Dr. Watson's next case

John Charles Webb, Jr. — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 04:48:23 GMT

Every once in a while certain people show up and distribute 'keys'. They number among the likes of Newton, Einstein, Copernicus, Curie, Galileo, Descartes, Bell, Edison, Mendel, Crick and Watson.

Thank you, Dr. Watson, thank you very much.

Dr. Watson's next case

Barb B. — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:29:09 GMT

I read "The Double Helix" when I was in high school, sometime after I gave up the idea of becoming a scientist because I couldn't see how I, a girl in the Eastern Oregon desert in the early 1970's, could ever become one. I did not find the answer in that book (or anywhere else), but I did enjoy reading the "gossip" and looking into the windows of a world I would never be part of (much like walking through an ultra rich neighborhood at night and seeing the well-lit finery from outside the houses).

I look forward to reading "Avoid Boring People". Living by proxy is still a form of living, and the questions of "why don't certain people NOT get cancer" is one that I hope will be answered in my lifetime.

Dr. Watson's next case

Dominic, LaPlace, LA. — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:15:33 GMT

She died of cancer if I am correct. I believe it pancreatic cancer . . . right at the same level as a laboratory table x-ray crystallography machine.

Dr. Watson's next case

J Diffley, Albuquerque, NM — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:27:20 GMT

I had the pleasure of working with Dr. Watson during my tenure as the Help Desk Tech for the CSHL IT Dept. This gave me a chance to speak to him during lunch (he ate in the cafeteria quite often) and have many fascinating talks with him. (My background, in addition to computers, includes Marine Biology, History and Political Science) As a result I came to admire and respect Dr. Watson not just as a scientist, but as an insightful intellectual, as well as a well rounded person. I look forward to reading his new book with great interest.

BTW, he has already been played by Jeff Goldblum in a movie about the discovery of the double-helix, though off the top of my head I can't recall the name of the movie.

Dr. Watson's next case

Alan Boyle — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:13:03 GMT

Interesting... Jeff Goldblum played James Watson in "Life Story," basically a TV movie that was known as "The Race for the Double Helix" in the U.S.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093815/

I meant to mention that "The Double Helix" is the latest pick for the Cosmic Log Used Book Club. The CLUB Club focuses on books with cosmic themes that you can find at your local library or used-book shop.

I have a couple of alternate selections as well: "The Genome Wars" by James Shreeve delves into the decoding of the human genome, a project as rife with politics, backstabbing and "gossip" as the discovery of the double helix. Watson pops up as one of the characters in that book, of course, as well as Craig Venter's newly published biography, "A Life Decoded."

Those books will bring you up to date on the genetic gold rush. For past CLUB Club selections, check out:

http://groups.msn.com/AlanBoylesCosmicLog/clubclub.msnw

Dr. Watson's next case

Susan, Western KY — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:48:01 GMT

I read "The Double Helix" in high school. Both agree and disagree with Barb B. about exclusion from a fascinating career in science because we were females. In part, Watson is very much the old school re: women in science, and he should not speak on behalf of Rosalind (e.g. she "was giving up on DNA.") Although she was eventually recognized for her contribution (albeit posthumously), she is still part of the conversation as we've seen in this interview. I was personally inspired by the fast paced Double Helix and eventually did go into science. However, I have to say the world is a little different today toward women in science, yet not too much, because women are expected to not be distracted by families, children, and devote 80 hours per week to their professions (like a man????). But as we can see from Dr. Watson's admonishment of male scientist who are not willing to "put in the 80 hours a week to win the science game", the *Old school* *Old hat*, etc., is alive and well, unfortunately!! However, I'm still a productive scientist after two children and *successful* marriage and personal life.!! It is a very hard road. Nice interview.

Dr. Watson's next case

Gordon, Erie, PA — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:24:09 GMT

James Watson is a thief and a liar! He denigrated Rosalind Franklin to justify the theft and plagerism of her work. He was encouraged in this by Crick and Wilkins who knew they could simply throw Frankiln out the window of academic research if she objected. Well she did object and they threw her out the window. She left Kings College after the outright theft of her work, for which she paid with her life by the way.

Watson, Crick, and Wilson would be long since forgotten had they not stolen her work. James Watson may have been an able scientist in his own right, and he may have gone on the great things on his own merits, but we will never know, and he will never be able to prove that he was capable in his field because everything he has taken credit for, and everything he was known for was the work of another person.

It doesn't matter how much he decries the work or personality of Rosalind Franklin, it matters not how much he embellishes his own contribution as well as that of Dr. Crick, or Dr. Wilkins, and it doesn't matter how much the world praises him by ignoring the truth that he plagerized the work that Frankiln did, James Watson is a fraud! His reputation was built on fraud, and all the accolades that come to him come because of fraud. All the praise in this world will alter not a scintilla of that fact!

Dr. Watson's next case

Denise, Ft. Worth, Texas — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:52:59 GMT

In his own words,we are born hunter-gatherers. If you think about it, that really sums it up!

Dr. Watson's next case

Herman — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:58:41 GMT

Watson and Crick stole the work of Rosalind Franklin. That is not new. That happens in about 80% of so called science discoveries for which clever guys claim the prize. It's a big shame on the scientific community. Knowingly sticking their heads in the sand will not help their reputation. Scientific research is no different than playing politics or hustling people at a market. It's the eternal human imperfection repeating itself, over en over again, Saliery and Mozart, etc, etc.

Watson and other scientists that are currently doing the same he did in his time should rather apply their minds to find out why do they behave the way they have done for thounsands of years. They should find a cure for that disease a that is the biggest ill facing us as a species.

Dr. Watson's next case

alan W West Virginia — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:45:51 GMT

I read the Double Helix, as well as the editorial comments. included by the publisher. At that time Watson was a self-agrandizing egomaniac and a thief. To his new credits, add dementia, (not necessarily senile). Considering his preoccupation with genetic inheritance and puke theories on evolution, it makes me think mental illness probably does not run in his family. It gallops. Hopefully, his son got some of the psychiatric treatment that Watson didn't.

Dr. Watson's next case

Chris, Tampa, Fl — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:00:47 GMT

If white people are so smart, why don't they abolish nuclear weapons and astablish world peace? Don't forget George Washington Carver. How many white people can do he did for agriculture. I feel quit sure that black man did more good for humanity than you ever have. With less to work with too.

Dr. Watson's next case

John Doe, Seattle, Wash — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:43:25 GMT

What good comes from world peace when every person is in constant competition for survival? The current push towards "globalization" is only likely to produce rapant Race mixing; Certainly this is not in the best interest of our future.

Dr. Watson's next case

MARIE WINTER HAVEN,FLORIDA — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:00:44 GMT

White people are the last to rule,all you have was given to you by people before you and you build upon that. You are what my grandfather called(Johnny Come Latley). You will never master anything but only invent things, my father said it is not in your nature. We are not equal,but we should be treated equal under your so call laws

Dr. Watson's next case

Sydney, Australia — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:14:49 GMT

Genius!!

Dr. Watson's next case

Akeem Rabiu — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:59:26 GMT

Watson should establish from his genome script the gene that is responsible for racist behaviour

Dr. Watson's next case

Jim, Portland, OR — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:25:09 GMT

I think we should look at his comments about evolution of intellegence not being "equal" as not being the "same".

To think that any group of creatures would evolve identically in different environments is crazy.

If the testing, measuring the amount of success or other evaluation of intellegence is conducted in one environment then those who evolved in a different environment will never exhibit "high scores".

I am certain that the average Swede would be looked at as inferior if he or she was measured by African survival standards.

Dr. Watson's next case

Howard Lee — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:49:30 GMT

I can respect James Watson's accomplishments in the field of genetics or biology.
As for his politically incorrect views I feel he has
the right to have them just as much as the rest of us have the right to our own opinions/beliefs.
After all we are supposed to be living in a free open democratic society that tolerates diverging lifestyles and beliefs.

He should not be persecuted or have his professional reputation tarnished because of this.

I can respect him for standing up for his beliefs regardless of whether or not they are totally correct or scientifically accurate.
But that's just why I don't respect him for in this regard.
After making his comments on racial issues he seems to be recanting or denying his previous statements.
Which in my opinion actually makes him look worse.
Now he seems less than sincere and it looks as though he's bowing to public pressure by taking back what he said.
He is appearing to be rather cowardly and not someone who stands up for his convictions.
If you're going to come out and make public statements about whatever you believe, then at least have the courage to stand up for your beliefs or opinions.

If he did so then he could easily become an inspiration and rallying figure for those defying the authoritarian rule of the politically correct majority.
I for one would love to see someone stand up to this rather tyrannical group.

Dr. Watson's next case

Raul Alva, Mexico City, Mexico — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 04:46:59 GMT

Your paragraph "The rest was history - and controversy. Watson and Crick quickly published their findings in Nature, and Franklin was left out of the picture" is inaccurate. The April 25th Nature issue published three articles on DNA structure, p. 737, by Watson & Crick, p. 738, by Wilkins et al., and p.740, by Franklin & Gosling, as instructed by Dr. Bragg, head of the Cavendish Lab at the time. So DNA structure was discovered by contributions from the three groups, although popular history unfairly attributes it only to Watson & Crick and Wilkins and Franklin are unfairly left out. The same happens to Russel-Wallace as codiscoverer with Darwin of natural selection.

Dr. Watson's next case

Alan Boyle — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:02:37 GMT

Raul, you're correct that the papers by Wilkins et al. and Franklin/Gosling appeared in the same issue of Nature, so in a sense Franklin got some share of the recognition. But Watson/Crick had the lion's share, because their paper contained the key breakthrough on the double helix structure. For what it's worth, here's how the papers are characterized in Wikipedia:

"Prior to publication of the double helix structure, Watson and Crick had little interaction with Franklin. Crick and Watson felt that they had benefited from collaborating with Maurice Wilkins. They offered him a co-authorship on the article that first described the double helix structure of DNA. Wilkins turned down the offer, and was in part responsible for the terse character of the acknowledgment of experimental work done at King's College London. Rather than make any of the DNA researchers at King's College co-authors on the Watson and Crick double helix article, the solution was to publish two additional papers from King's College along with the helix paper. Brenda Maddox suggested that because of the importance of her experimental results used Watson and Crick's model building and theoretical analysis, Franklin should have had her name on the original Watson and Crick paper in Nature. Franklin and Gosling submitted their own joint 'second' paper to Nature at the same time as Wilkins, Stokes and Wilson submitted theirs (i.e. the 'third' paper on DNA)."

And to reiterate, Watson, Crick and Wilkins were the ones to receive the Nobel Prize, with Franklin left out.

Dr. Watson's next case

John Fillmore — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:16:10 GMT

Charming man. Perhaps he would be interested in my book: Avoiding The Ethically Challenged Over-competitive

Dr. Watson's next case

macmanchgo — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:01:49 GMT

My understanding was that "hunter-gatherer" populations were what came before the "agrarian" culture, and it was the agrarian culture that allowed for civilization to flourish. Competitive types like Watson dominate the scientific culture, while the vast majority of scientists are by nature cooperative, and oppressed by the existing system. With the internet and a new means of documenting and sharing scientific discoveries there is hope that the scientific culture will evolve to where competitiveness will finally be replaced by cooperation. And how fitting it is that Watson discovers the concept of psychopathic personality disorder at such at late stage when it is clear that he suffers from it himself.