy for the political currents of the time. In 1992, the
NIH encompassed nearly one percent of the federal government's
operating budget and controlled more than 50 percent of all funding for
health research, and 85 percent of all funding for health studies in
universities. While government funding for research in other disciplines has been
increasing at a rate similar to inflation since the 1970s, research
funding for the NIH nearly tripled through the 1990s and early 2000s,
but has remained relatively stagnant since then.
By the 1990s, the NIH committee focus had shifted to DNA research and launched the Human Genome Project.
On January 22, 2025, the Trump administration
imposed an immediate freeze on meetings – such as grant review panels –
as well as travel, communications, and hiring at the NIH, impacting
$47.4 billion worth of activities.
The NIH Office of the Director is the central office responsible for
setting policy for the NIH, and for planning, managing, and coordinating
the programs and activities of all NIH components. The NIH Director
plays an active role in shaping the agency's activities and outlook. The
Director is responsible for providing leadership to the Institutes and
Centers by identifying needs and opportunities, especially in efforts
involving multiple Institutes. Within the Director's Office is the Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives with 12 divisions including:
The Agency Intramural Research Integrity Officer "is directly
responsible for overseeing the resolution of all research misconduct
allegations involving intramural research, and for promoting research
integrity within the NIH Office of Intramural Research (OIR)." There is a Division of Extramural Activities, which has its own Director. The Office of Ethics has its own Director, as does the Office of Global Research.
Clinical Research Center at the NIHMain Lobby Wall at the Clinical Research Center at the NIHLooking at the Main Lobby at the Clinical Research Center at NIHLooking at the Main Lobby at the Clinical Research Center at NIH
As of 2017, 153 scientists receiving financial support from the NIH have been awarded a Nobel Prize and 195 have been awarded a Lasker Award.
Intramural and extramural research
In
2019, the NIH devoted 10% of its funding to research within its own
facilities (intramural research), and gave >80% of its funding in research grants to extramural (outside) researchers. Of this extramural funding, a certain percentage (2.8% in 2014) must be granted to small businesses under the SBIR/STTR program. As of 2011, the extramural funding consisted of about 50,000 grants to more than 325,000 researchers at more than 3000 institutions. By 2018, this rate of granting remained reasonably steady, at 47,000 grants to 2,700 organizations. In FY 2010, the NIH spent US$10.7bn (not including temporary funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) on clinical research, US$7.4bn on genetics-related research, US$6.0bn on prevention research, US$5.8bn on cancer, and US$5.7bn on biotechnology.
In 2008 a Congressional mandate called for investigators funded by
the NIH to submit an electronic version of their final manuscripts to
the National Library of Medicine's research repository, PubMed Central (PMC), no later than 12 months after the official date of publication. The NIH Public Access Policy was the first public access mandate for a U.S. public funding agency.
Economic return
In 2000, the
Joint Economic Committee of Congress reported NIH research, which
was funded at $16 billion a year in 2000, that some econometric studies
had given a rate of return of 25 to 40 percent per year by reducing the
economic cost of illness in the US. It found that of the 21 drugs with
the highest therapeutic impact on society introduced between 1965 and
1992, public funding was "instrumental" for 15. As of 2011, NIH-supported research helped to discover 153 new
FDA-approved drugs, vaccines, and new indications for drugs in the 40
years prior. One study found NIH funding aided either directly or indirectly in
developing the drugs or drug targets for all of the 210 FDA-approved
drugs from 2010 to 2016. In 2015, Pierre Azoulay et al. estimated $10 million invested in research generated two to three new patents.
Notable discoveries and developments
Since
its inception, the NIH intramural research program has been a source of
many pivotal scientific and medical discoveries. Some of these include:
1943: Wilton R. Earle pioneered the cell culture
process and published a paper describing the production of malignancy
in vitro, Katherine K. Sanford developed the first clone from an
isolated cancer cell, and Virginia J. Evans devised a medium that
supported growth of cells in vitro.
1960s: Discovered the first human slow virus disease, kuru, which is
a degenerative, fatal infection of the central nervous system. This
discovery of a new mechanism for infectious diseases revolutionized
thinking in microbiology and neurology.
1960s: Defined the mechanisms that regulate noradrenaline, one of the most important neurotransmitters in the brain.
1960s: Developed the first licensed rubella vaccine and the first test for rubella antibodies for large scale testing.
1960s: Developed an effective combination drug regimen for Hodgkin's lymphoma.
1960s: Discovery that tooth decay is caused by bacteria.
In September 2006, the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research started a contract for the NIH Toolbox
for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function to develop a
set of state-of-the-art measurement tools to enhance collection of data
in large cohort studies. Scientists from more than 100 institutions
nationwide contributed. In September 2012, the NIH Toolbox was rolled
out to the research community. NIH Toolbox assessments are based, where
possible, on Item Response Theory and adapted for testing by computer.
Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes
NIH
sponsors the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), a repository
of information produced by studies investigating the interaction of
genotype and phenotype. The information includes phenotypes, molecular
assay data, analyses and documents. Summary-level data is available to
the general public whereas the individual-level data is accessible to
researchers. According to the City Journal
NIH denies access to such attributes as intelligence, education and
health on the grounds that studying their genetic basis would be
stigmatizing.
Coronavirus vaccine
The NIH partnered with Moderna in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic
to develop a vaccine. The final phase of testing began on July 27 with
up to 30,000 volunteers assigned to one of two groups—one receiving the mRNA-1273
vaccine and the other receiving salt water injections—and continued
until there had been approximately 100 cases of COVID-19 among the
participants. In 2021, the NIH contributed $4,395,399 towards the Accelerating
COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) program.
Grant to EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute for studying bat coronaviruses
Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NIH-funded EcoHealth Alliance has been the subject of controversy and increased scrutiny due to its ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)—which has been at the center of speculation since early 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 may have escaped in a lab incident. Between 2014 and 2019, NIH awarded approximately $3.7 million in grant
funding to EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization focused on
global health and infectious disease research. A portion of this
funding, around $600,000, was subcontracted to WIV in China as part of a
project titled "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence." The project aimed to study bat coronaviruses and assess their potential
to infect humans. The research at WIV included the creation of chimeric viruses, which combined genetic material from different bat coronaviruses to evaluate their ability to infect human cells. In documents released in 2021, including NIH correspondence with
Congress, it was disclosed that one of these modified viruses resulted
in an "unexpected outcome," where the virus became more infectious in
humanized mice. The NIH maintained that this outcome was not the intended goal of the
research and did not violate the terms of the grant, though critics
raised concerns about potential gain-of-function research. Under
political pressure, the NIH withdrew funding to EcoHealth Alliance in
July 2020. In 2023, HHS barred WIV from receiving U.S. government funding for a
decade, citing non-compliance with safety and reporting standards.
NIH Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee
On
February 13, 2012, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a
new group of individuals assigned to research pain. This committee is
composed of researchers from different organizations and will focus to
"coordinate pain research activities across the federal government with
the goals of stimulating pain research collaboration… and providing an
important avenue for public involvement" ("Members of new", 2012). With a
committee such as this research will not be conducted by each
individual organization or person but instead a collaborating group
which will increase the information available. With this hopefully more
pain management will be available including techniques for those with
arthritis. In 2020 Beth Darnall, American scientist and pain psychologist, was appointed as scientific member of the group.
Funding
Budget and politics
Historical NIH budget
Year
$ millions
1938
0.5
1940
0.7
1945
2.8
1950
52.7
1955
81.2
1960
399.4
1965
959.2
1970
1,061.0
1975
2,092.9
1980
3,428.9
1985
5,149.5
1990
7,567.4
1995
11,299.5
2000
17,840.5
2005
28,594.4
2010
31,238.0
2015
30,311.4
2016
32,311.4
2017
34,300.9
2018
37,311.3
2019
39,311.3
2020
41,690.0
2021
42,940.5
2022
45,183.0
2023
47,683.5
To allocate funds, the NIH must first obtain its budget from
Congress. This process begins with institute and center (IC) leaders
collaborating with scientists to determine the most important and
promising research areas within their fields. IC leaders discuss
research areas with NIH management who then develops a budget request
for continuing projects, new research proposals, and new initiatives
from the Director. The NIH submits its budget request to the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), and the HHS considers this request as a portion of its budget.
Many adjustments and appeals occur between the NIH and HHS before the
agency submits NIH's budget request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). OMB determines what amounts and research areas are approved for
incorporation into the President's final budget. The President then
sends the NIH's budget request to Congress in February for the next
fiscal year's allocations. The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees deliberate and by
fall, Congress usually appropriates funding. This process takes
approximately 18 months before the NIH can allocate any actual funds.
When a government shutdown occurs, the NIH continues to treat people who are already enrolled in clinical trials,
but does not start any new clinical trials and does not admit new
patients who are not already enrolled in a clinical trial, except for
the most critically ill, as determined by the NIH Director.
Historical funding
Over
the last century, the responsibility to allocate funding has shifted
from the OD and Advisory Committee to the individual ICs and Congress
increasingly set apart funding for particular causes. In the 1970s,
Congress began to earmark funds specifically for cancer research, and in
the 1980s there was a significant amount allocated for AIDS/HIV
research.
Funding for the NIH has often been a source of contention in
Congress, serving as a proxy for the political currents of the time.
During the 1980s, President Reagan repeatedly tried to cut funding for
research, only to see Congress partly restore funding. The political
contention over NIH funding slowed the nation's response to the AIDS
epidemic; while AIDS was reported in newspaper articles from 1981, no
funding was provided for research on the disease. In 1984 National
Cancer Institute scientists found implications that "variants of a human
cancer virus called HTLV-III are the primary cause of acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)," a new epidemic that gripped the
nation.
In 1992, the NIH encompassed nearly 1 percent of the federal
government's operating budget and controlled more than 50 percent of all
funding for health research and 85 percent of all funding for health
studies in universities. From 1993 to 2001 the NIH budget doubled. For a time, funding
essentially remained flat, and for seven years following the financial
crisis, the NIH budget struggled to keep up with inflation.
In 1999 Congress increased the NIH's budget by $2.3 billion to $17.2 billion in 2000. In 2009 Congress again increased the NIH budget to $31 billion in 2010. In 2017 and 2018, Congress passed laws with bipartisan support that
substantially increasing appropriations for the NIH, which was 37.3
billion dollars annually in FY2018.
Funding freezes
From
the outset of 2025, NIH funding operations have faced interruptions on
an unprecedented scale under the direction of the current executive
branch of the U.S. government; disruptions as of March 2025 include:
Researchers at universities or other institutions outside of the NIH can apply for research project grants
(RPGs) from the NIH. There are numerous funding mechanisms for
different project types (e.g., basic research, clinical research, etc.)
and career stages (e.g., early career, postdoc fellowships, etc.). The
NIH regularly issues "requests for applications" (RFAs), e.g., on
specific programmatic priorities or timely medical problems (such as Zika virus
research in early 2016). In addition, researchers can apply for
"investigator-initiated grants" whose subject is determined by the
scientist.
The total number of applicants has increased substantially, from
about 60,000 investigators who had applied during the period from 1999
to 2003 to slightly less than 90,000 in who had applied during the
period from 2011 to 2015. Due to this, the "cumulative investigator rate", that is, the
likelihood that unique investigators are funded over a 5-year window,
has declined from 43% to 31%.
R01 grants are the most common funding mechanism and include
investigator-initiated projects. The roughly 27,000 to 29,000 R01
applications had a funding success of 17-19% during 2012 though 2014.
Similarly, the 13,000 to 14,000 R21 applications had a funding success
of 13-14% during the same period. In FY 2016, the total number of grant applications received by the NIH
was 54,220, with approximately 19% being awarded funding. Institutes have varying funding rates. The National Cancer Institute
awarded funding to 12% of applicants, while the National Institute for
General Medical Science awarded funding to 30% of applicants.
Funding criteria
The
NIH employs five broad decision criteria in its funding policy. First,
ensure the highest quality of scientific research by employing an
arduous peer review process. Second, seize opportunities that have the
greatest potential to yield new knowledge and that will lead to better
prevention and treatment of disease. Third, maintain a diverse research
portfolio to capitalize on major discoveries in a variety of fields such
as cell biology, genetics, physics, engineering, and computer science.
Fourth, address public health needs according to the disease burden
(e.g., prevalence and mortality). And fifth, construct and support the
scientific infrastructure (e.g., well-equipped laboratories and safe
research facilities) necessary to conduct research.
Advisory committee members advise the institute on policy and
procedures affecting the external research programs and provide a second
level of review for all grant and cooperative agreement applications
considered by the Institute for funding.
Gender and sex bias
In
2014, it was announced that the NIH is directing scientists to perform
their experiments with both female and male animals, or cells derived
from females as well as males if they are studying cell cultures, and
that the NIH would take the balance of each study design into
consideration when awarding grants. The announcement also stated that this rule would probably not apply
when studying sex-specific diseases (for example, ovarian or testicular
cancer).
Stakeholders
General public
One
of the goals of the NIH is to "expand the base in medical and
associated sciences in order to ensure a continued high return on the
public investment in research." Taxpayer dollars funding the NIH are from the taxpayers, making them
the primary beneficiaries of advances in research. Thus, the general
public is a key stakeholder in the decisions resulting from the NIH
funding policy. However, some in the general public do not feel their interests are
being represented, and individuals have formed patient advocacy groups
to represent their own interests.
Extramural researchers and scientists
Important
stakeholders of the NIH funding policy include researchers and
scientists. Extramural researchers differ from intramural researchers in
that they are not employed by the NIH but may apply for funding.
Throughout the history of the NIH, the amount of funding received has
increased, but the proportion to each IC remains relatively constant.
The individual ICs then decide who will receive the grant money and how
much will be allotted.
Policy changes on who receives funding significantly affect
researchers. For example, the NIH has recently attempted to approve more
first-time NIH R01 applicants or the research grant applications of
young scientists. To encourage the participation of young scientists,
the application process has been shortened and made easier. In addition, first-time applicants are being offered more funding for
their research grants than those who have received grants in the past.
Commercial partnerships
In
2011 and 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of
Inspector General published a series of audit reports revealing that
throughout the fiscal years 2000–2010, institutes under the aegis of the
NIH did not comply with the time and amount requirements specified in
appropriations statutes, in awarding federal contracts to commercial
partners, committing the federal government to tens of millions of
dollars of expenditure ahead of appropriation of funds from Congress.
The Consensus Development Program
is an initiative focused on gathering expert opinions to establish
standards and guidelines in various fields, especially in health and
medicine. Developed as a collaborative effort by organizations such as
the NIH, the program assembles panels of specialists who assess
available evidence on critical topics and form recommendations to guide
clinical practice and policy. This method helps ensure that healthcare
decisions are informed by the latest scientific research and expert
consensus.
Wine tasting is the sensory examination and evaluation of wine.
While the practice of wine tasting is as ancient as its production, a
more formalized methodology has slowly become established from the 14th
century onward. Modern, professional wine tasters (such as sommeliers or buyers for retailers)
use a constantly evolving specialized terminology which is used to
describe the range of perceived flavors, aromas and general
characteristics of a wine. More informal, recreational tasting may use
similar terminology, usually involving a much less analytical process
for a more general, personal appreciation.
Results that have surfaced through scientific blind wine tasting
suggest the unreliability of wine tasting in both experts and
consumers, such as inconsistency in identifying wines based on region
and price.
History
The Sumerian stories of Gilgamesh in the 3rd millennium BCE differentiate the popular beers of Mesopotamia, as well as wines from Zagros Mountains or Lebanon. In the fourth century BCE, Plato listed the main flavors of wine, and classified the aromas as "species", or families.
Aristotle proposed a sensory tasting defined by the four elements (air, water, fire, and earth) further deepened by the Roman philosopher Lucretius in the first century BCE.
Although the practice of tasting is as old as the history of wine, the term "tasting" first appeared in 1519. The methodology of wine tasting was formalized by the 18th century when Linnaeus, Poncelet, and others brought an understanding of tasting up to date.
In 2004, Richard Axel and Linda B. Buck, won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their contribution to the knowledge of the senses of taste and smell.
A wine's overall quality assessment, based on this examination,
follows further careful description and comparison with recognized
standards, both with respect to other wines in its price range and
according to known factors pertaining to the region or vintage; if it is
typical of the region or diverges in style; if it uses certain wine-making techniques, such as barrel fermentation or malolactic fermentation, or any other remarkable or unusual characteristics.
Whereas wines are regularly tasted in isolation, a wine's quality
assessment is more objective when performed alongside several other
wines, in what are known as tasting "flights". Wines may be deliberately
selected for their vintage ("horizontal" tasting) or proceed from a single winery ("vertical" tasting), to better compare vineyard
and vintages, respectively. Alternatively, in order to promote an
unbiased analysis, bottles and even glasses may be disguised in a
"blind" tasting, to rule out any prejudicial awareness of either vintage
or winery.
To ensure impartial judgment of a wine, it should be served blind
– that is, without the taster(s) having seen the label or bottle shape.
Blind tasting may also involve serving the wine from a black wine glass
to mask the color
of the wine. A taster's judgment can be prejudiced by knowing details
of a wine, such as geographic origin, price, reputation, color, or other
considerations.
Scientific research has long demonstrated the power of suggestion in perception
as well as the strong effects of expectancies. For example, people
expect more expensive wine to have more desirable characteristics than
less expensive wine. When given wine that they are falsely told is
expensive they virtually always report it as tasting better than the
very same wine when they are told that it is inexpensive. French researcher Frédéric Brochet "submitted a mid-range Bordeaux in
two different bottles, one labeled as a cheap table wine, the other
bearing a grand cru etiquette." Tasters described the supposed grand cru
as "woody, complex, and round" and the supposed cheap wine as "short,
light, and faulty."
Similarly, people have expectations about wines because of their geographic origin, producer,
vintage, color, and many other factors. For example, when Brochet
served a white wine he received all the usual descriptions: "fresh, dry,
honeyed, lively." Later he served the same wine dyed red and received
the usual red terms: "intense, spicy, supple, deep."
One of the most famous instances of blind tasting is known as the Judgment of Paris, a wine competition held in 1976 where French judges blind-tasted wines from France and California. Against all expectations, California wines bested French wines
according to the judges, a result which would have been unlikely in a
non-blind contest. This event was depicted in the 2008 movie Bottle Shock.
Price bias
Another well-publicized double-blind taste test was conducted in 2011 by Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire.
In a wine tasting experiment using 400 participants, Wiseman found that
general members of the public were unable to distinguish expensive
wines from inexpensive ones. "People just could not tell the difference between cheap and expensive wine".
Color bias
In 2001, the University of Bordeaux
asked 54 undergraduate students to taste two glasses of wine: one red,
one white. The participants described the red as "jammy" and commented
on its crushed red fruit. The participants failed to recognize that both
wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had
been colored red with a flavorless dye.
Geographic origin bias
For six years, Texas A&M University
invited people to taste wines labeled "France", "California", "Texas",
and while nearly all ranked the French as best, in fact, all three were
the same Texan wine. The contest is built on the simple theory that if
people do not know what they are drinking, they award points differently
than if they do know what they are drinking.
Vertical and horizontal tasting
Vertical and horizontal wine tastings are wine tasting events that are arranged to highlight differences between similar wines.
In a vertical tasting, different vintages of the same wine type from the same winery are tasted. This emphasizes differences between various vintages.
In a horizontal tasting, the wines are all from the same vintage but are from different wineries. Keeping wine variety or type and wine region the same helps emphasize differences in winery styles.
Tasting flights
Tasting flight
is a term used by wine tasters to describe a selection of wines,
usually between three and eight glasses, but sometimes as many as fifty,
presented for the purpose of sampling and comparison.
Tasting notes
A tasting note
is a taster's written testimony about the aroma, taste identification,
acidity, structure, texture, and balance of a wine. Online wine
communities like Bottlenotes allow members to maintain their tasting notes online and for the reference of others.
Serving temperature
The temperature that a wine is served at can greatly affect the way it tastes and smells. Lower temperatures emphasize acidity and tannins while muting the aromatics. Higher temperatures minimize acidity and tannins while increasing the aromatics.
The shape of a wineglass can have a subtle impact on the perception of wine, especially its bouquet.Typically, the ideal shape is considered to be wider toward the bottom,
with a narrower aperture at the top (tulip or egg-shaped). Glasses
which are widest at the top are considered the least ideal. Many wine
tastings use ISO XL5 glasses, which are "egg"-shaped. The effect of glass shape does not appear to be related to whether the glass is pleasing to look at.
INAO official wine tasting glass
The glass of reference is the INAO
wine glass, a tool defined by specifications of the French Association
for Standardization (AFNOR), which was adopted by INAO as the official
glass in 1970, received its standard AFNOR in June 1971 and its ISO 3591
standard in 1972. The INAO has not submitted a file at the National Institute of
Industrial Property, it is therefore copied en masse and has gradually
replaced other tasting glasses in the world.
The glass must be lead crystal (9% lead). Its dimensions give it a
total volume between 210 ml and 225 ml, they are defined as follows:
Diameter of the rim: 46 mm
Calyx height: 100 mm
Height of the foot: 55 mm
Shoulder diameter: 65 mm
Foot diameter: 9 mm
Diameter of the base: 65 mm
The opening is narrower than the convex part so as to concentrate the
bouquet. The capacity is approximately 215 ml, but it is intended to
take a 50 ml pour. Some glasses of a similar shape, but with different capacities, may be
loosely referred to as ISO glasses, but they form no part of the ISO
specification.
Wine color
Without
having tasted the wines, one does not know if, for example, a white is
heavy or light. Before taking a sip, the taster tries to determine the
order in which the wines should be assessed by appearance and aroma
alone. Heavy wines are deeper in color and generally more intense on the nose. Sweeter wines, being denser, leave thick, viscous streaks (called legs or tears) down the inside of the glass when swirled.
There are five basic steps in tasting wine: color, swirl, smell, taste, and savor. These are also known as the "five S" steps: see, swirl, sniff, sip,
savor. During this process, a taster must look for clarity, varietal
character, integration, expressiveness, complexity, and connectedness.
A wine's color is better judged by putting it against a white
background. The wine glass is put at an angle in order to see the
colors. Colors can give the taster clues to the grape variety, and
whether the wine was aged in wood.
Characteristics assessed during tasting
Varietal character describes how much a wine presents its inherent grape aromas. A wine taster also looks for integration, which is a state in which none of the components of the wine (acid,
tannin, alcohol, etc.) is out of balance with the other components.
When a wine is well balanced, the wine is said to have achieved a
harmonious fusion.
Another important quality of the wine to look for is its
expressiveness. Expressiveness is the quality the "wine possesses when
its aromas and flavors are well-defined and clearly projected." The complexity of the wine is affected by many factors, one of which
may be the multiplicity of its flavors. The connectedness of the wine, a
rather abstract and difficult to ascertain quality, describes the bond
between the wine and its land of origin (terroir).
Connoisseur wine tasting
A
wine's quality can be judged by its bouquet and taste. The bouquet is
the total aromatic experience of the wine. Assessing a wine's bouquet
can also reveal faults such as cork taint; oxidation due to age, overexposure to oxygen, or lack of preservatives; and wild yeast or bacterial contamination, such as those due to Acetobacter or Brettanomyces yeasts. Although low levels of Brettanomyces
aromatic characteristics can be a positive attribute, giving the wine a
distinctive character, generally it is considered a wine spoilage
yeast.
The bouquet of wine is best revealed by gently swirling the wine in a wine glass to expose it to more oxygen and release more aromatic etheric, ester, and aldehyde molecules that comprise the essential components of a wine's bouquet. Sparkling wine should not be swirled to the point of releasing bubbles.
Pausing to experience a wine's bouquet aids the wine taster in
anticipating the wine's flavors. The "nose" of a wine – its bouquet or
aroma – is the major determinate of perceived flavor in the mouth. Once
inside the mouth, the aromatics are further liberated by exposure to
body heat, and transferred retronasally to the olfactory receptor site. It is here that the complex taste experience characteristic of a wine actually commences.
Thoroughly tasting a wine involves perception of its array of taste and mouthfeel
attributes, which involve the combination of textures, flavors, weight,
and overall "structure". Following appreciation of its olfactory
characteristics, the wine taster savors a wine by holding it in the
mouth for a few seconds to saturate the taste buds.
By pursing one's lips and breathing through that small opening, oxygen
passes over the wine and releases even more esters. When the wine is
allowed to pass slowly through the mouth it presents the connoisseur
with the fullest gustatory profile available to the human palate.
The acts of pausing and focusing through each step distinguishes
wine tasting from simple quaffing. Through this process, the full array
of aromatic molecules is captured and interpreted by approximately 15
million olfactory receptors, comprising a few hundred olfactory receptor classes. When tasting
several wines in succession, however, key aspects of this fuller
experience (length and finish, or aftertaste) must necessarily be
sacrificed through expectoration.
Although taste qualities are known to be widely distributed throughout the oral cavity, the concept of an anatomical "tongue map"
yet persists in the wine tasting arena, in which different tastes are
believed to map to different areas of the tongue. A widely accepted
example is the misperception that the tip of the tongue uniquely tells
how sweet a wine is and the upper edges tell its acidity.
As part of the tasting process, and as a way of comparing the merits
of the various wines, wines are given scores according to a relatively
set system. This may be either by explicitly weighting different
aspects, or by global judgment (although the same aspects would be
considered). These aspects are 1) the appearance of the wine, 2) the
nose or smell, 3) the palate or taste, and 4) overall. Different systems weight these differently (e.g., appearance 15%, nose
35%, palate 50%). Typically, no modern wine would score less than half
on any scale (which would effectively indicate an obvious fault). It is
more common for wines to be scored out of 20 (including half marks) in
Europe and parts of Australasia, and out of 100 in the US. However,
different critics tend to have their own preferred system, and some
gradings are also given out of 5 (again with half marks).
Traveling to wine regions is one way of increasing skill in tasting.
Many wine producers in wine regions all over the world offer tastings of
their wine. Depending on the country or region, tasting at the winery
may incur a small charge to allow the producer to cover costs.
It is not considered rude to spit out wine at a winery, even in the presence of the wine maker or owner. Generally, a spittoon
is provided. In some regions of the world, tasters simply spit on the
floor or onto gravel surrounding barrels. It is polite to inquire about
where to spit before beginning tasting.
Attending wine schools
A
growing number of wine schools can be found, offering wine tasting
classes to the public. These programs often help a wine taster hone and
develop their abilities in a controlled setting. Some also offer
professional training for sommeliers and winemakers. It is even possible
to learn how to assess wine methodically via e-learning.
Because intoxication can affect the consumer's judgment, wine tasters
generally spit the wine out after they have assessed its quality at
formal tastings, where dozens of wines may be assessed. However, since
wine is absorbed through the skin inside the mouth, tasting from twenty
to twenty-five samplings can still produce an intoxicating effect,
depending on the alcoholic content of the wine.
Sensory analysis
Tasting plays an important role in the sensory analysis (also referred to as organoleptic analysis) of wine. Employing a trained or consumer panel, oenologists may perform a variety of tests on the taste, aroma, mouthfeel and appeal of wines. Difference tests
are important in determining whether different fermentation conditions
or new vineyard treatments alter the character of a wine, something
particularly important to producers who aim for consistency. Preference
testing establishes consumer preference, while descriptive analysis
determines the most prominent traits of the wine, some of which grace
back labels. Blind tasting and other laboratory controls help mitigate
bias and assure statistically significant results. Many large wine
companies now boast their own sensory team, optimally consisting of a
Ph.D. sensory scientist, a flavor chemist and a trained panel.
Grape varieties
Wine
grape varieties are variously evaluated according to a wide range of
descriptors which draw comparisons with other, non-grape flavors and
aromas. The following table provides a brief and by no means exhaustive summary of typical descriptors for the better-known varietals.
