Talk:James D. Watson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Physics
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] eugenics

  • That if a genetic test for homosexuality existed, a mother should be able to abort the fetus if she wanted.
  • Linking intelligence inextricably to genes, saying that it would be beneficial to try to improve the human race by selecting against those with low intelligence.
  • A conviction that the benefits of genetically modified crops far outweigh any environmental dangers, and that arguments against GM crops are unscientific or irrational.

Are you profficient about those declarations? I´m reading ADN: The Secret of Life right now, and he is openly against eugenic programs.

no need to yell, there.

I will rewrite that part of the article, as these should definitely be backed up by actual quotes, with references. The second bullet point does indeed make him look like a eugenics promoter, which he is not, obvious for anyone who has read his latest book (DNA: The Secret of Life). And the last bullet is also not NPOV with regard to his actual views -- Watson believes on balance that the benefits outweigh the risks, not that all arguments against GM are irrational. So do probably the majority of scientists, so this view is not really very controversial, I believe Watson is in the spotlight for this more because his high profile and outspoken personality. Mortene 09:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Having just attended a lecture of his I can attest that he definitely believes in much of the bulleted opinion above and feels that genes are much more important than environment on humans. Which in fact I asked him point blank. He strongly believes against trying to regulate some of the more controversial applications of biology and is also promotes 'eugenics' which for him seem to be more of the use of genetic technology and careful breeding to prevent disease and increase desired traits than the Hitleresque sterilization and mass killings from which eugenics derives much of its bad reputation.

Jarwulf 08:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Child prodigy?

He enrolled at a young age of 15 in Zoology. Should he be in the list of Child prodigies? --Jondel 01:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The University of Chicago for a long period starting in the 40s accepted many students to school very early (i.e., 15 or 16), including Watson and (somewhat later), Carl Sagan. The policy was the brainchild of Richard Maynard Hutchins, the University's president. In any case, there were so many of them that I don't think they all qualify for child prodigies, though many of them went on to do great things... nwt 4 Oct 2004 (CDT)

[edit] Question:

I see that Watson's promotion to head of the Genome Project is mentioned, and yet nobody mentioned that he was fired for lying and unethical scientific practices.

Get with the times, Gentlemen. Rosalind Franklin is the real scientist behind the discovery of DNA.

Kade 02:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About Watson being fired due to "unethical scientific practices" -- could we please have a source for this? I've read a lot on the modern history of science the last 5 years or so. Watson naturally features prominently in a fair amount of this, but nowhere have I seen a mention of him being fired. From Watson's own account of his time at the Genome Project, I got the impression that he left on good terms with both the institute and the new leader.
If no source turns up, I'm tempted to remove that statement.
Mortene 08:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"when he was fired due to unethical scientific practices"
According to the website of the Human Genome Project, "Watson resigned". According to the biography of Watson at the American Scientist website "NIH Director Bernardine Healy fired him (over differences of opinion on the patenting of genes and her perception that he had conflicts of interests because of his ties to the pharmaceutical industry)." At this website it says, "Technically, Watson resigned the post, which he held from 1988 to 1992. Depending on whom you talk to, he resigned because of possible conflict-of-interest issues over his financial holdings - or he was pushed out because he'd opposed Healy's wanting NIH to patent genes." This webpage describes how Healy was determined to allow people like Craig Venter to patent genes. Watson and other scientists thought this was rediculous (finding a gene was not an invention) and detrimental to science and medicine. Rick Bourke wanted to start a commercial gene sequencing venture and did not like Watson working from inside the government's genome project to keep genes non-commercial. "Healy used Bourke’s concerns as an excuse to set up an investigation into Jim’s financial holdings on the grounds of suspected conflict of interest. Nothing was found that he had not previously declared, but Healy never publicly exonerated him. Jim felt he was left with no option. He resigned in April 1992, but today he is in no doubt that he was effectively fired." Watson quote: "It turned out I always had an illegal job. I should never have been head of Cold Spring Harbor while passing out money from NIH." --JWSchmidt 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I have been under the impression that the dispute was over patenting of genes. Absurd really, but then capitalist-corporate America want to own everything, as Proudhon said, Property is theft, it especially applies in this case. Alun 18:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
online resource: Robert Cook-Deegan: 'How can you patent a gene?' --JWSchmidt 19:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

True, actually. My biology teacher likes to go on at great length about how everyone else did all the actual work but could never come to a conclusion because of communication gaps, and Watson and Crick, who were actually supposed to be working on something completely different at the time, just managed to collate the hard work of a bunch of other influentials while they were slacking off in a drawing room. And they got a Nobel Prize for it. Well balls to that I say. --195.92.67.75 29 June 2005 00:46 (UTC)

[edit] acommplishments

[edit] fact check: atheist

"Like his late colleague, Francis Crick, Watson is an outspoken atheist, known for his frank opinions on politics, religion, and the role of science in society. He has been considered to hold a number of controversial views."
Is there a source for this? --JWSchmidt 13:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/042765.htm --CountCrazy007 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better picture

Is there anyway we could get a halfway flattering picture where he doesn't look like a hunched over rat? I think that with a man who's contributed so much to science, he deserves something respectable. :-)--CountCrazy007 01:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, just about every picture of him looks like that. He's not a pleasant guy to look at, which I'm sure attributed to his very weird issues regarding women. --Fastfission 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gratuitious "citation needed"s

The number of "citation needed" templates here is ridiculous -- almost every one of them are for things clearly taken from The Double Helix. I'll try and go through and clean them out and add a citation every few paragraphs or so, but it's a pain in the ass for something which would be obvious to anyone who had read around on some of these things. The fact that the statement about TMV being the first virus synthesized is labeled as needing citation just further proves the point: it is a completely uncontroversial fact, as our page on the subject clearly explains. --Fastfission 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of adding the cite tags is to aid people who do want to go back to the literature and read around these things. I agree that most of these can be found in The Double Helix and easily added. How are we to tell what facts are reliable and which are not if we have no definitive proof that they are not simply whisked out of the editor's imagination? Asking for a cite is not the same as disputing a fact; they should not be taken as indicating that a given statement is necessarily controversial. Basically, this article (like every one in Wikipedia) should serve as a start point for any interested non-biologist who wants to learn more about the subject; it is not primarily designed for those who have read around the subject and already have some knowledge. Adding the citation tags is messy, but the point is to flag those portions of the text that obviously need backing up. All the best, Badgerpatrol 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to Franklin

I find that we keep sprinkling in references to Franklin all over this story. She obviously contributed, but I think that she needs s section of her own because information is being repeated about her in an intrusive way. -- 67.121.114.170 16:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Watson stole her data.
The comment that Watson "effectively stole" Franklin's data is unnecessarily inflammatory, and given that this is a matter of debate, biased against Watson. The preceding sentence states that the data was shown to Watson by Wilkins, and that the data had come from Wilkins' and Franklin's collaboration. That in itself is enough make make this less than theft.Aenikolopov 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science vs. Controversy

I feel that we spend too much time on the Franklin "controversy" and not enough time on the science. I am beginning to think that the controversy deserves its own page, just so that we can keep Waton's biography focused on Watson. -- 67.121.114.170 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CanadianCaeser is being destructive

Is is doing mindless reverts. He obvious does not have the intellect to read and comprehand the article and his action show a complete disregard for article quality. He username says it all: CC is a mind that only understands one thing: force. -- 67.121.113.143 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

During the past few days the Francis Crick article was edited by several users known only by IP address, including User:67.121.113.143. I request that if any of these users is not a banned user, please register a user name so that other editors can have some confidence that you are a serious Wikipedia contributor. Thanks.
I am trying to work through CanadianCaesar to understand the reason for his reversions. --JWSchmidt 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the replies to this Incident report, the banned user Amorrow is known to edit using IP addresses that start with numbers such as 75, 68 and 67. Augaeth started the King's College DNA controversy article and is listed as a suspected puppet of Amorrow. I guess all edits by the following users should be deleted:

[edit] DNA Pioneers dropdown menu: addition of King's College London

Is the addition of KCL to the list a joke or is someone seriously unbalanced? I claim equal rights for the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge of course; so why just add KCL to the list? Nitramrekcap

[edit] List of Minor Edits

Since the article is locked, any minor edits can be listed here:

--Ollie 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the protection off. Feel free to edit the article. --JWSchmidt 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Needs infobox

This article needs the Template:Infobox Scientist 24.126.199.129 22:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proceedings of the Royal Society in 1954

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(byuu1iz24qxbuby4yu3etcbm)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,10;journal,726,1018;linkingpublicationresults,1:120148,1

or start at: www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/archive and go via their Crick link!

217.134.247.11MP217.134.247.11

[edit] "Outspoken atheist"

The article states ("Other controversies" section) that "Watson is an outspoken atheist..." Could someone provide a citation for this, as I'd like to add Watson to the List of atheists article? Thanks. logologist|Talk 07:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone has now provided documentary evidence for Watson's atheism. It is available at List of atheists, to which Watson has been duly reinstated. logologist|Talk 08:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referring to the controversy section

The controversy section is very biased towards Franklin and her work. Also, the section contradicts itself in the amount of contact that Franklin had with Watson and Crick. First it says that she told them personally, then it says that she had little interaction with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.202.164 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I guess there's been a small recent controversy over his his statement "Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can't be criticized, that's very dangerous"[1], but not enough of one to be mentioned perhaps.--T. Anthony 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lede

Some anonymous editors have been taking out the material on Rosalind Franklin from the lede paragraph. I imagine this has been a contentious paragraph over time, but from looking at it, the version with the Rosalind Franklin appears to have been fairly stable for a while. The editors taking it out have been anonymous & not apparently regular contributors here. So I've put it back for now, but am raising the issue here. --lquilter 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNA SCULPTURE AT CLARE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, ENGLAND

The following words have been added to the article:

  • The wording on the new DNA sculpture outside Clare College's Thirkill Court, Cambridge, England is

a) on the base:

i) "These strands unravel during cell reproduction. Genes are encoded in the sequence of bases."

ii) "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins."

b) on the helices:

i) "The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson while Watson lived here at Clare."

ii) "The molecule of DNA has two helical strands that are linked by base pairs Adenine - Thymine or Guanine - Cytosine."

Nitramrekcap

[edit] OPENING PARAGRAPH

"Sir James Dewey Watson KBE(Hon) ForMemRS (born April 6, 1928) is an American scientist, best known as one of the discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule."

I would seriously question the use of 'Sir' for what is only an honorary title? It is not normal practice for honorary knighthoods to non-British nationals to be quoted in print. I am also dubious about the 'KBE(Hon) ForMemRS' as well! Can whoever added all these details, please comment? I think the opening paragraph for this article should be kept as simple as possible and does not need all this superfluous detail.

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_honours_system#Knighthood

Honorary awards

Citizens of countries which do not have the Queen as their head of state sometimes have honours conferred upon them, in which case the awards are "honorary". In the case of knighthoods, the holders are entitled to place initials behind their name but not style themselves "Sir". Examples of foreigners with honorary knighthoods are Riley Bechtel, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Bono, and Rudolph Giuliani, while Arsène Wenger and Gérard Houllier are honorary OBEs. Honorary knighthoods arise from Orders of Chivalry rather than as Knights Bachelor as the latter confers no postnominal letters.

Recipients of honorary awards who later become subjects of Her Majesty may apply to convert their awards to substantive ones. Examples of this are Marjorie Scardino, American CEO of Pearson PLC, and Yehudi Menuhin, the American-born violinist and conductor. They were granted an honorary damehood and knighthood respectively while still American citizens, and converted them to substantive awards after they assumed British citizenship, becoming Dame Marjorie and Sir Yehudi. Menuhin later accepted a life peerage with the title Lord Menuhin.

Tony O'Reilly, who holds both British and Irish nationality [1], uses the style "Sir", but has also gained approval from the Irish Government to accept the award as is necessary under the Irish Constitution[2]. Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, the German soprano, became entitled to be known as "Dame Elizabeth" when she took British nationality. Irish-born Sir Terry Wogan was initially awarded an honorary knighthood, but by the time he collected the accolade from the Queen in December 2005, he had obtained dual nationality [1] and the award was upgraded to a substantive knighthood.

Bob Geldof is often erroneously referred to in the tabloid press as "Sir Bob", though he does not have British nationality and does not appear in the British Knightage. His late wife, Paula Yates, regularly styled herself "Lady Geldof", though this may have been a ruse to enjoy preferential treatment when booking restaurants.

There is no law in the UK preventing foreigners from holding a peerage, though only Commonwealth and Irish citizens may sit in the House of Lords. This has yet to be tested under the new arrangements. However, some other countries such as the United States have laws restricting the acceptances of awards by foreign powers; in Canada, where the Canadian House of Commons has opposed the granting of titular honours with its Nickle Resolution, the prime minister Jean Chrétien advised the Queen not to grant Conrad Black a titular honour while he remained a Canadian citizen[3].



Nitramrekcap

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/Talk%7EJames_D._Watson_fe9b.html"