Should there be an alternative to the Nobel Prize?

At Physics Focus, Tara Shears has a post that makes a similar suggestion to one that appeared in DTLR earlier this month, that a prize should be awarded for an accomplishment rather than a set of individuals.  Naturally my thinking is on the issue aligns well with hers.  One of the commenters to her post, John Duffield, pointed out that the Nobel committee is bound to obey the terms of Alfred Nobel's will, and that the suggestions of Shears and Sean Carroll (New York Times) should be applied to a new prize, not the Nobels.  I surely agree here too.  Thus, we'll always have the Nobels, warts and all, but their prestige will need to be rivaled by new prizes that better reflect the scientific process.  Will a benefactor step forward, wealthy but interested in reforming the reward system in science? Alternately, Science and other magazines usually publish a list of top 10 discoveries of the year or some such, and these put the focus on the achievements rather than the individuals.  Perhaps such lists, if suitably hyped up, could achieve what Carroll, Shears, and I are aiming for? 

Sabine Hossenfelder has an opposing view on the Nobel Prizes on her blog.  It consists of two lines of reasoning.  The first boils down to the following.

Giving such an honor to institutions is akin to doing away with private property in communism and believing that everybody cares for the well-being of the group as they do for their own. It doesn’t work because most people want to be recognized as individuals, not as members of collectives. That’s true also for scientists.

I found this an unexpected but quite thoughtful contribution to the conversation.  It is true that as a member of a 'collaboration', winning a prize is not exactly something one can place on one's CV.  Indeed, I found it inappropriate when individual members of the IPCC claimed to be "Nobel Laureates".  In any case, the Nobel Prizes will continue to propagate according to Alfred Nobel's will.  Perhaps having them co-exist with the Science list of top discoveries is both realistic and desirable.  The prestige and/or visibility of the Science list (or equivalent) just needs to be elevated to close to the level of the Nobel Prizes.  

I do think that this year's prize, which gave the short shrift to Kibble and robbed Brout because he had the ill fortune to die too young, still illustrate unresolved issues with the Nobel Prizes.  The Nobel committee probably would lose credibility for not recognizing in some way the discovery of the Higgs boson, but there are few good ways to do so within the constraints of Nobel's will.  Still, perhaps Kibble should have been given the third slot.  A precedent is the 2001 Nobel in Physics for Bose-Einstein condensation, which did not just go to Wieman and Cornell, who were the "first", but also to Ketterle, whose early work arguably went further than Wieman and Cornell's, but was published 4 months later.

Hossenfelder's second line of reasoning is that Nobel Laureates can be powerful spokespeople for their fields.  I don't find this one compelling.  Some of the leading spokespeople for physics are not Nobel Laureates, such as Stephen Hawking or Neil de Grasse Tyson.  These folks are much better known to the public than most living Nobel Laureates in physics.