James D. Watson, Co-Discoverer of the Structure of DNA, Is Dead At 97 (nytimes.com) 65
ole_timer shares a report from the New York Times: James D. Watson, who entered the pantheon of science at age 25 when he joined in the discovery of the structure of DNA, one of the most momentous breakthroughs in the history of science, died on Thursday in East Northport, N.Y., on Long Island. He was 97. His death, in a hospice, was confirmed on Friday by his son Duncan, who said Dr. Watson was transferred to the hospice from a hospital this week after being treated there for an infection.
Dr. Watson's role in decoding DNA, the genetic blueprint for life, would have been enough to establish him as one of the most important scientists of the 20th century. But he cemented that fame by leading the ambitious Human Genome Project and writing perhaps the most celebrated memoir in science.
Dr. Watson's role in decoding DNA, the genetic blueprint for life, would have been enough to establish him as one of the most important scientists of the 20th century. But he cemented that fame by leading the ambitious Human Genome Project and writing perhaps the most celebrated memoir in science.
Re: Cancelled for saying the truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Watson made assertions that he could not support or prove. As a scientist, he refused to put up or shut up, and lost a great deal of his reputation out of his own stubborness and philosophically anti-science behavior.
Goes to show that nobody is perfect, and even with great genes you can be a useless tit.
Re: Cancelled for saying the truth (Score:5, Informative)
Watson made assertions that he could not support or prove.
Support yes, prove no.
You could say that about the double helix. Nobel prizes are typically awarded many years after the event because they are awarded for ideas, and have to wait for others to prove them. You don't get a Nobel by waiting for proof.
Watson took some well-founded observations on racial and gender differences, (some observations more scientific than others), and sided heavily on genetics in the nature vs nurture debate.
Consider in the US how Jews have made massively disproportionate contributions to science and creative arts. How much of the reason for that is cultural vs genetic? I don't know, but I'm not shocked that a geneticist said it has a strong genetic component.
Re: Cancelled for saying the truth (Score:2)
The problem prominent and/or mildly successful scientists of all stripes run into is that they begin to confuse their imagination for a source of truth. Having been rewarded with success in their careers for having done the so on their way up, it is almost reasonable to conclude their imagination *is* a direct line to God, Truth, or Whatever.
Feynman had a chapter in one of his books about this phenomenon. Several actually, but I'm thinking not of the famous Cargo Cult Science speech but of his experiments w
Re: (Score:2)
He finished by stating "Period." Proof indeed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The inconvenient truth is DNA definitely makes a difference. Otherwise why the fuck would the average human be smarter than the average mouse?
Or a human better than a chimpanzee in some things while a chimp better in others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
People get away with saying Border Collies are smarter.
There's plenty of evidence that a breed of Jews are smarter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Of the 965 individual recipients of the Nobel Prize and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences between 1901 and 2025,[1] at least 220 have been Jews or people with at least one Jewish parent, representing 22% of all recipients. Jews constitute only 0.2% of the world's population, meaning their share of winners is 110 times their proportion of the world's population.
Of course the diversity of Africans is actually quite high so they're not all one breed - just compare th
Re: (Score:1)
Consider in the US how Jews have made massively disproportionate contributions to science and creative arts. How much of the reason for that is cultural vs genetic? I don't know, but I'm not shocked that a geneticist said it has a strong genetic component.
But you do realize that not all people of Jewish faith are of the Jewish race? So was it people of the Jewish race that are the outlier?
Re: Cancelled for saying the truth (Score:2)
What? Don't look at me, I didn't say it! Some famous dead scientist said it first!
That was a rather boring list of excuses (Score:1)
The double helix was a testable hypothesis.
Watson's thoughts that black people weren't intelligent and offered up the anecdote roughly of "anyone that has worked with them knows this already" is neither a formal hypothesis not supported by reliable evidence.
Consider in the US how Jews have made massively disproportionate contributions to science and creative arts.
The creative arts because we wouldn't let them own land and be farmers. Science and math because they lived in cities and weren't ignorant farmers.
You have to be a pretty stupid or at least a naive white man to over look all the systemic influences in ou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
there's no difference in IQ test results for races once proper adjustments (income, education, etc) are made.
What the ... "proper adjustments" ??? So I guess Polynesians are no heavier than Sri Lankans once you adjust for waist size?
What a bizzare abuse of logic to suggest these are independent measurements.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I just called you ignorant. It shows here. Don't worry, it's fixable.
Re: (Score:2)
there's no difference in IQ test results for races once proper adjustments (income, education, etc) are made.
What the ... "proper adjustments" ??? So I guess Polynesians are no heavier than Sri Lankans once you adjust for waist size?
What a bizzare abuse of logic to suggest these are independent measurements.
Poverty you moron. The adjustments are things like being poor makes you less intelligent. Dropping out of high school makes you dumber. If it's the case the more black people are less intelligent than their white counterparts. It's more likely a reflection on the fact that more of them are poor and more of them drop out of high school (for various reasons, not always voluntary). So saying it's genetic is stupid like Watson.
In your example adjustments would be things like diet. are polynesians genetically he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cancelled for saying the truth (Score:2)
Just some examples from a quick and dirty search (please, those with good google-fu find more data):
https://magazine.ucsf.edu/what... [ucsf.edu]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov]
https://www.ama-assn.org/publi... [ama-assn.org]
Re: (Score:1)
The error bars in the studies cited (and the best they can get is 'suggest') are so large that even 'suggesting' is too strong a claim. Statistically speaking, there's no difference in IQ test results for races once proper adjustments (income, education, etc) are made.
Lower intelligence leads to lower levels of income and education.
Re: Cancelled for saying the truth (Score:4)
[Western] Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations
Case closed. The tests we designed cannot be questioned, so any assertion we make based on the data must be correct.
Of course, other tests and research contradicts this. And tests of people of African decent who have lived in Western nations for generations are far more in line with the socioeconomic ranges in standardized intelligence tests.
Turns out raising a baby with access to food, high quality healthcare, and parents that are native speakers of a western language tends to get you kindergartners that do pretty well on a Western intelligence test. Unless you're an arrogant dumb ass like Watson, this should not surprise you.
I've got no problem if there is real evidence of nature over nurture. But I'm a bit tired of having to tear through the tissue paper arguments presented on the topic. Obviously there is SOME contribution of nature. But even categorizing an individual's race by genetics is a bit problematic, because our current definitions have more to do with culture and nationality than with any solid boundary lines between what we might think of as race.
The whole topic is a pseudoscience, I'd put more faith in the bumps on my head because at least we can measure that.
What truth? About the value of human beings? (Score:2)
No idea what AC or you are talking about. First guess would be something about eugenics?
So here's my attempted joke:
Human beings have intrinsic value. They aren't equal on any dimension, but we aren't qualified to go around judging each other using such terms as "better" or "worse".
The computer science perspective might be to call them all equivalent to UTMs. But a Biblical perspective might be to say that the "image of gawd" is also a UTM.
So how'd you like to buy an infinite tape? Or maybe you want a twelv
Re: (Score:2)
"I really don't know what happened to Jim"
https://www.statnews.com/2025/... [statnews.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Yes and you are right.
Equality is a religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the French Revolution, the West has steadily moved to this idea that everyone is equal in ability. They clutch pearls over racial differences, but their real concern is social class IQ differences. This is why The Bell Curve and The Blank Slate were so controversial despite stating scientifically-verified facts.
I am familiar with racial differences in genetics and ability, but think it less important to dwell on than the general argument against equality. Individuals are different in ability and inclinations. Trying to make us all "equal" has resulted in millions of deaths and the failure of whole societies in ancient times. It is better to accept that we are different than to fight reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Since the French Revolution, the West has steadily moved to this idea that everyone is equal in ability.
Nonsense. What has become more accepted is that everyone should have equality of opportunity, but that this does not necessarily lead to equality of outcome.
(Speaking as a former fencing coach, whose pupils have ranged from those engaging in social fencing to those competing at national and international level)
Re: (Score:1)
Misdirect (Score:2)
People say stuff that sounds smart to them, but it is often deceptive:
People only "prove" equality of opportunity through equality of outcome, and if they do not see that, will scapegoat "inequality."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>n than the general argument against equality.
No.
>Trying to make us all "equal" has resulted in millions of deaths
It has not. No Stalin didnt kill people because of 'equality', he killed him to increase his own personal power. I mean DUH. Yes, individuals have differing levels of ability, for instance your intellectual capability seems below average because you're trying to justify melanin levels as the source of ability, which is a convenient way to understand the world if you're not too bright.
Said the quiet part out loud, did you? (Score:2)
So your entire argument is about race. That's nice, but mine is not, and race is not skin color. Read Cavalli-Sforza and then branch out to more recent studies of genetic differences. Read Razib Khan [razibkhan.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Since the French Revolution, the West has steadily moved to this idea that everyone is equal in ability. They clutch pearls over racial differences, but their real concern is social class IQ differences
Your idea here is what, royalty has higher IQ? Richer people have higher IQ?
Nature versus humanism (Score:2)
We are not equal. Some rise above others because of greater abilities. Read The Bell Curve [archive.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Such as? (Score:2)
It checks out in real life, too: higher IQs earn more, up to a point (cutoff is just below 130 points).
Re: (Score:2)
This is not Reddit or Discord (Score:2)
I find it interesting how different social media sites have different characters. Some of it is the software, but mostly, it is the user population which has a set of behaviors that it tolerates, at least. Like on Reddit, rhetoric and argument can trade off back and forth, where on USENET people saw the descent into rhetoric to be a sign that the discussion was over.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the French Revolution, the West has steadily moved to this idea that everyone is equal in ability. They clutch pearls over racial differences, but their real concern is social class IQ differences. This is why The Bell Curve and The Blank Slate were so controversial despite stating scientifically-verified facts.
My god, you can't see the wood for the trees. What do you think the point of life is? To contribute towards turning humanity into some beige corporate productivity machine that maximises year on year growth rates? Dude, you need to get outside. Go and enjoy some music, some food and drink. Meet some random people and chew the fat.
Life is for discovering. It's like we have access to the most incredible procedurally generated video game, and given about 70 years to explore it, and all you want to do is wipe o
False dichotomy (Score:2)
The dull corporate environment you bemoan was created by the egalitarians and their many rules, taxes, regulations, and other shifting of cost to business. While I sympathize with your view and share most of it, your methods are not going to work.
Re: (Score:1)
You know what I refer to.
The quote I remember is "all our social policies are based on the fact that their (blacks) intelligence is the same as ours (whites) – whereas all the testing says not really ... people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."
Well, he didn't claim to have found some gene that makes this so, he merely pointed out some facts and shared some personal observations (the employer's perspective). Nothing "anti-science" here. The anti-science hysteria came from the woke people who claimed th
Rosalind Franklin discovered it (Score:5, Interesting)
Crick and Watson were on the wrong track until Franklin's personal nemesis, a man named Wilkins proved them wrong by stealing Franklin's work and showing it to Crick and Watson.
Watson instantly realized DNA was Helix in 1953 after seeing Franklin's photograph taken in 1952.
Which was an amazing insight considering Franklin had already called it a Helix in 1951 - before she even had the photo in question.
Looking at other people's work and realizing they were right does not make you a discoverer. It makes you a thief.
Crick and Watson did figure out the specifics of the helical structure, but that was more of a proof of Franklin's discovery than anything else.
Re:Rosalind Franklin discovered it (Score:5, Informative)
That makes a nice story for obvious culture-war reasons, but the reality is less movie-worthy. The photo was taken by Gosling and the significance
recognised by Watkins. Franklin might possibly have shared the Nobel if the was still alive in 1962, when it was awarded. But she was not.
According to a later account by Raymond Gosling, although Photo 51 was an exceptionally clear diffraction pattern of the "B" form of DNA, Franklin was more interested in solving the diffraction pattern of the "A" form of DNA, so she put Gosling's Photo 51 to the side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
the significance recognised by Watkins.
I mean Watson, dammit!
Re:Rosalind Franklin discovered it (Score:4, Informative)
While the photo was taken by her assistant, the fact is that it was Franklin's expertise in X-ray crystallography that resulted in a superior level of image quality. Her contribution is deservedly significant because if she had not used such techniques to precisely control the humidity of the imaging chamber, the images Gosling took would not have had the resolution they did.
To say that it was Gosling's photo, thus implying that he--of anyone at Kings College--should have received some measure of credit for the discovery, is a misrepresentation in the sense that a lab assistant whose responsibility is to operate machinery is not necessarily the one who devised the method or protocol of operation, nor the technological innovation that enables the research. No one who has worked in the applied sciences can deny this truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Rosalind Franklin discovered it (Score:4, Informative)
Her contribution is deservedly significant
Absolutely! History does give her credit, and as I said, she might have received a Nobel prize has she lived long enough.
But the claim that the discovery was "stolen" from Franklin is unfounded.
Ray Gosling imaged it (Score:2)
While the photo was taken by her assistant, the fact is that it was Franklin's expertise in X-ray crystallography that resulted in a superior level of image quality. Her contribution is deservedly significant because if she had not used such techniques to precisely control the humidity of the imaging chamber, the images Gosling took would not have had the resolution they did.
Nope. The technique was invented by Gosling [wikipedia.org] back when he was working for Wilkins, before Franklin arrived at King's College. And, yes, in doing that work he learned that humidity was the key.
Not to downplay Franklin's role-- she was doing the hard work of interpretation of the x-ray diffraction patterns-- but Photo 51 was taken by Gosling.
To say that it was Gosling's photo, thus implying that he--of anyone at Kings College--should have received some measure of credit for the discovery,
Correct: he should have received some measure of credit. And, to be fair, he did: the Nature paper (in the same issue as Watson and Crick's) was authored by Franklin and G
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just leave this right here. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I goofed. My point was that discoveries are often mis-attributed, whereas Stigler's law says they are often mis-named for the wrong discoverer.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly your point was correct since it was named after Mr Dna and not Watson, Crick or Franklin.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Rosalind took the picture and Watson/Crick used basic math (derived by Bragg, and Linus Pauling) to determine the structure. They basically did what anyone in the art would have done. It required no flash of insight.
Re: (Score:1)
Amazing considering she didn't take the photograph OR manage to figure out the structure herself.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't 'steal' anything and she did not identify the structure at all, let alone a year prior.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that you, and history, ignored Rosalind Franklin, whose work was vital and also deserved the prize. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that you, and history, ignored Rosalind Franklin, whose work was vital and also deserved the prize.
History didn't ignore her; her name is all over the histories of the discovery of the structure of DNA. She wasn't awarded the Nobel prize because Nobel prizes aren't awarded posthumously, but I agree if she had been alive, she should (and very likely would) have been added.
By the way, her work after leaving King's College, in elucidating the structure of viruses, was also groundbreaking.
The person whose work was vital in the x-ray crystallography of DNA and also deserved the prize is Raymond Gosling [wikipedia.org]
Re: Rosalind Franklin discovered it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Franklin was not an underling. She was the competition. She did not work for Watson in any way.
She came up with the correct data 2 years earlier, she paid for the photograph to be made.
The man that stole the photo was her enemy.
The people that did the math had no legal access to the photo.
True discoverers do not have dirty laundry to air. Name one other nobel prize winner story that had this kind of dirty laundry.
Science is not perfect. There are scum everywhere. But this kind of a-hole behavior is pre
Re: (Score:2)
Might as well add Banting and Best to the list. My Godfather was a Romanian immigrant who fled the Nazis in around 1945. He was a medical doctor. In his retirement he wrote a book about how one of those dudes, not sure which or both, Banting, I think,ripped off the intellectual property of an underling, as I under stand it. The guy who made the discovery according to my Godfather was a fellow Romanian, so that's the connection. I n
Another hero gone (Score:4, Interesting)
Another hero bites the dust, today we're just supposed to look up to sportsball rapists, narcissist 'celebrities' and psychopath executives. Yeah, the "Good Old Days" weren't really that good, but at least we had people like Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong and Al Kaline around.
Re: Another hero gone (Score:1)
I'm sure most of them were sociopaths too. They just had the good sense to hide it better and it was easier to suppress the flow of information pre electronic media.
MLK had groupies of whom he availed himself.
FDR was as out of it as Biden by the end and he still went for a 4th term.
Lincoln declared martial law.
Washington didn't just own slaves but he also cultivated a personality cult during the early days of the Republic.
On it goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Al Kaline
Such great batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Old joke:
You can tell a guy is from Michigan when he wonders why they named a battery after a Tigers outfielder.
The Double Helix (Score:4, Insightful)
The Double Helix is one of the only assigned classroom textbooks I eagerly read from cover to cover.
RIP.
Re: (Score:2)
If my memory is correct, I bought it after my first college interview, lost it on the way home and got it back through British Rail's lost property department. I also read it eagerly from cover to cover. Almost fifty years on I'm a little scared of re-reading it, but maybe I should.
I also remember being very inspired by Life Story [wikipedia.org] on the BBC in 1987. I was superbly cast, with Jeff Goldblum as a manic Watson, Tim Pigott-Smith, Juliet Stevenson, and Alan Howard.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fun read, but the backstory of Rosalind Franklin and how Watson and Crick treated her (and her memory) now gives me pause.
Good riddence to yet another racist misanthrope (Score:3)
Good riddance to that race baiting prick. He was racist against Black people, Irish People, Latin people, Jewish people, women people, fat people. Far as we can tell there's no one he wouldn't throw stereotypes at and suggest they were genetic. He supported post birth abortions. He was a disgusting misanthropist who justified everyone he hated with the veil of genetics.
His views on genetics also veered into ethically dangerous territory. He was a proponent of genetic selection, once saying that if a woman could discover a “gay gene,” she should be allowed to abort a homosexual child. Furthermore, he suggested that a fetus should not be considered alive until three days after birth, which would give parents the option of infanticide if they discovered a birth defect.
Re: Good riddence to yet another racist misanthrop (Score:2)
You forgot belittler of womenâ(TM)s contributions.
Truly not many good reasons to praise this dweeb.