nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

How do I thank this twice ?

RIP Rosalind

https://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/franklin.html

J. D. Bernal called her X-ray photographs of DNA, "the most beautiful X-ray photographs of any substance ever taken." Between 1951 and 1953 Rosalind Franklin came very close to solving the DNA structure. She was beaten to publication by Crick and Watson in part because of the friction between Wilkins and herself. At one point, Wilkins showed Watson one of Franklin's crystallographic portraits of DNA. When he saw the picture, the solution became apparent to him, and the results went into an article in Nature almost immediately. Franklin's work did appear as a supporting article in the same issue of the journal.

[Deleted User]

The Russian Billionaire who won the bid is planning on giving him back the medal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30406322

biko

Fair play to the Russian

Adamantium

I love how humans are so different but as also somehow, miraculously apparently all the same, countless insane human variation produced from the same few building blocks; is it really that hard to accept evidence is produced that large groups who rarely left the one area who's genes and brains have adapted over hundreds of thousands of years doing entirely different and seperate activities would lead to different intelligences and inclinations to certain skills in the modern world (hunters in the tropical regions vs gatherers in northern climates).

We all know the world is unequal and entirely unfair, you go outside the front door and you see it, we all know it instinctively, primally. But IQ is apparently a step too far, enough with the faux outrage. Why is everything else allowed (sorry accepted) to be varied in the human story, but with IQ its the taboo that is a step too far? Do people think that certain lowlifes are suddenly going to start eviserating people of different races and colours on sight?

In modern polite society, We seem to celebrate/talk about diversity but only when the difference is skin deep. Anything more that is not intellectual curiosity or just plain old curiosity, but hate speech.

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/the-bell-curve.pdf

Drakares

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.

This is true.

The guy is a wanker. Don't know why people think of him as the discoverer of DNA. Done feck all himself.

steddyeddy

cisk wrote: »

The Russian Billionaire who won the bid is planning on giving him back the medal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30406322

He should give it to Rosalind Franklin's family.

steddyeddy

Drakares wrote: »

This is true.

The guy is a wanker. Don't know why people think of him as the discoverer of DNA. Done feck all himself.

True. After he took credit for this work his subsequent works have been very sub standard.

Hoop66

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Was he wrong?

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

Some pretty selective quoting there.

From the same paper (on the front page, in fact, probably a good place to look to find a general conclusion):

"As to the cause of the mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97)."

Now, I wonder why you have only quoted the part that you did?

Steppenwolfe

Hoop66 wrote: »

Some pretty selective quoting there.

From the same paper (on the front page, in fact, probably a good place to look to find a general conclusion):

"As to the cause of the mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97)."

Now, I wonder why you have only quoted the part that you did?

That is not their general conclusion. That quote refers to an APA task force which reviewed the conclusions of 'The Bell Curve'

The paper is close to 300 pages long and looks at 30 years of research in the field. This was their conclusion. Make of it what you want.

Section 14: Progressive Research Leads to Provisional Truth.

"Our conclusion, that the Black–White IQ difference is partly heritable, accords with previous analytic reviews of this literature. Loehlin et al. (1975) concluded that Black–White IQ differences “probably” reflected “genetic differences among the groups” (p. 238). P. E. Vernon (1979) tabulated 30 main topics,each scored on a 4-point scale, and concluded that “although the total number of items favoring genetic influences (G and G?) is roughly balanced by the number of environmental points (E and E?), more of the highly convincing items are G rather than E” (p. 319). The survey of over 1,000 experts in behavioral genetics and psychometrics by Snyderman and Rothman (1987) also found that a plurality believed the Black–White IQ difference “to be a product of both genetic andenvironmental variation” (p. 141). However, there are also notable statements to the contrary. The APA Task Force on intelligence, for example, concluded “[t]here is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (Neisser et al., 1996,p. 97). Likewise, Nisbett (1998) reached the conclusion that “the most relevant studies provide no evidence for the genetic superiority of either race” (p. 101). In our opinion, the present review, similar to those of Loehlin et al. (1975) and Vernon (1979) earlier, should be given greater weight because they surveyed a greater range of evidence. Examining all the documentation allows a greater chance of finding accurate explanations than does selecting a few items from the whole. The 10 categories of predictions reviewed in Table 5 were derived from the “hard core” assumptions of the two competing research programs, each of which tries to explain the Black–White IQ difference (see Section 2). Based on Lakatos’s (1970, 1978) criteria for evaluating research programs, and a philosophy of science methodology that evaluates rival theories by generating multiple strong inferences and assessing the preponderance and the consilience of many lines of evidence, we believe the hereditarian theory has satisfied the criteria for a “progressive” research program, whereas the culture-only program has not. Both have drawn implications to make numerous, testable, novel predictions, but we found the hereditarian predictions were mostly confirmed, whereas those from culture-only theory mostly were not...."