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.
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.
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.
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.
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.