5 ms·

Prizes are also essentially worthless to promote science, people need money from the beginning to do science, if they don't, then there isn't going to be anythi

by ama729 13y ago

Prizes are also essentially worthless to promote science, people need money from the beginning to do science, if they don't, then there isn't going to be anything to receive the prize for.

tfgg 13y ago
I think if they were serious about supporting science, they'd be giving out medium-sized early researcher grants (maybe £/$10k-100k), but then they'd actually have to think about who to fund and take on the high risk involved in science. This way they get to take credit by osmosis for important developments after the fact.
- ama729 13y ago
  Yes, that would be great too. I think it's purely marketing and it has nothing to do with promoting science. Actually, on the same model, they also could give 1000 $3000 prizes, that wouldn't make a very exciting press release, but I would posit it would do much more good, because it's much more likely to target someone that really needed a bit of positive reinforcement, rather than the guy that already received lots of award for an important discovery. And this is especially important in field were prizes are rare. But now it feel like the equivalent of 7 guy/gals winning the lottery. I highly doubt it will change much in their research (if not negatively if they decide to retire) and they wont be able to invest it in other people's work, except with great difficulty or lack of agency. I fail to see where science is gaining much.
  - kaitai 13y ago
    OMG $3000 for a mathematician is a ray of light in a dark world... that's like 3 conferences/research trips! Amazing things can happen with that!
    - dnautics 13y ago
      on the other hand, it's nothing for a biologist. I blew through about $300 in reagents yesterday AND messed up the experiment.
    - ama729 13y ago
      I'm detecting a hint of sarcasm... ;) Well, it's my understanding that most prize money won by scientists are not reinvested in their research, meaning that it act more as a regular enterprise bonus than a kind of research grant. Is it false? In that case, I think it was proven than passing a certain mark, the amount of money in a prize get diminishing returns quickly, thus the proposal that it's more interesting to give to a lots of scientists a small sum (not necessarily $3000, that was derived from the $3 million) than for a few a big one.
      - kaitai 13y ago
        All the money I win for anything goes back into my research, for what it's worth. Perhaps because I'm on the poor end for an academic mathematician. However, it's grant money, not prize money, that I get. I have no idea how on earth I could ever win a prize for math since I'm not in line for the Fields, Abel, or Alfried Krupp prize.
        ama729 13y ago
        > All the money I win for anything goes back into my research, for what it's worth. Perhaps because I'm on the poor end for an academic mathematician. Wait ... you were not sarcastic? (Inverse poe law, here I come!) > I have no idea how on earth I could ever win a prize for math since I'm not in line for the Fields, Abel, or Alfried Krupp prize. There are no smaller prizes in mathematics? (I don't have any knowledge in that area)
        kaitai 13y ago
        I was and am at the same time not sarcastic. I would be genuinely thrilled to get $3000 and am aware that it is a stupid small amount :) There are not many smaller prizes in math that award money.
- VLM 13y ago
  I think you have accurately summarized the existing academic world in one paragraph. If only 10% of grads get a professorship, someone much higher paid will be taking credit for most of your work, etc. They made a policy decision to work in the existing structure, not try something new. They seem fairly honest and serious about it. May not agree with their plan, but thats a different issue.
JumpCrisscross 13y ago
It would seem the X Prizes made it easier for research and development teams to raise money. Having a tangible $x million prize at the end broadens the field of potential sponsors.
- dnautics 13y ago
  maybe. But cash prizes can be anti-motivational, and can negatively affect reasoning (this is a known phenomenon). It's probably a huge part of the reason why the federal scientific granting landscape is broken, btw, so the status quo is not much better. Moreover, only one person gets the prize, so a lot of people will make an upfront investment and get burnt out by their loss. Finally you have to consider, who is the best equipped to make those sorts of upfront investments and are they the people you want deciding the course of science? The really smart grad student whose intellectual prowess is being exploited by the professors is not going to be in that position.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    But it's a market. How could it possibly go wrong? /s
  - xixi77 13y ago
    a lot of people will make an upfront investment and get burnt out by their loss This is not a bug, this is an essential feature. This effectively generates matching funding, and thus multiplies the amount of money and effort spent on a problem. It is hard to figure out which idea works best; some inevitably won't work out and result in a loss -- but in this case much of the loss is covered by outside investors (including those investing their own time), competing with each other for the prize. Also, I would trust people putting their own money down more than a grant committee, and people in general tend to be far more efficient when trying to beat competition, not when working on a set project. Also, a smart graduate student is likely to be better at producing research, not at writing grant applications. Let the results speak for themselves.

by ama729 13y ago

Prizes are also essentially worthless to promote science, people need money from the beginning to do science, if they don't, then there isn't going to be anything to receive the prize for.

tfgg 13y ago

I think if they were serious about supporting science, they'd be giving out medium-sized early researcher grants (maybe £/$10k-100k), but then they'd actually have to think about who to fund and take on the high risk involved in science. This way they get to take credit by osmosis for important developments after the fact.

ama729 13y ago
Yes, that would be great too. I think it's purely marketing and it has nothing to do with promoting science. Actually, on the same model, they also could give 1000 $3000 prizes, that wouldn't make a very exciting press release, but I would posit it would do much more good, because it's much more likely to target someone that really needed a bit of positive reinforcement, rather than the guy that already received lots of award for an important discovery. And this is especially important in field were prizes are rare. But now it feel like the equivalent of 7 guy/gals winning the lottery. I highly doubt it will change much in their research (if not negatively if they decide to retire) and they wont be able to invest it in other people's work, except with great difficulty or lack of agency. I fail to see where science is gaining much.
- kaitai 13y ago
  OMG $3000 for a mathematician is a ray of light in a dark world... that's like 3 conferences/research trips! Amazing things can happen with that!
  - dnautics 13y ago
    on the other hand, it's nothing for a biologist. I blew through about $300 in reagents yesterday AND messed up the experiment.
  - ama729 13y ago
    I'm detecting a hint of sarcasm... ;) Well, it's my understanding that most prize money won by scientists are not reinvested in their research, meaning that it act more as a regular enterprise bonus than a kind of research grant. Is it false? In that case, I think it was proven than passing a certain mark, the amount of money in a prize get diminishing returns quickly, thus the proposal that it's more interesting to give to a lots of scientists a small sum (not necessarily $3000, that was derived from the $3 million) than for a few a big one.
    - kaitai 13y ago
      All the money I win for anything goes back into my research, for what it's worth. Perhaps because I'm on the poor end for an academic mathematician. However, it's grant money, not prize money, that I get. I have no idea how on earth I could ever win a prize for math since I'm not in line for the Fields, Abel, or Alfried Krupp prize.
      - ama729 13y ago
        > All the money I win for anything goes back into my research, for what it's worth. Perhaps because I'm on the poor end for an academic mathematician. Wait ... you were not sarcastic? (Inverse poe law, here I come!) > I have no idea how on earth I could ever win a prize for math since I'm not in line for the Fields, Abel, or Alfried Krupp prize. There are no smaller prizes in mathematics? (I don't have any knowledge in that area)
        kaitai 13y ago
        I was and am at the same time not sarcastic. I would be genuinely thrilled to get $3000 and am aware that it is a stupid small amount :) There are not many smaller prizes in math that award money.
VLM 13y ago
I think you have accurately summarized the existing academic world in one paragraph. If only 10% of grads get a professorship, someone much higher paid will be taking credit for most of your work, etc. They made a policy decision to work in the existing structure, not try something new. They seem fairly honest and serious about it. May not agree with their plan, but thats a different issue.

JumpCrisscross 13y ago

It would seem the X Prizes made it easier for research and development teams to raise money. Having a tangible $x million prize at the end broadens the field of potential sponsors.

dnautics 13y ago
maybe. But cash prizes can be anti-motivational, and can negatively affect reasoning (this is a known phenomenon). It's probably a huge part of the reason why the federal scientific granting landscape is broken, btw, so the status quo is not much better. Moreover, only one person gets the prize, so a lot of people will make an upfront investment and get burnt out by their loss. Finally you have to consider, who is the best equipped to make those sorts of upfront investments and are they the people you want deciding the course of science? The really smart grad student whose intellectual prowess is being exploited by the professors is not going to be in that position.
- saraid216 13y ago
  But it's a market. How could it possibly go wrong? /s
- xixi77 13y ago
  a lot of people will make an upfront investment and get burnt out by their loss This is not a bug, this is an essential feature. This effectively generates matching funding, and thus multiplies the amount of money and effort spent on a problem. It is hard to figure out which idea works best; some inevitably won't work out and result in a loss -- but in this case much of the loss is covered by outside investors (including those investing their own time), competing with each other for the prize. Also, I would trust people putting their own money down more than a grant committee, and people in general tend to be far more efficient when trying to beat competition, not when working on a set project. Also, a smart graduate student is likely to be better at producing research, not at writing grant applications. Let the results speak for themselves.