Watson, of DNA Fame, dies

The London BBC reports:

Nobel Prize-winning American scientist James Watson, one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA, has died aged 97. ...

"We have discovered the secret of life," they said at the time.

His later comments on race led to him saying that he felt ostracised by the scientific community.

In 2007, the scientist, who once worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, told the Times newspaper that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa", because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

The comments led to him losing his job as chancellor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York.

Academics are proved wrong all the time, and they do not get fired for it. No, they get fired for saying something true, but offensive.

Working with images obtained by King's College researcher Rosalind Franklin, without her knowledge, Crick and Watson were able to construct a physical model of the molecule. Maurice Wilkins, who shared the Nobel with Crick and Watson, had worked with Franklin to determine the DNA molecule's structure.

This is a little misleading, as she was credited with the images. She might have gotten Wilkins' share of the prize, if she had been still alive, and if the public knew how much those images influenced Watson.

NY Times obituary.

Update: Noah Carl writes:

It’s crucial to note, of course, that Watson’s views on race and intelligence are scientifically unimpeachable. The testing does show large average differences between Africa and Western countries. Meanwhile, surveys of experts working in relevant fields reveal non-trivial or high levels of agreement that genes contribute to psychological group differences. ... ...

Watson’s work on the structure of DNA has certainly earned him a place in history, whatever his (less accomplished) critics might say. But perhaps what he should be remembered for above all is possessing that rarest of qualities: he wasn’t a coward.

Some quotes here:

I’ve given my DNA to two of these companies. I’ve told them they can publish everything except the structure of the gene that will tell me if I’m predisposed to Alzheimer’s. I don’t want to know.

I am always amazed when people are afraid to learn their genes. Watson seems like as much as a DNA enthusiast as you will ever find, and yet he was afraid to learn one of his genes.

That gene is not even dispositive. It is just a risk factor, like cholesterol level and body mass index.

Not a coward? Ha ha.

I don't get it, but the entire related subjects of race and intelligence drive people bonkers. They do not want to know the scientific facts, and they run from examining the implications.

I would say that less that 5% of the population just want the truth, whatever it is.

Update: Here are the snide comments of a Watson-hater.

The Watson-Crick DNA work did indeed depend on the work of others, as with all scientific progress. Their crucial original idea was that DNA had two strands with paired bases, so that the strands could be split and copied as a biological process. This was the secret of life that made digital genetic coding possible. No one else had this idea.