The people who worked on AlphaFold were (and are) compensated very well. Maybe they didn't win the lottery, but they probably make between 10 and 40 times the median income. And they have received a lot of recognition and exposure, I'd say probably the right amount for the achievement. I'm sure there are issues of this type in the world, but in this case I don't really see a problem.

Your point is good but the direction of your contempt is misplaced. Lottery winners accounts for a tiny fraction of people who have unearned and undeserved wealth, and in terms of how many people they screwed over to get to riches, they are like angels in comparison to other rich people.

I agree with you. I should have made a better choice than lottery. My intention was that the needle which sets the reward for research, long life work pursuing the solution of a problem should move to the right and get those people more.

$3M isn't enough in our days to recognize remarkable work in my opinion. Yes, one of them made a lot of money, but is it true for all the past winners of this prize?

I'm curious, what would be the right amount in your opinion? How would you value it?

That would be interesting data driven research.

I can say something about the effect I want to achieve with the money: recognition and publicity. So the amount of money should make them on front page of many news papers and such. Now from data it might interesting to get the right amount.

I just want the people who make such achievements to be recognized by younger generation.

Not everyone wants those things though. In fact, I could see it being detrimental because then you'd attract a lot of people who only care about those things instead of science itself.

I think we should celebrate scientific achievements as a community. Because the failures are as important as the successes. We shouldn't idolize individuals imho. That is toxic.

Alice walton comes to mind

https://www.mic.com/articles/79039/the-untold-story-of-alice...

And let's not talk about the Sacklers

Demis Hassabis made tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in the Deep Mind acquisition. I'm sure most people would consider that to be adequate compensation.

If anything, the lesson is that if you care about making lots of money from your research (not everybody does), start a company. And it's easier for academics to start companies today than in any other era.

I agree, my wording was not perfect.

My point was that such a prize should be backed with more money. Even for the sake of a statement what we consider to be important.

So the emphasize was about the enormous ratio between the two and not about lottery being wrong (Moreover it pays for itself).

The lottery isn't comparable, first of all it's a money raising scheme. I'm sure the alphafold team is well compensated. Almost certainly making high 6 figures. Alphafold got a massive amount of well-deserved coverage as well.

The great wall of china was partially funded by lotteries. I don't think anyone from the future is going to have anything to say about today's lotteries. Lotteries will probably still be popular in a hundred years.

People are generally compensated for providing goods/services people get value out of. I doubt in 100 years this will be an alien concept.