
Watson’s Nobel Prize Medal for Decoding DNA Fetches $4.1M at an Auction - ssclafani
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/nyregion/james-watsons-nobel-medal-sells-for-record-4-million.html
======
IvyMike
Slate has a far more negative view of the auction:

> Jim Watson is one of the most important scientists of the 20th century. He
> is also a peevish bigot. History will remember him for his co-discovery of
> the structure of DNA, in 1953. This week, Watson is ensuring that history,
> or at least the introduction to every obituary, will also remember him for
> being a jerk.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/12/james_watson_selling_nobel_prize_dna_structure_discoverer_s_history_of_racism.html)

~~~
nitin_flanker
Why he is a jerk? it's his rights to decide what to do with that medal. isn't
it? Why people are criticizing him is out of my head.

People also call him racist because of his another discovery. I mean let him
do whatever he wants to do with that. Will a medal going to carry away
whatever he does for the science?

~~~
jjoonathan
He established his reputation as a jerk independently of selling the medal.
Here are some quotes:

> [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.

He's flat out wrong about what "all the testing" says, btw. We're not just
bashing someone for speaking a politically unpopular truth here (I cynically
suspect that we would do just that were Watson's position correct, but
fortunately that doesn't seem to be the case).

> Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not
> going to hire them

> [the] historic curse of the Irish, which is not alcohol, it's not stupidity.
> But it's ignorance.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversies)

Also, he's selling the medal with the specific intent of thumbing his nose at
the scientific community. He would draw much more sympathy if he had fallen on
hard times due to misfortune, for instance.

~~~
shamney
Why is he "flat out wrong" about the testing? African intelligence scores are
much lower.

~~~
shamney
why would someone downvote this? I'm simply pointing out facts. For example,
see this paper by Wicherts et al [1]: "Our estimate of average IQ converges
with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as
predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around
82."

[1][http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf](http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf)

~~~
seekingtruth
I'm getting downvoted for linking to Wikipedia. Facts don't matter on this
topic.

~~~
shamney
the downvotes are quite amazing. this is just a basic factual matter --
nothing to do with whether watson's broader claims are true -- yet it seems
some people are simply incapable of dealing with reality...

~~~
whorace
The same people who decry creationists as ignorant insist that evolution only
works from the neck down.

------
TheBiv
As a biologist, every time I read a story about Watson or Crick I am compelled
to include Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins names in the conversation
(granted the HN audience may not need an introduction to their influence).

This article seems to cast doubt on how important they were in the discovery
of the structure of DNA and into inheritable capability, however it is widely
known amongst scientists how large of a role they played in Watson and Crick's
discovery:

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin)
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Wilkins](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Wilkins)

~~~
jjoonathan
These days they teach it in school like Franklin did all the work while Watson
& Crick were allowed to barge in and steal the credit due primarily to male
privilege, which IMO goes too far (it ignores Crick's mathematical
contribution, Franklin's unfortunate timing, and the ownership structure of
lab projects).

The real shame is that we insist on shoehorning a fundamentally collaborative
endeavor into a winner-take-all social construct.

~~~
phj
The version I learned was that Franklin did all the experimental work, while
Crick did the Fourier transforms in his head to interpret Franklin's results.
Not sure about Watson's contribution, though.

~~~
jjoonathan
Sounds like your teacher/prof was more level-headed than mine. Was Crick's
contribution to the mathematical theory explained or was it sort of implied
that he just happened to have the right training?

The way I see it, both the diffraction theorists and the crystallization
experimentalists deserve credit. Had things happened differently the
experimentalists would have gotten all the credit and that would have been
just as wrong.

------
pervycreeper
>The sale also became symbolic of a quest for redemption after he became what
he called an “unperson” in the scientific community seven years ago

So much for science as a bastion of disinterested objective investigation.

When a community's greatest minds (such as Perelman, Grothendieck, etc., in
math, for instance) become alienated from the larger community, when
conformity and publishing quantity (over quality) is rewarded, and dissent is
punished, when information, results, and access is kept from all but a few of
the elect, we have a system which is not fulfilling its promise or its
purpose.

~~~
coke12
This was not "disinterested objective investigation", it was ranting from a
bigot. He's also said (among other things) that he won't hire fat people, and
that women aren't as good as men at science.

I think what we're seeing here is what too often happens with celebrity
scientists -- they get a big head, and think they are expert on issues that
they actually know nothing about.

~~~
pervycreeper
I am condemning the reaction to the comments, not defending those comments
themselves (which I have not investigated thoroughly).

>I think what we're seeing here is what too often happens with celebrity
scientists -- they get a big head, and think they are expert on issues that
they actually know nothing about.

I agree with this point (and would go further by removing the celebrity
condition), and it is probably applicable to Watson, just as it is to most who
condemn him.

~~~
jamesaguilar
> I am condemning the reaction to the comments

Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate
with someone who says racist things? (This was the reaction to his comments.)
I mean, leaving aside the legal issues of having someone in a management
position saying something like that. Morally, you feel that this is wrong?

~~~
pervycreeper
>Are you saying that you believe it is wrong to fire or refuse to associate
with someone who says racist things?

No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what I
said. Ostracizing someone for "saying racist" things would be appropriate,
depending on a number of particulars, including degree (is teaching "math"
instead of "anti-racist math" itself an assertion of racism?). However, in
this instance, it would require a great deal of interpretation to get a
legitimate expression of bigotry out of his initial remarks. He was punished
not for prejudice, but for breaking a social taboo. Same analysis applies to
Shirtgate and Larry Summers on sex differences.

~~~
jamesaguilar
> No, that is an overgeneralization of a very lazy mischaracterization of what
> I said.

I didn't characterize what you said, I asked whether I had understood your
properly.

Now that you have clarified, I have another question. Do you actually believe
that what he said was a controversial yet fundamentally scientific opinion?
The man himself has acknowledged that there is not actually any genetic
difference in intelligence, as far as we can tell. It might be different if
the data actually backed up what he said, but as far as I can tell, it was
simple racist ranting.

Nobody was punished for shirtgate. A guy apologized for doing something wrong.
Everyone forgave him. The end.

~~~
pervycreeper
>Do you actually believe that what he said was a controversial yet
fundamentally scientific opinion?

well, using this quote as a source (can't find the original):

>He says that 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”

This is more of an off-the-cuff, vague, and poorly considered comment. So, no.

However, it has attracted a disproportionate amount of scrutiny (compared to
the stupid and incorrect things said all the time by other scientists), most
often from people who are equally unqualified to comment. Also notable is the
assumption on the part of critics who assumed he stated the basis for the
difference is genetic, which he did not in fact say.

>Nobody was punished for shirtgate

He was bullied to tears by a giant internet hate mob telling him he was a bad
person on one of the most significant days in his career, all for his choice
of apparel. The same people, I might add, who advocate internet censorship in
order to curb "harassment".

------
mironathetin
Who buys something like that? Not that I don't like to see the money of a
wealthy person going into science. Better than a stupid investment into (put
here whatever multiplies money). But to me its like eating the heart of your
enemy to let his strength leap over to you. Thank god, it doesn't work.

Is it only me, or is it a weird purchase?

------
waps
"Decoding DNA" is such a bad name. He figured out the double helix.

DNA isn't decoded yet. Genes have a preamble, and postamble, and we have very
little idea what they mean, we only know what compounds are "requested" by the
codons in the middle of the gene. There are large "empty" parts in chromosomes
(not just the telomeres), and while we know they're not optional, exactly what
they're for is anyone's guess. Furthermore, genes are known to contain some
sort of symbolic pointers to other genes, which we don't know the format of.

Also the way the cell nucleus decodes DNA into the chromatin network, which
should be thought of as the CPU that "executes" DNA contains a lot of stuff we
don't know about. For starters, there are molecules linking across DNA
molecules ... what do they signify ? How do they work ? How is gene expression
controlled by the DNA (presumably has to do with the pre-and-postambles of
genes). How does the pointer resolution in genes work ?

What we know as the double helix, what everybody thinks of as DNA, is really a
picture of sex (or "conception" if you want to get technical. That's why we
have sex of course). DNA only occurs in that form during reproduction (could
be cell, or organism reproduction of course, though during cell (asexual)
reproduction it's only present for a few seconds at best, during sexual
reproduction it exists for a few minutes)

~~~
kendallpark
> What we know as the double helix, what everybody thinks of as DNA, is really
> a picture of sex (or "conception" if you want to get technical. That's why
> we have sex of course). DNA only occurs in that form during reproduction
> (could be cell, or organism reproduction of course, though during cell
> (asexual) reproduction it's only present for a few seconds at best, during
> sexual reproduction it exists for a few minutes)

??? What are you talking about? DNA exists in a double helical form almost
always. An exception is when it is "unzipped" for transcription or
duplication. (And that's only a few nucleotides at a time.)

I have no idea how you're relating sex to the double helical structure of DNA.

~~~
waps
In the chromatin network there's no double helix, because it's always mostly
unrolled and various things are bound to it. It looks a lot more like a
ladder.

The double helix as analyzed only exists as part of chromosomes.

~~~
kendallpark
It seems you are mistaking DNA's quaternary structure for its tertiary
structure. DNA's tertiary structure remains helical while wound up in
chromatin.

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Nucleosom...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Nucleosome_1KX5_2.png)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_structure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_structure)

------
baker0
This is a simplified argument but if you gave any adolescent group an
assignment to study and argue the Talmud, then I think they'd naturally grow
into inquisitive-minded individuals well versed in critical thinking. It seems
clear that the intellectual success of European Jews is directly related to
their cultural upbringing and academic endeavors.

I doubt anyone has ever suggested otherwise. The fact that 27% of Nobel Prize
winners in the 20th century were of Ashkenazi heritage is most likely directly
related to their culture and a ton of endless hard work. We are all homo
sapiens. Yes some cultures are worse off than others but I see no evidence of
any genetic superiority. It's not like all these academic achievers are coyly
existing on a beach in a tropical environment, barely exerting any effort, and
causally changing the world of science. No, it takes a ton of effort.

(My comment is based on Watson's theory on IQ and race, and books like, The
Bell Curve. And I'm not promoting religion just the critical thinking skills
developed by analyzing and arguing a complicated text.)

~~~
IndianAstronaut
Another component in intelligence may be the parasite burden people in certain
regions have.

[http://www.economist.com/node/16479286](http://www.economist.com/node/16479286)

