Granted, the merit of some of the awards is questionable, but I think e.g.: Nash's work on game theory or Kahneman/Tvservky's on the pyschology of judgment definitely fall under the umbrella of "science".
Turing wasn't nearly as well known as he is now. The cryptoanalysis of the Enigma remained classified until the early 1970s, long after the Turing award was established (the first award was given in 1966).
No, a newly named award shouldn't really have any existing clout associated with it, and can make it's own reputation. The Turing award is not treated like a nobel prize by pretty much anyone, though it is respected.
Economics decided that kind of thing, say a "Smith award" wouldn't get them enough clout, so better to abuse a brand name for it's value. How classic.
Very interesting examples. For Nash, Von Neumann contributions to the field were orders of magnitude more important. For Kahneman and Tversky let's not forget that the foundations are quite shaky to quote [0]
