

James Watson to be the first person to sell his Nobel Prize - dreen
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/12/james_watson_selling_nobel_prize_dna_structure_discoverer_s_history_of_racism.html

======
dalke
The first Nobel Prize to be sold by a living recipient? According to
www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/about/medals/ :

> documents in the Niels Bohr Archive in Copenhagen show that Niels Bohr's
> Nobel medal, as well as the Nobel medal of the 1920 Danish Laureate in
> Physiology or Medicine, August Krogh, had already been donated to an auction
> held on March 12, 1940 for the benefit of the Fund for Finnish Relief
> (Finlandshjälpen).

Krogh died in 1949.

I guess they technically gave it away free to Finlandshjälpen, who then in
turned around and auctioned it off, so they didn't sell it.

It seems a rather technical point though - add enough qualifiers and most
anything becomes a first.

~~~
oldbuzzard
This is offensively pedantic. If you can't see the difference between donating
medals for war relief and selling them personal gain then nothing I can say
will help.

Bohr and Kroghs actions are inspiring. Gunter Blobel donating his entire
monetary reward for rebuilding cultural artifacts in Dresden is laudable... I
have no doubt other science laureates, Pauling(?), have generously used the
Nobel resources for humanitarian purposes.

Selling your medal for personal gain is just crass.

PS. For more on Bohr, Nazis, and Nobel's check this out..
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/10/03/140815154/disso...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/10/03/140815154/dissolve-
my-nobel-prize-fast-a-true-story) Dissolving and later recasting prizes to
keep them from Hitler is pretty cool.

~~~
dalke
I can accept the charge of being pedantic. The text in the Slate article is
"first Nobel laureate in history to [sell the medallion]" while the linked-to
article in the Telegraph quotes Christie's auctioneer as "the first Nobel
Prize to be sold by a living recipient" so I assume you think the Telegraph is
also pedantic for adding the qualifier "living".

"Offensive" I contest. Here I thought I was diminishing his uniqueness.

But "Selling your medal for personal gain is just crass"? That I reject.

I reject the validity of your blanket condemnation of what a winner can do
with their prize. Where is the limit? Can a Presidential Medal of Honor winner
auction their medal? Purple Heart winner? Pulitzer prize? State spelling bee
champion? Or is the Nobel Prize somehow unique?

Would is be crass for a winner to sell the award if they needed the money to
pay for a bone marrow transplant? To prevent foreclosure on the house? Provide
seed money for a new business? Surely you don't think all possible cases of
personal gain are crass.

Crick's family sold the medal after his death. 70% went to research
organizations but I don't know about the other 30%. Is it okay for part of
that to go towards personal gain for the family members? It had been in
storage first in a room and then in a safety deposit box for 50 years. Why
should he, or any other prize winner, wait until death to sell the prize?

P.S. The account about dissolving the gold was also in the link I gave.

