I think I just question the entire thing. I don't think prizes were the best way to show support of life science research. According to the Guardian piece (and an older one abut the physics prize), they seem to think that showing that science can be glamorous and rewarding would motivate young scientists. It seems to suggest that they think that a lack of motivation or a lack of dreams is currently keeping people from going into the life sciences and pursuing the noble fight against various diseases, when in fact there are more people interested in working in biomedical research than there are currently positions for. I'm happy for the winners, and it's a really great selection of people, but I don't think anyone else became extra motivated to work harder on their own research with the dream of being one of the winners later. And even if they did, how WOULD they work harder when either they or their collaborators are having trouble just keeping their labs running? Related: "Philantropy: You're Doing it Wrong" http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/25/philanthropy-youre-doing-it-wrong/

See also the interview with Roger Barker about this same paper https://thenode.biologists.com/an-interview-with-roger-barker/ , and the videos on EuroStemCell http://www.eurostemcell.org/story/studying-huntingtons-disease-using-stem-cells-lab