Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

For Sale: One Nobel Prize Medal (Slightly Used, By Francis Crick)

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the but-where-would-you-put-it? dept.

The Almighty Buck 179

Hugh Pickens writes "UPI reports that for the first time in the history of Nobel Prize, one of the Nobel Prize medals, along with the diploma presented by the Nobel committee, is on auction — with an opening bid of $250,000. Awarded to Francis Crick, who along with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1962 'for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material,' the medal will be auctioned off in New York City, by Heritage Auctions. The medal has been kept in a safe deposit box in California since Crick's widow passed away in 2007 and a portion of the proceeds will go to the Francis Crick Institute of disease research scheduled to open in London in 2015. '"By auctioning his Nobel it will finally be made available for public display and be well looked after. Our hope is that, by having it available for display, it can be an inspiration to the next generation of scientists," says Crick's granddaughter, Kindra Crick. "My granddad was honored to have received the Nobel Prize, but he was not the type to display his awards; his office walls contained a large chalkboard, artwork and a portrait of Charles Darwin."'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Portion of the proceeds? (4, Insightful)

AuralityKev (1356747) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015241)

When I see things like these, especially with grandkids as the spokespeople, it just makes me think it's a cash grab. It's not due to any "inspirational" mojo behind hanging it up somewhere. If that were the case, they should just donate it outright, and maybe have people pay a couple bucks a gander, and toss that to the Francis Crick Institute. Not "a portion" of the proceeds, which could be $10 on a potential windfall.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015339)

Portions can be represented as fractions, and 0/0 is a fraction, right?

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (0)

pablo.cl (539566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015441)

0/1 is a fraction. 0/0 is not.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (0)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015627)

Actually it is. A fraction involves two integers. 0 is an integer, so 0/0 is a fraction. Depending on who you ask its value is either 0, infinity, or undefined.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (4, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015707)

Or FILE_NOT_FOUND.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015865)

A fraction involves two integers.

True.

0 is an integer

True.

so 0/0 is a fraction.

False.
The denominator of a fraction must be nonzero. A fraction is a number. N/0 is never a number, regardless of the value of N.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016187)

Depending on who you ask its value is either 0, infinity, or undefined.

And depending on who you ask, some might even say the value of it is, "Why are you asking me that question?" or, "Piss off."

Otherwise, those that are answering zero or infinity are either wrong, or working in a special context where they don't mind if some basic concepts of arithmetic and algebra are broken in the name of some convenience.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015733)

You just divided by zero, OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015353)

Has anyone ever in the history of history ever sold anything ever for what ever reason ever not been inclined to see a profit? You're right, outright donations are the only safe way to save face.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (5, Informative)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015463)

To be honest, Crick was a bit of a git anyway (and Watson wasn't exactly what you might call a gentleman). They basically stole someone else's unpublished scientific work to confirm their own data (mainly, it has to be said, because she was only a woman) and without which they'd have ended up with entirely the wrong model. They were loathe to credit her, even after her death, even though others did.

Not saying they *didn't* do a lot of the work, but without her observations, comments, and years of working on data, they'd have been lost for quite a while longer than they were.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (5, Informative)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015827)

For those wondering who this post is referring to, that would be Rosalind Franklin.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (3, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015893)

Indeed. It's pretty low to get all worked up about Watson & Crick's asshattery... and then not mention the individual involved.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016455)

Deliberate omission by OP, methinks.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015859)

Did they steal from her because she was a woman or because she simply was ahead of them in the race?

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (4, Interesting)

PTBarnum (233319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015931)

This claim is, at best, controversial. Some people say that Rosalind's lab partner Maurice Wilkins gave her unpublished work to Watson and Crick without her permission; Watson and Crick say that it was in fact officially released by King's College. I'm not aware that Franklin herself ever stated that she had been robbed. Wilkins was included in the Nobel prize; presumably Franklin would have been also had she still been alive.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (4, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016147)

I'm not aware that Franklin herself ever stated that she had been robbed.

According to wiki and whoever they cite, she probably wasn't aware her data was used [wikipedia.org] and died before she would have found that out.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016253)

There would probably be more controversy if she were still alive at the time the prize was awarded, as it is only allowed to be split up among three people. It is messy enough in recent times when deciding which three to award it to when you have a larger team that does acknowledge people's work.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015637)

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Nobel-Prize-of-DNA-pioneer-to-go-under-hammer-22022013.htm
says 1/5.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015773)

So what's your point? Why shouldn't they see some cash from it? The nobel means nothing to them; they didn't earn it.

I'd do the same. I mean, shit, I can only stare at if for so long, and if you think I'm going to give away the equivalent of $250K or more, you gotta be fucking joking.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016561)

Well, family should respect the wishes of their deceased. So if Crick or his widow wouldn't have cared if it was sold, fine. But remember this is a very very prestigious scientific award, and was most likely valued very highly by Crick and his wife (note they never sold it but instead passed it down to their kids). I suspect that Crick would sort of be rolling around in his grave from this which makes it, not wrong, but bad karma for sure. These are the kinds of family heirlooms that are impossible to replace, come around once every few hundred years, and add a really cool sense of heritage and pride for following generations in the family. Personally I would rather have grandpa's NOBEL FUCKING PRIZE on my mantel than some bullshit car or boat in the driveway... If nothing else, it would make a really cool conversation piece.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

Jiro (131519) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016621)

250000 can buy more than a car in the driveway. Would you rather have grandpa's Nobel Prize than, oh, a college education? Or an expensive medical treatment?

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

ah.clem (147626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015781)

Agreed, cash grab. No real content in this post, I just hate fucking "family" that does this shit. Just admit you're doing it for the cash, fuckers.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1, Insightful)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015783)

Perhaps the family of Dr. Crick reexamined the value of a Nobel Prize when a Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded to Barack Obama for simply promising to be a nice guy, sans any actual significant personal accomplishments in humanitarian arenas. In many ways the Nobel Prize has become somewhat of a joke, even if one were to discount the award presented to President Obama.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015821)

If that was the case, they would have sold it off when they gave one to Kissinger, decades ago.

Or did you only notice that the Peace Prize is a political token when they gave one out to somebody you don't like?

In any case, the Peace Prize is determined by a whole separate committee from the real Nobels, precisely because it's nonsense.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (5, Interesting)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015965)

Kissinger, like him or loathe him, actually DID something on the world stage BEFORE he got the award including the actual negotiation of peace accords, even though the accords ultimately failed to succeed.

Obama was a not even inaugurated President-elect whose main achievement was being in the U.S. Senate for a couple of years and having one kickass campaign PR team.

You can make a good argument why Kissinger was overrated, but I was absolutely stunned that Obama got an award not even for trying to bring peace, but simply promising to do so.

The Peace Prize is definitely a different category of award than the others, and it has a tendency to become political due simply to the subject matter, but they used to at least point to actual work or achievements, the quality of those actions admittedly being up for argument.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016757)

None of the Nobel committee's failings are Obama's fault. He was stuck accepting a prize any reasonable man would rather not receive. It boils down to a bunch of Europeans infatuated with a new magic negro.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017017)

Agreed. I don't believe that the award reflects on Obama himself. If they gave me the award, I'd scratch my head, but probably accept it. I mean, why not?

Still, it does reflect on a new, and pretty serious low for the award selection itself, because when it comes down to it, Obama had not done much more than any normal person specifically for the cause of peace. There are numerous movie and rock stars who have done demonstrably more concrete things for peace than Obama had done at that point (and potentially even now into his second term).

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (-1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43017001)

This again?!! C'mon, Obama got the peace prize because he gave people of the U.S. and the entire world "hope" for the future. And he's done a damn good job, so far (IMO and of many others.) From wikianswers

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Barack_Obama_win_the_Nobel_Peace_Prize [answers.com]

According to Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland, "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate... Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."

Jagland highlighted that the Committee was especially influenced by a speech Obama gave to reach out to the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009, as well as the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.

Some believe that Barack Obama has not done anything to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Here are some opinions from Answers.com contributors who believe that Obama should not have won the Prize:

There has been no intervention on a huge scale by Obama. He has not curtailed any aggressive actions by any foreign state, or even his own. In fact he has increased military actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan. He has not been long on the international circuit and has no international reputation as a peacemaker.

In the past, winners have spent many years of dedicated service to achieve the honour, or have used high office for the furtherance of peace. President Obama has done neither of these.

Obama himself has stated that he does not feel he deserved the award, and that it must be spiritually shared by all the other nominees, but also not "as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," and "as a call to action --- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century." He plans to donate the full US$1.4 million monetary award to charity.

Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naive for accepting a young politician's promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason... 'We want to embrace the message that he stands for.'"

The Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang has later reported that Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises. It also said the representative of the Conservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections. The choice for Obama was however strongly supported by committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck, both representatives of the Labour Party.

In his will, Alfred Nobel left little to guide those who award the prize. Besides directing that it be awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament (though Nobel was a Swede), Nobel said only that it should be given to the person who "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." By October 2009, when the prize was awarded to him after less than nine months in office, few would argue that President Obama had qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize -- or any other -- even under such nebulous terms. Indeed, the announcement was something of a surprise in most circles, including the president's own. Obama himself is quoted as saying, "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments." It should be considered too that the final decision to award the prize to Obama had been reached weeks or months before the actual ceremony, raising even stronger questions as to why.

Any reasonable review of the Peace Prize Committee's decisions in recent years yields the conclusion that ultra-left candidates are currently in strong favor, their tangible accomplishments -- or a complete lack thereof -- aside. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet head of state and dedicated communist who conducted the final stages of the Cold War against the U.S. and other NATO countries, received the prize in 1990. Former U.S President Jimmy Carter received the award in 2002; despite how the Nobel committee may have viewed him, Carter, whose one term ended in 1981, is widely ridiculed and perceived as a failure in his own country. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore shared the 2006 Peace Prize. Neither party has ever done a single thing to promote peace in any part of the world, though both have promoted a theory of anthropogenic global warming that, while lucrative to both of them, and almost religiously popular with the extreme left, has been widely and soundly discredited.

In fact, through its long history, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to only four U.S. presidents. I've already mentioned Obama (almost before he was elected -- there are some who have opined that he would have received the prize even if he had lost the election) and Carter (21 years after he left office). The other two were Teddy Roosevelt (1906) and Woodrow Wilson (1919), indisputably two of the founders of the modern "progressive" era. No conservative U.S. president has ever won a NPP. (Yes, TR was a Republican, but hardly like today's brand of Republican. And he was certainly no conservative.)

In the final tally, US President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize largely for offering the world hope, rather than for any practical achievements, and possibly as an encouragement for what he might accomplish after receiving the prize.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016019)

Read my post again. Slowly.

In many ways the Nobel Prize has become somewhat of a joke, even if one were to discount the award presented to President Obama.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016319)

Maybe it would help if you actually explained why you think the Nobel science prizes are a joke, instead of spending the majority of your post discussing Obama that wasn't apparently central to your point. As is, it looks like you are one of the people conflating the peace prize with the science prizes, regardless of the relevance of Obama to your point.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (5, Insightful)

the gnat (153162) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016305)

Perhaps the family of Dr. Crick reexamined the value of a Nobel Prize when a Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded to Barack Obama

What exactly is the problem with you people who can't tell the difference between the Nobel Peace prize and the prizes for Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine? What makes you think the two categories have anything to do with one another, either administratively or politically? They could give the Peace prize to Bashar Assad this fall and it would still have zero relevance to the worth of the chemistry prize.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

neonKow (1239288) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015929)

I agree on most points, but I'm pretty sure almost no one is going to pay money to look at a Nobel Prize.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

jest3r (458429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015989)

This Slashdot story paid for by Heritage Auctions ... hoping that at least one Slashdot reader has $250K to drop.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016053)

Yup, I think the same thing. It would be interesting to do some research on the granddaughter and see exactly where she is in life, and to find out exactly how much she plans on "donating" and how much she plans on pocketing. Cause stunts like this always seem shady to me.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016167)

Yes, cash grab it may be. But you say it likes it is a bad thing.

If your grandfather died and left you $250,000 would you donate it all to charity?

This is no different.

Re:Portion of the proceeds? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016173)

It's hers to sell. She shouldn't have to justify it to you or anyone else. You're an ass for suggesting that she should. Being neither a member of the family or the Nobel comity, it's none of your damned business.

Auction House Cut (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016791)

Could just be legalese to the effect that the auction house usually takes a percentage, but who really knows.

In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015261)

A quarter of a million dollars will pay for a lot of trips to Harrod's, past and present.

For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. (0, Flamebait)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015313)

Opening bid: $0.01
They're not worth even that, after Obama got his for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens.

Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. (4, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015369)

That was the "peace" prize. This is the science prize. Big difference

Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. (2)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015775)

Once upon a time, someone *might* have argued that they both had to be earned, and not handed out lightly or for political purposes.

Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. (4, Insightful)

donscarletti (569232) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015809)

They're not worth even that, after Obama got his for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens.

Well, he got it for being elected, if they want to give him a prize for sustaining war, torture and murdering own citizens then they're going to have to give him another.

Tom Lehrer famously said that political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's been more or less a joke since well before that.

Though it is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee which has different standards and values to Karolinska Institutet or Swedish Academy of Science.

Re:For sale: All Nobel peace prizes. (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016875)

Wasn't Nobel the guy that invented TNT explosives?

Yes there are non-military uses for explosives, but still. Since the inception it seems a bit skechy to me.

Probably saved a lot of migrant worker lives who didn't have to use a glass vial of nitro for mining I am sure, but then also used to blow up people in times of war also. Could say the same about atomic research I suppose. It is all about how it is applied I suppose.

However somethings are a little more "peaceful" than others.

Nobel and money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015331)

I wish scientists had money to set up research institutes, hospitals, and universities.

I'm going to buy it and melt it down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015355)

Then I'll mix it into a drink, consume it and gain his wisdom.

That's how DNA works, right?

Re:I'm going to buy it and melt it down (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015767)

Get it bronzed instead.

Re:I'm going to buy it and melt it down (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015941)

You'd probably do better by digging him up, and sucking the marrow from his bones. Some folks might object to that idea. Defiling the dead and cannibalism are pretty much taboo in our world.

Geeez, that idea poses a science question, doesn't it? How long after you die is the marrow in your bones fit to eat? I mean - does it dry up? Does it crumble to powder? Is it destroyed during the embalming? That's probably it. They put that stuff into you to destroy the marrow, thereby preventing you from becoming a zombie.

Don't like my idea? Offer a better one. My curiosity isn't piqued enough to go look it up.

Kindra Check? (0)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015381)

"Our hope is that, by having it available for display, it can be an inspiration to the next generation of scientists," says Crick's granddaughter, Kindra Check."

It's Kindra "Crick".

Proofreading much?

You know, I've been mostly ignoring the Timothy bashing that goes on here, but now I'm starting to get it. Timothy, please try a little harder. Hugh Pickens? The same - sloppy.

Re:Kindra Check? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015581)

Next time, he should check.

Re:Kindra Check? (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015641)

LOL. Maybe the crick in his neck distracted him from checking?

Re:Kindra Check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015979)

Next time, he should Crick.

Re:Kindra Check? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015665)

The typo is in TFA as well, so I'm not sure proofreading would have helped. It is, after all, quite possible her name actually is Kindra Check (it isn't, I checked).

Re:Kindra Check? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015849)

Maybe they haven't cricked, erm CHECKED it thoroughly.

Re:Kindra Check? (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015937)

That's why I called out Hugh Pickens as well. After I double checked to make sure I was correct. This is some sloppy shiznit, because we're doing the job that the editor is supposed to be doing. Hugh may very well have made the original error, but it should have been caught by Timothy.

*shakes head*. I don't know. After more than a decade as a slashdotter, I may just have to ask to have my account disabled and move on. This is just pathetic.

Re:Kindra Check? (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016175)

The Timothy correction bot is hard at work - two errors I have noticed in today's posts have been corrected within minutes of each other. Yet no post of thanks from Timothy for noticing the discrepancies. I'm depressed.

Re:Kindra Check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016185)

She's English, so it should be Kindra Cheque.

Vegas Trip (0)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015391)

Pawn Stars would pay $50 for it.

Re:Vegas Trip (1)

tazan (652775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015541)

More likely, he has 12 of them in the back they just aren't selling, and $20 to have it cleaned and $20 to have it framed, $10 tops.

Re:Vegas Trip (4, Funny)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015621)

You're right. It's unique and pretty neat. There's a great story to it. But it's not everyday that someone comes in to the shop looking for a Nobel Prize. It's gonna take up space on a shelf for years.

Re:Vegas Trip (4, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015715)

I have a buddy who's an expert on Nobel Prize for Medicine medals. Let me give him a call.

Re:Vegas Trip (2)

azadrozny (576352) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015813)

It would be worth more if it wasn't personalized.

Finally available (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015397)

Finally available for public display? I don't recall anybody showing the slightest interest in seeing Francis Crick's Nobel medal.

Maybe they should ask MLK's family for advice on how to maximize the profit from something that they contributed nothing towards.

Re:Finally available (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015685)

The MLK family is nothing compared to a Vulture Capitalist like Mitt Romney, who gets praised for maximizing his own profits out of other's works.

Re:Finally available (1)

strikeleader (937501) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016093)

Yes, how dare he make money and provide employment. Doesn't he know that the government wants people to be slaves to the entitlement mentality and them provide them with all sorts of free stuff, penalize them for trying to break their shackles and blame the conservatives for not doing enough.

Scientists, sheesh. (-1, Offtopic)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015401)

Crick may have been a brilliant microbiologist, but he certainly doesn't know shit about business.

Nobody's going to pay him $250,000 for a Nobel, when the last one was given away for nothing. [wikipedia.org]

Silly, naive scientists.

Re:Scientists, sheesh. (-1, Troll)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015443)

And this comment is well on the way to -1 Troll land. For being too honest.

Re:Scientists, sheesh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016601)

It doesn't help that in three lines, he managed to convey that: he likes to talk crap about scientists, didn't know Francis Crick had nothing to do with the decision to sell the prize, and that he can't tell the difference between the science and peace prizes.

It was too honest... as in too honest of a display of his own stupidity and/or trolling.

Re:Scientists, sheesh. (5, Funny)

hazem (472289) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015615)

Crick may have been a brilliant microbiologist, but he certainly doesn't know shit about business.

Well, to be fair to Dr. Crick, he's been dead since 2004, so knowing much of anything is probably a pretty big challenge for him.

Re:Scientists, sheesh. (2)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016201)

If he was a really brilliant microbiologist, death wouldn't have stopped him.

Re:Scientists, sheesh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016347)

If he was a really brilliant microbiologist, death wouldn't have stopped him.

I believe he's currently making breakthroughs in the decomposition of organic solids in a subterranian environment.

They can't be worth that much (0, Offtopic)

Lucas123 (935744) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015413)

After all, Obama was nominated for one just 12 days after he took office. They're handing them out like candy these days.

Re:They can't be worth that much (0, Troll)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015451)

It's already been mentioned that Obummer's medal was for "peace". This is for science. There's a difference.

Re:They can't be worth that much (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015585)

This is totally not off topic, Obama's Nobel metal for not being Bush degraded the reputation of all Nobel prices.

Re:They can't be worth that much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016537)

The only reason people think it degraded the reputation of all of them is because they get them mixed up. Considering the science and peace prizes are awarded by two different groups and they have different rules over who and what they can award them to, it is pretty off-topic to mix the two of them up. About all they have in common at this point is coming out of Scandinavia and having similar names due being started by the same guy. If you want to insist than they should all be treated together, you might as well say it degraded the Abel prize too, because that also came out of Norway.

Re:They can't be worth that much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016587)

This is totally not off topic, Obama's Nobel metal for not being Bush degraded the reputation of all Nobel prices.

Including the one for spelling?

How much for the chalkboard? (3, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015445)

I'll give you $50!

Here's an idea for a portion of the proceeds (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015447)

Award them to the relatives of Rosalind Franklin.

Slightly used...? (1)

MugenEJ8 (1788490) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015465)

Someone should have told him to stop trying to use it in vending machines...

Donate to the Rosalind Franklin Society (5, Insightful)

jestill (656510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015473)

It would be great to buy this and donate it to the Rosalind Franklin Society ... http://www.rosalindfranklinsociety.org/ [rosalindfr...ociety.org]

Re:Donate to the Rosalind Franklin Society (2)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015487)

Start up a kickstarter and I'm in.

Re:Donate to the Rosalind Franklin Society (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015651)

Seconded.

Ms. Check (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015491)

Is getting a fat Check!

plus 4, TTroll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015497)

"available for public display"? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015557)

Are they restricting the bids to museums?
I see no where that private individual cannot buy this to add to their personal collection.

Re:"available for public display"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016247)

I see no where that private individual cannot buy this to add to their personal collection.

Maybe Lil Wayne can add it to his bling collection.

Stephen Colbert should buy it (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015563)

That way, he'd be able to claim that he's a Nobel-holding doctor, rather than just a doctor!

Re:Stephen Colbert should buy it (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015657)

Screw Stephen, Sheldon's got his eyes on it!

Re:Stephen Colbert should buy it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43015883)

You realise it was only for biology?

Re:Stephen Colbert should buy it (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016051)

Sheldon would never buy someone else's Nobel. He's going for his own, obviously well-deserved award.

Auction Link? (5, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015569)

Here is a link to the item, it is being auctioned off by Heritage Auctions: http://historical.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=6093&lotIdNo=50001 [ha.com]

Re:Auction Link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016213)

Thank you so much for the link. I have several hundred thousand dollars to throw around on something like that, but I just couldn't figure out how to do so!

Re:Auction Link? (4, Funny)

skine (1524819) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016855)

Just in case there are other Nobel Prize winners looking to sell, there's a link of the page labeled "I Have One of These to Sell."

Free parking at UC Berkeley (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015597)

That's gotta be worth something

Hey, what about makerbot? (2)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015917)

Poo on buying the medal: they should release the CAD data so we all can download and print our very own 3D copy.

You know who's gonna buy it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43016129)

My money is on Craig Venter. Unlike Crick he loves to adorn his walls with his accomplishments. Sadly he's lacking this one.

Prize Money? (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016209)

If it comes with the Prize Money, I bid half a million.

This medal belongs at the Eagle pub (2)

hotdiggity (987032) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016331)

The Eagle Pub [wikipedia.org] in Cambridge belongs to Corpus Christi College, and it is the place where Crick and Watson announced the helical DNA structure.

Corpus has the money; it could afford it. It's historically relevant, and I could think of nothing better than to hold a raise a pint in their honour.

And then maybe chase it bitterly with a bottle of Jack Daniels, in tribute to young Miss Rosalind Franklin from whom they stole so much.

A gift is a gift (1)

avandesande (143899) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016391)

You give something to somewhat they can do what they like with it. A lot more interesting prize is loaning an award to someone for a year- like the Stanley Cup.

First Nobel auctioned? (2)

D H NG (779318) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016679)

Did the submitter even read the article? It clearly said that Aage Bohr's medal was sold last year [bruun-rasmussen.dk] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?