In this case no, I don't think so. He was a great scientist, one of the greatest the UK has produced. If his contribution is not worthy of commemorating on a UK banknote, I don't know whose is.
Erm, if anything I would say his contribution to the sciences is what is commonly overblown, not what his government did to him. Perhaps what he contributed is being overblown because of what his government did?
In any event, I think the reality of the man is enough to warrant honoring on some bill.
