Institutional, Political, and Personal Influences on the Discovery of DNA
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 not an 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 of Watson and Crick was Linus Pauling, who missed a critical 1952 conference because his passport was withheld on the suspicion that he was a communist. Nonetheless, some of the most important factors that impacted Watson and Crick were their ability to rely on one another, shared interests, and Watson’s commitment to working on the DNA structure.
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 and that he had made an ass of himself.” [Crick, The Double Helix: A Personal View, quoted from Watson 1974: 138] The men were ambitious and competitive, partially striving towards their goal to receive the Nobel prize before Pauling, who “proposed a three-helix model” [Bronowski, Generation upon Generation, 1974: 392]. Watson had a friendly relationship with Linus’ son, Peter Pauling, with whom Watson often gossiped about his father’s progress.
Watson’s competitive personality was potentially emboldened by his interest in tennis and his lively personality. The scientist writes about his adventures in the scientific world with as much appeal as he discusses pub crawling, women, or sports. 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 whose approach to the DNA structure was to perceive scientific discovery with beauty and elegance.
Rosalind Franklin’s Contributions, Scientific Ethics, and the Role of Competition
Rosalind Franklin was another important figure in the history of 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 on various research topics. One of these investigations involved the structure of DNA. Franklin successfully 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 and having the phosphate groups near the outside” [Klug, Rosalind Franklin and the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, quoted from Watson 1968: 154].
The lack of accurate data prevented Franklin from further discoveries and led her to make wrong conclusions at the time. Upon seeing Franklin’s images, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins were inspired to consider the double helix structure of the DNA molecule. Nonetheless, Franklin passed away before this tremendous scientific achievement was recognized publicly, and her name was not among the Nobel laureates posthumously.
Franklin greatly contributed to the work of Watson and his colleagues, and she should have gained more recognition by contemporaries and modern scholars. 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. This outcome and the earlier account of the Watson-Pauling competition raise a question of how secrecy and competition affect scientific exploration.
In the story of the DNA, scientists conceal information from one another. Those who share their findings may not receive credit, like Franklin, or be used for gossip, like Peter Pauling. Here, the value of discovery lies at the center – one may argue that it was important for Watson to be considered the best rather than share the awards with colleagues.
Critical Responses to The Double Helix and Reflections on Scientific Discovery
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 positive review also appreciates the history of DNA research and the findings of other scientists.
Less agreeable accounts of F. X. S., Philip Morrison, and Mary Ellman are very different in content – they analyze Watson’s language and social status rather than science. Morrison believes that the book “has the air of a racy novel,” F. X. S. describes Watson’s ambition as “feverish,” and Ellman declares Watson’s motives were “fame” and “anticipation of profit.” [Morrison, The Human Factor in a Science First, quoted from Watson 1968: 177; F.X.S., Notes of a Not-Watson, quoted from Watson 1968: 182; Ellmann, The Scientist Tells, quoted from Watson 1968: 189]
Science appears to be based on competition, commitment, ardent passion, and secrecy. Scholars must gather information from others but are reluctant to share their findings. Nonetheless, the most critical features for stimulating creativity are apparent – relationships and communication between those with similar interests and debates over right or wrong create the necessary foundation for discovery.
Watson’s account is eccentric and sensational, combining emotion, humor, and life outside of science with serious research. A more modern review by 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] Now, one can recognize the value of integrating personality in one’s professional work.
References
Bronowski, Jacob. 1974. “Generation upon Generation.” In The Accent of Man, 379–410. New York, NY: Little Brown & Co.
—. Honest Jim and the Tinker Toy Model (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 200–203].
Crick, Francis. The Double Helix: A Personal View (1974). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 137–145].
Ellmann, Mary. The Scientist Tells (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 187–191].
F. X. S. Notes of a Not-Watson (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 177–185].
Klug, Aaron. Rosalind Franklin and the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 153–158].
Morrison, Philip. The Human Factor in a Science First (1968). Quoted from [Watson 1980: 175–177].
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.