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.)


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment deleted.
    • Posted by $ 11 years, 6 months ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment deleted.
      • Posted by Herb7734 11 years, 6 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 11 years, 6 months ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment deleted.
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago
          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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 years, 6 months ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment deleted.
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago
            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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 6 months ago

        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jcabello 11 years, 6 months ago
          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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 6 months ago
            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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment deleted.
          • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 6 months ago

            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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment deleted.
              • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 6 months ago

                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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment deleted.
                  • Posted by hrymzk 11 years, 6 months ago
                    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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo