Do cash prizes help or harm scientific research?

by L.A. Times Posted 2013/01/11 20:00:00

Related Topics: Animals, Dogs, Medical, Student, Los Angeles, Dog, Financial, Science, Doctor, Cash, Doctors, Image, Surgery, Images, Incentives, Offer

Read More

429 votes
Read all 86 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Help	298 votes	69%
	Harm	131 votes	31%

Prize sponsors, like those in centuries past, say that offering financial incentives gets new people thinking about old problems. But some worry the trend could distort scientific priorities.

Below is Dr. Gary Michelson at home in Los Angeles with his dogs. As a medical student, Michelson objected to learning surgery by operating on live dogs. Today, he is the sponsor of the Michelson Prize in Reproductive Biology, which offers $25 million for the first researcher to create an easy, affordable means of sterilizing animals.

Add a comment above

adrianna2898 2013/01/13 04:35:55 (edited)

Harm

+12
Scientists could lie about results to get the reward , thus helping no one .
>> See Replies

More polls by L.A. Times

~HopelessRomanticM17~ 2013/01/14 20:51:30 (edited)

Help

+1
Why not?!

Nothing inspires people more than money....(You know that's true)

reply
Alex Goldsmith 2013/01/14 20:17:43

Help

big motivation

reply
Aran Smeallie 2013/01/14 19:46:28

Help

+2
"Hey, heres something I discovered! What do i get?"
"The satisfaction of being the person who discovered it!"

this kind of world would truly suck

reply
Sperry23 2013/01/14 17:07:19

Help

+1
Science and scientists, by-and-large, are relatively poorly funded.Yet science and discovery is what has brought us longer, healthier lives, a better standard of living, and a higher level of understanding of everything.

It's also brought us better and faster ways to kill ourselves (as a species).

Still, the positives far outweigh the negatives.

reply
Alex Go... to Sperry23 2013/01/14 20:19:18

recent progress: research a little into the next wireless standard, 802.11AC

reply
democoach 2013/01/14 17:06:12 (edited)

Harm

science today goes to the highest bidder, and thats why we have such high cancer, mentl problems, etc and misleading science.

now of course there is real scientists who aren't bought out, but the unthinking majority always hate on these scientists!

reply
freedom 2013/01/14 16:35:09

Help

Cash prizes and financing will always be part of innovation. Yes, there are drawbacks but such drawbacks are known such as financing-bias. This why scientific journals have peer review.

reply
Derbyhat 2013/01/14 05:05:47

Help

Private sector prizes fuels our research. Government sector prizes leads to an endless stream of money to those who are living off the checks. Entitlements!

reply
justmyopinion 2013/01/14 02:54:14

Help

I actually think its about neutral. First there's plenty of money out there in private research or the creation of a commercial product. Second, results are pretty well scrutinized by other scientists in the field. Third, I think a lot of them prefer the recognition to the money, based on my experience anyway. Definitely a question worth considering though.

reply
Derbyhat to justmyo... 2013/01/20 18:39:21

Is global warming your model of scientific scrutiny? Just asking.

reply
justmyo... to Derbyhat 2013/01/21 21:42:46

I think its pretty well scrutinized. If its some kind of conspiracy theory you're referring too I'd advise you to look at the numbers for yourself and form your own opinion.

reply
wilsonmja 2013/01/14 02:13:26

Help

I think it helps by making them work that much harder.

reply
You know you wanna Hate me. 2013/01/14 00:17:05

Help

+1
As much as a teenager is motivated by the money a part time job grants ,so is the scientist who is competitive with the rest.

reply
Joves the Instigator 2013/01/13 23:50:32

Help

When given a prize, i,e a profit motive for developing something, it gets done. When government funds it, it never gets done. This is because it is more profitable to drag it out year after year over actually achieving the goal of the exercise. This is why I want to see all government funding taken from such things. It breeds its own form of welfare that does not benefit the taxpayer.

reply
Michael 2013/01/13 20:05:15

Help

We still rely on proof last I heard!

reply
Sagan 2013/01/13 16:40:44
Wonder Woman 2013/01/13 16:14:08
calvin236 2013/01/13 15:42:09

Help

I think it can be used to help start scientific progress and is a good enough motivator. There are risks associated with it too, but hopefully people (especially scientists) should be held accountable to defend and show their experiment for the committe or group possibly funding the experiment.

reply
Cal 2013/01/13 15:02:22

Help

I don't honestly think they make any difference. http://patrioticvoices.com/
http://patrioticvoices.com/co...

reply
SpongeBob 2013/01/13 10:43:40

Help

+1
Great Idea

reply
fortycal_sig 2013/01/13 07:59:48

Help

+1
Assume the prizes in question are ones like the Ansari X-Prize, etc. Awesome approach.

reply
kat 2013/01/13 07:46:36

Help

That isn't to say that in the rush to get some drugs / medical devices to the market, that there isn't some harm to the public. However, the money to the inventors didn't do it. Its the money from the lobbyist used to ply the Food & Drug administators for too quick approvals.

reply
convex to kat 2013/01/13 13:56:03

Too quick? It takes millions of dollars and years upon years of clinical trials to get FDA approval for anything. The only people that can afford it are the big boys who put priority on bringing to market things which they know how to sell well (sexual aids, anti-depressants, cholesterol drugs...). A scientist with a great idea is stuck with having to seek investors, and keeping that running for years on end. If anything, we need a less costly and time consuming process.

reply
kat to convex 2013/01/13 21:15:52

I've worked for a few of the big boys - some approvals may have been given too quickly in view of deaths and other serious side effects that resulted from relatively quick approvals as compared to an isolated scientist with a great idea.

reply
Watermusicranger 2013/01/13 07:26:27

Help

Good Idea.

reply
American☆Atheist 2013/01/13 05:33:18

Help

Conservatism hurts science.

reply
Cliff 2013/01/13 05:16:29

Harm

Scientific research has demonstrated that If you put several cockroaches in a maze, it takes them much longer to find their way through than if you just had a single cockroach. Similar results occur when scientists are placed in a maze.

reply
adrianna2898 2013/01/13 04:35:55 (edited)

Harm

+12
Scientists could lie about results to get the reward , thus helping no one .

reply
freedom to adriann... 2013/01/14 16:33:26

No, that would be a case of fraud and can be dealt with.

reply
cheshirewayne 2013/01/13 03:25:24

Harm

look at the global warming freaks, they've been for sale from the beginning. This constantly changing data and formulas to make their models work is not right. Having been caught hiding data and lying about results makes it clear that they have an agenda. The real reason they won't have a honest discussion with the anti man made global warming crowd is because their idea just don't stand up to the light of day, so they shout insults like children.

reply
America... to cheshir... 2013/01/13 05:33:37

GW is fact.

reply
freedom to America... 2013/01/14 16:33:46

No it is not. It is a theory and a crappy one at that.

reply
America... to freedom 2013/01/15 03:09:05

It is literally science.

reply
freedom to America... 2013/01/15 15:47:09

The whole theory based on unconnected facts and processed by computer models which have not proven to predicting outcomes.

reply
John Wa... to cheshir... 2013/01/14 07:59:01

+1
GW has been proven, though yes the models change as they are updated to reflect a better understanding of the entire process.

Have some lied about it? Yes but that is why there a process called peer review among the scientists that shames those that lie and makes them unemployable.

The reason I believe some of those incidents have come to light is because people are under pressure by numerous sources to prove it or disprove, and unfortunately... scientists are human. They submit to the lure of easy money to slant their results.

They usually end up with no credibility what so ever.

reply
Hawkeye to John Wa... 2013/01/14 15:35:55

Global Warming if FACT.. As is Climate Change.. There is no disputing this.. It's the causes and the so called solutions that are the subjects of controversy..

Climate Change is the NATURAL State of Climates.. It has been a reality,, indeed a NECESSARY reality for LIFE to exist on this planet since the time of it's formation..

TODAY we have Climate Change in the form of a warming period.. From 1350 to 1850 we were in what scientists call the " Mini Ice Age".. Before THAT,, We were growing GRAPES in Northern England and GREENLAND was FREE of Glaciers..

reply
John Wa... to Hawkeye 2013/01/14 16:23:03

That doesn't dispute anything I've said but thank you for the additional information.

reply
Hawkeye to John Wa... 2013/01/14 17:13:19

My apologies for not being clear.. I was not in dispute with anything that you said.. I was merely intending to suppliment your points..

reply
John Wa... to Hawkeye 2013/01/14 17:14:03

Ah. Sincerest apologies on my part then for reading a tone into your words that was not intended.

reply
Hawkeye to John Wa... 2013/01/14 17:43:48

As I reread my comments I am inclined towards coming to the same conclusions..

They appear far more contentious then intended..

The fault is entirely mine..

reply