In this article I will summarize Merton's description of the reward system of science. I will explore the unasked question: “What should a good rewards system look like?” I make a normative, utility-based proposal that we should completely separate the labs and companies that supply scientists with tools from the scientists themselves. I envision a style of science that allows individuals and groups of scientists to engage in open source science that allows them to outsource their expertise to particular institutions and groups in need of scientific service. I don't ask what is good for science, but what is good for scientists? Feyerabend was right to point out the fact that Kuhn could ignore individual scientists in his search for a structure of science. While Feyerabend was concerned with what happens to the morals of scientists and Kuhn was concerned with the overall structure, I want to explore what will be most useful for both science and scientists. This will be a restructuring of the rewards system. Merton argued that the basic currency for scientific reward is recognition (Godfrey-Smith 123). He says the best reward is being the first person to have an idea. Merton also argues that this is the only property right in science. The best-case scenario is to have an idea named after you; i.e. Darwinism, Planck's constant and Boyle's law. Merton provides examples that lend credence to his idea of ​​a reward system. Discusses the altercations between Newton and Hooke, and Newton and Leibniz. Merton suggests that the current system is mostly good in that it encourages original thinking, but that it can fail when the desire for reward outweighs everything else. Fraud, ... middle of paper ... Furthermore, there is an indirect incentive for scientists to avoid excessive jargon and technical language if they want to attract the general population to certain projects. I believe that if scientists had a financial interest in the education of the general population, and if the general population felt more involved, then we could implement many scientific projects considered unprofitable by businesses. Shelved products, old patents and long-term projects could find a home in this type of structure. The public finds going to Mars exciting, and companies don't see much potential for financial gain. The potential impacts of operating systems on the world are many, far-reaching, and beyond the scope of this document. But if the money raised for Restore the Shore is any indication, then perhaps the public would be very supportive of these types of projects.