Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

James Watson's Nobel Prize Medal Will Be Returned To Him

Posted by samzenpus on from the return-to-sender dept.

First time accepted submitter Dave Knott writes Following the recent auction of James Watson's Nobel Prize medal, the winning bidder will return the medal to Watson. The $4.7 million winning bid was made by Alisher Usmanov, Russia's wealthiest man, a metal and telecommunications tycoon worth $15.8 billion US. In remarks carried by Russian television Tuesday, Usmanov hailed Watson one of the greatest biologists in the history of mankind, and stated that when he learned that Watson was selling the medal for charity, he decided to purchase it and immediately give it back to him.

7 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. One good turn... by Quantus347 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Finally gets another. One guy does something selfless, and another guy does too as a reward. Especially since in an auction he's not just covering the cost, he's running the price up with his participation in the bidding. When everything i read seems to drop Humanity notch-by-notch, it's nice to see something that bumps it up a bit. Kudos Human Race.

    [/Optimism]

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    1. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only does the "average American" have a smaller pool of dollars to draw from for charity purposes, the cost of living does not scale down with net worth, so a larger fraction is already devoted to essentials. A quick google search suggests household average discretionary income of $24k (though ~80% of that is from households with annual income > 100k). So, it would be more like buying the medal for $8 (or less for most). I wouldn't disparage the "average american" for not contributing to charity. It is difficult for many to contribute very much, and is mostly limited to causes that they care a great deal about.

      That being said, I take issue with the viewpoint that because he didn't have to make any personal sacrifice to donate to charity, his donation is worthless. 4.7 million is 4.7 million, and it can do a lot of good. He is also allowed to spend it, or not spend it, any way he likes. I *do* think it's awesome that he chose to do this with it. I also doubt he did that so that I would think he's a cool guy (we've never met).

    2. Re:One good turn... by shitzu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist. Is it true what he said? If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.

  2. Watson is a scientist by sideslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Watson is a scientist. He's very intelligent. He's also a fallible human being. And he's old. Put all those together and you have a recipe for some unfiltered opinions. As long as he's honestly speaking his opinions, I personally disagree with blacklisting such people from society.

    When you think about it, our culture's political correctness has some weird quirks. Religious views, put forward as religious views, are summarily shot down, because ours is supposed to be a secular society informed by science. But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews. This dogma doesn't have any scientific basis that I'm aware of; the best that can be said is that we don't (yet?) understand all the many factors that affect intelligence. Therefore (correct me if I'm wrong), honesty should compel us to admit that genetics, including genetics exemplified in racial groups, may constitute major factors in intelligence. And therefore, Watson's fundamental heretical belief may be... true? Is it OK to talk about this?

    1. Re:Watson is a scientist by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The pope is invited to parliaments and international diplomacy as if he was somehow especially smart or important.

      The pope is treated as having political importance not because of the efficacy of his theology but because he is the spiritual leader of 1+ billion Catholics, a large portion of which actually believe in the doctrine of papal infallibility.

  3. Re:why should he have it by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama's ludicrous Peace prize was more jarring to your conscience than Henry Kissinger's? Something isn't right here. You're either very young and unaware of the dubious history of this prize, or you have personal issues that cloud your judgment of the inanity of obviously stupid Nobel awards.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  4. Re:Russia, LOL by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, Obama. We get it. You're mad at Putin for not handing over the guy who humiliated and exposed you, Snowden. You don't need to spam your butthurt everywhere.

    I realize that as nerds we tend to live in our own little bubbles and magnify the importance of nerdy things, but on the list of grievances the US (and Ukraine, and the EU) have against Russia, Snowden is pretty far down.