A recent article in The Lancet talks about the checkered career of the late James Watson (1928-2025), who participated in great science (the DNA double helix), wrote about it in popular terms that had some vulgar elements (The Double Helix), and later in life had troubling, unscientific thoughts on race and gender. This made me think of yesterday's post, which touched on the Statement from the American Economic Association concerning Larry Summers.
Here's the Lancet piece:
James D Watson: a cautionary tale by Philip Ball
It begins:
"There was always going to be a complex reckoning in the obituaries of James D Watson (1928–2025), the American geneticist who co-discovered the structure of DNA. For many years, Watson was one of the most influential figures in modern biology—Director, then President and Chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) in New York, USA, from 1968 to 2007, and the key motive force behind the Human Genome Project. He was also notorious for his attitudes towards women, especially Rosalind Franklin (1920–58), and for his comments on race, which led to a precipitous fall from grace in the past two decades. Watson enjoyed playing the role of provocateur, proudly claiming that his Chicago heritage made him inclined to speak his mind frankly no matter who it upset. The popular image of Watson now is of a great scientist who held controversial views. That, however, lets everyone too easily off the hook."
And here are the two concluding paragraphs:
"But this is also a cautionary tale about how science comports itself. Watson's 2007 interview was hardly a revelation to those who knew him; he had been making bigoted comments for years. In the Esquire interview in that same year he said “some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified”. And yet there had been a continual turning of a blind eye: he was seen as “outspoken”, “colourful”, and “controversial”. In Watson's heyday, the scientific community tended to indulge such behaviour so long as the perpetrator was sufficiently eminent. Even after the disastrous interview in The Sunday Times, some considered Watson's reputation should shield him from repercussions. When a talk at the Science Museum in London was cancelled in 2007, Richard Dawkins complained about “the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant ‘thought police’, of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time”. It can sometimes look as though the biggest crime in science is to create an unseemly fuss, especially on a topic deemed “political”. That Elon Musk, who is a fellow of the Royal Society (FRS), gave a Nazi salute, or that Stephen Hawking FRS attended soirées on Jeffrey Epstein's private island, are seen primarily as sources of embarrassment best passed over quickly.
"Perhaps times are changing. When Watson turned up at the event marking the 75th anniversary of Schrödinger's What Is Life? in Dublin, Ireland, and was given an impromptu toast by the organisers, there were dumbfounded glances all around the tables at the thought that we were expected to raise our glasses. Scientists are starting to confront difficult behaviour—but we still have some way to go before acknowledging that it can taint not only the practice of science but also its substance too. "
##########
We have had to think about fine figures with feet of clay at least since Daniel (33-34) interpreted for King Nebuchadnezzar his dream about a statue with "a head of fine gold, its breast and its arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of copper. Its legs were of iron, and its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay."
Posts
