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


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by jcabello 11 years, 6 months ago
    Unfortunately scientists now have similar issues, but at a government control level, they have to do what their governments will fund. That's how they make a living, by getting grants. In my field, which is biological research, that government funding approach, and the need for funding, compromises the integrity and innovation of research. In a scathing review, recently some well respected scientists have pointed that out well, they say
    "The low success rates have induced conservative, short-term thinking in applicants, reviewers, and funders. The system now favors those who can guarantee results rather than those with potentially path-breaking ideas that, by definition, cannot promise success. Young investigators are discouraged from departing too far from their postdoctoral work, when they should instead be posing new questions and inventing new approaches. Seasoned investigators are inclined to stick to their tried-and-true formulas for success rather than explore new fields. "
    http://www.pnas.org/content/111/16/5773....
    I am sure the same vice occurs in all government grant funded research. No machine to move the world from here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 11 years, 6 months ago
    This was certainly one of the books that influenced me to become interested in genetics. Have not actually become a geneticist (yet).

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh Herb. You speak to my soul.

    If only we could spend money on things that were important, we could casually endow humanity with more than then now believe possible.

    Sigh.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 11 years, 6 months ago
    The thing that interests me is how money is so reluctantly allocated to experimental science versus the huge amounts joyfully given to entitlements. With a fraction of the money spent on keeping people unemployed, we could have had NASA establish a base on the moon and be preparing for manned flights to Mars. Who knows what could be accomplished in DNA and micro-biology experiments. Instead, all of humanities' efforts seem to be focused on computer related work and nano technology, only because it's pretty much self funding. Those companies that have the wherewithal to move forward in the field of DNA research or space technology are hamstrung by regulations that would strangle an octopus.

    Our culture seems to be obsessed with the Frankenstein syndrome, keeping us afraid to delve too deeply into the nature of what constitutes life. Cloning has been delegated strictly to the province of God. Another case of the alien anthropologists scratching their heads and saying, "Walt Kelly was right when he wrote, 'We have met the enemy and they is us.'"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MrSankey 11 years, 6 months ago
    Read in college and still have my copy. I enjoyed reading about the adventure and sometimes when I'm stuck on a problem I find myself walking to a nearby cafe for a glass of wine.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In the Foreword, Sir Lawrence Bragg says: "One must remember that his book is not a history, but an autobiographical contribution to the history which some day will be written. As the author himself says, the book is a record of impressions rather than historical facts." Watson's Introduction says the same thing in five long paragraphs. When he distributed parts of the early manuscript, other people supplied long, detailed corrections.

    The scene where "Watson and Crick stole the key to Rosalind Franklin's laboratory desk when she was away and helped themselves to a good long look at her all-important photographs of the helical structure of DNA" is in the 1987 television episode referenced above.

    Watson says, also (top of Chapter 2), that for Crick, Schroedinger's _What is Life?_ was an impetus to leave physics for biology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 6 months ago
    The original Scientific research result by Watson and Crick was published by Nature, the basic journal of British science.
    Currently, Nature has a series of journals in basic Scientific areas.publishing Scientific research results
    One of those is Nature: Climate Change. See the URL http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.htm...
    People should give a rational consideration of such.

    Harry M
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago
    As one of the founders of X-ray diffraction, Bragg even had a law named after him. He was much more interested in metals and ceramics because their crystal structures were relatively straightforward. Crick, on the other hand, wanted to look at biological structures precisely because their order was much harder to determine.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo