This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/breakthrough-science-prize

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
What's the point of the Breakthrough science prize? What's the point of the Breakthrough science prize?
(7 months later)
Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg have joined forces with venture capitalist Yuri Milner to announce a new "Breakthrough prize in the life sciences". What does this mean for the science community?Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg have joined forces with venture capitalist Yuri Milner to announce a new "Breakthrough prize in the life sciences". What does this mean for the science community?
Well, science is already pretty well served for prizes. If not a Nobel, scientists might dream of receiving one of the less prestigious but similarly lucrative Lasker or Kavli awards. If they say nice things about God, or avoid saying nasty things about God, they may end up with a Templeton gong. Milner also announced his own prize for theoretical physics back in the summer – it's unclear whether this will continue, or whether the biologists have now replaced the physicists in his affections.Well, science is already pretty well served for prizes. If not a Nobel, scientists might dream of receiving one of the less prestigious but similarly lucrative Lasker or Kavli awards. If they say nice things about God, or avoid saying nasty things about God, they may end up with a Templeton gong. Milner also announced his own prize for theoretical physics back in the summer – it's unclear whether this will continue, or whether the biologists have now replaced the physicists in his affections.
These are recognition prizes. They celebrate heroic achievements in science. They implicitly recognise the gap between society's appreciation of the importance of science and the relatively meagre recompense our scientists, at least those in universities, receive for their achievements. We would rather our scientists weren't mercenary, so a prize seems like a good way of rewarding the efforts of the best. There are so few prizes that we can't expect them to change what scientists do.These are recognition prizes. They celebrate heroic achievements in science. They implicitly recognise the gap between society's appreciation of the importance of science and the relatively meagre recompense our scientists, at least those in universities, receive for their achievements. We would rather our scientists weren't mercenary, so a prize seems like a good way of rewarding the efforts of the best. There are so few prizes that we can't expect them to change what scientists do.
Inducement prizes, on the other hand, aim to change behaviour. Like a reward on a wild west "wanted" poster, they aim to round up the experts to join a particular search: a way of determining longitude, or an affordable means of transport into space. Society may need answers to particular problems that scientists, left to their own devices, may not provide – so we set up a challenge and reward the victor.Inducement prizes, on the other hand, aim to change behaviour. Like a reward on a wild west "wanted" poster, they aim to round up the experts to join a particular search: a way of determining longitude, or an affordable means of transport into space. Society may need answers to particular problems that scientists, left to their own devices, may not provide – so we set up a challenge and reward the victor.
Looking at the new prize, I am confused. Biotech guru Art Levinson will chair the committee awarding it (while also chairing the board of Apple). He wants it to "shine a light on the extraordinary achievements of the outstanding minds" and be a "platform for recognising future discoveries". Zuckerberg wants a different sort of platform, "a platform for other models of philanthropy, so people everywhere have an opportunity at a better future". I'm not sure what this means, but clever people giving money to other clever people for being clever doesn't seem like philanthropy. This prize seems designed simply to brighten the spotlight on scientists, and reflect it from Scandinavia to the Silicon Valley.Looking at the new prize, I am confused. Biotech guru Art Levinson will chair the committee awarding it (while also chairing the board of Apple). He wants it to "shine a light on the extraordinary achievements of the outstanding minds" and be a "platform for recognising future discoveries". Zuckerberg wants a different sort of platform, "a platform for other models of philanthropy, so people everywhere have an opportunity at a better future". I'm not sure what this means, but clever people giving money to other clever people for being clever doesn't seem like philanthropy. This prize seems designed simply to brighten the spotlight on scientists, and reflect it from Scandinavia to the Silicon Valley.
There are many problems with prizes in science. The first is that science, unlike, say, acting or writing novels, has recognition (as opposed to populism) built in. The ruthless meritocracy of peer review and citation means that the top scientists show up pretty clearly in the statistics. My guess is that the Breakthrough prize will reinforce rather than challenge this model. The next problem is that science is now massively collaborative, as Martin Rees pointed out when the 2011 physics Nobel went to Adam Riess, Brian Schmidt and Saul Perlmutter. To reward just three individuals, as Nobel rules dictate, gives the wrong impression of how science works (the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change won a team Nobel, but this was for peace). We will have to wait and see what the Nobel committee will do about the Higgs boson.There are many problems with prizes in science. The first is that science, unlike, say, acting or writing novels, has recognition (as opposed to populism) built in. The ruthless meritocracy of peer review and citation means that the top scientists show up pretty clearly in the statistics. My guess is that the Breakthrough prize will reinforce rather than challenge this model. The next problem is that science is now massively collaborative, as Martin Rees pointed out when the 2011 physics Nobel went to Adam Riess, Brian Schmidt and Saul Perlmutter. To reward just three individuals, as Nobel rules dictate, gives the wrong impression of how science works (the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change won a team Nobel, but this was for peace). We will have to wait and see what the Nobel committee will do about the Higgs boson.
The Breakthrough prize claims to have more flexibility and more transparency and will reward scientists during their careers rather than afterwards. Nevertheless, it smacks of what Evgeny Morozov calls "solutionism", the idea that the problems of the world can be understood and solved as long as the brightest brains are paying attention. So, what is the problem to which this new prize is the solution?The Breakthrough prize claims to have more flexibility and more transparency and will reward scientists during their careers rather than afterwards. Nevertheless, it smacks of what Evgeny Morozov calls "solutionism", the idea that the problems of the world can be understood and solved as long as the brightest brains are paying attention. So, what is the problem to which this new prize is the solution?
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.