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.

19 of 235 comments (clear)

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

    Funny if he decides to auction it again next week.

  2. 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 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'..

    2. 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'
    3. 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).

    4. 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)

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
  3. 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'.

  4. 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 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.

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

    In Soviet USA medal returns to you

  6. 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!!!

  7. 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!
  8. 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?
  9. 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.

  10. 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.