The people in the central bank, are bankers. Bankers have a personal motivation for choosing banking as a career.

I should have used more accurate language and said 'primary' instead of 'only'.

Again, would a government economist from a (hypothetical) administration dedicated to financial regulation and interest rate setting have a personal motivation for choosing economics as a career?

If no, why does it change anything that this administration is called "bank" for historical reasons rather than "federal interest rate administration"?

My assertion: Doctors are motivated by non-monetary reasons more so than economists. Doctors have the primary motivation to save lives/help people. If economists have the motivation to save lives/help people, that motivation isn't as strong as with doctors.

You can agree or not. To me it seems obvious this is true.

If you agree that the assertion is true, then 'doctors are more reliable to provide assessments that aren't based on self interest' would be a logical conclusion that would be drawn from the initial statement. Of course if you don't agree with that assertion (and it's hard to prove either way in a scientific manner, so I'm quick to admit it's just my perspective), then you obviously won't agree with the logical conclusion.

You changed your argument from (or at least, what I understood to be your argument):

1. Bankers are primarily interested by money, which includes employees of the Swedish central bank

2. There is a conflict of interest because the prize is funded by a bank

to:

3. Economists are more motivated by money than doctors.

1 and 2 are not relevant because the central bank is not a bank in any meaningful sense.

I fail to see how 3 has any impact on how one should view the economics prize. Could you elaborate?