By contrast, the breakthrough prize in physics was awarded to the entire event horizon telescope collaboration for their image of the supermassive black hole.
I would have assumed that the prize for alphafold would also been awarded to the whole team.
The article mentions:
> So far, the data have been harnessed to tackle problems ranging from antibiotic resistance to crop resilience.
Is any of them is about to be used in our daily life and solve a major problem?
I wonder if relying on a tool that doesn't 100% accurately represent reality could have a negative effect on future research
- for the first time, there isn't mountains and mountains of trolling in an Alphafold thread and the comments are _very_ quiet
- the only reason why is a new account tried doing the trolling
- comment is instadead without any manual flagging
- but, people are afraid to post given the one try in 3 hours is dead
One might research, work hard and solve a problem that might change the course of development of a major field and win a recognition by $3M while someone which fills few numbers on a lottery ticket may earn 1-2 folds more.
I wish the system would give this kind of efforts and stories a bigger exposure, recognition and compensation.
Edit: The idea was about the prize amount, not those specific people. It wasn't the best choice, but the idea was that even as a statement, prizes for scientific achievements should be higher so they will be an extreme to all people to recognize and strive for. I guess one could find a better analogy than what I had in mind.