Nobel Prize or Money - RAR!

[General Zod]

I think not taking the prize because you don't want the "fame" is kind of a cop-out. I mean, Nobel Prize winners aren't being followed around by paparazzi 24/7. Hell, look at the list of Nobel Prize winners for any given prize and see how many of them you even know without looking them up. Although it's a prestigious prize, obviously, most don't achieve any real "fame" outside of their specific field/profession. So saying you don't want the fame in this context is basically saying that you don't want to be respected by your peers.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this isn't directed at the people expressing moral problems at "cheating" their way to a prize. That's a different argument, I think, then saying you don't want the fame.

If some guy comes out of nowhere and claims a Nobel don't you think most of his "peers" are going to start questioning how he achieved his goal? Unless you're a really good liar at some point they're going to start digging into you, and who wants that kind of controversy following them around? The fame associated with winning a prize in that way seems like it could be a damper on any future prospects you wanted to explore.

[bilateralrope]

Question is, if you go with option 1 do you understand the discovery you made ?

[phred]

I'm going with option 2. A couple million bucks makes my life really comfortable, and someone out there makes a really neat discovery. Everybody wins!

For the bonus round I would take option 1. I get money, and the ability to take part in some cool research projects? what's not to like?

[phongn]

No-bonus: Option 2. Humanity's knowledge is still advanced, I get more money.
Bonus: Option 1. Does it come with paper credentials and an academic history to boot?

[Tribble]

If the bonus round does not apply I pick two because I have zero use for fame or a shiny medal and no plausible way to follow up on my magical not-really-earned discovery. I'd be remembered as that guy that did something really clever once and then never again, and that one clever thing I didn't even actually do to begin with. That's a shit legacy. Sure, nobody would ever know that Zog did the heavy lifting, but I'd know, and that's enough for me. Someone else can have the fake accolades, I take the money and run.

If the bonus round does apply then I'll take the peace price, a million dollars and the mental abilities. That's enough to kickstart a political career, and then twenty years later when I'm President of Europe I write my own history books, conquer the moon and have my face hacked into Mont Blanc.

I agree 100%. I wouldn't be able to accept an award for something I knew I did not earn. So option number 2 for me. I would still pick option 2 even if the bonus round applied. Some people spend decades in their field before earning a Nobel Prize. Getting an artificial brain boost in order to beat them to it just doesn't seem right.

And some people get a Nobel Prize for literally no reason at all. *cough*Obama*cough* I fail to see how artificially enhancing your results in the genetic lottery that is intelligence is wrong or unfair. Sure some people work really hard to get to where they are, while others were simply in the right place at the right time. If it was something like you stealing credit from an actual person who is on the verge of making a discovery, sure that would be wrong, but serendipitous inventions happen sometimes.

I just wouldn't be happy knowing that my intelligence and achievements were primarily the sole result of a genie's influence. That's just who I am. And to be honest I wouldn't use the genie at all, but for this scenario that's not an option. Which is why I chose option 2.

[fuzzymillipede]

I think option #1 would lead to an extremely lucrative career, so I'll go with that.

[Ziggy Stardust]

If some guy comes out of nowhere and claims a Nobel don't you think most of his "peers" are going to start questioning how he achieved his goal? Unless you're a really good liar at some point they're going to start digging into you, and who wants that kind of controversy following them around? The fame associated with winning a prize in that way seems like it could be a damper on any future prospects you wanted to explore.

Why would you need to be a really good liar? The way I understood the OP, this isn't a Jedi Mind Trick to get the Academy to give you the Nobel, but rather makes you responsible for work that wins one. I implicitly assumed that it came with an understanding of that work (which admittedly on re-reading is not necessarily the case) and that the work in and of itself isn't fraudulent (it is "true", for whatever that means in the field in question). While certainly it would cause a stir in the field, everyone that tries to replicate the work will support your findings and any controversy would die down pretty quick. I mean, what are they going to find "digging into you"? A paper trail confirming that a magic being gave you the research/whatever to win the Nobel?

It wouldn't be the first time in the history of science that someone came into a field and discovered something important. In fact, it may be more common than you think (though certainly not in as extreme a scale). That's why multidisciplinary approaches are so important - people within a field often get very entrenched in a way of thinking, and it takes a new perspective to look at things in a new, critical way.

Hell, look at Obama, one of the most controversial Nobel laureates to date. Who even talks about it anymore? That hoopla faded almost instantly.

Honestly, the most controversy you could create is if you decided to win the Literature prize rather than one of the science prizes. Since Literature prizes are usually given to writers at the end of long, luminous careers rather than on the basis of a single work. Any of the science prizes would cause a stir within the research community that would fade quickly once the research is reproduced.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Hmm, now that I think about it, one highly lucrative method for the standard version woould be to take the Nobel in Medicine for creating something that completely nullifies the negative health effects of smoking and license it to tobacco companies in exchange for a share of the profits.

[Borgholio]

Hmm, now that I think about it, one highly lucrative method for the standard version woould be to take the Nobel in Medicine for creating something that completely nullifies the negative health effects of smoking and license it to tobacco companies in exchange for a share of the profits.

Remember, one condition of the RAR is that it can't be world-changing. So you're talking about either a *perfect* cigarette filter and the means to contain all second-hand smoke, or a cure for cancer. That's rather significant.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The first option less so, since it can only be used to make a perfect cigarette. You are right though, damnit. That would have been worth billions.

[Borgholio]

Also as I think about it, would nicotine addiction be considered a negative health effect? If that's true, what's going to be the point of smoking then? Hmm...flavored smoke that actually doesn't cause harm? Might be like candy.

[2000AD]

Is the $1mil in the first option meant to represent the standard money award for winning a Nobel Prize (8mil SEK, roughly $1.2mil) or is that on top of that?

[The Grim Squeaker]

Is the $1mil in the first option meant to represent the standard money award for winning a Nobel Prize (8mil SEK, roughly $1.2mil) or is that on top of that?

The standard payout.

[Enigma]

3/3 Straight cash in either scenario.

If this question was asked about ten years ago, then I'd go for 1 with IQ boost (love me some literature. ).

[Purple]

Money is nice. But fame and knowledge + money > money any day. If nothing else, the two combined would allow me to gain more and more, multiplying my wealth a trillion fold until I own the lives of every man, woman and child on this earth. Well that or get a nice big house and a lifetime supply of attractive girls and vodka.