Introduction
Scientific discovery is a product of communication, politics, economics, and people’s unique personalities. The case of James Watson and Francis Crick finding the double-helix of the DNA structure is no exception. The two scientists and their colleagues lived through a major war, the outcomes of which brought great political tension in Western society. For instance, one of the rivals was Linus Pauling, who missed a critical 1952 conference because his passport was withheld on suspicion of supporting communist ideas. Nonetheless, the most important factors that impacted Watson and Crick were their ability to rely on one another and Watson’s commitment to working on the DNA structure.
Crick and Watson’s Collaboration
Crick and Watson often commented on their joy in working together. Crick recalls Watson being bright, although the younger scientist also “suffered from periodic fears that the structure might be wrong.” [Crick, The Double Helix: A Personal View, quoted from Watson 1974: 138] The men were ambitious and competitive, partially striving to receive the Nobel prize before Pauling, who “proposed a three-helix model.” [Bronowski, Generation upon Generation, 1974: 392] Their age gap and personal differences allowed them to use their respective strengths – Watson was unconventional and had a “feverish” ambition that added to Crick’s experience and elegance. [F.X.S., Notes of a Not-Watson, quoted from Watson 1968: 180]
Watson’s active lifestyle and lively personality show his competitive spirit. The scientist writes about his adventures in the scientific world with as much appeal as he discusses pub crawling, women, or tennis. In a review of Watson’s book, F.X.S. describes Watson and Crick as men with an “eye for the deep, gay conjunction of truth and beauty.” [F.X.S., Notes of a Not-Watson, quoted from Watson 1968: 181] These characteristics paint the two men as more than scientists but creative visionaries.
However, other factors also impacted Watson and Crick and their collaboration. Watson’s arrival at the Cavendish laboratory was first disrupted by the Fellowship Board’s refusal to fund his research. The previous failures by other scientists created a sense of shame surrounding experimentation.
Next, his race toward finding the double helix model was greatly influenced by his colleagues – Watson and Crick were not the only people who hypothesized about the spiral form. Linus Pauling, a respected professional in the field, also worked towards this discovery. Watson had a friendly relationship with Linus’ son, Peter Pauling, with whom Watson gossiped about his father’s progress. Peter lets Watson know the details of his attempts, which increases Watson and Crick’s desire to be the first.
Franklin’s Contribution to DNA Research
Rosalind Franklin was another critical figure in finding the correct DNA form. She was a skilled X-ray crystallographer who worked at King’s College with Maurice Wilkins, John Randall, and other scientists. Franklin identified that the DNA likely had “a helical structure (which must be closely packed) containing probably 2, 3 or 4 coaxial nucleic acid chains per helical unit.” [Klug, Rosalind Franklin and the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, quoted from Watson 1968: 154] She worked with DNA in the “A” form, which was more solid and un-hydrated – to her, it had more detail than the hydrated “B” state. Nonetheless, Franklin passed away before this tremendous scientific achievement was recognized publicly.
It can be argued that Watson and Crick used other researchers’ findings and their unconventional approaches to reach the truth. An example of their creativity was model building – while other scientists believed it to be useless, Watson and Crick were unafraid to visualize the molecule. Another instance is how they used the famous “Photo 51” taken by Franklin, which depicted the B-form. [Pederson, “The Double Helix: ‘Photo 51’ Revisited, 2020: 1923] Watson saw the photo and the report, which helped him to further think about the double helix structure.
Franklin greatly contributed to the work of Watson and his colleagues, and she should have gained more recognition. Aaron Klug writes, “Rosalind Franklin made crucial contributions to the solution of the structure of DNA.” [Klug, Rosalind Franklin, quoted from Watson 1968: 153] He also notes that Watson and Crick failed to appreciate her impact on their progress in their publications.
Comments on Watson’s Research
Bronowski
When Watson’s book, The Double Helix, was published in 1968, it was met with many reviews. One of the most convincing examinations is the one by Jacob Bronowski, who appreciates both the impact of the scientists’ work and Watson’s informal writing. Bronowski comments that Watson “expresses the open adventures of science; the sense of the future, the high spirits of rivalry and the guesses of right and wrong.” [Bronowski, Honest Jim, and the Tinker Toy Model, quoted from Watson 1968: 203] This critique also appreciates the history of DNA research and the findings of other scientists.
Morrison
Many other accounts were also positive when describing the style of Watson’s writing or examining the value of discovering the DNA structure. Philip Morrison focuses on the former, praising the publication for “readers who like science, have a sense of humor, and are not related to the innocents it shoots down.” [Morrison, The Human Factor in a Science First, quoted from Watson 1968: 177] His review argues that this book should have changed the approach to talking about scientific discoveries, bringing joy, emotion, conflict, and intrigue, and replacing the myth about science lacking these characteristics.
Lewontin
A review by Richard Lewontin goes beyond DNA discovery and talks about the conflicts and relationships in the research world. He notes that the scientific society is built on ambition and competition, discussing the behavior of Watson and Crick and their attempts to conceal their discovery from colleagues – their rivals. Lewontin believes that “the requirement for great success is great ambition … for personal triumph over man, not merely over nature.” [Lewontin, ‘Honest Jim’ Watson’s Big Thriller about DNA, quoted from Watson 1968: 186]. His review praises Watson’s ambition but states that the book is too technical for readers outside the scientific community.
Sinsheimer
A less agreeable viewpoint can be found in the review by Robert L. Sinsheimer. The author critiques Watson’s writing a mean-spirited story that is “filled with the distorted and cruel perceptions of childish insecurity.” [Sinsheimer, The Double Helix, quoted from Watson 1968: 192] The reviewer disagrees with Watson’s recollection of the scientific world and warns that young readers looking at this caricature of the community may gain an incorrect understanding of the ethics and goals of research.
Conclusion
Science is based on competition, commitment, ardent passion, and secrecy. The most critical features for stimulating creativity are relationships and communication between those with similar interests. These foundations for discovery can be promoted through collaborative work and recognition by more than one or two people through awards. Watson’s account is sensational, combining emotion, humor, and life outside of science with serious research.
Gunther S. Stent aptly points out that “Watson had made a major contribution to dispelling the myth that scientific research represents the movement of disembodied intellects.” [Stent, A Review of the Reviews, quoted from Watson 1980: 161] Integrating personality in one’s professional work can aid in creating an exciting narrative. However, secrecy should not be the main contributor to scientific discovery as it disrupts the conversations about new knowledge. Researchers can find solutions together, but be prepared to shed their ambitions for being the only ones credited with leading progress.
References
Bronowski, Jacob. “Honest Jim and the Tinker Toy Model” (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 200–203].
Bronowski, Jacob. 1974. “Generation upon Generation.” In The Accent of Man, 379–410. New York, NY: Little Brown & Co.
Crick, Francis. “The Double Helix: A Personal View” (1974). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 137–145].
Klug, Aaron. “Rosalind Franklin and the Discovery of the Structure of DNA” (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 153–158].
Lewontin, Richard. “‘Honest Jim’ Watson’s Big Thriller about DNA” (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 185–187].
Morrison, Philip. “The Human Factor in a Science First” (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 175–177].
Pederson, Thoru. 2020. “The Double Helix: ‘Photo 51’ Revisited.” The FASEB Journal 34(2): 1923–1927. Web.
Sinsheimer, Robert L. “The Double Helix” (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 191–194].
Stent, Gunther S. “A Review of the Reviews” (1980). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 161–175].
Watson, James D. 1980. The Double Helix (Norton Critical Edition). 3rd ed. Edited by Gunther S. Stent. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.