（一）  

Every October sees the award of the "scientific Oscars": Nobel prizes. The science prizes established in Alfred Nobel's will are for physics, chemistry and"physiology or medicine". These three subjects are interpreted broadly, and their purview has shifted over time. But the prizes nonetheless still exclude huge tracts of science. Famously, mathematics has never been included. The environmental sciences -oceans and ecology--aren't covered, nor are computer science, robotics and artificial intelligence. These exclusions distort the public perception of which sciences are important.

Outsiders might guess that in science, the choice of winners in each field should be as clear-cut as in sporting contests, unlike the obviously more subjective prizes for literature and peace. But that's not the real ity. In the same years the awards trigger controversy and resentment. Since Nobel scientists generally aren't well-known personalities, and their achievements are often arcane, debate on their worthiness takes place within the specialist community, and only rarely percolates widely. What the public sees is simply the grandeur of the award announcements each year.

Also, the process of awarding the prizes has limitations that clash with the realities of scientific research. It's easy to agree on what scientific advances are important, but it's not so easy to apportion credit. An artist's creations are ephemeral but generally "individual". If they hadn't created a particular artwork, nobody else would have done so. But in many cases in science, if one researcher didn't make a specific advance, then sooner or later (and usually) another researcher would have.

The public perceives Nobel winners as "towering intellects." Some are, but others, even among those who have made undeniably epochal and "prize-worthy" advances, would not be so rated by their peers. Indeed, some of the most important discoveries have been serendipitous: for instance, neutron stars, and the cosmic microwave background-the so-cal led "afterglow of creation".Louis Pasteur argued that "fortune favors the prepared mind"; these scientists may claim for themselves greater luck—but not greater talent—than the average professor.

We need more and better ways of encouraging discovery and innovation. One possible route is "challenge prizes", which don't reward past success but incentivise future efforts to tackle an important problem. There have been prizes for sub-orbital space flight, driverless cars, robots that operate in hazardous environments and so forth. As compared with usual forms of funding, these prizes encourage maverick thinking, and they can also enhance public interest. Let's hope that some philanthropists will establish these, at least as a supplement to traditional prizes.