DailyDirt: Winning A Nobel Prize And Thinking Differently

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Thu, Dec 18th 2014 5:00pm — Michael Ho

A fairly sizable list of Nobel laureates suffer from Nobel disease -- a phenomenon in which respected scientists publicly espouse somewhat crazy ideas. Perhaps just being famous also causes this affliction...? Or maybe there should be more research on this topic, worthy of an Ig Nobel award. In any case, here are a few links on some Nobel prize winners that demonstrate these people are still human.

Nobel laureate James Watson, famous for eludicating the helical structure of DNA, recently auctioned off his medal for over $4 million. The winning bid came from Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov who says he'll return the medal to Watson. [url]
Nobel laureates in Chemistry seem to like giving advice to others. Ada Yonath had some sage advice: "Go into science if you are curious and have passion for it. If not, find something else." [url]
Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR who won the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993, supported research suggesting that AIDS is not caused by HIV. The scientific evidence is overwhelming against the assertion that HIV and AIDS are unrelated, but Mullis isn't convinced. [url]
Linus Pauling won not just one, but TWO Nobel prizes. However, these credentials didn't prevent him from spouting some crazy unsupported statements, such as asserting that megadoses of vitamin C can prevent colds and death from cancers. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: james watson, kary mullis, linus pauling, megadose, nobel disease, nobel prize, vitamin c

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

RR, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:14pm

Wording
I believe nearly every scientist would support research that suggests a current theory is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:13pm
  
  Re: Wording
  The scientific community is addled with ridicule and hubris.
  
  Go and look at the annals of history where more than plenty of great inventors were scoffed at and resisted by the scientific community... prompting this old saying.
  
  Science progresses one funeral at a time.
  
  Or better yet...
  
  "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
  
  ~Max Planck
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
randomjoe (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:11pm

What you seem to be saying
Is that the consensus is always right and nobody should bother questioning it?

Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:05pm
  
  Re: What you seem to be saying
  If the consensus is backed by the available evidence, and the opposing idea(s) aren't, then yeah, I'd say go with the consensus. If both sides have solid, verifiable evidence backing their positions, then that means it's time to do more research, and see about reconciling the difference.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mdpopescu (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:52pm
    
    Re: Re: What you seem to be saying
    This is a very nice answer that doesn't actually mean anything. AS A FUCKING LAYMAN, who doesn't have access / time / expertise to evaluate the evidence, how do you determine? (My choice is: the consensus is usually wrong, but I'm in the minority :P.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Emil Kirkegaard, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What you seem to be saying
      You don't need to have an opinion, and if you must, then go with the dominant position among scholars.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Frok (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:53pm
    
    truth by consensus always ends well
    Why not 'go with the evidence'? [assuming it exists]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:01pm

Just because someone's smart in one field, doesn't mean they're not an idiot in another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emil Kirkegaard, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:28pm

Watson
The difference being that in the case of Watson, that his comments were not crazy but firmly supported by the evidence. This is not the case for Mullis or Pauling's ideas.

E.g. a review of the evidence is here: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frok (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:52pm

no bell prize?
Ignoring the heat from the sun driving the climate can win one a nobel prize. Tyrants have won nobel prizes.

Other than melting down the gold trophy why should anyone care about recipients 'accomplishments'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2014 @ 1:40am

the nobel prize system just isn't all that prestigious anymore.

You have people that buy their way in, people that are awarded just to make a political statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2014 @ 6:04am

Linus Pauling
Pauling is an example of anyone who decides to weigh in on an area outside of his/her field of expertise, and depends on their celebrity status to carry the day. That kind of hubris isn't just restricted to scientists. Every day you hear about actors, politicians, and so on (even on this site) pontificating on subjects they have no knowledge of.

Intellectual integrity is truly a rare thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mattshow (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 8:07am

I suppose if you die from a vitamin C overdose, your chances of catching a cold or being diagnosed with cancer do drop significantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 10:55am

I don't know about preventing colds and cancers, but vitamin C megadoses can dramatically reduce the amount of time you spend sick once you actually catch the cold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bo, 6 Aug 2015 @ 5:24am

Quackery
Linus Pauling is hardly a quack, and as far as hubris, he took no end of flack and loss of reputation for fighting against above ground nuclear testing, which they've calculated killed 10k or more Americans. He was branded a communist for wanting to save American lives.
Now if you look at the average life span of doctors, they live a few years less than the average person. Meanwhile all of the doctors I've been able to find that took 1 gram or more vit c till the end, lived on average about 9 years longer than the average person. Guess who's advice I'm going to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]