For Sale: One Nobel Prize Medal (Slightly Used, By Francis Crick)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

For Sale: One Nobel Prize Medal (Slightly Used, By Francis Crick)

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @04:28AM from the but-where-would-you-put-it? dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "UPI reports that for the first time in the history of Nobel Prize, one of the Nobel Prize medals, along with the diploma presented by the Nobel committee, is on auction — with an opening bid of $250,000. Awarded to Francis Crick, who along with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1962 'for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material,' the medal will be auctioned off in New York City, by Heritage Auctions. The medal has been kept in a safe deposit box in California since Crick's widow passed away in 2007 and a portion of the proceeds will go to the Francis Crick Institute of disease research scheduled to open in London in 2015. '"By auctioning his Nobel it will finally be made available for public display and be well looked after. Our hope is that, by having it available for display, it can be an inspiration to the next generation of scientists," says Crick's granddaughter, Kindra Crick. "My granddad was honored to have received the Nobel Prize, but he was not the type to display his awards; his office walls contained a large chalkboard, artwork and a portrait of Charles Darwin."'"

179 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Portion of the proceeds? by AuralityKev · 2013-02-26 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

When I see things like these, especially with grandkids as the spokespeople, it just makes me think it's a cash grab. It's not due to any "inspirational" mojo behind hanging it up somewhere. If that were the case, they should just donate it outright, and maybe have people pay a couple bucks a gander, and toss that to the Francis Crick Institute. Not "a portion" of the proceeds, which could be $10 on a potential windfall.
1. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by oodaloop · 2013-02-26 04:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Portions can be represented as fractions, and 0/0 is a fraction, right?
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
2. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 04:42 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Has anyone ever in the history of history ever sold anything ever for what ever reason ever not been inclined to see a profit? You're right, outright donations are the only safe way to save face.
3. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by pablo.cl · 2013-02-26 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  0/1 is a fraction. 0/0 is not.
4. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by ledow · 2013-02-26 04:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  To be honest, Crick was a bit of a git anyway (and Watson wasn't exactly what you might call a gentleman). They basically stole someone else's unpublished scientific work to confirm their own data (mainly, it has to be said, because she was only a woman) and without which they'd have ended up with entirely the wrong model. They were loathe to credit her, even after her death, even though others did.
  Not saying they *didn't* do a lot of the work, but without her observations, comments, and years of working on data, they'd have been lost for quite a while longer than they were.
5. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by mjr167 · 2013-02-26 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Actually it is. A fraction involves two integers. 0 is an integer, so 0/0 is a fraction. Depending on who you ask its value is either 0, infinity, or undefined.
6. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Nobel-Prize-of-DNA-pioneer-to-go-under-hammer-22022013.htm
  says 1/5.
7. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by CannonballHead · 2013-02-26 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Or FILE_NOT_FOUND.
8. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Stormwatch · 2013-02-26 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  You just divided by zero, OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
9. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  So what's your point? Why shouldn't they see some cash from it? The nobel means nothing to them; they didn't earn it.
  I'd do the same. I mean, shit, I can only stare at if for so long, and if you think I'm going to give away the equivalent of $250K or more, you gotta be fucking joking.
10. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by ah.clem · 2013-02-26 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, cash grab. No real content in this post, I just hate fucking "family" that does this shit. Just admit you're doing it for the cash, fuckers.
  
  --
  "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
11. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Feyshtey · 2013-02-26 05:23 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Perhaps the family of Dr. Crick reexamined the value of a Nobel Prize when a Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded to Barack Obama for simply promising to be a nice guy, sans any actual significant personal accomplishments in humanitarian arenas. In many ways the Nobel Prize has become somewhat of a joke, even if one were to discount the award presented to President Obama.
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
12. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  If that was the case, they would have sold it off when they gave one to Kissinger, decades ago.
  Or did you only notice that the Peace Prize is a political token when they gave one out to somebody you don't like?
  In any case, the Peace Prize is determined by a whole separate committee from the real Nobels, precisely because it's nonsense.
13. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Graydyn+Young · 2013-02-26 05:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  For those wondering who this post is referring to, that would be Rosalind Franklin.
14. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:29 · Score: -1
  
  Did they steal from her because she was a woman or because she simply was ahead of them in the race?
15. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A fraction involves two integers.
  True.
  
  0 is an integer
  True.
  
  so 0/0 is a fraction.
  False.
  The denominator of a fraction must be nonzero. A fraction is a number. N/0 is never a number, regardless of the value of N.
16. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by DerekLyons · 2013-02-26 05:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Indeed. It's pretty low to get all worked up about Watson & Crick's asshattery... and then not mention the individual involved.
17. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by neonKow · 2013-02-26 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  I agree on most points, but I'm pretty sure almost no one is going to pay money to look at a Nobel Prize.
18. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by PTBarnum · 2013-02-26 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This claim is, at best, controversial. Some people say that Rosalind's lab partner Maurice Wilkins gave her unpublished work to Watson and Crick without her permission; Watson and Crick say that it was in fact officially released by King's College. I'm not aware that Franklin herself ever stated that she had been robbed. Wilkins was included in the Nobel prize; presumably Franklin would have been also had she still been alive.
19. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by tnk1 · 2013-02-26 05:38 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Kissinger, like him or loathe him, actually DID something on the world stage BEFORE he got the award including the actual negotiation of peace accords, even though the accords ultimately failed to succeed.
  Obama was a not even inaugurated President-elect whose main achievement was being in the U.S. Senate for a couple of years and having one kickass campaign PR team.
  You can make a good argument why Kissinger was overrated, but I was absolutely stunned that Obama got an award not even for trying to bring peace, but simply promising to do so.
  The Peace Prize is definitely a different category of award than the others, and it has a tendency to become political due simply to the subject matter, but they used to at least point to actual work or achievements, the quality of those actions admittedly being up for argument.
20. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by jest3r · 2013-02-26 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  This Slashdot story paid for by Heritage Auctions ... hoping that at least one Slashdot reader has $250K to drop.
21. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Feyshtey · 2013-02-26 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Read my post again. Slowly.
  
  In many ways the Nobel Prize has become somewhat of a joke, even if one were to discount the award presented to President Obama.
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
22. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by WillyWanker · 2013-02-26 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, I think the same thing. It would be interesting to do some research on the granddaughter and see exactly where she is in life, and to find out exactly how much she plans on "donating" and how much she plans on pocketing. Cause stunts like this always seem shady to me.
23. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by interkin3tic · 2013-02-26 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I'm not aware that Franklin herself ever stated that she had been robbed.
  According to wiki and whoever they cite, she probably wasn't aware her data was used and died before she would have found that out.
24. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, cash grab it may be. But you say it likes it is a bad thing.
  If your grandfather died and left you $250,000 would you donate it all to charity?
  This is no different.
25. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Charliemopps · 2013-02-26 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  It's hers to sell. She shouldn't have to justify it to you or anyone else. You're an ass for suggesting that she should. Being neither a member of the family or the Nobel comity, it's none of your damned business.
26. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Depending on who you ask its value is either 0, infinity, or undefined.
  And depending on who you ask, some might even say the value of it is, "Why are you asking me that question?" or, "Piss off."
  Otherwise, those that are answering zero or infinity are either wrong, or working in a special context where they don't mind if some basic concepts of arithmetic and algebra are broken in the name of some convenience.
27. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  There would probably be more controversy if she were still alive at the time the prize was awarded, as it is only allowed to be split up among three people. It is messy enough in recent times when deciding which three to award it to when you have a larger team that does acknowledge people's work.
28. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by the+gnat · 2013-02-26 06:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Perhaps the family of Dr. Crick reexamined the value of a Nobel Prize when a Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded to Barack Obama
  What exactly is the problem with you people who can't tell the difference between the Nobel Peace prize and the prizes for Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine? What makes you think the two categories have anything to do with one another, either administratively or politically? They could give the Peace prize to Bashar Assad this fall and it would still have zero relevance to the worth of the chemistry prize.
29. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it would help if you actually explained why you think the Nobel science prizes are a joke, instead of spending the majority of your post discussing Obama that wasn't apparently central to your point. As is, it looks like you are one of the people conflating the peace prize with the science prizes, regardless of the relevance of Obama to your point.
30. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Deliberate omission by OP, methinks.
31. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by j00r0m4nc3r · 2013-02-26 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, family should respect the wishes of their deceased. So if Crick or his widow wouldn't have cared if it was sold, fine. But remember this is a very very prestigious scientific award, and was most likely valued very highly by Crick and his wife (note they never sold it but instead passed it down to their kids). I suspect that Crick would sort of be rolling around in his grave from this which makes it, not wrong, but bad karma for sure. These are the kinds of family heirlooms that are impossible to replace, come around once every few hundred years, and add a really cool sense of heritage and pride for following generations in the family. Personally I would rather have grandpa's NOBEL FUCKING PRIZE on my mantel than some bullshit car or boat in the driveway... If nothing else, it would make a really cool conversation piece.
32. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Jiro · 2013-02-26 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  250000 can buy more than a car in the driveway. Would you rather have grandpa's Nobel Prize than, oh, a college education? Or an expensive medical treatment?
33. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by wiredlogic · 2013-02-26 06:46 · Score: 2
  
  None of the Nobel committee's failings are Obama's fault. He was stuck accepting a prize any reasonable man would rather not receive. It boils down to a bunch of Europeans infatuated with a new magic negro.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
34. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by SternisheFan · 2013-02-26 07:05 · Score: -1
  
  This again?!! C'mon, Obama got the peace prize because he gave people of the U.S. and the entire world "hope" for the future. And he's done a damn good job, so far (IMO and of many others.) From wikianswers
  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Barack_Obama_win_the_Nobel_Peace_Prize
  According to Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland, "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate... Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."
  Jagland highlighted that the Committee was especially influenced by a speech Obama gave to reach out to the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009, as well as the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.
  Some believe that Barack Obama has not done anything to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Here are some opinions from Answers.com contributors who believe that Obama should not have won the Prize:
  There has been no intervention on a huge scale by Obama. He has not curtailed any aggressive actions by any foreign state, or even his own. In fact he has increased military actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan. He has not been long on the international circuit and has no international reputation as a peacemaker.
  In the past, winners have spent many years of dedicated service to achieve the honour, or have used high office for the furtherance of peace. President Obama has done neither of these.
  Obama himself has stated that he does not feel he deserved the award, and that it must be spiritually shared by all the other nominees, but also not "as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," and "as a call to action --- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century." He plans to donate the full US$1.4 million monetary award to charity.
  Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naive for accepting a young politician's promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason... 'We want to embrace the message that he stands for.'"
  The Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang has later reported that Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises. It also said the representative of the Conservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections. The choice for Obama was however strongly supported by committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck, both representatives of the Labour Party.
  In his will, Alfred Nobel left little to guide those who award the prize. Besides directing that it be awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament (though Nobel was a Swede), Nobel said only that it should be given to the person who "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." By October 2009, when the prize was awarded to him after less than nine months in office, few would argue that President Obama had qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize -- or any other -- even under such nebulous terms. Indeed, the announcement was something of a surprise in most circles, including the president's own. Obama himself is quoted as saying, "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments." It should
35. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by tnk1 · 2013-02-26 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I don't believe that the award reflects on Obama himself. If they gave me the award, I'd scratch my head, but probably accept it. I mean, why not?
  Still, it does reflect on a new, and pretty serious low for the award selection itself, because when it comes down to it, Obama had not done much more than any normal person specifically for the cause of peace. There are numerous movie and rock stars who have done demonstrably more concrete things for peace than Obama had done at that point (and potentially even now into his second term).
36. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  It was a preemptive action to try to make sure he would actually promote peace.
37. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 07:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's simple, really. He was awarded the prize as a gigantic, "fuck you, good riddance" to the Bush Administration.
  It doesn't say anything good about the award or the institution. In fact, I imagine that Obama would (privately) say the same.
38. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Which is even more ridiculous
39. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by PoolOfThought · 2013-02-26 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe the boat your imagining and the car you're picturing just aren't nice enough.
  
  Then again, I'm not sure how that's would even be a possibility considering that college education you have in mind should cost that same $250k.
  
  I think the thing to keep in mind is somewhat more akin to what jooromancer conveying. If grandpa didn't care, then do what you will, but realize that it can't be undone. If grandpa did care, then at least TRY to honor those wishes rather than piss something so valuable away on goodies for yourself. And yes, the boat, the cars, and the education (at your prices) are all pissing it away.
  
  That being said, to be quite honest, I'm certain that Grandma and Grandpa, both having likely lived through very depressed economies would be quite pleased to know that based on their work their children's children SHOULD never have to experience that again. I would guess that if they sell it and do something good with the money that actually HELPS their family tree, then everyone would be pleased. It would actually be a happy story instead of something about which to gossip.
  
  --
  My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
40. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Feyshtey · 2013-02-26 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  What's the problem with people like you who assume that the only blunders in the Nobel awards have been for the Peace prize? There are 4 listed here for chemistry rizes alone, and dozens more in areas other than the peace prize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
41. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Feyshtey · 2013-02-26 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe it would help if you actually investigated anything for yourself rather than believing in an out-dated group that has morphed into something largely political. Here's the easy version for you, if you care to educate yourself before spouting off like a moron again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
42. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Feyshtey · 2013-02-26 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It says everything about the award, and the current state of the institution. To give the award to a person who has not earned it simply to say "fuck you" to anyone else for any reason shows a disregard for the spirit of the award, not to mention childish petulence. If your reason for the award is accurate then its even more appauling than simply because they bought into propoganda about Obama's intentions rather than judging the man on his actions. Even if everything Obama said he would bring were found to be completely true in the future, the FUTURE is the time to present the award, after a validation of the promises.
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
43. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by PoolOfThought · 2013-02-26 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Apologies for all the grammar craziness at the beginning of that post. I went back and forth on how to say it and managed to leave several words and bits of punctuation in there that don't belong.
  
  However, I did want to add something. I think this person should be able to spend her money on whatever she wants. After all, it is hers. We might still gossip about it, but it's hers and if she wants to buy $250000 worth of rubber duckies then so be it. I'm sure the rubber ducky manufacturer will be quite happy with that decision even if the president of the local university is not. My comment was meant to point out what I think would be nice and what the original owners would like to see happen with the proceeds, but it was not meant to imply that I think that I should have any say at all or that she should give a damn what anyone else thinks about it.
  
  --
  My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
44. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by maxwell+demon · 2013-02-26 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I would rather have grandpa's NOBEL FUCKING PRIZE on my mantel than some bullshit car or boat in the driveway...
  I didn't know that there's also a Nobel prize for fucking. How do they determine the laureates?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
45. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Rhacman · 2013-02-26 08:16 · Score: 2
  
  You are correct if you are referring to rational numbers. A fraction in the most general sense need not be comprised of two integers, for instance SQRT(2) / 2 is a fraction.
  
  --
  Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
46. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by maxwell+demon · 2013-02-26 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's hers to sell. She shouldn't have to justify it to you or anyone else. You're an ass for suggesting that she should. Being neither a member of the family or the Nobel comity, it's none of your damned business.
  So you are saying that he is not or should not be allowed to express his opinion on this? I for one would not want to live in a land where you cannot do that.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
47. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's different because the Norwegians run it. Ever since the days of the vikings, they haven't really 'gotten' peace.
48. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Richy_T · 2013-02-26 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Also never credited for her inventions of the stove, electricity and mints.
49. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by davester666 · 2013-02-26 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Abort, Retry, Reboot?
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
50. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by the+gnat · 2013-02-26 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  You mentioned Obama's Peace prize, not me. If you think the controversies surrounding various science prizes devalue the award, you should have said that instead of pointing to irrelevancies. I'm guessing you had never heard of these other controversies until you Googled them just now; they're generally of interest to science geeks and ignored by the general public. (Except for the time when Damadian made an ass of himself - buying a full-page ad in the NYT tends to attract attention.)
51. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  0/0 is either SIGSEGV or NaN (not a number), and as such, not a fraction.
52. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-02-26 09:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well, it was just some chick after all.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
53. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by BZ · 2013-02-26 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  > I mean, why not?
  Well, if you think the way the award is being given is not ok.
  It's certainly been done with Nobel prizes in the past, including the Peace Prize (admittedly, there are only two instances of people refusing a Nobel of their own volition).
54. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you for answering the question with something actually relevant at least. If you consider the controversies listed on wikipedia as the essence of your reasoning that the science award is a joke, then it is pretty easy to dismiss your opinion of meaningless. The physics prize is still considered pretty relevant and not a joke among the physicists I've worked with, even in recent years, and I've heard similar sentiments among a few friends that work in chemistry. That is not the same as saying that the prizes are without controversy and that there has and will continue to be problems, in part due to the limit of splitting the prize among three people.
  If you had just said these were your reasons and stuck to the relevant topic of the science prize in the first place, you could have save everyone a lot of time and we could have moved on...
55. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  To count all controversies as "blunders" seems to be a rather big assumption on your part that every controversy was a clear failing on the Nobel committee's part... Additionally, considering nearly all of them are a question of who best to award for a particular work or questioning if someone left out was slightly better than those picked, that is a whole lot different than and not really comparable to the much larger issue of giving a prize to someone who did nothing.
56. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Darinbob · 2013-02-26 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Wha'ts wrong with it? How is this different from selling the family house after the parents are deceased? Or selling the vintage auto that dad took so much care of? Or selling off the antiques that have been in the family for generations?
  A medal's not too big though. So the choices are either to keep it in a drawer forever, give it to someone else, or sell it to someone else. If you can sell it and much of the money goes to support the institute, then that's a good thing. If you can keep some of the money and help the kids get to college, then that's not a bad thing either.
  When you win your Nobel prize then you are allowed to dictate in your will what your heirs are allowed to do with it when you pass on.
57. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Raenex · 2013-02-26 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  He was stuck accepting a prize any reasonable man would rather not receive.
  I would have had tremendous respect if Obama had refused the prize and insisted that they give it to somebody more deserving.
58. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Obfuscant · 2013-02-26 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Wha'ts wrong with it? How is this different from selling the family house after the parents are deceased?
  I think the objection is not to the sale itself, but to the alleged motive for the sale. Selling one's inheritance is not objectionable, unless you do it under the pretense of funding a philanthropic institute with "part of the proceeds" to get the sales price higher.
59. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-26 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I would rather have grandpa's NOBEL FUCKING PRIZE on my mantel than some bullshit car or boat in the driveway
  Another wealthy slashdotter who seems put on this earth for the sole reason of making me feel poor. The only thing you can think of to do with a quarter of a million dollars is buy a boat, or even more improbably, a car? How about a fucking house?! Or how about enough money to live on without working for the rest of your life? I know being rich warps your perspective, but please at least try to realize that most of the rest of the world is thinking more in terms of food and rent and basic survival than buying new yacht or Ferrari. Christ. The grandkids may be spitting on grandad's grave, but let's at least admit that 250k represents quite a generous inheritance and to most of the world far more than most people will ever make in their entire lives. Hell, I'm an American and it would still take me about 20 years to earn that much. The interest alone on that much money is enough for most single people to live on for their entire lives.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
60. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-26 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Would you rather have grandpa's Nobel Prize than, oh, a college education? Or an expensive medical treatment?
  If you have a quarter of a million USD you don't need a college education. You can just retire right out of high school.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
61. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-02-26 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Any normal person, yes. For a sitting president, it is unseemly in the best, most deserving of cases. For something like that, taking part in a massive slap of George Bush's face, no matter how well deserved, was beneath the presidency.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
62. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by HornWumpus · 2013-02-26 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  1/4 million at 5% generates $12,500/year in income. You'll be living like a fucking king.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
63. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by HornWumpus · 2013-02-26 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sucks to be you. You seem to think 12.5K is big money.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
64. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-02-26 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wha'ts wrong with it? How is this different from selling the family house after the parents are deceased?
  I think the objection is not to the sale itself, but to the alleged motive for the sale. Selling one's inheritance is not objectionable, unless you do it under the pretense of funding a philanthropic institute with "part of the proceeds" to get the sales price higher.
  Exactly. This. It's just so bloody disingenuous. If I want to give $50K to charity, I'll give 50K to charity. But I sure as hell won't pay someone 200K just for the privilege of being allowed to donate.
  Sell, or donate. It's as disingenuous as the bottles of stupidly overpriced designer waters that advertise themselves by saying they will give a penny to building wells in Africa for every £3 bottle you buy...
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
65. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by mbkennel · 2013-02-26 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Crick didn't need to sell it, as he could get paid fairly well.
  He had the only reserved parking spot at the Salk Institute. His car had the greatest personalized plate in history: ACTG
  Well through 2003-2004 he frequently attended grad students' and postdoc's seminars. Asked good but very tough questions.
66. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by aardvarkjoe · 2013-02-26 10:38 · Score: 2
  
  Well, family should respect the wishes of their deceased.
  This is by no means a universally held belief. I tend to think that the wishes of someone who is dead are irrelevant -- because once they're dead, they're not in any position to care about it anyway.
  Sure, I'd probably hang on to grandpa's Nobel Prize too -- but I don't think that their family has some moral obligation to do so. Maybe they feel that the knowledge that their ancestor won the prize is of more importance than the physical artifact.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
67. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-02-26 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet head of state and dedicated communist who conducted the final stages of the Cold War against the U.S. and other NATO countries, received the prize in 1990.
  Mikhail Gorbachev, who ended the Cold War, you mean? Do the words "perestroika" or "glasnost" ring any bells?
  Yes, he was a leftie, but he genuinely sought out peace.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
68. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by FleaPlus · 2013-02-26 12:23 · Score: 2
  
  It's also worth noting that Francis Crick wished to give Rosalind Franklin greater credit, but didn't due to the personality conflicts between Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin:
  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/11/03/rosalind-franklin-and-dna-how-wronged-was-she/
  
  Moreover, she became great close friends with Watson and with Crick. But sheâ(TM)s unlikelyâ"if in fact she felt they had stolen her discovery. She must have known that they were using her data because there were no other dataâ"her data are acknowledged in Crickâ(TM)s paper. And again, in the second paper he published in Nature a month later. What prevented Crick from giving a much fairer acknowledgment to Rosalind Franklin in the original Nature paper, which he wished to do, was that he to negotiate this with Wilkins.
  So in his original draft is, he says, "We thank Rosalind Franklin for her beautiful uh photo of DNA," which makes quite clear that this was what he was relying on. Now, at Wilkinsâ(TM) suggestion he crossed out the phrase "beautiful photo." So it was not an adequate acknowledgment but it was a very different story than stealing her discovery, which is the way it has been portrayed.
  Elkin: Nicholas, you are absolutely right. There was an earlier, more accurate acknowledgment. It wasnâ(TM)t to Franklin, it was to Wilkins and Franklin and it did say "very beautiful photographs" which only meant Franklinâ(TM)s. And Wilkins was the one who crossed it out. There are actually six drafts. Very interesting to see that.
  And also to see how weak, false, even the first two or three were, before Wilkins got it to decimate it more compared to the draft they wrote about the first model, where they very very clearly acknowledged Franklin.
69. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-26 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's more than I make now albeit only slightly. Lots of people make less than that. In fact most of the world makes less than that. Far, far less. And you can live like a king on that much in many places. Nice places too. You just have to leave the womb to do it. Of course if someone wants to spend their whole life as a wage slave corporate lackey company man only to be fired when they get over the hill then that's fine, but when you've got a quarter mil it's a choice not a necessity. Very, very few people have the luxury of such a choice even in the US.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
70. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-26 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well to most of the world it is big money. And, actually, $12,500 really does seem like a lot of money to me as well. You can buy a half decent new car for about that much. And as an annual income it's actually not too bad even in the US. More than minimum wage I think.
  Maybe compared to you it does suck to be me, but what can I say? Just that we can't all be rich. Someone has to clean your toilets and follow your barked orders with downcast eyes. Still, I don't envy all rich people. Some have awful jobs that just pay well.
  IMO looks are far more important to a happy life than money anyway. Unfortunately I am one ugly son of a bitch as well and it's not because I got old and fat (although I have). I was ugly even as a kid. So yeah I got screwed on all counts. I did once meet a guy in Jakarta who grew up homeless and eating out of trash cans and that does put things in perspective for me. I guess we all have someone to make us feel lucky.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
71. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  That is actually 20% less than full time minimum wage, and just a few dollars above the threshold for a single person to qualify for food stamps. It is a livable amount in the US, I know, because I've been there before. But that was when I was single, and splitting rent at a place with several other people. It is much harder to support a significant other on something like that, and you have to hope you don't have any medical expenses and have to be careful what part of the country you live in. But if you are already going to pick places to live, you can find places with better job opportunities, where even some part time work or one off jobs can bring in more money a year than that.
  And that $12.5k is assuming you can actually get 5% these days without much risk (and without special skills and knowledge that could otherwise potentially qualify you for a job...).
  I don't know why you seem to discuss this though like it is an either/or, false dichotomy thing. You could continue to work, and keep it around gaining interest for retirement, or as a safety net when you have problems between jobs, or as a buffer to allow you to be more selective about jobs. You would get a lot more mileage out of it that way.
72. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  an out-dated group that has morphed into something largely political.
  You realize that the various prizes named after Nobel are actually given out by four different organizations? It is not a single group. This is why people are complaining about your response, because you keep acting like it is a single body with a single set of issues and motivations. There are four different organizations, and while they are not perfect, there is a huge difference in the issues they have.
73. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by the+gnat · 2013-02-26 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, and furthermore, while some of these controversies are not without merit, there is zero evidence that any of the science prizes (at least within my lifetime) were awarded for political reasons, unlike the Peace prize. (Some people have claimed that Raymond Damadian was denied the prize because he's a young-earth creationist, but I think it's more likely that we was denied it because he'd pissed off too many people in general.)
74. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2013-02-26 14:22 · Score: 2
  
  Moving those goalposts around must be pretty tiring. Why don't you take a rest?
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
75. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-26 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  Did you read them? All four of the chemistry ones are related to controversies about whether (all) the right people were properly credited for important advances. Did this person's work constitute the discovery, or was it this person who really launched the new field? None of them are on par with vagueness or political motivation of the peace prizes, which have been given to attempted coup leaders, terrorists, random people like Obama and Al Gore, for popularizing global warming.
76. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by SternisheFan · 2013-02-26 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet head of state and dedicated communist who conducted the final stages of the Cold War against the U.S. and other NATO countries, received the prize in 1990.
  Mikhail Gorbachev, who ended the Cold War, you mean? Do the words "perestroika" or "glasnost" ring any bells?
  Yes, he was a leftie, but he genuinely sought out peace.
  I remember it quite well, and I do admire Mr. Gorbachev for his good work for his people. He saw and knew change was necessary, and at great personal risk made it happen. Both he and Obama are politicians who knew/know that to effect change, the politcal game needs to be played, in order to be effective leaders.
  P.S. That was a straight copy/paste by me of the wiki-answers page, and not me personally writing it. It does have a bit of someone's personal bias in it. Didn't mean to go off-topic by posting it, just rebutting the view of the other poster. I just felt someone should answer back to the anti-Obama slant he has. And, my poor posting is modded down by some President Obama haters, how sad for them...
77. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  His car had the greatest personalized plate in history: ACTG
  Ah hem, personalized plate was AT GC
78. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 18:14 · Score: 0
  
  It says everything about the award, and the current state of the institution
  Yes, that says a lot about the current state of the institution, key word being institution as opposed to institutions. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has done some dumb things before and continue to demonstrate they will probably do so again. However, this is all rather off-topic, as it is irrelevant to the Karolinska Institutet that is in charge of selection for the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine.
79. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah. I just checked. You're right about minimum wage. At least in my state. But that's only if you're talking about gross pay. I was thinking net after income taxes. After all, the 250k is assumed to be net. The 12.5k really should be as well. So it's really around 16k/year gross pay that nets you around 12.5k after federal and state income taxes etc.
  Of course you could continue to work, but the point is you don't have to. You could retire at any time. Quit any job you didn't like any time you want. That 250k puts you in a class above the vast majority of the human population on this planet. You can work if you want to but you don't have to.
  Yeah, it is hard to live on that in the US if you have a wife who doesn't work and some kids to support. For that sort of thing the sky's the limit. You can almost never have enough money for that. But even there you could always just move to one of the many countries with a much lower cost of living and then you could afford the whole wife and 2 kids thing.
80. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by sFurbo · 2013-02-26 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  The only way I am aware of that 0/0 can make sense is by applying L'Hôpital's rule, where the value depends on which two function you choose to divide.
81. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by mjr167 · 2013-02-27 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  You can express it as the limit of 0/x as x->0. Since your numerator is 0, you end up with 0 from both directions and there is no inconsistency.
  Generally only mathematicians care :)
82. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah. If the grandkid wanted the medal looked after she could just DONATE it to a museum.
  Somebody has been watching too much Pawn Stars.
83. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  You can express it as the limit of 0/x as x->0. Since your numerator is 0, you end up with 0 from both directions and there is no inconsistency.
  You can extend a theory in which 0 / 0 is not defined by defining it to be any (one) value you like and the theory will remain consistent. The same goes for a / 0 for any a. The question is: what can be deduced as a result?
  Your justification is unnecessary and is limited to defining 0 / 0 rather than a / 0 for any a. I would be interested to know whether that is helpful. There's no point in adding such a definition if it doesn't help. For example, some people like to define, for all a, a / 0 = 0 because this then allows caveats to be dropped from theorems such as
  x * (y / z) = (x * y) / z
  In a typical arithmetic theory, the above theorem would quantify over non-zero values of z. In the presence of a / 0 = 0, we have x * (y / 0) = (x * y) / 0, so the above would be a theorem without such a caveat on z. This is useful when programming computers to check proofs automatically.
84. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Paradise+Pete · 2013-02-27 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  It was a preemptive action to try to make sure he would actually promote peace.
  How's that working out?
85. Re:Portion of the proceeds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  well, he did say he was going to do something soon
In other words by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 04:36 · Score: 0

A quarter of a million dollars will pay for a lot of trips to Harrod's, past and present.
For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2013-02-26 04:39 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Opening bid: $0.01
They're not worth even that, after Obama got his for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens.

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
1. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by ganjadude · 2013-02-26 04:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That was the "peace" prize. This is the science prize. Big difference
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
2. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by gandhi_2 · 2013-02-26 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  Once upon a time, someone *might* have argued that they both had to be earned, and not handed out lightly or for political purposes.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
3. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by donscarletti · 2013-02-26 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They're not worth even that, after Obama got his for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens.
  Well, he got it for being elected, if they want to give him a prize for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens then they're going to have to give him another.
  Tom Lehrer famously said that political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's been more or less a joke since well before that.
  Though it is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee which has different standards and values to Karolinska Institutet or Swedish Academy of Science.
  
  --
  When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
4. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by DarthVain · 2013-02-26 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't Nobel the guy that invented TNT explosives?
  Yes there are non-military uses for explosives, but still. Since the inception it seems a bit skechy to me.
  Probably saved a lot of migrant worker lives who didn't have to use a glass vial of nitro for mining I am sure, but then also used to blow up people in times of war also. Could say the same about atomic research I suppose. It is all about how it is applied I suppose.
  However somethings are a little more "peaceful" than others.
5. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  He invented dynamite as I recall; not sure about TNT.
  The story is that a paper mistakenly published his obituary in which he read "Alfred Nobel, a guy who invented great methods of blowing people up". He was appalled and determined to use his wealth so that future generations would remember him for other reasons.
6. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by cbhacking · 2013-02-26 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'm amazed you know that much, and yet are apparently still so ignorant. The idea was that dynamite (NOT TNT; they aren't the same thing) and the other munitions he invented would be a terrible thing to be remembered for (an obituary accidentally published prior to his death did in fact make a great deal out of his works in the field of armaments (calling him "the merchant of death"). He established the prizes, donating the vast majority of his estate to the purpose, as a way to further the causes of progress and peace.
  It's been claimed that he (as many people before and after would think, of similar inventions) actually hoped dynamite would make war *too* costly, so that nobody would dare engage in it. I haven't found proper citation for that, though. So far, the only weapon to come close to that has been atomic bombs on long-range missiles, which have deterred war only between superpowers.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
7. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2013-02-26 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Guess what. I was fully aware of that, karma whore.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
8. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2013-02-26 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, he got it for being elected, if they want to give him a prize for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens then they're going to have to give him another.
  I argue that NPP encouraged him to sustain and extend genocidal activity, thus making his prize "for" that activity, like a grant.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
9. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2013-02-26 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Read up on the discoveries in question. You just might discover it wasn't Watson and Crick who actually made them.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
10. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by Sigg3.net · 2013-02-26 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  There are many personal pet projects in the Peace Prize committee, Obama and the EU was trumped through the group by Jagland.
  (EU is at least a worthy contender, regardless of the current status, though the timing is of course right.)
  The way I understand the Obama prize, Jagland interpreted the will with emphasis on the inspiration towards peace efforts, a property which Obama is ascribed in most of Europe. So when people ask what Obama did to deserve it, the answer is that he inspired the masses in a way beneficial to peace.
  A pretty weak justification IMHO.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
11. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by DarthVain · 2013-02-27 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure as to why you think I am ignorant. TNT and dynamite are clearly the same thing, AC/DC said so.
  As for the rest of your post about creating a "peace prize" so that he wouldn't be remembered as a "Merchant of Death" only proves my point rather than refuting it.
  As to how stabalized explosives makes war too costly, I am not sure how that really works. It is essentially a safer way as far as a delivery system to transport a big chemical explosion somewhere (well safer anyway but not foolproof as seen in the Halifax Explosion).
12. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by ganjadude · 2013-02-28 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  you responded to me regarding your BS answer...and who is the karma whore again???
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
13. Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2013-02-28 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  No, I responded to you regarding YOUR bullshit. You.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Nobel and money by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 04:40 · Score: 0

I wish scientists had money to set up research institutes, hospitals, and universities.
I'm going to buy it and melt it down by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 04:43 · Score: 0

Then I'll mix it into a drink, consume it and gain his wisdom.
That's how DNA works, right?
1. Re:I'm going to buy it and melt it down by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Get it bronzed instead.
2. Re:I'm going to buy it and melt it down by Runaway1956 · 2013-02-26 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  You'd probably do better by digging him up, and sucking the marrow from his bones. Some folks might object to that idea. Defiling the dead and cannibalism are pretty much taboo in our world.
  Geeez, that idea poses a science question, doesn't it? How long after you die is the marrow in your bones fit to eat? I mean - does it dry up? Does it crumble to powder? Is it destroyed during the embalming? That's probably it. They put that stuff into you to destroy the marrow, thereby preventing you from becoming a zombie.
  Don't like my idea? Offer a better one. My curiosity isn't piqued enough to go look it up.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
3. Re:I'm going to buy it and melt it down by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-02-26 10:51 · Score: 2
  
  Naw... Zombies don't need marrow. It's when you're reanimating skeletons that you need to start thinking about that. Not that I'd know, because I don't practice the dark art of necromancy.
  (Igor, do you think I got away with that, or do I now need to unleash my undead hordes on the Slashdot readership?)
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Kindra Check? by c0d3g33k · 2013-02-26 04:45 · Score: 0

"Our hope is that, by having it available for display, it can be an inspiration to the next generation of scientists," says Crick's granddaughter, Kindra Check."
It's Kindra "Crick".
Proofreading much?
You know, I've been mostly ignoring the Timothy bashing that goes on here, but now I'm starting to get it. Timothy, please try a little harder. Hugh Pickens? The same - sloppy.
1. Re:Kindra Check? by crazyjj · 2013-02-26 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Next time, he should check.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
2. Re:Kindra Check? by c0d3g33k · 2013-02-26 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  LOL. Maybe the crick in his neck distracted him from checking?
3. Re:Kindra Check? by Baloroth · 2013-02-26 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  The typo is in TFA as well, so I'm not sure proofreading would have helped. It is, after all, quite possible her name actually is Kindra Check (it isn't, I checked).
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
4. Re:Kindra Check? by war4peace · 2013-02-26 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they haven't cricked, erm CHECKED it thoroughly.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
5. Re:Kindra Check? by c0d3g33k · 2013-02-26 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I called out Hugh Pickens as well. After I double checked to make sure I was correct. This is some sloppy shiznit, because we're doing the job that the editor is supposed to be doing. Hugh may very well have made the original error, but it should have been caught by Timothy.
  *shakes head*. I don't know. After more than a decade as a slashdotter, I may just have to ask to have my account disabled and move on. This is just pathetic.
6. Re:Kindra Check? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Next time, he should Crick.
7. Re:Kindra Check? by c0d3g33k · 2013-02-26 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  The Timothy correction bot is hard at work - two errors I have noticed in today's posts have been corrected within minutes of each other. Yet no post of thanks from Timothy for noticing the discrepancies. I'm depressed.
8. Re:Kindra Check? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  She's English, so it should be Kindra Cheque.
Vegas Trip by Sparticus789 · 2013-02-26 04:46 · Score: 0

Pawn Stars would pay $50 for it.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
1. Re:Vegas Trip by tazan · 2013-02-26 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  More likely, he has 12 of them in the back they just aren't selling, and $20 to have it cleaned and $20 to have it framed, $10 tops.
2. Re:Vegas Trip by Sparticus789 · 2013-02-26 05:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You're right. It's unique and pretty neat. There's a great story to it. But it's not everyday that someone comes in to the shop looking for a Nobel Prize. It's gonna take up space on a shelf for years.
  
  --
  sudo make me a sandwich
3. Re:Vegas Trip by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-02-26 05:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I have a buddy who's an expert on Nobel Prize for Medicine medals. Let me give him a call.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
4. Re:Vegas Trip by azadrozny · 2013-02-26 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  It would be worth more if it wasn't personalized.
5. Re:Vegas Trip by iRommel · 2013-02-26 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  Best comment chain here, where are all my mod points :[
Finally available by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 04:47 · Score: -1

Finally available for public display? I don't recall anybody showing the slightest interest in seeing Francis Crick's Nobel medal.
Maybe they should ask MLK's family for advice on how to maximize the profit from something that they contributed nothing towards.
1. Re:Finally available by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  The MLK family is nothing compared to a Vulture Capitalist like Mitt Romney, who gets praised for maximizing his own profits out of other's works.
2. Re:Finally available by strikeleader · 2013-02-26 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, how dare he make money and provide employment. Doesn't he know that the government wants people to be slaves to the entitlement mentality and them provide them with all sorts of free stuff, penalize them for trying to break their shackles and blame the conservatives for not doing enough.
3. Re:Finally available by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-02-26 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, what? When you have a net worth in the hundreds of millions, that's money that you have, not somebody else. Economics is a zero-sum game: if someone is rich, that means several other people must be poor. A social welfare scheme provides a safety net to those with nothing -- it rarely provides them with a comfortable sum. I grew up in the UK, with its welfare state. I went to a high school with a massively underprivileged intake. You think the benefits disincentivised them from looking for work? Does that include the dinner tokens that the kids got so that they could have a decent lunch every day? When a fall in the playground became a disaster because their parents wouldn't be able to replace the torn jacket or trousers?
  I was never poor, but I've seen what it does to people, and believe me: benefits really aren't the source of the problem.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
4. Re:Finally available by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  ...Economics is a zero-sum game: if someone is rich, that means several other people must be poor....
  No it doesn't. I don't even know of any theoretical economic theory which suggests this. I suppose that the nearest you could get to it would be unreconstructed Marxist theory, and no one has believed that for 50 years or more...
5. Re:Finally available by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-02-27 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Modern economics is all just made up as we go along. Ever increasing house prices? Sure, why not! High risk loans? Yeah, no problem. It we break a million almost-definite-to-default loans into a million tiny little pieces, there's absolutely no risk!
  And many claim it was modern economics that sh@t all over democracy at the last UK general election. Minority government? Oh no, that would be bad for our credit rating, so the LibDems signed up to government that they (and more notably their voters) didn't believe in.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Scientists, sheesh. by argStyopa · 2013-02-26 04:47 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Crick may have been a brilliant microbiologist, but he certainly doesn't know shit about business.
Nobody's going to pay him $250,000 for a Nobel, when the last one was given away for nothing.
Silly, naive scientists.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Scientists, sheesh. by Sparticus789 · 2013-02-26 04:49 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  And this comment is well on the way to -1 Troll land. For being too honest.
  
  --
  sudo make me a sandwich
2. Re:Scientists, sheesh. by hazem · 2013-02-26 05:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Crick may have been a brilliant microbiologist, but he certainly doesn't know shit about business.
  Well, to be fair to Dr. Crick, he's been dead since 2004, so knowing much of anything is probably a pretty big challenge for him.
3. Re:Scientists, sheesh. by Remus+Shepherd · 2013-02-26 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  If he was a really brilliant microbiologist, death wouldn't have stopped him.
  
  --
  Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
4. Re:Scientists, sheesh. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  If he was a really brilliant microbiologist, death wouldn't have stopped him.
  I believe he's currently making breakthroughs in the decomposition of organic solids in a subterranian environment.
5. Re:Scientists, sheesh. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't help that in three lines, he managed to convey that: he likes to talk crap about scientists, didn't know Francis Crick had nothing to do with the decision to sell the prize, and that he can't tell the difference between the science and peace prizes.
  It was too honest... as in too honest of a display of his own stupidity and/or trolling.
6. Re:Scientists, sheesh. by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-02-26 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, microorganisms aren't exactly rocket scientists....
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
They can't be worth that much by Lucas123 · 2013-02-26 04:47 · Score: 0, Offtopic

After all, Obama was nominated for one just 12 days after he took office. They're handing them out like candy these days.
1. Re:They can't be worth that much by Westwood0720 · 2013-02-26 04:51 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  It's already been mentioned that Obummer's medal was for "peace". This is for science. There's a difference.
2. Re:They can't be worth that much by wisnoskij · 2013-02-26 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is totally not off topic, Obama's Nobel metal for not being Bush degraded the reputation of all Nobel prices.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
3. Re:They can't be worth that much by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  The only reason people think it degraded the reputation of all of them is because they get them mixed up. Considering the science and peace prizes are awarded by two different groups and they have different rules over who and what they can award them to, it is pretty off-topic to mix the two of them up. About all they have in common at this point is coming out of Scandinavia and having similar names due being started by the same guy. If you want to insist than they should all be treated together, you might as well say it degraded the Abel prize too, because that also came out of Norway.
4. Re:They can't be worth that much by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  This is totally not off topic, Obama's Nobel metal for not being Bush degraded the reputation of all Nobel prices.
  Including the one for spelling?
How much for the chalkboard? by crazyjj · 2013-02-26 04:50 · Score: 3, Funny

I'll give you $50!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Here's an idea for a portion of the proceeds by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 04:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Award them to the relatives of Rosalind Franklin.
Slightly used...? by MugenEJ8 · 2013-02-26 04:52 · Score: 1

Someone should have told him to stop trying to use it in vending machines...
Donate to the Rosalind Franklin Society by jestill · 2013-02-26 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

It would be great to buy this and donate it to the Rosalind Franklin Society ... http://www.rosalindfranklinsociety.org/

--
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" -- Homer
1. Re:Donate to the Rosalind Franklin Society by ledow · 2013-02-26 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  Start up a kickstarter and I'm in.
2. Re:Donate to the Rosalind Franklin Society by c0d3g33k · 2013-02-26 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Seconded.
3. Re:Donate to the Rosalind Franklin Society by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  Ms. Franklin or her relatives should be given one of their own. Franklin dies before it could be awarded -- as the Nobel Committee does not give them out posthumously - she did not get hers.
  They could change the Nobel rules... then O. Avery, Franklin and even Darwin could get one. Kidding aside, it was sad she died before she could be recognized.
Ms. Check by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 04:54 · Score: 0

Is getting a fat Check!
plus 4, TTroll) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 04:54 · Score: -1

balance is str0ck,
"available for public display"? by wisnoskij · 2013-02-26 05:01 · Score: 2

Are they restricting the bids to museums?
I see no where that private individual cannot buy this to add to their personal collection.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1. Re:"available for public display"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  I see no where that private individual cannot buy this to add to their personal collection.
  Maybe Lil Wayne can add it to his bling collection.
Stephen Colbert should buy it by dkleinsc · 2013-02-26 05:01 · Score: 4, Funny

That way, he'd be able to claim that he's a Nobel-holding doctor, rather than just a doctor!

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:Stephen Colbert should buy it by RivenAleem · 2013-02-26 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Screw Stephen, Sheldon's got his eyes on it!
2. Re:Stephen Colbert should buy it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  You realise it was only for biology?
3. Re:Stephen Colbert should buy it by tnk1 · 2013-02-26 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Sheldon would never buy someone else's Nobel. He's going for his own, obviously well-deserved award.
Auction Link? by wisnoskij · 2013-02-26 05:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Here is a link to the item, it is being auctioned off by Heritage Auctions: http://historical.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=6093&lotIdNo=50001

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1. Re:Auction Link? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you so much for the link. I have several hundred thousand dollars to throw around on something like that, but I just couldn't figure out how to do so!
2. Re:Auction Link? by skine · 2013-02-26 06:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Just in case there are other Nobel Prize winners looking to sell, there's a link of the page labeled "I Have One of These to Sell."
Free parking at UC Berkeley by BenSchuarmer · 2013-02-26 05:05 · Score: 1

That's gotta be worth something
1. Re:Free parking at UC Berkeley by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  That's gotta be worth something
  Every try to drive around here? More valuable than you know, buddy, more than you know.
Hey, what about makerbot? by cellocgw · 2013-02-26 05:35 · Score: 2

Poo on buying the medal: they should release the CAD data so we all can download and print our very own 3D copy.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
1. Re:Hey, what about makerbot? by Darinbob · 2013-02-26 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've had that idea for awhile, and we've got a high quality 3D printer at work.
Michael Mann by OakDragon · 2013-02-26 05:43 · Score: 2

Perhaps Michael Mann would be interested.

--
Dark Reflection
You know who's gonna buy it... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 05:56 · Score: 0

My money is on Craig Venter. Unlike Crick he loves to adorn his walls with his accomplishments. Sadly he's lacking this one.
Prize Money? by tompaulco · 2013-02-26 06:05 · Score: 2

If it comes with the Prize Money, I bid half a million.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This medal belongs at the Eagle pub by hotdiggity · 2013-02-26 06:15 · Score: 2

The Eagle Pub in Cambridge belongs to Corpus Christi College, and it is the place where Crick and Watson announced the helical DNA structure.
Corpus has the money; it could afford it. It's historically relevant, and I could think of nothing better than to hold a raise a pint in their honour.
And then maybe chase it bitterly with a bottle of Jack Daniels, in tribute to young Miss Rosalind Franklin from whom they stole so much.
1. Re:This medal belongs at the Eagle pub by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  It belongs in a museum!
A gift is a gift by avandesande · 2013-02-26 06:20 · Score: 1

You give something to somewhat they can do what they like with it. A lot more interesting prize is loaning an award to someone for a year- like the Stanley Cup.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
First Nobel auctioned? by D+H+NG · 2013-02-26 06:40 · Score: 2

Did the submitter even read the article? It clearly said that Aage Bohr's medal was sold last year.
Auction House Cut by DarthVain · 2013-02-26 06:51 · Score: 1

Could just be legalese to the effect that the auction house usually takes a percentage, but who really knows.
Not worth a plug nickel by p51d007 · 2013-02-26 07:22 · Score: -1

When they hand them out to the like of Obama & Algore....they are worthless
1. Re:Not worth a plug nickel by Westwood0720 · 2013-02-26 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Reading fails you.
  
  It's already been mentioned that Obummer's medal was for "peace". This is for science. There's a difference.
Questionable motivations. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 08:45 · Score: 0

Way too often these kinds of soapbox issues get blind support simply because the person "wronged" is/was female.
So many people's kneejerk response is "Oh, male chauvinist pigs deprived a woman of her rightful fame/fortune/glory/whatever? Typical!" without taking into account any of the true facts of the actual situation.
They were men, she was a woman, they got a Nobel, she didn't: WRONGNESS! And a guaranteed +5 up-mod on Slashdot.
If it was the other way around (male scientist "robbed" by female scientist) , you'd never hear anything about it. Not these days.
1. Re:Questionable motivations. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-26 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  Umm, there is quite a list of cases of complaints of people left out of Nobel prize awards, both male and female... in fact much more male complaints than female ones because there is (and was) still more men in those fields. Although some of them are not as big of a deal because the people who received the awards acknowledged the work of those that got them there, or in some cases could plausibly deny having any connection or having seen the previous work.
  In this case it has more to do with the lack of (or half-assed) acknowledgement from Crick, et. al. You can't really say they took the award from her anyways, considering she was dead by the time the prize was awarded, and the prize rules don't allow awarding it to deceased researchers.
Francis Crick - LSD use...? by xanadu113 · 2013-02-26 08:50 · Score: 1

Isn't this the guy who came up with the structure for DNA while on LSD?

--
-Myke
why would anyone want this at all? by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-26 10:14 · Score: 2

Why would anyone want it? It's not like they can somehow borrow the achievement that earned it by having it on their mantelpiece. Well I guess they could try to change the name to their own and tell anyone who will listen that they received a Nobel prize. What does the prize look like anyway? Maybe the granddaughter can just write in the name of the auction winner with magic marker or something. Maybe for 300,000+ she would be willing to cross out the other names as well so that you don't have to share the prize. I can't picture the kind of person who would want someone else's Nobel prize even for free let alone for 250k. It's sort of like buying someone else's university diploma.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
1. Re:why would anyone want this at all? by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-02-26 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but wouldn't (for example) Einstein's degree certificate be quite a status symbol?
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Dynamite! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 02:50 · Score: 0

Why would anyone want someone else's award?
Ultimate Geocoin by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-27 03:57 · Score: 0

Wow, the ultimate geocoin! http://geocaching.com/
NO! Must be destroyed. But _I_ need mayor HELP by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-28 03:44 · Score: 0

You just cannot let Nobel prize medals fall into any ONE not being a Nobel cause physical identification information for Nobel prize winners propagates slowly as the Nobel winners base increases, so ANYONE with some money can pass as The Winner to ANY ONE for enough time to SCAM! If not destroyed, it should revert to the Committe for a MUSEUM (or be recycled), probably AFTER some funds disclosing... [Portion of the proceedings cause mixed nationalities, but indeed, an assumption of value for genetic derivations of the winner]. I DEFINITELY need help to CLEAN UP Facebook and my internet communications. Glitches at every moment, people acting weird, I NEED HELP TO BE CERTAIN PEOPLE I CONTACT REMAIN THE SAME, ARE INDEPENDENT AND ARE NOT BEING BLOCKED BY FACEBOOK ITSELF or some personal agenda agent (psychopath). And that they are NOT being __assassinated__, what is the point of finding you indeed HAVE 20000+ direct and immediate relatives if NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD can stop an imbecile thief from tracking them and killing them? Not to mention new people, understanding I DO seek and find THE BEST OVERALL EVERYWHERE. What is Slashdot going to do to help here if what is at stake is the existence and freedom of the internet? And I do not mean one of the REPEATERS, I mean the REAL people who conceived all this.