1
Melissa Leuschel
Dr. J.D. Applen
LIT4433 - Survey of Technical and Scientific Literature
December 9th, 2011
Scientific Hubris: A perspective on The Double Helix.
James Watson’s book, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of
the Structure of DNA, offers an intimate view into the real lives of scientists and the
revolutionary, life-changing theories they discover. Watson provides readers with a
glimpse into not only the professional arena, but the personal and societal influences of
scientists, and how their lives ultimately start to weave into their research. The text also
gives insight into the scientific discovery process, and later provides narratives from
Watson’s colleagues. Watson’s story is a narrative, not a scientific paper, and his
reasons for this distinction may be for professional gain.
Watson’s narrative is in the form of a personal diary. This type of format leaves
no room for other voices; Watson does not include many direct quotes from any of his
colleagues throughout his text, he only offers insight into their words and his feelings
about their demeanor. He does identify with Crick as his partner, however, and
throughout the text the reader is led to believe that Crick and Watson are the most
deserving of the discovery. By telling the story in a way that emphasizes Watson and
Crick’s every move, and provides little insight into other colleagues’ findings (and even
2
labels them as competition), readers are left to root for Watson and Crick as the most
deserving “under dogs” in the competition to the discovery of the structure of DNA.
Watson’s personality also suggests that his team should have more credit than other
unnamed scientists and his competition. Watson uses his storytelling prowess to paint
untrue portraits of his colleagues within the scientific field, and make them look
undesirable and as “competition” within the “game” of discovering the structure of
DNA.
Readers are used to Watson’s confidence and enthusiasm over findings
throughout his account; he consistently notes how he does not get time to study DNA,
yet despite these roadblocks he and Crick keep finding clues to the structure. His
consistent arrogance and hubris regarding his scientific abilities leads the reader to think
of him as very deserving of the discovery accolade. “Maurice had no suspicion that
almost immediately I would get the X-ray pattern needed to prove that TMV was
helical” (74). There is no doubt that Watson is obviously bright, but he also describes
himself as lazy, and as not very studied in many aspects of science.
“If I had even the slightest interest in marine animals, I would have done
experiments…Most of my time I spent walking the streets or reading journal articles
from the early days of genetics. Sometimes I daydreamed about discovering the secret
of the gene, but not once did I have the faintest trace of a respectable idea. It was thus
difficult to avoid the disquieting thought that I was not accomplishing anything” (22).
3
The inclusion of these more relatable elements (laziness, lack of knowledge) give the
readers the feeling that they can relate with Watson, that Watson is an “everyman”.
Because of this approach within his writing, Watson has the readers identify with him,
and feel as if they are travelling along his journey of discovery with a friend. This
relatability and view into his personal life through his diary approach help the readers
overlook some of his less desirable traits (gossiping, laziness, lack of scholarly
achievement) and give him more credibility overall. It is through this ethos approach
within his storytelling that Watson tries to gain ultimate credibility for his achievements,
without disclosing any of his shortcomings within his finding of the structure of DNA.
Watson’s continual, unjustified judgments of his colleagues in the scientific
community also help to boost his credibility. His colleagues do not have a chance to
defend themselves, or give more accurate representations of them, and this is why I
believe Watson uses this storytelling technique. By shaping his colleagues into
“characters” in his text, he can then also shape his role in the “story” and take certain
liberties that the truth may not actually include. Of the many incorrect characterizations
of his colleagues, Watson injured Rosalind Franklin’s image the greatest. Watson chose
to recreate “Rosy” in the form of a cold, villainous, character that everyone wants to
hate.
“Rosy by then was hardly able to control her temper, and her voice rose as she
told me that the stupidity of my remarks would be obvious if I would stop blubbering
and look at her X-ray evidence…Suddenly Rosy came from behind the lab bench that
4
separated us and began moving towards me. Fearing that in her hot anger she might
strike me, I grabbed up the Pauling manuscript and hastily retreated to the open door”
(96).
Instead of acknowledging her genius, and her great research, he chose to turn her into
an easily hated character because she sometimes posed as a roadblock to his research:
“There was not a trace of warmth or frivolity in her words. And yet I could not
regard her as totally uninteresting. Momentarily I wondered how she would look if she
took off her glasses and did something novel with her hair…following some brief and, as
I was later to observe, characteristically tense small talk with Rosy, Maurice and I walked
down the strand…Slowly and precisely he detailed how…little real progress had been
made by Rosy since the day she arrived at King’s” (44-46).
This is a childish stance to resort to, and further reflects how Watson’s book
reads as a drama-filled personal diary throughout his research days on DNA. Of the
many misrepresented characterizations of Rosalind, the fact that she wears glasses and
did not present herself well were two very low blows (as later friends of Rosalind spoke
out and said those accusations were simply not true and she didn’t even wear glasses).
In addition to remarks on her misguided research and personal appearance, Watson
also disclosed personal sexist remarks (that women should not be scientists). While
Watson may have thought that these fabricated musings added to his own story and
credibility, it is never a good idea to bend the truth and deface real people. After all, the
structure of DNA is a real scientific theory, and his research and finding are non-fiction.
5
Blending fiction with fact is an interesting proposition, especially when taking
into account the very clinical and scientific nature of Watson’s professional life.
However, by relaying such a personally biased account of his discovery, Watson raises
many questions about the real scientific discovery process. His perspectives beg the
question: How is science done? Throughout Watson’s social musings and vacations and
overall human concerns, his work never left his thoughts. He would often describe
picking up scientific conversations with acquaintances, and furthering his “research” and
defining his discoveries while going about his daily chores.
“Without it, the only impact that Francis and I were likely to have was to
convince the biochemists we met in a nearby pub that we would never appreciate the
fundamental significance of complexity in biology…Lunches at the Eagle frequently went
by without a mention of DNA, though usually somewhere on our after-lunch walk along
the backs genes would creep in for a moment” (89).
The view that scientific discoveries may happen outside of a lab, and form
through influences in everyday life, rather than a series of experiments is a very
interesting thought. Many factors outside of a purely clinical scientific method may
contribute to scientific research and discovery. While Watson waxes about wanting a
girlfriend or watches mindless movies in the theater, he may make connections through
his environmental and social influences that help him connect scientific dots toward a
theory.
6
When thinking about how science is usually “done”, memories of the scientific
theory and clinical labs come to mind. Through Watson’s personal account, the veil of
pure science is lifted and the story is greatly enhanced through this “real” view of
scientific progress and discovery. Science can be seen as more than one man in a lab
conjuring unintelligible scrawling on a giant chalkboard. Scientific discoveries are made
not just in the lab and theory books, but through relationships and professional
partnerships.
“I went ahead spending most evenings at the films, vaguely dreaming that any
moment the answer would suddenly hit me…even during good films I found it almost
impossible to forget the bases…My doodling of bases on paper at first got nowhere,
regardless of whether or not I had been to a film. Even the necessity to expunge Ecstasy
from my mind did not lead to passable hydrogen bonds, and I fell asleep hoping that an
undergraduate party the next afternoon at Downing would be full of pretty girls. But my
expectations were soon dashed as soon as I arrived to spot a group of healthy hockey
players and several pallid debutantes. Bertrand also instantly perceived he was out of
place, and as we passed a polite interval before scooting out, I explained how I was
racing Peter’s father for the Nobel Prize. Not until the middle of next week, however,
did a nontrivial idea emerge” (104, 106).
Through Watson’s writing it is clear that Watson and Crick should not be getting
exclusive credit for this discovery; findings are usually team efforts that include
considerable amounts of luck.
7
“To my surprise, he revealed that with the help of his assistant Wilson he had
quietly been duplicating some of Rosy’s and Gosling’s X-ray work. Thus there need not
be a large time gap before Maurice’s research efforts were in full swing…When I asked
what the pattern was like, Maurice went into the adjacent room to pick up a print of the
new form they called the “B” structure” (98).
Paving the way for new scientific discoveries doesn’t just happen every day, and the
roads to such findings are often nebulous as they are uncharted. There is no one theory
to get towards new findings, it is rather a collective effort of numerous points of views
and research findings, and a good amount of personal bias, pride, and luck.
Watson’s book creates a good example of the melding of traditional, purely
scientific method and the collective, competitive, biased world of scientists. By
positioning himself as a very intelligent and relatable character in his personal account,
Watson attempts to set himself apart from his competition, and sway the reader into
thinking that he is ultimately deserving of the accolade.
“To my relief, Sir Lawrence not only made no objection, but encouraged me to
get on with the job of building models. He clearly was not in sympathy with the internal
squabbling at King’s – especially when it might allow Linus, of all people, to get the thrill
of discovering the structure of still another important molecule. Also aiding our cause
was my work on tobacco mosaic virus (100).
This is a very cheap band-aide of pride over the overwhelming evidence in the
book that luck seemed to follow Watson along his road to success.
8
Crick also was dealt a great deal of luck throughout the discovery as well, as
readers find out that up to the DNA structure discovery, Watson had not provided many
substantial discoveries to science. Francis Crick’s personal view of the Double Helix
(released after Watson’s account) paints a more realistic picture of the discovery and
acknowledged that at first they were not even correct. He also addressed some of their
“competition’s” real interactions and successes within their discovery:
“Rosalind Friday was only two steps away from the solution…Rather than believe
that Watson and Crick made the DNA structure, I would rather stress that the structure
made Watson and Crick. After all, I was almost totally unknown at the time and Watson
was regarded, in most circles, as too bright to be really sound” (144).
This sound, professional reaction to the success that he achieved with Watson is
a mark of a real scientific professional. Crick’s views were published in Nature, and
showcased a more rational and scientific perspective on the discovery of the DNA
structure (including giving credit to other scientific colleagues instead of
misrepresenting and vilifying them). Crick’s input also sheds some speculation on why
Watson chose to portray the story as he did (for pride and increased personal
credibility). Overall, Crick’s perspectives on his part in the discovery are rooted in
modesty and truthful acknowledgment of his part in the discovery:
“And this, it seems to me, is partly a matter of luck and partly good judgment,
inspiration and persistent application” (145).
9
While Crick tried to stay true to scientific interpretations, Watson consistently
reiterates his interest in things outside of science and how they help him in his
discoveries. Even in his initial proposed form of DNA, he announced that the structure
was “too pretty not to be true” (124). Aesthetic beauty is not something addressed
within the realm of science explicitly, however, Watson made an interesting point about
the role of beauty in scientific discovery. Beauty and symmetry in nature is seen all
around us, and when Watson viewed the inherent symmetrical beauty of his form for
DNA, he called it beautiful and knew he was close to his solution. He made this
connection between beauty and correct scientific interpretations because of the beauty
(symmetry) within nature (and therefore biology and the other sciences):“Despite the
messy backbone, my pulse began to race…only for brief moments did the fear shoot
through me that an idea this good could be wrong” (108). He has been conditioned to
make these connections, and instead of stating his reasoning for his connections, he
most closely identified with his unconscious pairing of aesthetic beauty in the form of
symmetry with success in the scientific realm.
Scientists are led by outside factors when determining what they believe is true.
Watson proposes this perspective throughout his book. By closely associating with likeminded researchers, Watson is more swayed to believe certain ideas, simply because
they may be popular within the scientific community. Also, Watson reuses information
(such as information from Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray photographs) to back his own beliefs
and feelings on scientific matters. Scientists are found to most likely follow that which
10
they already know to be true, and then try to expand on it (within the confines of
already known theories). Especially when dealing biology and genetics, scientists have to
stick by what they know and can find in their evidence. However, when evidence is
nebulous, they start to rely on popular beliefs within the scientific community (and
“beauty” in forms that are recognizable to them).
By presenting a glimpse into the lives of real scientists, Watson created a more
humanistic and relatable element to scientific discovery. Most people think of scientists
as geniuses always kept within the confines of a lab. By relating to the concerns and
universally human tendencies of the everyman, Watson has brought the mysterious
world of the scientist to the layman. Crick also agrees that Watson’s account was not
scholastic in merit:
“I was able to be rather more scholarly than Watson could allow himself in The
Double Helix, which is better regarded as a rather vivid fragment of his autobiography,
written for a lay audience” (145).
Even without a scholarly merit, The Double Helix stands as an insightful autobiography
of sorts detailing the interesting chain of events that led to the findings for the structure
of DNA. This alone is a great examination into the modern scientific method, and the
social elements included in responsible scientific investigation. By providing bias,
Watson is giving a true portrait of the modern scientist and the structure for which
scientific thought is built.
11
Works Cited
Watson, James. The Double Helix. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1980.
Print.