Scientific research increasingly fueled by prize money

Here is an article talking about how prizes are pretty much spurning new creative ideas. This in my opinion is supplanting the traditional grant system where they review ideas and choose who gets the money. With "here's an idea, solve it" its different, which is fine with me, what do you think? Just as a reminder, grants are drying up. I also remind you thsat traditional academia is wroght with inefficiencies like old timey politics and ego driven decisions. "You haven't published enough"
So of course I want your thoughts but I also need your help finding links to prizes that might interest the ATS comunity and if you can't find a prize do you think your idea could be crowd funded?

Any thoughts? Any Ideas?

a reply to: Emeraldous

I am in theoretical physics - I expect to never, ever receive a prize for my preon theory, nor my paradox waves theory, nor my universal mass equation.

Some of us do not do it for the prize, but simply for the gratification of solving a problem.

But if a prize can help scientists to get thinking, then yeah, it'd be a great idea indeed. S&F!

a reply to: Emeraldous

First of all, I think that a good prize would need to drop this obsession with university degrees or amount of papers published, and instead focus on the discovery itself: is it groundbreaking? Does it expand mankind's knowledge? Is the discovery useful for mankind's evolution?

Also, there are many areas of science. We need to find which area will the prize(s) reward.

And before granting a prize we need to verify the discovery/finding. Good judges will be needed to discern true discoveries or theories from utter nonesense or misconception.

And finally, we have to make sure the one who judge the candidates are impartial. Otherwise they could show bias or, worst, be bought.

Buyer beware as with everything else. With governments all over the West becoming increasingly anti-science, I don't see how there's any choice but to go with crowd funding.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Emeraldous
I'm glad you are a scientist but it seems that this has become either a parallel to the traditional or a supplant. Each scientist has their interests, just that their funding now comes in the form of a prize they compete for. So it will be like reading the newspaper and finding a problem to solve. Find ne that you are fluent in, get toghether a team and resources and produce. If you do have theories and ideas of your own you can suggest them but mostly it seems to be "I have a problem, solve it for cash." right now. My sister is young and in the traditional academia but there has been a change in scope so she will not be involved moving forward.

a reply to: Emeraldous
I'm sure funding is getting more scarce, but Dr Turk talking about euthanizing his mice? How much can it cost to keep some mice alive?

I guess the environment isn't conducive to getting more people into research if the funds aren't there. However a lot of people who become scientists were never in it for the money.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Emeraldous

I am in theoretical physics - I expect to never, ever receive a prize for my preon theory, nor my paradox waves theory, nor my universal mass equation.

Some of us do not do it for the prize, but simply for the gratification of solving a problem.

Apparently that was the motivation of Grigory Perelman, who solved a math problem and was awarded one million dollars, but he refused to accept it. So it would seem that his motivation was the gratification of solving the problem, and not the money.

Millennium Prize Problems

A correct solution to any of the problems results in a US $1,000,000 prize (sometimes called a Millennium Prize) being awarded by the institute. The Poincaré conjecture was solved by Grigori Perelman, but he declined the award in 2010.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Apparently that was the motivation of Grigory Perelman, who solved a math problem and was awarded one million dollars, but he refused to accept it. So it would seem that his motivation was the gratification of solving the problem, and not the money.

Millennium Prize Problems

A correct solution to any of the problems results in a US $1,000,000 prize (sometimes called a Millennium Prize) being awarded by the institute. The Poincaré conjecture was solved by Grigori Perelman, but he declined the award in 2010.

Now this seems very short sighted to me. Money is a tool that can help advance the science they love. Why refuse it when you could donate or start an organization promoting the learning of some field of science? And I'm sure most people are using prize money to fuel further research. Do you think Burt Rattan really needed that money he got for the X Prize?

a reply to: homeskillet

I think the scientists are right in a way that science cannot become a commodity, where scientists compete to supplement their meager incomes. However, scientists need to start thinking in terms of business ventures. Which might make them throw up but if they just make products from their findings for close to cost, the new corporation model might go back to its roots. What I mean is corporations and charters used to be temporary and served a public good and purpose. Not the purpose they serve today which is ensure their future and make shareholders money peddling trinkets.