The comment has been deleted.

James D. Watson's "Double Helix"

Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 6 months ago to Science
36 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

_The Double Helix_ (1968) is James D. Watson’s very personal account of how he and Francis Crick worked out the structure of DNA through 1951 and 1952. The reading is an easy 141 pages. But depth is here, also. The story is about scientists, their social spheres, and their conflicts, and (ultimately) their collaborations. This is also a chronological tour through some of the mind of James D. Watson. Proof demands evidence explained by consistent reasoning. Getting there is intuitive, insightful, and contrary.

Watson does not explain the technical terms. Mostly, it does not matter if you do not know the formulas for adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. (I do not. The book has pictures.) However, neither does he do more than drop the terms “keto” and “enol.” (You can look them up. I have not.) The narrative moves forward nonetheless.

More than the frustrating work of discovery, this story reveals much about how the culture of academic science perceived itself in the middle of the 20th century. Watson’s telling is personally unkind to Sir Lawrence Bragg. Bragg ordered his doctoral candidate, Crick, to abandon the pursuit for DNA. Says Watson: “ … we refrained from publicly questioning Bragg’s decision. An open outcry would reveal that our professor was completely in the dark about what the initials DNA stood for. There was no reason to believe that he gave it one hundredth the importance of the structure of metals, for which he took great delight in making soap-bubble models. Nothing then gave Sir Lawrence more pleasure than showing his ingenious motion-picture film of how soap bubbles bump each other.” (page 69) Yet, Bragg wrote the Foreword. That speaks to the culture of science.

Their conflict with Rosalind Franklin is now a legend. In closing the history, Watson allows that her barbed shell was a necessary defense in a society that held her sex against her. Yet, Watson also admits that she stood on good science. She refused to accept the helix until her own x-ray crystallography validated it, even though a single snapshot from that library inspired Crick and Watson to seek the spiral structure. When the cards were on the table, Franklin agreed, plainly, flatly, honestly. Ironically perhaps, at that moment, the structure of DNA had nothing to do with sex.

“Much of the talk about the three-dimensional structure of proteins and nucleic acids was hot air. … It made no sense to learn complicated mathematical methods in order to follow baloney.” (page 27).

Just as Sir Lawrence Bragg denied the value in Francis Crick’s independent path, Watson was fired by the supporters of his post-doctoral work. His position at Cambridge (where he was not supposed to be in the first place) was cancelled and he was offered nine months (not a year) in the States. Often attributed to Buddha, the fact that a prophet is not appreciated in his homeland is correctly cited to Jesus. To the betterment of all, the culture of science is different than that of religion. The worst they can do to you is to withhold your stipend. In fact, Watson’s colleagues and friends at King’s College in London, Max Perutz and John Kendrew, assured him that they could find some money if he chose to remain in England. That help turned out not to be necessary, though Watson continued his work at Cambridge.

He fit in well, there. The sense of fair play that defined science then was important to him. Crick and Watson worried about invading the research spaces of others who also sought the structure of DNA. Topmost of them was Linus Pauling, already holding a Nobel Prize, and clearly capable of more achievements at that level. When a published paper showed that Pauling was not just wrong, but had blundered, Crick and Watson knew that they had about six weeks to finish their work because Pauling could not be bested twice.

(Jeff Goldblum played John Watson in a television production of the story, “The Race for the Double Helix” Horizon season 23 episode 16, September 14, 1987.)


All Comments

  • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Individual "quirky" innovators are not what I got into.
    What I got into is that in general cancer cure rates have increased dramatically since Nixon "declared war" on cancer. Generally accomplished by government research funding. (NIH)
    A diagnosis of AIDS used to be a death sentence.. Now it can be considered a chronic disease. And the FDA has just approved a drug to prevent HIV infection.
    A lot of this accomplished with government funding. Plus of course a generous helping by the drug firms with an eye towards their bottom lines
    The 90s were considered the decade of the brain. Research work is increasing. Witness Obama's declarations. Helps with dementia, alzheimer's, etc etc
    Now there are the concerns about MERS. Watched over by the CDC.
    How many more examples would you like to get the point about government research funding?

    Harry M
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.

    The best thing about replying to all these comments is the extra good information I get.
    Taylor and Xerox PARC was a nice place in the '70s. when I visited them.
    Wikipedia and the InternetSociety.org have other info about the Internet's origins. The first written description was done is the 60s. The first connection happened in the 60s. Between UC and SRI. No doubt helped along by federal government money.
    Nitpicking about one example is hardly going to make any difference about federal research dollars that contribute to US innovation
    I suggest you not sneer at federal research dollars especially when it comes to medical research funding.

    Harry M
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A realist actually. Optimistic when there's the slightest chance of optimism being a reality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.

    The essential characteristic that made the internet was the software that connected all those different computers, connected by the telephone lines, and able to communicate with one another real-time.
    That software put together by DARPA agency associates.
    do some informational internet searches.

    Harry M
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It actually isn't the bureaucrats of the State Science Institute who decide what is important. They are surprisingly good at soliciting such ideas from university professors suckling at their government teats.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't support NASA funding, but even if I did, long-term manned space flight makes no sense until we solve the problem of bone loss at about 1% per month in space.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As someone who lives on the Space Coast, the cutting of public funding for NASA was obviously not popular here, but in the end, the long-term consequences for the area were pretty minimal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are correct about Milliken. In the 1980s, there was a marked shift in academia toward publishing. People like me who funded our own research have always been oddballs, but it was common prior to about 1985 for some professors to get much more industrial funding than government funding. Promotion and prestige came with papers and conference presentations, not patents. With the reward system messed up, the professors necessarily went toward government to stay financially alive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Consequently half of what gets published cannot be reproduced. You are so right, jcabello. That is why I treat my publications like fine wine. I will publish no work before its time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by jcabello 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The issue is not whether 40 years ago federal funding supported particular innovations. It is how much the current grant structure does today, in an environment where researchers rather conform to safe, fundable projects than risk having no funding.
    On top of that is as I mentioned, there is the lack of integrity that such funding and competition for research jobs generate. The paper that I cited also makes that point. There is an inflated value of publishing in so called "high impact" journals that "has put pressure on authors to rush into print, cut corners, exaggerate their findings, and overstate the significance of their work". In this paper they cite "worrisome reports of substantial numbers of research publications whose results cannot be replicated".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The temptation to be a Robert Stadler is very strong. Since I read AS, I have been funding my own research for the most part because I want the intellectual property. I have gotten one project that was funded by a company since then, but it is hard to advance the field without external funding. Most of that money comes from government now. I am quite willing to work on projects for fellow Atlantis citizens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.

    Well Michael,
    The internet came out of DRPA. A government agency
    UC San Fran and Stanford got the patent for Genetic Engineering. NIH funded research.
    I certainly consider those paradigm shifts.
    Rather than decry about the source of innovation, best count our blessings from wherever they come..

    Incidentally, Watson produced an annotated version of Double Helix at the end of 2012 to celebrate the 50th of the discovery of DNA structure.

    Harry M
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I must (respectfully) disagree. I followed some of this while completing my master's thinking that I might continue to a doctorate. In point of fact, any creative, outside-the-box thinker (libertarian, Objectivist, or, heck even a real communist) could think of alternatives. It is just that conformity is the path of least resistance. Moreover, as I indicated on my own blog "biopunks" and "biohackers" do for hundreds of dollars what mainstream researchers need three orders of magnitude _not_ to achieve. (See here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...).

    About 15 years ago, The Freeman carried a letter from me in reply to an article about a nation of Edisons. About 1900 or so it was thought by some that the German model of training people to do just one thing such as a chemical titration was the road to success; and Germany would supersede the UK and the US. I pointed out that a million average scientists would not equal one Edison.

    When true change - a paradigm shift - comes, it will not be federally-funded.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. I just needed to illustrate better ways to spend the American $$. If the U.S. would untangle the huge web of laws and regulations, especially those involving taxation, private investment would be far more willing to fund space adventure and implement scientific experiment. The problem is getting the government to move in rational directions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.

  • Comment hidden. Undo