Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mega-Cash Prizes and Revolutionary Science

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the big-piles-of-cash-often-motivate-people dept.

Bruce G Charlton writes "A new paper in Medical Hypotheses suggests that very big cash prizes could specifically be targeted to stimulate 'revolutionary' science. Usually, prizes tend to stimulate 'applied' science — as in the most famous example of Harrison's improved clock solving the 'longitude' problem. But for prizes successfully to stimulate revolutionary science the prizes need to be: 1. Very large (and we are talking seven figure 'pop star' earnings, here) to compensate for the high risk of failure when tackling major scientific problems, 2. Awarded to scientists at a young enough age that it influences their behavior in (about) their mid-late twenties — when they are deciding on their career path, and: 3. Include objective and transparent scientometric criteria, to prevent the prize award process being corrupted by 'political' incentives. Such mega-cash prizes, in sufficient numbers, might incentivize some of the very best young scientists to make more ambitious, long-term — but high-risk — career choices. The real winner of this would be society as a whole; since ordinary science can successfully be done by second-raters — but only first-rate scientists can tackle the toughest scientific problems."

3 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A pile of hoopla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Informative
    I agree. I would expand on your comment with two points: 1) If money were the primary incentive, then yes, us scientists would have finished our MBAs and moved to Manhattan years ago. And given how well we're paid, the incentives for scientific innovation are already in place: enormous intellectual freedom, short-term excitement that comes from incremental progress, and the promise of a strong sense of accomplishment after long-term success. 2) Prizes already exist which are more in reach than a Nobel. Examples: They already go to the people who rise to the level of success and innovation called for in the article. If the prizes were bigger and more numerous, I seriously doubt it would change the incentive system we already have (see above). Now if we only had grant funding...
  2. There already is such a price. by dovgr · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is called the Nobel price. It is as easy as that. Do some revolutionary science and win a non-neglectable cash price. According to wikipedia last years price was about 1,500,000 USD.

  3. Re:Don't discount older people by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah it's ageism. Regardless of that fact, it's also targeting the wrong age group. There are awards in science for "young investigators" to recognize achievement (ie provide funding) and also to recognize that a scientist who's been in the field for 20-40 years has a name and a better chance at getting the increasingly scarce funding. So I guess in limited forms ageism might not necessarily be a bad thing. However, those "young investigator" awards are for people who are typically 10 years older than what this prize is for. That's what I really don't get. A scientist in their mid 20's is a junior to mid-level Ph.D. student. One in their late 20's might have just got their Ph.D. You only have some control over your career at this very early stage. You decide broadly what area of research you want to work in and what lab to join (if you're extremely good it'll be entirely up to you). After that, you might have the pick of a small number of projects. Very few grad students are advanced enough to introduce a project of their own to a lab and a negligible number of them will actually get permission from their advisor. Someone who has a Ph.D. already but wants to broaden their range of expertise will join another scientist's lab in a related field and will usually introduce new techniques and projects to that lab. Without being able to read the /.'d article it seems like they should be targeting the late 20's to mid-30's scientists. Even then, a more appropriate award might be at most low six figures. Managing a seven-figure grant is a major chore and it would be expected to run a whole lab for several years.