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.

42 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Lucky Jim by RDW · · Score: 5, Funny

    Funny if he decides to auction it again next week.

  2. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So now Watson can sell it again!

  3. 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: 2, Interesting

      Sure... With that net worth, 4.7 million is less than 0.03%. Consider the average American with a net worth of $300k. This would be like buying the medal for $90 then returning it.

      So really it was nothing to him but will make him even more famous and "awesome" to other people.

    2. Re:One good turn... by Dzimas · · Score: 2

      Consider the average American with a net worth of $300k...

      The median *family* net worth in the United States was only $56,335 in 2013. ;)

    3. Re:One good turn... by shankarunni · · Score: 4, Informative

      Selfless? What the ****?

      Did you even read _why_ he had to auction off that medal? Read the source links, and follow them back.

      TLDR: He made himself an outcast by tossing out some really incendiary stuff about Africans, women, etc. (basically saying that they were "less intelligent", etc.) Once his sources of income (speaking, consulting) dried up, he needed to rehabilitate himself, so he's concocted this (IMO cynical) ploy of "selling his medal for charity" (yeah, right..)

      I'm sure his opinions mesh well with the Russian oligarchs'..

    4. Re:One good turn... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More generally, he stated that there is no actual data to support the notion that race does not contribute to intelligence, making a specific reference to Africans, and which happens to be a politically incorrect notion, but is still an accurate statement.

      This does not mean that members of one race are necessarily intellectually inferior to another, it only means that there exists some sizable amount of data which merely suggests it as a possibility, and that no data has yet been accumulated which can actually show that this is not the case. The strongest objection to the conclusion comes from a political reaction to it, and does not arise from the data itself. It would have been far more interesting to do a detailed exploration on exactly why the data appeared to indicate that than to simply make the statement about the data that he did, since there was absolutely no possible way to interpret it without him being seen as racist.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    5. Re:One good turn... by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      You're thinking of net income. Median net worth is closer to $81k (as of 2014), and the mean considerably higher than the GP's estimate.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      Regardless though, there's a huge problem here where there is an assumption that the total charitable contributions of this guy in his lifetime is encompassed by one charity auction purchase.

    6. Re:One good turn... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2

      So you're suggesting what, a minimum dollar amount of charity before such a thing can be considered worthwhile? Anything less than 10% and you might as well not bother?

       

    7. Re:One good turn... by Threni · · Score: 2

      > it only means that there exists some sizable amount of data which merely suggests it as a
      > possibility, and that no data has yet been accumulated which can actually show that this is not
      > the case

      You've got it backwards. The "sizable" data is just not sizable enough, not backed with any reputable peer reviewed studies, and therefore there's no case to answer.

      And what he's said (repeatedly) is literally an example of racism, of racist statements.

    8. Re:One good turn... by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      I was going to say "I think you mean net income", but holy crap you're right. On the flip side of that, a mortgage is usually a couple hundred thousands dollars on the negative side.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. 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).

    10. Re:One good turn... by davydagger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      less and less people have $30 to give to charity. But if statistics mean anything, most people who worth $100k are more willing to give to charity than those worth $100m. Large well broadcasts of millionares donating be damned, most charity actually comes from poor and middle class people. Of course don't let me stop you mixing up "willing" and "able". It only strengthens the demand for the commons and the public sphere.(inb4 some bad hyperbole)

    11. 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.

    12. Re:One good turn... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Racism is a belief. Facts can't hold beliefs, although they can be used to support someone's belief. Unreasonable conclusions and unreasonable interpretations of facts can be racist. Facts cannot, and logic cannot.

      Say that a bullet-proof study came out saying that blond-haired people are, on average, far less intelligent than brown-haired people (assuming some specific, concrete definition of and way of measuring "intelligence" were to be discovered). In and of itself, that would be a fact. If you add the opinion that "more intelligent is better than less intelligent", then you might come up with the prejudiced opinion that "brown-haired people are better than blond-haired people". That doesn't make the fact itself "colorist". It's only the combination of fact and preconceived opinion that makes the thought colorist.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    13. Re:One good turn... by John.Banister · · Score: 2

      Reading a source link "He plans to donate some of the proceeds to Cold Spring, where he still draws a $375,000 base salary as chancellor emeritus"

      He certainly didn't run out of money.

    14. Re: One good turn... by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      It is not really possible for real data, when measured, to be racist if we bankrupt every scientist interested in measuring that data.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    15. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · · Score: 2
      Even if having a different skin colour made you a different "race", and even if IQ tests were accurate and bias-free, and even if different "races" had different average IQs, it still shouldn't make any difference to how we treat people.

      We don't say to kids "you've been tested at the age of 10 and have an IQ of 85, therefore you are not allowed any further education, you can only apply for minimum wage jobs, you can't vote and we're going to sterilise you". They are free to do the best they can with whatever gifts or disadvantages they've been given.
      So why would it make any difference if there was a slightly different proportion in IQ scores between black, white or brown skinned people?
      You'd still have some black lawyers and doctors, and some white unemployed junkies.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Putin wouldn't return it. by mmell · · Score: 5, Funny
    In fact, Alisher would be well advised never to let Mr. Putin even see the medal. I can see Mr. Putin simply putting the medal in his pocket and making sure everyone knows how his old pal Alisher "gave it to him".

    Just sayin'.

  5. 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 crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was unaware that Watson had been "blacklisted". After 39 years as Chancellor of CSHL, a good long run, which is largely a public relations function - he did show himself unsuited to continue filling that role due to his 'unfiltered' public expressed opinions (which had been occurring for quite awhile, even when he was not-so-old). Still his punishment was 'promotion' to Chancellor Emeritus with a perpetual $375,000 salary, still with a free mansion to live in. Few 'blacklisted' people are treated so favorably.

      He is still knocking down $30,000-$75,000 minimum fees for public appearances. Pretty good money for someone who is 'blacklisted'.

      What You really seem to be saying is that he should be above criticism, and not accountable for anything he says. I disagree.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    2. Re:Watson is a scientist by davmoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      He didn't wait to be old to fuck over Rosalind Franklin.

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    3. Re:Watson is a scientist by bigtrike · · Score: 2

      Did you even see what he said? Watson's statements also went outside the bounds of science by making broad conclusions from his own anecdotal evidence. They were absolutely not scientific.

      Regarding intelligence, if you're talking about IQ tests, they're poor measurements of intelligence because they tend to be culturally biased. A lot of studies have shown that race as we know it is more of a social construct than a genetic one and what we define as races is only loosely correlated to genetic variance. Until there are better ways of testing intelligence, all we can know for sure is that genetics may be a factor or they may not.

    4. Re:Watson is a scientist by jayrtfm · · Score: 2

      Yeh, a friend who was a scientist there gave me a good 10 minute rant about him. That salary would fund 8 or so post docs.

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

      I characterized it as his expressions of honest (at least I take him at his word) opinion.

      You appear to be part of that species of fence sitters who are unwilling to commit to anything even when your position gets ridiculous. Of course some intelligence tests have some part that is biased toward cultures. They are still of some use at estimating the parts of intelligence we most care about for practical purposes. And more particularly, IQ tests are useful at predicting aptitude to excel at Western intellectual pursuits including academics in general. Do you disagree with that?

    6. Re:Watson is a scientist by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I'm never quite sure if it's mere hyperbole or raging entitlement that causes people to breathlessly use the language of actual oppressive activity to describe people who are being 'punished' in ways that most of us will never have the pleasure of being treated.

      "Blacklisting" is, from time to time, an actual labor market practice, and it stings a lot more than being quietly retired to a cushy honorary position. As in, y'know, literally never working in this town (or larger area) again, prolonged unemployment, penury, that sort of fun stuff. Do people just not know or care about what the real thing looks like, or do they think themselves deserving of so much coddling that the slightest inconvenience is identical to the direst oppression?

    7. 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.

    8. Re:Watson is a scientist by bigtrike · · Score: 2

      The evidence is still "on the fence," so it's hard to draw any conclusions from. Even some studies among identical twins have shown a correlation below 0.5.

      I will agree that western designed tests show that westerners do well at western institutions. Nearly any time someone creates a metric of something as difficult to define as intelligence, they create it in such a way that they're the top scorers. I'm sure if those living in sub-saharan africa were to design their own intelligence tests, it would favor them instead.

    9. Re:Watson is a scientist by Smauler · · Score: 2

      I'm sure if those living in sub-saharan africa were to design their own intelligence tests, it would favor them instead.

      Are there any intelligence tests in which people from sub-saharan Africa do come out on top?

  6. In other news Barack Obama has listed his medal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Opening bid - tree fiddy.

  7. In Soviet USA... by mamba69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet USA medal returns to you

  8. Brilliant by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    Now that Usmanov has set the precedent, he can expect a lot of other Nobel Prize winners coming forth to cash in. And when Feynman's heirs put forth his, Usmanov can buy it and keep it.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  9. why should he have it by nimbius · · Score: 2

    If Watsons nobel was of so little significance to him that he hocked it for cash, it begs the question of why should he have received one in the first place. Personally the Nobel lost its purpose for me after Barack Obama received it. Nothing against the guy, but it seemed like a cheap and awkward gesture that completely misunderstood the point of american presidency in the context of our government.

    Watsons crime, namely that hes an old crumudgeon, isnt the issue for me. I tolerate the acerbic opinions of the elderly in regard to race, sexuality and gender, and try to view them as contextual expressions of a generation that was cheated into believing nonsense. I think part of the reason conferences and speaking arrangements were cancelled is because his appearance and opinions may inadvertently serve to validate his personal prejudices as a valid scientific point. My only axe to grind with him is that he seems to hog the spotlight and never really credit his peers like Francis Crick

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. 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!
    2. Re:why should he have it by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Watsons crime, namely that hes an old crumudgeon, isnt the issue for me. I tolerate the acerbic opinions of the elderly in regard to race, sexuality and gender, and try to view them as contextual expressions of a generation that was cheated into believing nonsense.

      That's pretty much the same thing the old curmudgeons say about you, you know?

  10. Seems like a good guy.. by Roskolnikov · · Score: 2

    He was one of the least hurt by the sanctions regarding the Ukraine, seems like he cares... wonder how taxation on this is going to play out....

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  11. Profit!! by Rogue974 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have we finally found what the ultimate Step #3 is?!?!?

    Step 1: Win Nobel Prize
    Step 2: Go Broke
    Step 3: Sell Nobel Prize medal
    Step 4: Profit
    Step 5: After medal is returned, wait an acceptable time and return to Step 1!!!

    1. Re:Profit!! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      If you achieve Step 2 while pulling $350k/year, you may not stay out of penury all that long after Step 4, so hopefully 'an acceptable time' is relatively short.

  12. One of the statements he made on the matter by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Informative

    Evaluate for yourself:

      [Watson] said he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”

    One thing I know about IQ tests in my experience is that they seem biased toward people who a) have a particular math and science educational history, and b) have a lot of time on their hands to think abstractly.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by quenda · · Score: 2

      One thing I know about IQ tests in my experience is that they seem biased toward people who a) have a particular math and science educational history, and b) have a lot of time on their hands to think abstractly.

      Or, and I'm going out on a limb here, the tests could just be biased towards people with a high IQ? (Which may correlate to the other factors you mentioned)

      The fact is that IQ tests are a better predictor of many things than educational history or free time. This make it scientifically valid.

  13. 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.

  14. Re:Russia, LOL by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 3

    Like inciting a civil war in Libya then bombing it back into the stone age. Libya used to be a pretty good country to live in before the NATO "intervention" to stop the Libyan government from fighting extremist terrorists, oops sorry, "Freedom fighters", funded by the west and bolstering their numbers with mercenaries. The illegal invasion of Iraq also comes to mind, the US president didn't even bother asking congress to go to war, just brought down 2 towers and no one asked any questions. Why the fvck invade Iraq again? Bin Laden wasn't even in the country?

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.