Discoverer of DNA sells Nobel medal, plans to establish institute in UCC

My name is URL

James Watson, the molecular biologist who has become nearly as famous for his unfiltered, off-colour remarks as for his role in the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA, has achieved another scientific milestone. On December 4, he became the first living scientist to auction his Nobel Prize medal to the highest bidder.

The anonymous buyer paid US$4.76 million.

Watson told Nature that his motivation for selling the medal is a chance for redemption. He plans to donate some of the proceeds to Cold Spring, where he still draws a $375,000 base salary as chancellor emeritus, and also to University College Cork in Ireland to help establish an institute dedicated to the mathematician George Boole.

"I'm 52% Irish," Watson said by way of explanation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dna-laureate-james-watson-s-nobel-medal-sells-for-4-1m/

To say this guy is controversial would be an understatement. He thinks blacks are genetically more stupid than whites (something that the vast majority of scientists and research disputes), and that women in science basically just make it more fun for the men and that they aren't very effective in what they do.

He also decided not to credit his colleague Rosalind Franklin for the part she played in deducing the structure of DNA.

Do you think UCC would be right to accept a donation from him?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

My PhD supervisor worked with him. Said he was an absolute tosser.

Grayson

My name is URL wrote: »

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dna-laureate-james-watson-s-nobel-medal-sells-for-4-1m/

To say this guy is controversial would be an understatement. He thinks blacks are genetically more stupid than whites (something that the vast majority of scientists and research disputes), and that women in science basically just make it more fun for the men and that they aren't very effective in what they do.

He also decided not to credit his colleague Rosalind Franklin for the part she played in deducing the structure of DNA.

Do you think UCC would be right to accept a donation from him?

Use the money for a scholarship for black people

Yellowblackbird

and that women in science basically just make it more fun for the men [/QUOTE]

I co discovered this independently of watson

Oops69

The ultimate attention seeker , discover something new Prof . Or GTFO .

Nodin

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

My PhD supervisor worked with him. Said he was an absolute tosser.

In what way?

ancapailldorcha

My name is URL wrote: »

Do you think UCC would be right to accept a donation from him?

Absolutely not, though research is being cut to the bone at the moment so the temptation would be understandable.

ScumLord

That nobel medal belongs to LSD anyway.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16532_the-5-greatest-things-ever-accomplished-while-high.html

evolving_doors

I think they were shmoozing him a while back back when he gave a talk on something or other.

Will they accept money... will they ####

My name is URL

Oops69 wrote: »

The ultimate attention seeker , discover something new Prof . Or GTFO .

He seems to have discovered his own sense of humility in fairness

Watson told Nature that his motivation for selling the medal is a chance for redemption.

... well depending on which definition you apply to the word redemption =p

My name is URL

Nodin wrote: »

In what way?

From what I've read about him and what others who have met him have said, he sounds like an all round pure bigot.

I remember reading something a while back in which a professor who had met him asked him what he thought about the film The Race for the Double Helix, and the only criticism he had is that his part was played by a jew!

Manach

Yes. One of the virtues of science, touted by certain political types, is the unbiased and universal nature of that knowledge. However between this and the volume of hate directed because a scientist wore an inappropriate shirt would suggest that in future scientists have to be checked to ensure they are approviable by the right-thinking people.

Hande hoche!

Take the money, build the institute and make its head of research a black woman.

strobe

Who gives a **** what he believes? As long as he's not expecting anything for the money, take it. Money is money, it retains no memory of where it came from.

steddyeddy

He didn't discover DNA he allegedly elucidated the secondary structure of DNA. He also owes much of his discovery to Rosalind Franklin whose work he appropriated without her permission.

evolving_doors

strobe wrote: »

Who gives a **** what he believes? As long as he's not expecting anything for the money, take it. Money is money, it retains no memory of where it came from.

Wow, it's just like DNA so !!!

steddyeddy

Armelodie wrote: »

Wow, it's just like DNA so !!!

DNA retains memory of where it came from in some cases.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Nodin wrote: »

In what way?

Cranky, no time to help anyone, never said hello in the corridors, regularly losing the plot with people in his lab. Just a tosser in general.

My name is URL

Manach wrote: »

Yes. One of the virtues of science, touted by certain political types, is the unbiased and universal nature of that knowledge.

What does that even mean?

I assume you're just taking the opportunity to vaguely rant about 'liberals', as per usual?

Anyway, science has nothing to do with whether or not UCC should accept a donation from him. Just because someone is a great scientist doesn't mean their views on society or their moral philosophies should be given the same respect as their scientific acumen.

evolving_doors

steddyeddy wrote: »

DNA retains memory of where it came from in some cases.

Yes and so does money

I've uncovered new research...

See proof attached

ItalianPrintedEuro.jpg

steddyeddy

My name is URL wrote: »

What does that even mean?

I assume you're just taking the opportunity to vaguely rant about 'liberals', as per usual?

Anyway, science has nothing to do with whether or not UCC should accept a donation from him. Just because someone is a great scientist doesn't mean their views on society or their moral philosophies should be given the same respect as their scientific acumen.

A despicable man and a sh1t scientist. UCC should tell him to stick it

Oops69

The Watsonian institute for Boolean algebra , why not ? ..sure Boole already has a library , Watson needs a legacy........he's so mercenary he makes me sick.

evolving_doors

steddyeddy wrote: »

A despicable man and a sh1t scientist. UCC should tell him to stick it

Naa the way these things usually go twas all a done deal anyway back in 2010 when he was given the Honorary Doctorate. LINKEY SHMINKEY

evolving_doors

Oops69 wrote: »

The Watsonian institute for Boolean algebra , why not ? ..sure Boole already has a library , Watson needs a legacy........he's so mercenary he makes me sick.

Jeez if he was that enamoured by Boole then why didn't he just call it the Institute for Boolean algebra or the Boolean Institute !
Talk about dining out on someone else's coat tails.

Anywho it's Ireland... money is money (especially Yummy Foreign Direct Investment..mmmm)

"ya sure President Mugabe is it the institute for Nelson Mandela peace studies you want.. oh ok The Mugabe institute for Mandela Peace Studies...ya sure whatever ya want to call it that's fine..just wire me the monies and I'll have it sorted by next year.. ya ya plaque and all.. little curtain ceremony...g'luck"

Oops69

Armelodie wrote: »

Jeez if he was that enamoured by Boole then why didn't he just call it the Institute for Boolean algebra or the Boolean Institute !
Talk about dining out on someone else's coat tails.

Anywho it's Ireland... money is money (especially Yummy Foreign Direct Investment..mmmm

I am only conjecturing on this of course , but truth can be stranger than fiction of course when money is involved.

Tarzana2

Manach wrote: »

Yes. One of the virtues of science, touted by certain political types, is the unbiased and universal nature of that knowledge. However between this and the volume of hate directed because a scientist wore an inappropriate shirt would suggest that in future scientists have to be checked to ensure they are approviable by the right-thinking people.

Big diff between a scientist wearing a shirt featuring sexy ladies and a scientist spouting very unscientific views as if they were coming from a place of scientific integrity.

Steppenwolfe

I like his style. Not afraid to speak his mind. If a scientist believes there is a connection between race and intelligence he should be allowed to express it. Whether he's right or wrong on the race/intelligence issue is immaterial. Stifling debate by vilifying and shunning a scientist for having unpopular views is not healthy.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

He didn't discover DNA he allegedly elucidated the secondary structure of DNA. He also owes much of his discovery to Rosalind Franklin whose work he appropriated without her permission.

And given the chance, she and her research partner would have likely elucidated the structure themselves.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

A despicable man and a sh1t scientist. UCC should tell him to stick it

Dunno if he's a shít scientist, not terribly ethical in ways, but I'm sure he was highly skilled at the same time.

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

And given the chance, she and her research partner would have likely elucidated the structure themselves.

But she wasn't and he didn't give her any credit.

RobYourBuilder

Was he wrong?

The most frequently stated culture-only hypothesis is that the mean IQ differences are due to SES. In fact, controlling for SES only reduces the mean Black–White group difference in IQ by about a third, around 5 IQ points. The genetic perspective does not regard this control for SES as being entirely environmental. It holds that the parents’ socioeconomic level in part reflects their genetic differences in intelligence. Moreover, according to the culture-only theory, as Black groups advance up the socioeconomic ladder, their children should be less exposed to environmental deficits and therefore should do better and, by extension, close the distance separating the Black mean with the White. In fact, the magnitude of the mean Black–White group difference in IQ for higher SES levels, when measured in standard deviations, is larger.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf

FactCheck

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

If a scientist believes there is a connection between race and intelligence he should be allowed to express it.

Except a cornerstone of actual science is, y'know, evidence. Not "beliefs". Not "feelings". Actual scientific evidence, of which there is none to support the rubbish he was spouting.

Most people - certainly most laypeople - think that a Nobel prize, particularly in a scientific field, confers a certain authority. People listen when Nobel prizewinners speak. They expect them to be speaking from a position of responsible, established research. Not reactionary bollix and anecdote.

Watson wasted no time in jumping on the "victimhood" bandwagon. Oh, poor him, he discredited himself and now most reputable institutions don't want to be associated with him. Boo hoo. That's not infringing on his freedom of speech. He hasn't been stopped from saying anything. He could start advocating for flat earth and creationism tomorrow (his views on race are about as well supported) and he still wouldn't be thrown in prison or in any way prevented from holding and speaking those views.

It's just that the rest of the world has decided to use their freedom of speech to say "You're a fcukin gobshite so".

Steppenwolfe

FactCheck wrote: »

Except a cornerstone of actual science is, y'know, evidence. Not "beliefs". Not "feelings". Actual scientific evidence, of which there is none to support the rubbish he was spouting.

Most people - certainly most laypeople - think that a Nobel prize, particularly in a scientific field, confers a certain authority. People listen when Nobel prizewinners speak. They expect them to be speaking from a position of responsible, established research. Not reactionary bollix and anecdote.

Watson wasted no time in jumping on the "victimhood" bandwagon. Oh, poor him, he discredited himself and now most reputable institutions don't want to be associated with him. Boo hoo. That's not infringing on his freedom of speech. He hasn't been stopped from saying anything. He could start advocating for flat earth and creationism tomorrow (his views on race are about as well supported) and he still wouldn't be thrown in prison or in any way prevented from holding and speaking those views.

It's just that the rest of the world has decided to use their freedom of speech to say "You're a fcukin gobshite so".

You need to do some research on the subject before you go off on one. There have been numerous scientific studies on this subject and it has been a subject of debate for years. It may not be resolved, but to say there is no scientific evidence is just wrong.

steddyeddy

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I like his style. Not afraid to speak his mind. If a scientist believes there is a connection between race and intelligence he should be allowed to express it. Whether he's right or wrong on the race/intelligence issue is immaterial. Stifling debate by vilifying and shunning a scientist for having unpopular views is not healthy.

A scientist isn't a good scientist if they put forward hypothesis without evidence backing it up.

evolving_doors

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

You need to do some research on the subject before you go off on one. There have been numerous scientific studies on this subject and it has been a subject of debate for years. It may not be resolved, but to say there is no scientific evidence is just wrong.

Is his vilification of an actor on the grounds of being Jewish rational thought! Maybe he saw something in that double helix that should preclude Jews from acting.

Theres freedom of speech ...and then theres incitement to hatred.

His measure of intelligence is what ?... IQ tests ! now theres a limited mind.

bleg

Storm in a teacup and taken out of context. Much more casual racism on boards every day of the week.

floggg

My name is URL wrote: »

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dna-laureate-james-watson-s-nobel-medal-sells-for-4-1m/

To say this guy is controversial would be an understatement. He thinks blacks are genetically more stupid than whites (something that the vast majority of scientists and research disputes), and that women in science basically just make it more fun for the men and that they aren't very effective in what they do.

He also decided not to credit his colleague Rosalind Franklin for the part she played in deducing the structure of DNA.

Do you think UCC would be right to accept a donation from him?

€375k?

I was reading something about this guy last week moaning how he had to sell the medal because he couldn't earn any money as the PC police ruined his life for saying something about the darkies and had to rely on his miserly university salary.

If I didn't feel sorry for him then, I'm even less sorry now knowing that he is on a €375k a year.

Not even cork deserves the moany racist bastard.

The_Captain

To be honest, I think politicising scientific research is far more dangerous than any words he said.

There's an awful lot of people who want to discredit his work solely because they don't agree with his personal beliefs

KomradeBishop

"He plans to donate some of the proceeds [] to University College Cork in Ireland to help establish an institute dedicated to the mathematician George Boole."

Not sure if that's true or false.[/coat]

KomradeBishop

The_Captain wrote: »

To be honest, I think politicising scientific research is far more dangerous than any words he said.

There's an awful lot of people who want to discredit his work solely because they don't agree with his personal beliefs

There's a good reason to politicize science by being concerned about the beliefs of donators: If you don't politicize science in that way, science will become politicized by donators using money to influence scientific research, to suit their own political/business agendas.

Just look at the massive network of right-wing think-tanks, manufacturing 'scientific' studies, to back their political goals (where the studies have no basis in reality) - and then imagine what those donors could do to corrupt scientific research elsewhere, if allowed to have the influence that donations bring (because donations aren't always politically neutral, they can have conditions - often unspoken/behind-the-scenes - attached).

evolving_doors

bleg wrote: »

Storm in a teacup and taken out of context. Much more casual racism on boards every day of the week.

Ah yeah but the racists aint getting a building named after them...

steddyeddy

The_Captain wrote: »

To be honest, I think politicising scientific research is far more dangerous than any words he said.

There's an awful lot of people who want to discredit his work solely because they don't agree with his personal beliefs

What research?

Putinovsky

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Was he wrong?



http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf

Oh look, here he is again, now saying that black people are genetically inferior to white people.

Another thread hijacked to put down a people of colour. Lets rename After Hours to Stormfront shall we?

Am I alone in getting pissed off by this sort of stuff creeping into After Hours?

One eyed Jack

Armelodie wrote: »

Naa the way these things usually go twas all a done deal anyway back in 2010 when he was given the Honorary Doctorate. LINKEY SHMINKEY

Slightly off topic, and I'm not usually a spelling and grammar pedant, but one would have to wonder who proof reads the UCC press releases -

It is clear that there is much more to Watson than being an accomplished scientist and academic. He is a man of courage and principle who has campaigned against war, against nuclear proliferation and against financial exploitation of the human genome. He is a committed environmentalist and his wise council is continuously sought; he serves on numerous international scientific advisory boards. He is much in demand for his writings and lectures. He has a continued interest in the arts and music and he keeps remarkably fit – he continues to play a good game of tennis.

AndonHandon

Putinovsky wrote: »

Oh look, here he is again, now saying that black people are genetically inferior to white people.

Another thread hijacked to put down a people of colour. Lets rename After Hours to Stormfront shall we?

Am I alone in getting pissed off by this sort of stuff creeping into After Hours?

I presume you read the paper?

Dial Hard

Putinovsky wrote: »

Am I alone in getting pissed off by this sort of stuff creeping into After Hours?

It's been like this for years, actually.

Philo Beddoe

You can be a racist, or you can be a good person. You can be neither, but you can't be both.

The One Doctor

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I like his style. Not afraid to speak his mind. If a scientist believes there is a connection between race and intelligence he should be allowed to express it. Whether he's right or wrong on the race/intelligence issue is immaterial. Stifling debate by vilifying and shunning a scientist for having unpopular views is not healthy.

What if he said that Jews deserved to be exterminated? Would it be unhealthy to stifle that debate?

strobe

The One Doctor wrote: »

What if he said that Jews deserved to be exterminated? Would it be unhealthy to stifle that debate?

Just have the debate? Not exactly a hard one to win.

Donkey Oaty

strobe wrote: »

Just have the debate? Not exactly a hard one to win.

It'd be interesting to see who turns up to speak in favour of the motion.

steddyeddy

strobe wrote: »

Just have the debate? Not exactly a hard one to win.

Correct. It isn't the debate that's the problem. It's his lack of backing his views with science that's the problem.