Slate has a far more negative view of the auction:<p>> 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.<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/12/james_watson_selling_nobel_prize_dna_structure_discoverer_s_history_of_racism.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...</a>
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).<p>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:<p><a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin" rel="nofollow">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin</a>
<a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Wilkins" rel="nofollow">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Wilkins</a>
>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<p>So much for science as a bastion of disinterested objective investigation.<p>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.
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.<p>Is it only me, or is it a weird purchase?
"Decoding DNA" is such a bad name. He figured out the double helix.<p>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.<p>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 ?<p>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)
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.<p>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.<p>(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.)