James Watson's Nobel Prize Medal Will Be Returned To Him 235
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.
Lucky Jim (Score:5, Funny)
Funny if he decides to auction it again next week.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It should have been donated to a museum.
Cool (Score:2, Funny)
So now Watson can sell it again!
One good turn... (Score:5, Insightful)
[/Optimism]
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
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/... [usatoday.com]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How recently? My parents never had net positive equity until they retired & paid if off with retirement money.
In part because mortgage rates in the 1980s were in the 15-20% range. Hard to build up equity in that environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what a shithead for donating some of his resources to charity.
He gives more money than you'll see in your life in one day, and you're shitting on him because he didn't give more? Ingrate.
Re:One good turn... (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).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
"cost of living"? Let me know when you've seen what the "cost of living" is for a billionaire, and then we'll talk scale. Hint: Yachts and jets are expensive. Oh wait wait you expect a billionaire to be living like a poor person...
"Cost of living" is a phrase most often used to describe the amount of money it takes to live above poverty levels in a certain geographic region. "Luxuries" are not factored in, whether it's a rich person buying a yacht or a poor person buying a big-screen TV.
Re: (Score:2)
"cost of living"? Let me know when you've seen what the "cost of living" is for a billionaire, and then we'll talk scale. Hint: Yachts and jets are expensive. Oh wait wait you expect a billionaire to be living like a poor person...
It's so much easier and cheaper living hand to mouth in your car, as you don't have to fund an army of cooks, secretaries, party planners, tax advisers, chauffeurs, silverware polishers, bodyguards, lawyers and prostitutes.
That's the reason why taxes should be regressive, and real billionaires should pay no tax at all.
Re:One good turn... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live on disability $9855 per year
Sucks I can't help anyone
Re: (Score:2)
The second clause, was that other people, worth far less, are far too poor to be able to afford charity. The coverage by the media makes it seem like wealthy Billionares do the most, and its the stingy middle and working classes that need to be stopped, when really its the opposite, and you just have a media driven perceptio
Re:One good turn... (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'..
Re:One good turn... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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.
One of the statements he made on the matter (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:One good turn... (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.
Re: (Score:2)
"[I am] 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."
"[There is a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but] people who have to deal with black employees find this not true"
He never specified which tests he was referring to in the first quote - I for one have not seen any studies of intelligence that showed any statistically significant link betw
Re: (Score:2)
And if it's false, it's still not racist, just incorrect, unless it was done in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I agree you cannot disprove the truth of a claim by calling it racist, but for that same reason, being factual does not preclude racism.
Because if all factual claims are not racist, a racist statement must not be true - but if racism does not change the truth content of a claim, a racist claim could still be factual.
Going to the definition of the word, racist means discrimination on the basis of race. A simple true statement like, "whites are pale-skinned and blacks are dark-skinned" is discriminating
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist.
It is far easier to debunk on its face: race does not exist in hard science, but only in sociology. Genetically, there is no "race trait." Biologically, it is not a characteristic that is used. Its really a crap concept and eventually we'll stop using it. But I have deep concern for them because most people find that biologists are not as smart as other races. (See? I can talk nonsense, too!)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.
Actually, to steal from Cobert, facts have a well-known racial bias. Life is not fair.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, one could say that it is racist to suggest that white people are brighter than black, but when talking strictly about the optical spectrum, this is indisputable, since white, by definition, is a brighter color than black.
Re:One good turn... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: One good turn... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 whate
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So he is saying that Africans are more intelligent than Europeans?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He certainly didn't run out of money.
Re: (Score:2)
What was selfless about Watson selling his medal to get money for himself? The guy who bought it and returned it migh be considered selfless, but Watson's act of selling his medal was certainly not. Do you even know what selfless means?
Watson is a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
I choose Science (Score:2)
I agree. Science and political correctness are not a good mix. I choose science.
Re: (Score:2)
I choose science too! One of the great things about science is that it can quickly conclude hypotheses based on opinion and prejudice. Continuation of such conjectures after solid refutation strips them of any "scientific" inquiry and authority. They are exposed for the pure prejudice they are.
And all members of a society are welcome to respond to such open and public prejudice in any reasonable manner they choose.
As he is also a well-known sexist jerk and research thief, I choose to spurn him. Join me if
Re:Watson is a scientist (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 [celebritytalent.net] 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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 unemploy
Re:Watson is a scientist (Score:4, Informative)
He didn't wait to be old to fuck over Rosalind Franklin.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get over the "poor Rosie", shall we? It's just stupid. Go read the 1968 Double Helix. Nobody fucked her over. She died from an illness, and Watson himself acknowledges that she was a solid experimentalist. She was also an occasional bitch :)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 intel
Re: (Score:2)
He appeared to be saying that the intellectual inferiority of blacks is shown by every black employee, which is very definitely untrue and definitely racist. The comment about Africa at least has a little justification.
Re: (Score:3)
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 favo
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Except for some weird reason, those eastern orientals seem to do very well on these western tests of intelligence, even though they learn English as a second language! So much so that western universities are flooded with them and the administrators of the western universities are restricting oriental student numbers while handing out affirmative action slots to blacks.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that first generation immigrant oriental children score higher on the English (verbal) portion of the SATs than
Re: (Score:2)
I personally disagree with blacklisting such people from society.
Blacklisting people from society for what they say has a name. It's called censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Religious views, put forward as religious views, are summarily shot down,
Which world is that you live in? Religion still carries much more credit than its performance record justifies. The pope is invited to parliaments and international diplomacy as if he was somehow especially smart or important. Even the Dalai Lama is given special respect for purely religious reasons. Churches enjoy special priviledges in many countries, with tax exemption being just the tip of the iceberg.
The simple fact is that the human brain and psychology has evolved little from tribal society and we be
Re:Watson is a scientist (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews
Can anyone name me a black sub-suharan psychologist? Now, let's try the same with Ashkenazi Jews. (Freud comes to mind immediately for me -- but he's not the only brilliant mind)
I find it simpler to explain the differences in the tests with the differences of the people who created them.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably even a few with a bit more up-to-date methods than an Austrian pervert dead some 75 years now...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I believe the "dogma" you refer to is the scientific method. The position you are describing (I'm not implying you're taking it) posits a causal relationship exists between the totality of sub-Saharan Black African genetic heritage and lower comparative intelligence with respect to another group.
This is extremely difficult to show, and in my opinion rightfully receives criticism unrelated to it's social implications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think there are some good, sound, scientific reasons that intelligence differences along racial lines are not genetic (at least in major part). Simplest among these is that there is as much evolutionary pressure from problems such as tropical diseases as there is from survival during an ice age, or similar factors that are invoked to "scientifially "explain these differences.
In general, Science frequently uses Occam's Razor in one of its classic forms "It i
Re: (Score:2)
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 first step in addressing the question scientifically is determining whether the question even makes sense. You have to *establish that the question is valid* before answering it.
A hundred years ago scientists didn't know about DNA, couldn't characterize someone's genes. They went with what they could observe: skin color, hair, eye shape etc. And they came up with various compelling three race and five race schemes. But we aren't limited like they were. We can open up someone's genetic black box and c
Re: (Score:2)
Except Appliantologists.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably has something to do with the fact that "measurable intelligence" doesn't have any scientific basis.
That's politically correct baloney. Tests can be devised to gauge many types or aspects of intelligence. You can measure an individuals aptitude and/or ability, and then use it to predict in a very general way how that individual will perform on various tasks that benefit from such intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
You can measure how well someone performs a task, and use that to predict how well they'll do similar tasks in the future. But what has that to do with intelligence? Why does having this particular skill indicate intelligence, rather than practice?
Re: (Score:2)
In other news Barack Obama has listed his medal... (Score:2, Funny)
Opening bid - tree fiddy.
In Soviet USA... (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet USA medal returns to you
Brilliant (Score:3)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:why should he have it (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that it was awarded to Arafat but not to Gandhi.
Re: (Score:2)
Shimon Peres and Arafat should have split an award. They both (ultimately) worked towards peace in a situation where peace was (and remains) a pipe dream.
Gandhi clearly should have gotten a peace prize.
This underscores the fact that there is a flaw in the decision process.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about managing expectations. Everyone knew Kissinger was a bastard already.
Re: (Score:2)
Middle East? What in the world are you talking about? Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for the American withdrawal from Vietnam. (And ostensibly for brokering peace between North and South Vietnam, but we all know how long that lasted.)
Keep in mind that in 1970, Kissinger was the one who pushed for expanding the Vietnam conflict into Cambodia. Around the same time, he was also working with the CIA to try to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile. In 1971, he had the US throw its
Re: (Score:2)
It might have had something to do with the fact that he's old, destitute, and it's really cold in Chicago this time of year... Nobel prizes don't keep you warm.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the history of the nobel peace prize is, unfortunately, littered with 'statesmen', which frequently means that winners have more
Re: (Score:2)
You really weren't paying attention if Obama was the final nail. The peace prize is irrelevant when working out the worth of the actual ones for science fields.
And yes, the DNA double helix - what a load of useless crap nothing came of that!
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally the Nobel lost its purpose for me after Barack Obama received it.
The Nobel peace prize has always been different - very political.
The amazing thing is that you still respected it before Obama's award (AKA the inaugural not-being GW Bush award).
Past winners include Yasser Arafat (peace in Palestine) and Henry Kissinger (Vietnam war).
The Stockholm science prizes are not the same.
Seems like a good guy.. (Score:3)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
Profit!! (Score:5, 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!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't really seem like he was broke unless he had a very expensive coke habit or something.
it was done mainly to redeem himself or make himself relevant again, by getting some money to donate.
Taxes (Score:2)
Can't help but to wonder about the tax consequences of this both to Watson and all Nobel prize winners.
Re: (Score:2)
The US already treats prestigious awards (Nobels, Olympics, etc) as taxable income.
Watson hocking his medal doesn't change much. And depending on how much of it he actually donated, he may have no actual taxable liability as a result of the sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on how it is taxed when being returned (as a gift), vs. when it was originally awarded (as an award), he may actually end up owing MORE taxes.
For example, if the original award was estimated to be worth $1 million, he will have "donated" $1 million worth of assets, however it is now worth $4.7 million, which means he will have received $4.7 million in "gift income" that he has to pay taxes on.
This doesn't even take into account the possible difference in tax rates between gifts and awards.
Good use of excessive wealth (Score:2)
Human achievements are not always very well enumerated in a paycheck or in business sales revenue.
Its good when the folks with piles of cash can pay it out to others who have done great things. The money seems to generate so much attention that it illuminates the recipient's good work. I humbly request piles and piles of cash so I could give it away to some peeps, that full time.
You mean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Putin wouldn't return it. (Score:5, Funny)
Just sayin'.
Re:Russia, LOL (Score:5, 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.
Re:Russia, LOL (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
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 would guess that he would have been more butthurt about Putin one upping him in the posing with an animal photo department.
Obama poses with a poodle, and Putin is really putin on the ritz by posing with a leopard (can't recall if it was an ordinary leopard or a snow leopard though).
That said, I would kill for a Nobel Peace Prize. :D
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix has queues? Can't you just press "play" to stream it?
Re: (Score:2)