I'm impressed and anything that promotes and furthers fundamental science gets a thumbs-up from me. However, I do find the process a little odd. Specific thin

I'm impressed and anything that promotes and furthers fundamental science gets a thumbs-up from me. However, I do find the process a little odd. Specific things irk me like the ability to win multiple times and all winners also being on the selection committee. "Dr. Levinson [CEO of Genentech], in consultation with his colleagues, helped Mr. Milner select the first Breakthrough winners. These winners will form a committee that will select future winners, Mr. Milner said," I also dislike this [1], but I guess you have to start somewhere. The Nobel Committee's aren't without controversy [2]. The prize money seems unnecessarily large but that's an easy way to 'compete' for recognition with more established prizes. It also helps since more research is collaborative in nature so a split of the prize is still meaningful. It'll be interesting to see whether these prizes succeed in putting science more in the public eye. I'm not convinced they will unless the foundations involved also do the extra work of marketing and promoting the winners (rather than marketing the prize itself, as this article does). [1] I was a research scientist so this 'industry influence' in the selection process immediately rubbed me the wrong way (industry promoting it's own interests etc etc). Though those feelings may not be warranted in this case. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies