Talk:Francis Crick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Francis Crick article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Francis Crick was a nominee for Natural sciences good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Francis Crick is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Older discussions have been moved to Talk:Francis Crick/Archive 1- July 2004-December 2005

Contents

[edit] Conceptualization of Double-helix shape of DNA

From a calendar published by the Multidisciplanary Association of Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) under the section titled , This month in psychedelic history - Febuary 28, 1953: "Francis Crick first conceived of the double-helix shape of DNA while under the influence of LSD, later winning the Nobel Prize for his discovery."

2007 Calendar Multidisciplanary Association for Psychedelic Studies; Ben Lomond, CA;

Its not that I doubt MAPS, but does anyone else have a collaborating source; I haven't looked yet, but I thought I'de post first. Buekerc1 22:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting indeed, MAPS is usually a reliable source of information, anyone know of any sources for this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.190.229 (talk) 19:10, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Please guys, research again and either accept as a fact or claim or tell it's a myth, about the LSD thing. I know it's a controversial and atention drawing subject, i admit that myself wouldn't be here now if i wasn't fascinated by that data, but it's not a little thing at all.

Many serious and intelligent truth-seekers, galileos, in their time thought of LSD as a revelation or enlightment drug. If the double helix structure, the "secret of life" was in fact discovered under it's influence, it should be noted. If it's a myth or something subject to discussion, too.

A guy before published a refutation to this according to a biography, i don't think i'm yet capable of dealing with this things but please those who can, research further. 201.212.109.6 (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all discussed extensively, below on this page. There is no reliable evidence that LSD had any significant impact on Crick's work and in particular, there is no reliable evidence that Crick had experimented with LSD before the discovery of the double helix. There are drug use advocates who attempt to link famous people and events to drug use and they can say anything they want without supporting their claims with evidence. Wikipedia is very careful to only repeat what has been previously published by reliable sources such a biographies published by reputable publishing companies. I do not see how the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies can be viewed as a reliable source for information about Crick's use of LSD. Have they published their evidence in a peer-reviewed journal or something? --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] intelligent design

"This of course is true, but it is often misunderstood that Creation Science is one thing, and Intelligent Design another. The fact that Crick wisely distances himself from disreputable creationists does not change the fact that his ideas fit like a glove into the logic of more mainstream and credentialed proponents of Intelligent Design. Namely, that in seeing the complexity of DNA, he was led to believe in some kind of intelligent designer, namely alien lifeforms."source

Can you (User:140.180.164.138 or anyone else) provide a reference to the published work of an intelligent design advocate who has written about the possible movement of extraterrestrial lifeforms to Earth? Can you provide a reference to support the idea that Crick went beyond exploring directed panspermia as an idea and that he actually held a belief "in some kind of intelligent designer"? --JWSchmidt 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I woke up this morning, read this, and thought, "huh"? Then I came here and saw JW had already asked my question. Thanks JW! Semiconscious · talk 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wobble Hypothesis

Including information or a link on Crick's wobble hypothesis might be good for this article.--Drewlew 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup header?

===To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. Please discuss this issue on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.This article has been tagged since April 2006.===

Can anyone explain why this header appears over the article? I think the article is excellent and a lot of hard work has obviously gone into it. (Yes, I do know the author!) Any comments.. 62.25.109.194 mp62.25.109.194

[edit] A pivotal moment in Crick's scientific career?

According to James Watson at the conference DNA: "50 years of the Double Helix" held in Cambridge (England) in 2003 : (quote) "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier. That's what it was saying."

19 years later Crick left Cambridge for La Jolla, California.

NitramrekcapMPNitramrekcap

Not really pivotal if he stayed in Cambridge for another 19 years (appointed to head positions in the new MRC lab in 1962-3) and then left for the Salk Institute to focus on a different field Bwithh 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Reading between the lines of the UCam genetics department official history, http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/About/News/departmenthistory.htm , it sounds like there were substantial internal discord on the departmental politics level; the nature of this is not explained, but it was clearly bad enough to force the abandonment of the usual election process, deter Pontecorvo from the taking Lord Adrian's offer, and possibly offend Crick enough to turn down Adrian's offer too (though it is not confirmed that this second offer was made). University politics can be pretty cutthroat anywhere in the world. If Watson's line about Francis' rejection is accurate, it was likely down to "really stupid" departmental politics rather than a simple decision Bwithh 02:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Unable to find any hits on google or on commercial international newspaper and magazine database to verify the quote (using "james watson AND really was stupid" / "james watson AND uninspiring" searches. If Watson really said this at a conference lecture (the conference was webcast live internationally by the BBC so its unlikely only a few people heard it), its strange this wasn't reported in the press or in a science magazine. Treat quote as suspect. Bwithh 02:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nitramrekcap, you need to come up with a reasonable external reference for that James Watson quote, or it'll have to be pulled. I haven't been able to find any james watson quote criticizing Cambridge like that. It seems odd that I cannot find any mention of this criticism in an international news and magazine database, nor in a quick search of his book, The Double Helix and in Crick's memoir nor anywhere else - especially given how outspoken Watson is. Even if Watson did say such a thing, the total lack of reportage about this would suggest that it was not seen as a particularly newsworthy , notable or supportable quote Bwithh 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • "Designs For Life: Molecular Biology After World War II" by Soraya De Chadarevian; CUP 2002, 444 pp; ISBN : 0521570786; it includes James Watson's "well kept open secret" from April 2003 in Chapter 6 (Locating The Double Helix) on pp 197!

62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194


"bwithh",the source is impecable, i.e. the transcript of the conference: last page is Watson's closing remarks? I have a copy at home which I was given this time last week at the LMB by the person who did the transcript. Please withdraw your unecessarily critical remarks! (Matt Ridley also records this in his forthcoming biography, as did Soraya in her book in 2002 by the way.)

I treat your comments as "suspect" as you cannot grasp that this is not yet on the internet; the real question is WHY did Watson use this opportunity to raise a 48 year old issue?

62.25.109.194 MP62.25.109.194

Assuming you are a sock of Nitramrekcap as detailed above, I am mindful to treat your consistently patronising tone as a series of personal attacks. If you persist, and if other users agree, I would be disposed to begin the dispute resolution process and ultimately a request for arbitration. This could result in sanctions being taken against you. If you have some kind of social impairment-such as Asperger's syndrome- which might explain your behaviour, it would be beneficial to relate this to the other regular editors of this page, perhaps by email if you wish to maintain privacy. I must confess, I see little evidence from your edits that such a clinical explnation is likely, and assuming you don't have any such excuse, please learn to adopt a civil tone or leave the encyclopaedia. Badgerpatrol 13:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Badger Patrol" (!) I think it is worth recording "Fisher retired in 1958 and in 1959 John Thoday, then in Sheffield, was appointed his successor (the word "appointed" is used advisedly, since he was not elected but appointed by the Chancellor under Statute D.XIV.16(b)(i). The reason for this is that the electors could not agree on an appointment. Pontecorvo (then at Glasgow) turned down an offer from Lord Adrian (then Vice Chancellor) 'and, it is said, so did Crick. Under these circumstances, Adrian consulted one of the external electors, Mather (from Birmingham))." quoted from http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/About/News/departmenthistory.htm

To which I will add Soraya De Chaderevian's comments; eventually we may get to the real truth!

If that was supposed to be a response to my comment above, then we also add dyslexia or similar to the list of your potential clinical problems. Please read the comment again more carefully. If you require further clarification I will be happy to explain it to you if necessary. Please learn to sign in to the system with a consistent username and also how to sign your posts properly; again, if you need to be taught how to do this I am quite certain that either myself or another editor will be able to do so. Badgerpatrol 15:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fisher retired in 1958 and in 1959 John Thoday, then in Sheffield, was appointed his successor (the word "appointed" is used advisedly, since he was not elected but appointed by the Chancellor under Statute D.XIV.16(b)(i). The reason for this is that the electors could not agree on an appointment. Pontecorvo (then at Glasgow) turned down an offer from Lord Adrian (then Vice Chancellor) 'and, it is said, so did Crick. Under these circumstances, Adrian consulted one of the external electors, Mather (from Birmingham))." quoted from http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/About/News/departmenthistory.htm.

"Bhandh", I respectfully suggest there is a major contradiction between the above quote and Jim Watson's recorded remarks; I am grateful for you bringing the above to my attention, and therefore to the attention of Crick's authorised biographer i.e. Professor Robert Olby. I will also bring it to Soraya De Chaderevian's attention as it is rather inconsistent with her book's version. this incidentally was Crick's SECOND disapointment with Cambridge, the first one being his failure to get a place at a Cambridge college - unlike both Wilkins (St John's)and Franklin (Newnham)! Neither failure is documented in his autobiography, "What Mad Pursuit" of course.

62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194

62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194

[edit] SYDNEY'S BRENNER'S TALK AT CAMBRIDGE ON THE 1ST OF MAY 2006

See: * http://www.bluesci.org/content/view/436/265/ for a report on his talk on 1st of May 2006!

Just in case anyone has any doubt about it? John Schmidt would have found it very interesting!

62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194

[edit] CAIUS STAINED GLASS

I DO admire the initiative of whoever put the image of the 'Crick' window into the article, but the following wording is WRONG;

"Stained glass window in the dining hall of Caius College, in Cambridge, commemorating the co-discovery of the structure of DNA by Crick."

The window commemorates Francis Crick with the words: "F.H.C. Crick..Honorary Fellow 1976", not the co-discovery of the structure of DNA. However to avoid being totally negative, the following may be of some interest from "Once A Caian" (Michaelmas 2005):

"..Crick gave his blessing (provided Watson agreed and as long as the window was not visible at night, for the DNA would be coiling the wrong way.).."

and - in case anyone has any doubts about WHO (not what) is really commemorated, the caption in the above magazine from which the image was taken reads: "Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA with James Watson, and Nobel Prizewinner, is commemorated by a diagram of the double helix based with permission on a 1989 Swedish stamp."

QED. Thank goodness this is not the 'Rosalind Franklin' discussion page, otherwise the debate over the discovery would begin again.. well-informed critics are of course in short supply on Wikipedia!

NitramrekcapMPNitramrekcap

I am the uploader of the picture, and you are absolutely right. I also uploaded a similar picture for John Venn, and earlier today I realised that I made this mistake. I corrected it on the Venn page, but not here, so thanks for pointing it. And many thanks for the additional comments, which are very interesting. Schutz 09:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected the description; fortunately, I got it right on the image description page on commons. I have also copied your comments (and a link to Once a Caian) there. Tell me is anything is still incorrect. Thanks ! Schutz 10:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear "Schutz",

Two down and four to go! What about Sherrington, Green, Fisher, and Chadwick?

Well done (so far)!

NitramrekcapmpNitramrekcap

[edit] SYDNEY BRENNER'S JOKE ABOUT FRANCIS CRICK MEETING GOD

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/vehicles/francis-crick-goes-to-heaven.html

This is the version in Heinz Pagels, The Dreams of Reason (p. 266); he says he got it from Sydney Brenner:

Crick, the co-discovered of the molecular structure of DNA, dies and goes to heaven. He is met by St. Peter, who asks if he has any special requests. ``Yes, says Crick, I want to meet the Man himself and ask him a few questions. Peter says that there are not many requests of that kind, but it can be arranged, and he tells Crick to follow him. After passing through the Elysian fields, with their cool springs and lakes around which beautiful people are at play, their every desire fulfilled, Peter and Crick come to the mountains and enter a dark valley. The way is strewn with wrecked machines, electronic parts, broken glass and test tubes, organic garbage, old computers ---- a junkyard. At the end of the valley is a shack, which they enter, and inside is an old man, his coveralls stained in grease, blood, and chemicals. He is bending over a lab table filled with more junk, hard at work. Francis, meet God; God, meet Francis, says Saint Peter. Pleased to meet you, says Crick, but what I want to know is how you made the muscle system for the fly's wing. It's so ingenious. Well, says God, I did it a long time ago, and it's really very simple. Let's see now if I remember. You just take a bit of tissue and then it's...well, twisted..and then, somehow...and then you rearrange...slap together these protein chains...and...Well, I don't remember all the details. But who cares, it works, doesn't it?

A RIB-TICKLER OR WHAT? Any comments would be appreciated; I think it is quite funny and subtle!

and just a reminder of the more serious side of Sydney Brenner, who was present at the birth of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953:

Excerpted from My Life in Science by Sydney Brenner. Copyright © 2001. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved."Seeing DNA ...of course the most important thing that happened then is that Jack Dunitz told me about all the developments with DNA in Cambridge because he was following it all. He told me that Francis Crick and Jim Watson had solved the structure of DNA, so we decided to go across to Cambridge to see it. This was in April of 1953.Jack and I and Leslie [Orgel] and another crystallographer went to Cambridge by car. It was a small car. It was very cold I remember, and the car wasn't heated. No one had heaters in cars then. We must have arrived in Cambridge in the late morning, at about 11am or thereabouts. We went into the Austin wing of the Cavendish Laboratory. I went in with Jack and Leslie, into this room that was lined with brick, and there on the side I can remember very clearly was this small model with plates for the bases - the original model with everything screwed together. And I could see the double helix! Francis was sitting there. This was the first time I met him and of course he couldn't stop talking. He just went on and on and on, and it was very inspiring, you see. Of course at this stage neither of the two famous Nature papers had yet appeared. The first paper was expected in a few weeks. They talked mainly about what eventually was in the second paper. Jim was at his desk in that room which I came to occupy later when I came to the Cavendish, and he was interspersing comments with Francis. So that's when I saw the DNA model for the first time, in the Cavendish, and that's when I saw that this was it. And in a flash you just knew that this was very fundamental. The curtain had been lifted and everything was now clear [as to] what to do. And I got tremendously excited by this."

Never mind the politics of who really did what, it's the importance of the discovery itself that matters! To see Sydney Brenner at Cambridge on 1st of May 2006 53 years on was a vivid experience...but let's not forget the contribution made made by Sir Herbert Austin, later Baron Austin, at whose car plant in Birmingham cars/vans were built between 1905 and 2005; I say that as an ex-Austin apprentice (1969-1973) and ex-MG Rover employee (1969-2005)!

62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194

  • Just a gentle reminder Martin- this page is for discussing the Francis Crick article specifically- it is NOT a general discussion board for the history of DNA research or even for Crick's life, outside of the scope of the Wikipedia article. Could you possibly make it clear in future how your contributions on this page are designed to increase the quality of the Crick article itself? Thanks, Badgerpatrol 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for indulging me, "Badgerpatrol"; I am very sure that the overall quality of the Crick article can only be much improved by reference to Matt Ridley's short biography - being published in the USA on 1.6.06 - and by reference to my own '40 page' web site: http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/rememberingfranciscrickacelebration.htm!

I am not advertising Matt Ridley's book (which I have already read by the way) in any shape, way or form - as my unbiased advice is to wait for Robert Olby's longer, authorised, scientific biography in 2007. There is still a massive amount of material on Crick on the internet, some of which is quite useful (shades of the curate's egg in "Punch") but some of which is very misleading and downright inaccurate.

I think that Wikipedia should lead the way with a really good Crick article - based on all available sources, both printed and the internet.

I wait your erudite response to these comments, but would remind you what happens to badgers on British roads, they get squashed! 217.134.249.144 mp217.134.249.144

ps Have you heard of the Badger Brewery by any chance?


[edit] a shoddy piece of journalism from "the sunday times" (11.6.06)

any comments anyone? see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2220486,00.html

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

[edit] the first on-line review of matt ridley's biography? (this is not 'advertising'!)

http://www.cleveland.com/bookreviews/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1150619424219900.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

Selected quotes from the above: "This is one of science's signature stories, and Matt Ridley re counts it with verve and clarity in this compact, elegant biography...Deploying almost haiku brevity, Ridley sketches the missed opportunities, the blind alleys and the experimental slogging. Readers breathe the heady fumes of discovery as Brits competed against Americans and the King's College team in London pitted itself against the one at Cambridge. Oversized personalities abounded....Ridley gives Watson his due, who in turn provides his blessing for this perceptive little book. The author, however, is quick to dismiss claims that chemist Rosalind Franklin was cheated of credit in the DNA race. The essential persona here is Crick, "the dominant theoretical thinker, the best guesser, the indefatigable skeptic, the loudest debater, the conductor of the scientific orchestra"..."Francis Crick" shows off Ridley's command of the subject and offers the pleasure of thinking about a man whom Ridley ranks with Galileo and Darwin. And Ridley is among my favorite writers. His earlier book, "Genome" occupies a place of honor in my living room...Ridley's book is the first biography of Crick, who died in 2004, and the seventh in the new "Eminent Lives" series, which pairs a first-rate writer with a seminal life. The book lacks footnotes and an index, but a reader can hold it in the palm of one hand...While Ridley's writing skill makes "Francis Crick" almost a guilty pleasure, it is no piece of hero worship. Instead, we consider a man whom many scientists described as the cleverest person they ever met but also one prone to "doing other people's crosswords."

Doesn't this new book raise the bar for the revised Wikipedia article on Crick? Over to you, John Schimdt when you finally finish reading it! 195.92.67.74195.92.67.74mp195.92.67.74

Martin, if you put as much effort into actually adding to and improving this article as you do to pointing out on this page (at excessive length) whenever a new publication emerges regarding Crick, then Francis Crick would be the best article in the encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us all know (again) that Matt Rdiley has a new Crick book out. If YOU have read the book and if it has any new information that should be added, then why don't you add it yourself? Over to you, Martin. Badgerpatrol 08:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"BADGERPATROL": this is the very FIRST new publication on Crick; I read it a few months ago; it is John Schmidt's article as far as I am concerned, and I am sure he will do a much better job than I can. To be honest with you, I am more interested in Robert Olby's biography of Crick, than I am about improving the Wikipedia article on Crick - which is good in parts, but not yet definitive! (Neither is Ridley's biography.) 62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

"MARTIN"- This article "belongs" to NOBODY. If you have read the Ridley book, then add anything it has to offer to the article. This page is for discussing changes DIRECTLY relating to the WIKIPEDIA Crick article. It is not for discussing Crick generally. If you feel that you can't write well enough to contribute to the Crick article, then put in what you can and I or someone else will endeavour to correct it for you- this encyclopaedia is a colloboration, after all. As an aside, please sign in and use a regular account to avoid confusion. Badgerpatrol 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FailedGA

The article is long term tagged with {{cleanup}} and {{not verified}}. Nominating a cleanup tagged article for GA is quite frankly wasting the reviewer's time. Please renominate when these issues have been fully addressed and the maintenance templates removed. --kingboyk 15:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On April 16 User:Wobble added a cleanup tag to the Francis Crick article. On 17 May User:Wobble added a bunch of tags requesting citations (first set,second set). On May 29 User:Wobble added a not verified tag to the article.

I believe that most (if not all) of the requests from User:Wobble for additional citations concern topics that are covered in detail by the sources that are already cited in the article, in particular What Mad Pursuit and The Eighth Day of Creation. I will try to find time to dig out citations to specific pages. --JWSchmidt 04:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is now one requested citation remaining concerning the quoted comments from James Watson made at the conference marking the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA. --JWSchmidt 07:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The same quote is in the James D. Watson article. There the source is given as, "conference transcript". --JWSchmidt 07:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The same quote was present twice in the Francis Crick article, the second time with reference made to the conference transcript as the source. I combined the two. I'm going to remove the tags from the top of the article. --JWSchmidt 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. It was the long term nature of the tagging which made it an automatic fail. If the tags has been added after the GA nomination it would have a different matter, then the reviewer might use some discretion if the maintenance tags were clearly incorrect or added in bad faith. Anyway, please resubmit as soon as you feel the article is ready. There's no minimum time period you must wait. --kingboyk 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FRANCIS CRICK'S SHORT BIOGRAPHY BY MATT RIDLEY

This article is now out-of-date as there are far more facts in the public domain thanks to Matt Ridley's new book; I suggest the article needs to be comprehensively reviewed by its principal contributor and revised. If not should it carry a 'health warning'as being out-of-date? Sorry John(Schmidt) but "the bar has been raised"!

As it is NOT possible to create a link to the "Amazon" review, here it is - again - in the interests of someone (not me) 'picking up the baton' as it were from John Schmidt, reading the book, and improving the article. Yes "Badgerpatrol" I have actually signed in for a change!

"Ridley's Insightful Biography of a Great Scientist; Not the final word, June 19, 2006 Reviewer: David H. Peterzell "Ph.D., Ph.D." (San Diego, CA United States)

Matt Ridley has captured much of Francis Crick's essence in a very short, credible, engaging book. He has captured Crick's contributions to the discovery of DNA, but he also resurrects Crick's equally great contributions to understanding DNA's coding scheme. He has, I believe, portrayed the essence of Crick's thinking style - Crick's superb ability to visualize details in three-dimensional space; his life-long need to talk and debate with close colleagues; his intellectual pragmatism, his diligent reading abilities, his playfulness, and his ability to focus for long periods. Ridley has captured Crick's many moments of being polite, spirited, friendly, accommodating, and curious. But Ridley has also captured the stronger aspects of Crick's personality. These include his ability to take strong stands against things he despised, such as vitalism, royalty, and` organized religion. At times, these strong stands could be courageous and insightful. At others, Crick's behaviors could seem downright stubborn, cold and mean. A vitriolic attack on the Richard Gregory comes to mind, and is described in the later pages of the book. Another remarkable aspect of the book is its treatment of the mundane and perhaps "mediocre" Crick. The portrait of Crick and his work in WWII is fascinating for this reason, and invites considerable speculation.

Ridley weighs in on the well-known, controversial, mysterious and misunderstood aspects of the discovery of DNA. He includes sane descriptions and analyses of Crick's storied colleagues -Watson, Wilkins, Franklin, Brenner, Orgel, and many others. Ridley's treatment of Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, Pauling, Chargaff and others involved in the controversial steps toward the discovery of DNA is well worth a look. "The story of the double helix is awash with might-have beens. Every participant had cause for regret about a blunder made or an opportunity missed." We see that Rosalind Franklin's interactions with Crick and others were mysterious and complex. Despite any hard feelings, we see Crick and his wife befriend Franklin toward the end of her life. But we also see Crick respond to controversy by harshly describing Franklin as "not sound." We see Wilkins as a somewhat unfortunate figure, despite his Nobel Prize. He is remembered, in part, as the man who did not collaborate sanely with Franklin; who failed to build models in a timely manner; who stole Franklin's data.

As I write this review, the book has been on the market for about a week, and Matt Ridley has just presented talks on his book at UCSD and at the Salk Institute. These talks, moderated by Roger Bingham and Stuart Anstis, were taped and will be published in some form soon. If you have a strong interest in Crick and his story, then it will be well worth watching these talks and the discussions that followed. They were riveting. The rooms were filled with many people who knew Crick well, and their questions and comments made for a vibrant and important presentation.

A number of other materials enhanced my enjoyment of this book, and I recommend them. Start with Francis Crick's (1988) "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery." Have a copy of this book nearby while reading Ridley's book. This is Crick's autobiography, and it provides strong insights into Crick, his discoveries, his colleagues, and his times. In one intriguing passage, Crick commented on a movie drama about the discovery of DNA, and I couldn't help but thinking about it as I read this biography. Moreover, the autobiography contains many relevant photographs, including some that appeared in Ridley's talks in San Diego. One of the things I like about Crick's book is that it provides some details about his friendship with VS Ramachandran, co-founder of "the Helmholtz Club." Ramachandran is a great thinker and genius in his own right, and the two had many important interactions. Crick discussed how he was influenced by great vision scientists such as Hubel and Wiesel, among others. I would also recommend the introduction to "The Astonishing Hypothesis," in which Crick discloses more about himself and his ways. And of course, it helps to consult copies of Watson's books, Perutz' book on science and scientists, and books about Franklin, Wilkins and others.

I hope that Ridley makes some of his visual materials available, as the book contains no pictures. Moreover, it is a shame that the book does not provide an index. A book like this needs an index because on often times wants to find specific passages, topics or people within the book.

(On a personal note--I should say that I interacted briefly with Crick perhaps 20 times at talks and parties over perhaps a 7 year period, and did not know him particularly well. Even so, I felt like I had a somewhat reasonable sense of him. I caught first-hand glimpses of his kindness, enthusiasm and cantakerousness. He attended a talk I gave in 1997 at the Salk Institute, and I knew of him mostly through reports by mutual friends and colleagues. Their enthusiasm for Crick spoke volumes. My strongest memories are of Crick holding court at one of the many parties at Stuart Anstis' house, often kindly answering UCSD students' questions in an entertaining way. His last appearance at one of these parties was just a few months before he died. I went to the large memorial for him at the Salk Institute.)

Although Ridley has added another person's view regarding DNA and Crick, I think it is fair to say that this bio is "not the final word" and "the book is not out" in some sense. There are quite a few versions of Crick and the DNA story. I look forward to Ridley's version being picked over by people who are more knowledgeable than I. It is certainly possible to supplement ones understanding using other sources. One that comes highly recommended to me by a friend of Crick is "The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology." The word is that Crick figures predominantly in this book, and that the book provides a reasonably accurate portrayal. Another source is Olby's "The Path to the Double Helix." Again, I'm not familiar with the book, so won't comment. Perhaps the ultimate source on Crick will appear in 2007. Martin Packer reports that Crick's full-length scientific biography (by Olby) will appear then, and he is currently soliciting material for the book.

I wonder how Crick would react to all this posthumous attention. This is the man who wanted attention placed on the molecules, not the scientists who studied them. How ironic that his desire to remain somewhat anonymous has led to all this. Crick IS fascinating, whether he liked it or not.

NitramrekcapmpNitramrekcap

81.78.70.219mp81.78.70.219

[edit] 'PROFESSOR' CRICK (sic?)

I could be mistaken but being a Visiting Professor to Harvard University does not make you formally a 'Professor' in my opinion?

Let's stick with "Doctor" until someone can prove me wrong!

Ironically the Crick article goes a long way to disproving that he was ever a Cambridge professor (quote) "James Watson claimed at a Cambridge conference marking the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 : "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier." (source: conference transcript)

According to the University of Cambridge's genetics department official website, the electors of the professorship could not reach consensus, prompting the intervention of then University Vice-Chancellor Lord Adrian. Lord Adrian first offered the professorship to a compromise candidate, Guido Pontecorvo (who refused) and then is said to have offered it to Crick, who also refused."

In the meantime, see:

http://www.edgwaretimes.co.uk/display.var.803953.0.a_school_history_rich_with_anecdotes.php

for what has been wrongly described as his "lacklustre education" (by Matt Ridley) at Mill Hill School, London.

Nitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)mpNitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As this looks like being a one man debate, I will throw this into the pot as the opening paragraph has been amended to reflect it:

"Crick was the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies" but I am NOT yet convinced!

Nitramrekcap 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CRICK AND THE HUMAN BRAIN

This article contains several good references to Francis Crick:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2251248,00.html

including the fascinating phrase: "What makes a person with a particular brain state or formation a psychopath and another a university professor is likely to remain imponderable."

Nitramrekcap

[edit] Please have ONE SECTION about Franklin

Franlink is mentioned a dozen times in this article. That is not appropriate. This is Crick's biography. Please consolidate references to Franklin. -- 67.121.114.170 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the current version of the article. But the claim that there were three co-discoverers, to the exclusion of Rosalind Franklin, was inaccurate. --JesseBHolmes 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy About Using King's College London's Results

The section of the article now called "Controversy About Using King's College London's Results" was restored to a version that lacks references. I will go into the history and attempt to find a version of that section that contains references. --JWSchmidt 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong to imagine that this section of the article ever had any citations. It was created by user 70.25.90.3 on 25 March 2006. The section seems to have been changed very little since then. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the referenced version was in the James D. Watson article. Rather than place versions of this into each relevant article, I wonder if we should have a short version to place in articles such as Francis Crick and link the short version to a longer version in its own article. The following is from the last time I edited it on June 28, 2006. I'm too tired right now to see if there was an improved version since then.

[edit] Controversy about using King's College London's results (from Watson article)

An enduring controversy has been generated by Watson and Crick's use of DNA X-ray diffraction data collected by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling. The controversy arose from the fact that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge, by her estranged colleague, Maurice Wilkins, and by Max Perutz[1]. Her experimental results provided estimates of the water content of DNA crystals and these results were consistent with the two sugar-phosphate backbones being on the outside of the molecule. Franklin personally told Crick and Watson that the backbones had to be on the outside. Her identification of the space group for DNA crystals revealed to Crick that the two DNA strands were antiparallel. The X-ray diffraction images collected by Gosling and Franklin provided the best evidence for the helical nature of DNA. Franklin's superb experimental work thus proved crucial in Watson and Crick's discovery.

In 1951, Franklin had presented some of her experimental findings for DNA at a public seminar to which Watson had been invited by Wilkins. Crick was given permission by his boss, Perutz, to read an internal MRC report containing those experimental findings. Wilkins let Watson view one of the better "B form" X-ray diffraction images collected by Gosling and Franklin. Franklin had made an agreement with Wilkins that he could work on the B form while she would concentrate her efforts on the A form.

The strangely informal nature of the interactions between Watson and Crick at Cambridge and Wilkins and Franklin in London arose from two sources. Wilkins had originally worked with Gosling on DNA and felt that he should have been able to collaborate with Franklin when she started working with Gosling on DNA[2]. Franklin was cold to the idea of collaboration with Wilkins[2]. The second issue was that Watson and Crick were in favor of trying an approach to solving the structure of DNA that neither Franklin nor Wilkins felt comfortable with.

The position taken by Watson and Crick was that the data from King's College should be used as a basis for molecular model construction, a view that conflicted with Franklin's view that the structure should be revealed by careful calculations. In the year leading up to the discovery of the double helix, Wilkins and Franklin had both refused to participate in the kind of molecular model building that was advocated by Watson and Crick. It was the Watson and Crick approach that eventually led to their discovery of the structure.

Prior to publication of the double helix structure, Watson and Crick had little interaction with Franklin. Crick and Watson felt that they had benefitted from collaborating with Wilkins. They offered him a co-authorship on the article that first described the double helix structure of DNA. Wilkins turned down the offer and was in part responsible for the terse character of the acknowledgement of experimental work done at King's College. Rather than make any of the DNA researchers at King's College co-authors on the Watson and Crick double helix article, the solution that was arrived at was to publish two additional papers from King's College along with the helix paper. Brenda Maddox suggested that because of the importance of her work to Watson and Crick's model building, Franklin should have had her name on the original Watson and Crick manuscript[3].

After the discovery of the DNA double helix, Franklin became friends with both Watson and Crick, and spent her last period of remission from ovarian cancer in Crick's house (Franklin died in 1958)[4].

[edit] references

  1. ^ Chapter 3 of The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology by Horace Freeland Judson published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press (1996) ISBN 0879694785.
  2. ^ a b Wilkins, Maurice, The Third Man of the Double Helix
  3. ^ Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA by Brenda Maddox. (2002) ISBN 0060184078.
  4. ^ What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery by Francis Crick (Basic Books reprint edition, 1990 ISBN 0465091385) and The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology by Horace Freeland Judson provide descriptions of Watson's and Crick's interactions with Wilkins and Franklin.

[edit] King's College (London) DNA Controversy

A new article now exists: King's College (London) DNA Controversy.
--JWSchmidt 12:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That article seems to have been deleted and links to Rosalind Franklin's page.--Gloriamarie 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

  • this edit reverted some useful edits by several people. I will try to fix the damage. --JWSchmidt 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, yes - I thought I'd put them back, but I see I missed some. It seemed easier to replace the few minor edits since the large removal (apparently by a banned user) than to put back all that was removed other than by reversion. There's been a big mess left by the King's College DNA controversy web page creation then removal, with trails left in various places which are going to take a bit of unravelling. TSP 03:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No serious harm was done and I think it is fixed now. --JWSchmidt 03:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by a banned user

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 carefully examined and deleted if they do not improve the encyclopedia:

--JWSchmidt 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the deleted article King's College DNA controversy and agree that it was started by Amorrow. Sorry! --FloNight talk 02:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King's College (London) DNA Controversy

In the best interests of free speech, can anyone say what the above deleted article was all about please? Is this so called 'controversy' related to the spurious "Rosy Franklin was robbed" 'controversy'? Seweryn Chommet's little book is the best available text on the whole subject, but unfortunately it has not been widely circulated in the global scientific academic community! Surely the best place for a debate over the KCL role in DNA was the deleted article? I would be the first to say that KCL's role in the DNA discovery has been historically underestimated, not least because of over focus on Rosalind Franklin personally, and not enough focus on the hard work of Maurice Wilkins, both were under the direction of Sir John Randall. (Both the Cavendish Lab. and KCL operated as fellow research units under the Medical Research Council.)

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

I was actually leaving a message on the King's College DNA controversy talk page when the article was deleted, it came as something of a shock to me. But there was a message that said that CanadianCaesar had deleted the article. When I sent him a message to ask what had happened this was his reply (copied from my talk page): Yes, I deleted both the article and the talk page. There was no AfD. It was deleted per WP:CSD- created by an extremely dangerous banned user. If you wish to recreate the article (using your words, not his), you are certainly welcome. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC). Personally I don't have a problem with the article being deleted, much information was removed from the Rosalind Franklin article without any discussion whatsoever, and wikipedia just doesn't work by dictat, so I was extremely angry by the attitude of the annonymous user who kept removing the material from here. Personally I think it makes more sense to have an article dealing with all of the history/controversies surrounding DNA, including the under reporting of the contributions of people like Avery, Astbury and Chargaff, but that's just my opinion. Alun 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Surely the best place for a debate over the KCL role in DNA was the deleted article?, well no, wikipedia is not a chat room it is an encyclopedia, debate should not centre on what happened, it should concentrate on what to include and how to include it in the article. Articles are not debates, they should be verified and included all published POVs, omiting any original research. Alun 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More general "controversies in double helix discovery" or more specific King's College (London) DNA Controversy
I have no objection to replacing King's College (London) DNA Controversy with a more general article that could cover all controversies related to DNA and the double helix discovery. --JWSchmidt 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think More general "controversies in double helix discovery" would make for a more complete article. There is some bad feeling and a sense of unfairness that touches others involved in the discovery right back to the 1930s if my memory of our conversations last year on the RF talk page is correct (I'm not as au fait with this as youself or Martin). I also think that a King's College controversy section would need to be specific about addressing the attribution issue, rather than getting into the Franklin was robbed sort of discussion, I think youself and Martin have covered that ground fairly well, and I for one am now convinced that there was nothing underhand going on. In fact the whole attribution issue can be cleared up with a few quotes from Maddox and especially Wilkins' books. Wilkins explains that at one point he was actually offered co-authorship of the original Crick-Watson paper and turned them down, only to regret it later, and of course he got a share of the Nobel Prize, for which Franklin was not eligible anyway. If I understand it correctly much of the Franklin was robbed attitude comes from certain claims in Watson's book (The Double Helix) which turned out to be somewhat over stated and were later cleared up in some letters to Science that Martin very kindly posted to me. Well we live and learn and I am certainly wiser for the experience. There is also a point in Maddox's book where she claims something like something was done which shouldn't have been done (or something similar), but she doesn't actually expand upon this and appears to at a loss as to what specific thing it was. But I guess this should be covered on the talk page of the relevant article. Alun 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

Please note the following amendment to the introduction to the Francis Crick article: "most noted for being one of the four co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953." It goes without saying who the fourth person was, she died in 1958 of course.

Nitramrekcap

I wonder if it might not be more accurate to describe Crick and Watson as co-discoverers and Wilkins and Franklin as major contributors, or have some such style. What is the general thinking? Alun 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

I guess that makes Messrs. Gosling, Stokes, and Wilson the minor contributors? But their names appeared on the KCL papers in "Nature" alongside Franklin (Gosling) and Wilkins (Stokes and Wilson), although you would never believe the latter from Wilkins' autobiography! Wilkins should have accepted the offer of joint authorship of the Watson and Crick paper of course, but why was the generous offer made in the first place? The debate goes on...Nitramrekcap


In his autobiography, Wilkins wrote that when Watson and Crick asked him to be a co-author on the double helix publication, Wilkins felt he could not be a co-author because he had not directly taken part in the model building. The model building approach had been resisted by Wilkins and Franklin even when Crick and Watson had encouraged them to try it. In my mind, the description that seems to fit is that Wilkins and Franklin collected data that were used by Watson and Crick when they figured out the double helix structure AND Wilkins and Franklin had additional data that they were able to publish in the same issue of Nature along with the double helix article, additional data that supported the idea that model was correct and biologically important. It is often forgotten that Crick, and particularly Watson, were unsure of the model until they learned from the two King's College DNA papers how much data the workers at King's College had that was consistent with the double helix model. In fields where there are theoreticians and experimentalists, it is not unusual for there to be a synergy between data suggesting a model that allows more data to be understood in terms of the model. The double helix model was suggested by data from King's College (among other places) and the model in turn made sense out of more King's College data. Watson and Crick discovered the model, but the Watson-Crick model was just a guess until there could be testing against more data and confirmation that the guess was correct. Franklin and Wilkins were able to look at the double helix model and report that it seemed to be consistent with additional data that Crick and Watson had never seen while building the model. The data from Franklin and Wilkins contributed to both the ability of Watson and Crick to construct the model AND to the first steps towards confirmation of the model. Crick and Watson were co-discoverers of the model; Wilkins and Franklin were major contributors of initial data that first suggested the model and additional data that then confirmed the model.
"Wilkins should have accepted the offer of joint authorship of the Watson and Crick paper of course" <-- Wilkins was too honest to take credit for work he had not done. "why was the generous offer made in the first place?" <-- Two possible reasons: Watson was afraid that the model was wrong. He knew that there were additional data at King's College that might possibly show the model wrong. It made sense to collaborate with King's in order to maximize access to the data. Also, it is a matter of professional courtesy to offer. Some scientists take the position of that their name must be on every article that they have made even a minor contribution to ....others accept acknowledgement of contributions and reserve authorship for situations where they make direct contributions to the work. It is polite to ask people if they want to be a co-author, even if you think that they should not be a co-author. --JWSchmidt 04:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You make several good points, I have seen cases where people are given co-authorship of papers for doing far less than Franklin and Wilkins did, but I think that this sort of thing is generally looked down on. I agree that Wilkins acted out of honesty, and probably made the right decission. Whatever one may think about the state of affairs, it was Crick and Watson that built the model and no one else. Alun 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be bringing this new article to the attention of Seweryn Chomet at KCL very shortly, once he has finished doing Bob Olby and myself a big favour by finding a copy of a 'missing' Francis Crick video from 1994; in the meantime I stand by my personal recommendation to read the KCL booklet (see below*) as a good source for the debate. I hope to provide total cost including p. & p. to Finland and the USA (= a hint!) next week. Remind me who the author is please? 62.25.109.194 11:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Chomet, S. (Ed.), D.N.A. Genesis of a Discovery, 1994, Newman- Hemisphere Press, London; NB a few copies are available from Newman-Hemisphere at 101 Swan Court, London SW3 5RY(phone: 07092 060530).

[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

I think the banned user that originally created the controversy article made the change (IP:67.121.114.170). I have reverted it today. Alun 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
They also modified the Template:King's College DNA, but onlt to include the names in alphabetical order, so I haven't reverted that. Alun 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Eagle and "The Secret of Life"

Is the story of Crick walking into The Eagle Pub and declaring "We have discovered the secret of life" true? The BBC has an article mentioning it http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/25/newsid_2932000/2932793.stm

It seems noteworthy to me, it gives a small insight into Crick's character and is fairly well known. Perhaps even if it is not true it should be included in order to debunk it.

Ajmayhew 15:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes its true and a pretty well known story. On the 50th anniversary there was a plaque unveiled on the Eagle pub in Cambridge to mark the event. There were plenty of news stories around at the time (e.g. [1], [2]), and I imagine it is also mentioned in Watson's book, The Double Helix (been a while since I read it). I think Watson turned up for the unveiling along with various other luminaries.
Actually we already have a picture of the plaque on The Eagle Pub article, which is probably a better place for it than here. But the story of the original announcement would probably be worth mentioning here. -- Solipsist 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In Crick's autobiography (chapter 6) he wrote that he had no recollection of announcing the discovery of the double helix structure in the Eagle Pub. Crick wrote about having a distinct memory of telling his wife about the discovery. --JWSchmidt 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
John, Crick actually denied saying it - not the first time that he and Watson disagreed over the facts, but Odile (Crick) said it was the kind of thing her husband would have said! The pub is literally only a stone's throw from the Cavendish by the way, and is very historic inside!!

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194


[edit] 'PROFESSOR' CRICK (sic?)

I could be mistaken but being a Visiting Professor to Harvard University does not make you formally a 'Professor' in my opinion?

Let's stick with "Doctor" until someone can prove me wrong!

Ironically the Crick article goes a long way to disproving that he was ever a Cambridge professor (quote) "James Watson claimed at a Cambridge conference marking the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 : "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier." (source: conference transcript)

According to the University of Cambridge's genetics department official website, the electors of the professorship could not reach consensus, prompting the intervention of then University Vice-Chancellor Lord Adrian. Lord Adrian first offered the professorship to a compromise candidate, Guido Pontecorvo (who refused) and then is said to have offered it to Crick, who also refused."

In the meantime, see:

http://www.edgwaretimes.co.uk/display.var.803953.0.a_school_history_rich_with_anecdotes.php for what has been wrongly described as his "lacklustre education" (by Matt Ridley) at Mill Hill School, London.

Nitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)mpNitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As this looks like being a one man debate, I will throw this into the pot as the opening paragraph has been amended to reflect it:

"Crick was the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies" but I am NOT yet convinced!

Nitramrekcap 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has 'reverted' the opening paragragh from 'Doctor' back to 'Professor' without entering into the above debate. In my opinion being a Visiting Professor to Harvard University and the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies are purely honorary titles; Crick was never appointed as a University Professor. Even Brenda Maddox refers to him in the acknowledgements to her biography of Rosalind Franklin as "Doctor Francis Crick", so unless someone can present a better argument, let's stick to 'Doctor'? You cannot simply call someone a 'professor' without justification!

What was the point of James Watson's protest at Cambridge in 2003 if Crick already was a professor; the sad fact is that he was never appointed as a professor by any university, including Cambridge. Can whoever 'reverted' enter this debate please with a lucid argument?

See also : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor for further information on 'Professors'...

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

[edit] Article needs infobox

This article needs Template:Infobox Scientist 24.126.199.129 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptics Society from July 2004

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-07-30.html Discuss? 81.78.67.35mp81.78.67.35

It should be an inline reference. David D. (Talk) 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic titles

Less is best! Crick has lost his "Doctor" and Watson has lost his "Professor" in line with Wikipedia guidelines apparently! Presumably Franklin had neither, and Wilkins' article did not contain one in the first place!! Problem solved QED? 195.92.67.75MP195.92.67.75

[edit] THE 1954 ROYAL SOCIETY DNA PAPER

John,

See: 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 the Crick link!

~~mp~~

[edit] ROSALIND FRANKLIN'S BIOGRAPHER REVIEWS MATT RIDLEY'S BIOGRAPHY OF FRANCIS CRICK!

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2353754,00.html

217.134.242.94mp217.134.242.94

[edit] INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH TO THIS ARTICLE

The words highlighted are totally unacceptable as they are a matter of opinion, not fact!

Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004) was an English physicist, molecular biologist and neuroscientist, most noted for being one of the four co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins, using the work of Rosalind Franklin, were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material"[1]. His later work at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology until 1977 has not received as much formal recognition. His remaining career as the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies was spent in La Jolla, California until his death; "He was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end” (a quote from his close associate Christof Koch [2]).

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

Two issues:
  1. Does Wikipedia need to specify how many co-discoverers there were?
  2. Should Rosalind Franklin be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia article about Crick?
Can someone provide reasons for trying to include mention of these issues in the introduction? --JWSchmidt 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Answering both of your points... I don't have any dispute with the accuracy of those words, but it is true that the introduction reads better without them. Deleting the words in bold above would leave a better introduction to Crick, which is what we're after, and the text remains true. Changing 'four' to 'three' is a less good idea as it opens up a whole can of worms discussed elsewhere. Greg 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

John,

Your two issues:

  1. Not really, but the actual discovery is normally credited to W/C in most scientific circles (even in Maddox's review of Ridley's new biography)albeit Wilkins deserved joint authorship of their paper and lived to regret not accepting their offer; personally I will stick to TWO only.
  1. No she need not be; to include reference to her in that sentence is totally unnecessary; we need to defend the credibility of your Crick article in the same way as Alun does his for REF.


62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194

You can't put numbers on how many discovered the structure. It is clearly more complex than two. As far as i can see there is no reason to quantitate it. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

nitramrekcap

[edit] Inclusion of Delbruck and Pauling on a pioneers' template

I have pasted in a comment that I made elsewhere about a year ago with slight modifications but it deserves a wider audience. I have put it here so that more people might read it.

I have re-read Judson's Eight Day of Creation to check on Delbrück's role. He gets credit for inspiring Schodinger and for passing on information but to give him a big billing on the DNA template seems to me to be unnecessary. An unexplained sentence on p145 even says that Delbrück was "no friend of biochemistry".

In a transcript of a conversion between James Watson and David Baltimore, the President of Caltech [3], Baltimore mentioned the experiments by Oswald Avery: “One of the things I’ve always been curious about is why they didn’t have the impact that they might have. The genetics community, particularly around Luria and [Max] Delbrück, never seemed to appreciate that Avery —this is now 1944—and his colleagues had published a paper that quite clearly showed that as chemically pure DNA as you could get would transfer genetic characteristics. And yet the idea that DNA was the carrier of genetic information really didn’t take hold.”

I think it was just that everyone expected that proteins were going to be involved,” said Watson. “And also the covalent backbone—how the nucleotides were linked together—wasn’t established until ’51. It was the Avery result that was the stimulus for Erwin Chargaff to measure the relative concentrations of DNA’s four bases (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine) and for Alex Todd to get his organic chemists to establish the covalent structure. But neither Luria nor Delbrück thought in terms of molecules."

If you have to rank people in order of importance, a difficult thing to do, I would put the following people after Franklin, Watson, Crick and Wilkins:

  • Oswald Avery, for showing that DNA carried genetic material and for proving that it was worth studying to begin with
  • William Astbury, for showing them it was possible to take X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA
  • Erwin Chargaff, for determining the ratio of the bases
  • Alexander Stokes, for working out the mathematics of helical diffraction
  • Phoebus Levene, for getting the components right
  • Jerry Donohue, (see acknowledgement in the Nature article)

(After writing this Avery and Levene were added)

Obviously you could go back further and credit Pauling for his work on the chemical bond and the Braggs for inventing X-Ray diffraction, but I would draw the line there.

Claiming that Delbrück could be included for just being a big influence on Watson seems odd, you could also cite his father and mother. Pauling got the structure wrong, though he did propose the correct structure for an entirely unrelated molecule. However in the DNA story, he was someone who unwittingly applied some pressure to Crick and Watson. Again hardly merits inclusion in this box. JMcC 20:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crick and criticism by Phillip E. Johnson

I added the following material to make the article more NPOV:

Phillip E. Johnson wrote in criticism of Crick: "Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through." [4] ken 18:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

It doesn't add anything NPOV and you didn't even source it to the original but rather to an nth hand source. In any event, it runs afoul of the undue weight clause of NPOV. JoshuaZ 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I directly cited the quote from the essay and had a link to the essay. Furthermore the sentence adds balance to the article. I reverted your POV pushing deletion. ken 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
It is unclear from the essay by Johnson as to what is said by Crick in his autobiography and what is added by Johnson. Given the disparate fields of endevour in which Johnson operates compared to Crick (both temporal and spiritual). Given Johnson in his essay doesn't cite Crick (ideally page number etc) but is happy to cite bible verses I call that Johnson's essay not worth of inclusion. This smells of WP:OR by proxy. Ttiotsw 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the Crick quote: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - Francis Crick ( Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine), "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138. ken 06:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
It is quite apparent to me that you haven't read the quote in the original context because if you had how it doesn't support you would be obvious. The point was that things do look designed and amazing and one needs to think about it to understand how things could have evolved. If you've read the entire section and other works by Crick you would see that that is precisely his point the amazing fact (almost a miracle if you will) that natural selection can give rise to things which are so fantastically complex that they look designed. JoshuaZ 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This looks a lot like the way Darwin's eye quote is constantly quoted out of context by creationists. Is this an example of moral bankruptcy? If so, how ironic, given this accusation is thrown at biologists by DI and others all the time. David D. (Talk) 08:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Just another gem from the creationist quote mine. But in reality the Johnson quote really has nothing to do with Crick, it is simply a bit of sophist argument in support of creationism. In any case why would anything Johnson have to say on Crick be of importance enough to include in this article? --Michael Johnson 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious passage

I have removed the following: 'Crick's views changed later on, after careful observation of the statistical improbability of spontaneous life when he stated, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."'

This puts a crypto-creationist spin on an attempt by a scientist to express awe at the apparent improbability of life. It's fairly obvious that Crick would not have intended this statement to be interpreted in the way it has been here. Jamrifis 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Skeptic is not a religion. Removed the entire thing until more facts are clear.

[edit] In memorium Odile Crick

Odile Crick died 5 July 2007.

See: http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/333/fall/watson.html

Also: http://www.crick.com/odile.html

81.77.179.193

[edit] Involvement with psychedelic drugs

I think the section "Involvement with psychedelic drugs" should be removed. Wikipedia is not a place to publish unverifiable rumors about people. --JWSchmidt 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What is unverifiable? The Mail on Sunday presents a convincing case. In addition, The Guardian mentions it in their review of Crick's biography, in which Crick's biographer mentions it and apparently covers it at great length. He said it helped him elucidate the double helix.--Gloriamarie 07:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the rumors are unverifiable, but Wikipedia does not need to publish rumors. --JWSchmidt 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What specifically is the problem? Looks reasonably well-sourced to me, and the topic is certainly worth mentioning in the context of Crick's life and work. I might not give it quite the space that it now has, and I might rephrase things slightly, but I don't see any reason to excise the issue completely.... Badgerpatrol 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reasonably well-sourced

"Looks reasonably well-sourced to me" <-- I find it hard to believe that we are reading the same section of the article.

"Crick was a founding member of a group called Soma, one of many organizations that has tried to legalize cannabis.[1]"

First, the cited source looks like the personal ramblings of a blogger. According to policy, "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". I am unable to satisfy myself of this. "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."

Second, upon reading what Steve Abrams wrote, I find that he does not say that "Crick was a founding member" of Soma. He talks about "my organization Soma" in 1967 and says, "The formation of Soma was announced in.....1967". Then he talks about a "1969 Prospectus of the Soma Research Association, Ltd." Abrams says that after Soma Research Association was incorporated Francis Crick was on the Board of Directors.

The second cited source[2] is a tabloid known for publishing gossip. This is not a reliable source for anything, even if the person citing the source uses the "cite news" template.

"He was well-known as a marijuana user and LSD was a 'drug of choice'".[3]

The third cited source is a book review by Robin McKie that does not even include the word "marijuana". Robin McKie wrote that LSD was "one of Crick's drugs of choice", but there is no indication of how he knows this. A throw-away line in an opinion piece is not a reliable source.

"the topic is certainly worth mentioning in the context of Crick's life and work" <-- Why? How are unverifiable rumors worthy of being included in an encyclopedia article, rumors that the rumor pushers did not dare put into print while Crick was alive?
--JWSchmidt 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the Soma reference- if a good source can be found that Crick was a director then that can be re-added. You're being slightly harsh on the ol' Völkischer Beobachter I think- it's a crap newspaper, but it's not a Daily Star-esque rag. The Guardian review I would say most definitely is a reliable source, but I haven't read the Ridley biography that it is based on. However, Crick's alleged drug-taking in fact is substantially mentioned in the McKie piece- more than a throw way line, certainly. It should definitely stay- although we can debate the point over at WP:RS/N if you feel strongly about it. As for your last point- clearly these statements are not inherently unverifiable (as you correctly state above, albeit in a somewhat confusing way), nor are they even unverified, for that matter. I can think of many, many potentially embarrassing stories about various historical figures that have only emerged from the aether after the death of the subject, for obvious reasons. Given Crick's a) sheer fame; b) the nature of his research; c) intrinsic interest, any experimentation with mind-altering drugs is quite encyclopaedic, although even now I do think the material could be trimmed and it may not necessitate its own section. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There are some famous scientists who described in print their use of drugs and discussed the idea that drug use contributed to their work. Crick is not one of these. In the case of Crick, all you have is unverifiable speculation by others about a possible relationship between drug use and his work. It is not the job of Wikipedia to try to create a story here because we know embarrassing stories are often hidden. Wikipedia summarizes what has previously been documented in reliable sources. Crick has been the subject of a huge number of biographical works published by professional biographers (or close acquaintances) in books and journals that have editorial oversight and fact checking. It is against Wikipedia policy to use unreliable sources like those cited in the "Involvement with psychedelic drugs" section. "Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD when he discovered the secret of life" <-- "clearly these statements are not inherently unverifiable". The main statement of the article (given in the title) is an absurdity that was designed only to sell a scandal sheet. There is no way you could verify this statement without a direct confirmation from Crick. Rather than a direct quote from Crick, the only person who could know when he was "high", we have a case of, "he said that he said that he said that Crick said something about using LSD". "Crick told him he had perceived the double-helix shape while on LSD." <-- This statement makes no sense. A group of scientists spent years discussing and modeling single, double and triple helical patterns for the structure of DNA. There was no magical moment, drug-induced or otherwise, when Crick suddenly had a vision of the double helix. It is clear that there are POV pushers who like to invent stories about drugs being the source of great insights, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to provide a platform for such POV pushing. This section of the article will be removed unless reliable sources are cited. --JWSchmidt 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No-one is trying to create a story and I at least certainly have no POV agenda to push. I think you are being slightly unfair dismissing newspapers as unreliable sources- although it could be more clearly stated, it seems to me that per intuition and per WP:RS newspapers are not unreliable in themselves. The Mail does not have the very strong reputation of the Indy or Guardian, but neither is it a pure tabloid rag or "scandal sheet". All three have both clear editorial oversight and fact-checking. So far, I've yet to come across either any libel action or retraction, although I'm no lawyer and the legal status of articles about deceased persons is not something with which I am familiar. I hope that your personal respect for Crick is not clouding your judgement here? I believe that all these sources are valid under WP:RS, although I agree that the MOS is the most dubious. Even excluding this however, the other sources are fairly quite substantial. Nonetheless, I've left a note at WP:RS/N asking for comment and clarification. To reiterate, I would be content to see the amount of content on this issue cut back, improved, and the text reintegrated into the main flow rather than remaining as a separate subsection, provided the information (which I believe is well-sourced, encyclopaedic and relevant to Crick's life and work) is retained. Thanks for your comment. Badgerpatrol 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I commented on this at WP:RS: MOS is not acceptable for controversial politics, and for other subjects a little dubious. I'd be leery of anything certified by it alone, For the particular story used, the material cited is about as weak as I've seen--a reporter (Rees) writes that another person (un-named) tells him that he heard a story years before from yet a third person (Kemp--a known illegal producer of LSD) that Kemp had spoken at one point with Crick about Crick's use of LSD. A story indeed in the traditions of British journalism. Appropriate weight for this one would be a link alone, not 3 paragraphs in the article on Crick. DGG (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I agree that the current amount of text is excessive- two or three lines would suffice. I'll have a go at paring it down tomorrow. Badgerpatrol 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

John, perhaps we should let FHCC have the last word on LSD from beyond the grave, as it were:

http://www.intuition.org/txt/crick2.htm

"MISHLOVE: Do you have a sense of the process by which hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, or psychedelic drugs, actually affect the brain? What is going on there?

CRICK: Well, I don't have a detailed knowledge, no, I don't, and I'm not sure that anybody else really knows. They have a rough idea.

MISHLOVE: We know that obviously there's a chemical influence.

CRICK: Well, typically, different ones act in different ways. But a common thing is to see colors more vividly, for example, and often to see things move in a way when they're not actually moving, and things of that sort. So they boost up in some way the activities of what you might call the color parts of the brain and the moving parts of the brain and so on. But the government isn't very keen on giving money for research on that sort of thing.

MISHLOVE: Not at all. Well, I suppose many neuroscientists would feel that the study of the chemical interactions at the synapses of the brain is a very fruitful area for research.

CRICK: Absolutely, but most of it's done in the context of mental illness or conditions like depression and things of that sort."

Martin

ps

"Crick has been the subject of a huge number of biographical works published by professional biographers (or close acquaintances) in books and journals that have editorial oversight and fact checking." Can I have a list of them all please as soon as possible? Preferably here!

91.108.19.133

Not sure what you mean by that, Martin. It is certainly true that much remains to be discovered about the biochemistry of hallucinogens, but that is (whilst related) tangential to Crick's work. I don't think we should go into it in too much depth. As for your other point, I recommend Google Scholar [5]) as a resource for finding the information you want. Badgerpatrol 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Badgerpatrol", I am not sure exactly what alternative universe John Schmidt is living in these days but there has only been just the ONE 'biographical work' published about Francis Crick to date, and that is of course Matt Ridley's little book - about which the last time John 'spoke' to me: he said he had given up reading it about a third of the way through. As for "editorial oversight and fact checking", do try Horace Freeland Judson's review of said book in "Nature" last October, which itself contains substantive errors. Unfortunately there is - apart from John's flight of fantasy - no guarentee that appearing in print is a hallmark of quality! As for Dr. Crick and LSD, my best guess is Harvard in 1959 and 1960 when he was a visiting Professor, but Cambridge itself was apparently a hot spot for LSD usage in the early 1960s by the way*; I discovered Google Book Search sometime ago and debated it in "The Times".

Martin

  • In Willis's account, a Stanford University chemistry researcher had fetched up in Cambridge c.1963 with the formula for LSD, and 'until it was outlawed in 1965, acid consumption was more widespread in this small Fenland town than in all but the most exclusive circles in the capital.' http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n01/hard01_.html

91.108.21.79

Good for you Martin! Although Google Scholar is a completely separate thing from Google Book Search. (Maybe for your next cyber adventure, you could learn how to write your username and password and log in to Wikipedia to use one consistent account for your edits?). Congratulations on your contribution to the debate in The Times - perhaps they were impressed by your insight here - one comment as part of a message board on The Times' website- and invited you to contribute to the paper itself? Appearing in print is certainly no badge of quality. But these sources are reliable per WP:RS. Verifiability, not subjective "truth". Badgerpatrol 14:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Badgerpatrol, sir - at least I don't hide behind a rather stupid nom-de-plume! I was referring to my letter which was published overnight in "The Times" newspaper, not on their web site! I suspect it is a lot easier to contribute to their message board, but getting a letter into PRINT is far more of a challenge - but then again I have lost count of the number I have had printed! Yes, I suspect they were impressed with my "insight", otherwise it wouldn't have been printed, so (except in your fantasy) you don't get 'invited' to contribute to the paper itself.

My main point still stands in that there is only ONE substantive biography of Francis Crick to date, and everything else - especially on the internet - is endlessly recycled again and again; there is little or no original information on Francis Crick and his alleged use of L.S.D.: QED!

Martin 91.108.43.254 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Ridley and Crick's --JWSchmidt 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)--JWSchmidt 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)involvement with drugs

The current version of the page section Involvement with psychedelic drugs is against Wikipedia policy: it uses unreliable sources in an attempt to elevate rumors and absurd speculation to a topic worthy of being in a biographical encyclopedia article. Further, the current wording introduces new mis-interpretations of what these unreliable sources actually say. "Psychedelic drugs" have nothing to do with Crick's fame and there is no reason for Wikpedia to have a page section called, "Involvement with psychedelic drugs".

One of Crick's biographers has addressed the rumors and speculation (about the influence of LSD on Crick's DNA work) in his book, Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code by Matt Ridley (2006) published by HarperCollins Publishers; 192 pp, ISBN 0-06-082333-X. According to Ridley's biography of Crick, Crick, "was introduced to LSD about 1967 by Henry Barclay Todd," and, "Todd’s main supplier, Dick Kemp, later claimed (to a friend who spoke to a journalist who published an article in a British newspaper after Crick’s death) that Crick had once said he had been taking LSD when he discovered the double helix. This cannot be true, and not just because of the thirdhand source—the drug had been barely available in 1953; Todd is certain that he was the first person to give it to Crick; and neither Todd nor Odile recalls Crick’s meeting Kemp." --JWSchmidt 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

John, can you explain yourself a bit more clearly; your above comment reads to me thus: Matt Ridley's biography (surely you accept that this is a reliable source per WP:RS?) states that Crick took LSD and was introduced to it in 1967. The second half of your statement seems to be your WP:OR personal explanation as to how the Mail on Sunday article is wrong. Does Ridley say the article is wrong, or are you saying it is wrong? In fact, LSD has been available since 1938, and wasn't even illegal (I think) in the US and UK until the 1960s. It's perfectly possible that Crick - essentially a biochemist - could have got hold of it. But that is irrelevant. What is important is this- is the debunking of the MOS scenario your reading of the facts (i.e. your personal interpretation) or is this what Ridley says in his reliable source? If Ridley states as an unalloyed fact that Crick took LSD, then add it as a source. If he says as an unalloyed fact that he didn't, then add it anyway as an alternative viewpoint. It sounds to me like what you're saying is that the former is true however- you may not like it, you may not agree with it, but I'm afraid there's no place for your own original research - or your personal feelings- in Wikipedia. It seems to me that the evidence is mounting that Crick was involved with drugs, and it seems to me that this is encyclopaedic. If you don't like the current wording, then change it and we can discuss a compromise solution here. The current wording is based on the sources that I have to hand (which do not currently include the Ridley biog). You claim that newspapers aren't reliable sources- please explain why. I don't agree with you, and nor (so far) does anyone on WP:RS/N. The emphasis on the MOS article, and the length of the section generally, was excessive in the original version. I have taken steps to address both issues. I agree (see edit summaries and above comments ad nauseum) that it would probably be better as it stands to integrate the material into the main text, and as my edit summary explains, I am having stylistic difficulties figuring out how to do it. If you also want it done, then do it yourself if you can. If you have access to the Ridley biography that seemingly confirms Crick's drug use, then use it as a corroboratory reference. I must say, I'm confused by your somewhat contradictory comments on this issue so far. This issue is supported by reliable sources and is encyclopaedic. End of story. Thank you for the ongoing discussion however, I genuinely appreciate your commitment to dialogue rather than resorting to the internecine revert warring that is sometimes seen here on WP. Badgerpatrol 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha! I have only just now noticed that you're quoting directly from Ridley. I therefore suggest that you include it as a rebuttal source to the MoS article. (My other comments stand). Badgerpatrol 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that you are confused, but not surprised. In my view, you should take the time to read the published biographical literature about Crick. Crick may have advocated the idea that possession of Cannabis not be criminalized, but it has never been explained why this is relevant to an encyclopedia article about Crick. Crick may have experimented with LSD, but there are no reliable sources linking that experimentation to Crick's work or any aspect of Crick's fame. If someone wants to include these topics in the article then they must first explain why it is relevant to the article. There seems to be a serious dispute here about what constitutes a reliable source. If you want to elevate "he said that he said that he said..." to the level of a reliable source, then put this matter up for comment before the Wikipedia community of biographical article editors. See if you can get others to agree that such rumors are reliable sources. For now, I've provided the refutation of the rumor by a published biographer of Crick. That settles the matter until other reliable sources can be found. --JWSchmidt 15:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't attempt to patronise me, John. I will list this with the mediation cabal later this evening. They may come down for you or for me, either way another independent assessment is needed- although note I already have posted the issue at [{WP:RS/N]], where the only contributor largely agreed with my assessment. I implemented the changes he suggested. Sadly, you chose not to participate in that discussion. Badgerpatrol 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, given your latest revert I have now listed the dispute at WP:THIRD as a prelude to further steps in the dispute resolution process should that not be productive in bridging the gap between our positions. There's certainly nothing to be gained by revert warring. It's a real shame you have chosen not to comment on WP:RS/N John, I think that would have been helpful and an appropriate place to continue the discussion. Badgerpatrol 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To User:Badgerpatrol: if you want to mention Crick's use of drugs, why not use direct quotes from a published biographer of Crick? You are clearly unable to correctly paraphrase the sources you cite and the sources you prefer to cite are not reliable sources. Until you address these deficiencies in your editing, I will continue to remove the disputed section of the article. If you want to edit the Francis Crick article, you should read the published biographical works about Crick and cite them rather than gossip sheets and opinion pieces. In my view, if you cannot distinguish between reliable sources and sensationalized opinion pieces then you should stop editing Wikipedia. I'd be happy to let the Arbitration Committee decide if you are suited for editing this article. --JWSchmidt 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh John, what a shame. I had thought that we were both mature enough to maintain civility and a sense of proportion. Please, please, please do refer this to the arbitration committee. I can already hear the howls of derisive laughter that I suspect such an action would provoke. This is obviously not a matter for the ArbCom. Are you familiar with this page? I am trying to be very fair and civil here, but I just do not think that the likes of The Guardian, The Independent, The Times can be described as scandal sheets. The Mail on Sunday is not a great paper, as I freely admit above, but that story is out there and did generate a great deal of publicity. I think is contribution to the the page is now proportionate to the nature of the source, after the discussion on WP:RS/N. I'm having a bit of trouble following your chain of argument above, but you do seem to concede that Ridley's biography (which you seem to have read avidly) posits that Crick was indeed involved in the LSD scene and took the drug. Can I ask you to outline clearly what particularly you object to therefore? Badgerpatrol 16:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Well, a couple of things here. First, the article is already overly long, so the focus right now should probably be on a bit of cutting. The drug use seems tangentially relevant at best to his life, and is probably a good one to go. Remember, this isn't a full-length biography that goes into every last detail, it's an encyclopedia article that just touches on the highlights. While it's alright to go somewhat into his personal life, discovering DNA tends to overshadow dropping acid. It also doesn't look like the sources used are even sure themselves that he used drugs, but simply speculate that he did. This isn't a place to post rumors. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree, but I'll certainly take your comments on board. As for the sources...I'm perplexed that you consider them to be ambiguous....from The Guardian: [Crick] came perilously close to being investigated by the police when an acquaintance was jailed for manufacturing LSD (one of Crick's drugs of choice); from Matt Ridley's book (courtesy of John) [Crick] was introduced to LSD about 1967 by Henry Barclay Todd; the MoS reference obviously speaks for itself, as do the other contextual sources. By the same token- the article is admittedly overlong; it could stand to lose about 25-30% of its current material. As stated ad nauseum, I would like to work with John (and anyone else who cares to participate) to trim the material down to perhaps one or two sentences and integrate it into the main text. If space was the stated issue, then this discussion would be long over. But I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with John that a) newspapers are somehow not reliable sources (????); b) this information is inherently unencyclopaedic. I think he is motivated by a POV desire to massage the facts so as to expunge this material from Crick's biography (a figure he obviously has considerable admiration for, and understandably so) in order to "protect" the subject's reputation. I hope that doesn't sound harsh, it is my genuine reading of the situation, I don't mean that as a personal attack. If that is the motivation, then it is wrong. Wikipedia is not censored. Nobody "owns" a given article- the project is collaborative. This material is encyclopaedic biographical information, and the sources are reasonable as per WP:RS and the discussion on WP:RS/N. Those are the facts. Badgerpatrol 10:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The information is out there in the public domain, and is well cited in the article by reliable sources. I'd like to see quotes from the biography, but even without that I am content with four notable newspapers carrying the story. The question is not should the information be included, it's how it should appear. I disagree with giving the information a section on its own, as that draws attention to it, and gives it undue weight. It is a part of his life, and readers should be aware of it, and be aware of any speculation (inferred or stated from sources) that drug use may have had an influence on his work, but it should not be hammered home.
These sentences
Crick was a signatory to a noted Times statement advocating legalisation of cannabis and the immediate release of all prisoners convicted of drug possession, published in July 1967. The Cricks associated with figures from the drug scene and LSD was allegedly "drug of choice" for Francis. Allegations persist that Crick was a user of illegal hallucinogenic drugs, which may have had some influence on his work. Crick did not comment on these allegations, which were suppressed until after his death. The Guardian reported that Crick came "perilously" close to being investigated by the police after his associate Richard Kemp, a drug dealer and biochemist, was arrested.
would fit in quite well after the "Ashley Montagu Resolution" sentences in the "Neuroscience, other interests, Crick's death" section.
An encyclopedia should be impartial and carry information about a person, including well documented speculation. It is for the reader to decide what they will make of the information. Our job here is to present that information in as neutral and factual manner as possible. We not highlight it, but nor do we suppress it. SilkTork 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia article on Legality of cannabis makes no mention of Crick because Crick played no significant role in the issue of the legality of cannabis. This topic (drugs) is unimportant aspect of Crick's life that in no way contributed to his scientific work and his fame. There is no good reason to include the topic in the Francis Crick article. Including the topic of drugs is not impartial. To include this topic in the article would be to bias the article towards a subject that is not relevant to Crick's scientific work and the fame that arose from that work. If you want to include this topic in the article, please cite some reliable sources that explain how drugs significantly contributed to Crick's scientific work and fame. Yes, there are hundreds of publications that make $$$$ by publishing "stories" that mention drugs and someone famous. Let's not lower Wikipedia to the level of those journalistic bottom feeders. There are few biologists with more published biographical information about them than exists for Crick. Let's not get into cherry-picking sensationalized trivia when there is a wealth of information about Crick's scientific work. If your mission in life is to add trivia to Wikipedia, at least follow Wikipedia policy and cite reliable sources to support your belief that the trivia should be included. --JWSchmidt 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

John, I am so sorry to have to publicly pick on you again on this point: "There are few biologists with more published biographical information about them than exists for Crick." but there simply is NOT! There is only Matt Ridley's short biography from last year, so where is the rest? And to be brutally honest, there are a lot of useful references from "Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code" which could be added to 'your' (I know it's not really your's) article, which for whatever reason you have chosen not to. This debate reminds me of Alun/Wobble and 'his' article on Rosalind Franklin - from which he has now retired as it were. Incidentally I do know the almost authoritative answer on the LSD question, but it is not for publication here. The whole LSD issue is grossly overrated in my opinion and debate should cease! Far better to spend your time re-reading Matt Ridley's recent biography of Francis Crick please and improving the article? Martin

Nitramrekcap —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:05, August 21, 2007 (UTC).


This is a biography of Crick's life, including, but not restricted to, his scientific work. His drug use is mentioned (according to you yourself) in Ridley's book, was picked out as of particular interest in The Guardian's review of that book, as well in your hated Mail on Sunday piece (seems bizarre that I'm almost sticking up for the Daily Hate Mail, but such is life). He was indeed a signatory to the Times letter, which was a significant moment in the history of drugs in Britain. No one disputes that is verifiable and indeed "true". The fact that you don't like it does not make it unencylopaedic. Although opinion is not clear cut, it does seem to me that most other editors don't agree with you here. You do not own this article. Badgerpatrol 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to whoever reinstated the original Discoverers of the Structure of DNA earlier as it looks a lot better with a more comprehensive list from William Astbury to Maurice Wilkins!

Nitramrekcap —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:48, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Can I point out that a google for "Francis Crick" LSD turns up these results [6] including this interview [7] in which Crick talks about LSD - here's an extract:

MISHLOVE: Because every neuron is connected to perhaps thousands of other neurons. It's constantly sending and receiving signals to thousands of other neurons.

CRICK: That's right. And of course because it's like that, that explains why very tiny amounts of chemicals can alter people's behavior, because they go and sit on some of these molecules, different types of them, and that alters -- for example, you can have one the signal which is to calm down the neuron. And if you therefore put a chemical which increases that, that will calm you down or send you to sleep, if that's what sleeping pills are. And we've seen that, of course, recently in things like Prozac. So that's why tiny amounts of chemicals will do that. In the case of LSD, for example, you only need 150 micrograms to have all these funny experiences, you see. It's minute. And that's because they fit into special places, these little molecules, these drugs which you take. They fit into special places in these other molecules. They've been tailored to do that.

MISHLOVE: Do you have a sense of the process by which hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, or psychedelic drugs, actually affect the brain? What is going on there?

CRICK: Well, I don't have a detailed knowledge, no, I don't, and I'm not sure that anybody else really knows. They have a rough idea.

MISHLOVE: We know that obviously there's a chemical influence.

CRICK: Well, typically, different ones act in different ways. But a common thing is to see colors more vividly, for example, and often to see things move in a way when they're not actually moving, and things of that sort. So they boost up in some way the activities of what you might call the color parts of the brain and the moving parts of the brain and so on. But the government isn't very keen on giving money for research on that sort of thing.

A google for Crick and cannabis returns this [8] which gives us this letter by Noel Annan, Baron Annan to Crick , which is held in the National Library of medicine: [9], and this scholarly profile by the University of California [10] which includes this line: In the 1960s, Crick, along with Paul McCartney, Graham Greene and others collaborated to urge cannabis legal reform.

There is so much material, including sources as legitimate as universities, which make reference to Crick in relation to LSD and cannabis that I am starting to think that perhaps it should be in a highlighted section. It appears to be a notable part of his life. Certainly I cannot see how JWSchmidt can continue to seriously protest the inclusion of drug references in the article given the body of evidence and the degree of support from experienced and respected Wiki editors. SilkTork 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"It appears to be a notable part of his life" <-- Since we are sharing personal views, I'll say that my guess is that Crick's experimentation with street drugs might possibly be constructively viewed as an integral part of his willingness to explore life and the world in many different ways even if they were not popular or socially sanctioned. I think he cared about truth and where the truth leads people, not trying to appear to be "normal" or "proper" or conventional. Yes, Crick publicly supported decriminalization of Cannabis possession, and since he was a Nobel Prize winner some people seem to think that there is some special importance to Crick's support. It gets a single sentence in Ridley's book-length biography of Crick. Cite some sources to support the idea that Crick's support for decriminalization of cannabis possession played a significant role in the debate and maybe we can justify a sentence in Wikipedia. In my view, performing some personal experiments on the cognitive effects of THC and LSD fits comfortably into Crick's long-standing interest in the brain and the physical basis of consciousness. Exploring the effects of chemical substances on the brain is one of the most important tools available for studying brain function. I doubt if he viewed his "experiments" with LSD as a significant part of his life but I also doubt that he was at all embarrassed by his experiments with THC and LSD. I think the proper criteria for including mention of his drug use in Wikipedia is being able to cite reliable sources that say drug use was in some way important to his life. There are just so many other more important things to say about Crick that I do not see a way justify a discussion of his experimentation with drugs. Ridley's biography of Crick is about 200 pages and his coverage of Crick's drug use is two paragraphs. One of those paragraphs refutes the absurd claim that LSD influenced his work on the structure of DNA. In my view, his drug use can only appear to be "a notable part of his life" if you are unaware of most of his life. Its notable enough to get two paragraphs from Ridley, is it notable enough to get two sentences in Wikipedia? You can read Ridley's book and find dozens of other topics that receive more coverage there and yet are not mentioned at all in Wikipedia. On what basis can we as editors decide to include mention of the drug use while ignoring so many other topics? --JWSchmidt 04:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

John, you are of course quite right! The lengthy discussion of this non-issue is a sad reflection on Wikipedia in my opinion; if you think there are "dozens of other topics that receive more coverage there" (in Ridley's pocketbook) just wait until you see Bob Olby's biography!! Having said that, I do thank "Silktork" for a timely reminder of the Annan letter.

Martin Nitramrekcap —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:47, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

  • Just to add my twopenneth. It seems to me that there is certainly an issue worth mentioning here. If four major newspapers have carried a story about Crick and drug use (as claimed above), then it is obviously a notable fact about Crick's life, therefore it is worth mentioning. Indeed the fact that there is so much discussion here shows just how notable this facet of Crick's life is from the point of view of societies perception of major scientific figures. It does not need to be a particularly important part of the article, but to suppress information that is clearly cited from reliable sources really does smack of censorship. Indeed I might go so far as to say that certain editors may want to suppress this information because they think it somehow reflects badly on Crick. But this is about how we see these people, they are people, with the same humanity as the rest of us, do we want articles to be accurate? Or do we want them to be written as eulogies that airbrush out all of the inconvenient facts that show the humanity of these people? I do not think it is the purpose of wikipedia articles to lionise or to demonise people. Personally I don't think that mention of having the occasional trip or spliff does discredit Crick, it just shows that he is human and prone to the same temptations and frailties as all humans are. Whereas mainstream media cannot be considered reliable sources for science, I think they are perfectly acceptable sources for reporting on things of this nature. Indeed it seems to be well known that Crick did like a bit of a toke, so what? What's the problem with mentioning it? Indeed it is an extremely weak argument to claim that it should not be mentioned just because it is such a "small part of his life". How can any editor know this? He might have been puffing away at a joint at ever opportunity that presented itself for all we know. Alun 05:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alun,

Interesting opinion! Just to remind you that the debate is over LSD, and not "the occasional trip or spliff" or "a bit of a toke" or "puffing away at a joint"...all will be revealed in the new biography in February 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)

Irrespective of whether it's about LSD or cannabis use (and someone above did mention simething about Crick's support for cannabis legalisation) or the frequency with which he used any recreational drugs, my point still stands. It does not do any discredit to Crick or his accomplishments to mention this. For example Samuel Taylor Coleridge's use of opium is mentioned in his biographical article, but it doesn't make a big deal about it. Crick was not a politician and was not a hypocrite, and I think that is an important aspect of this, he was not involved in promoting prohibition of drug use, as far as I am aware, so any mention of drug use cannot reflect badly on him. If some people choose to judge Crick harshly because it is noted that he used drugs, then that is their prerogative, but their judgement reflects their own personal belief system and not that of Crick himself. Alun 09:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alun, apart from the odd spelling error - you are obviously back on good form after your recent Wikibreak! My previous comment (below) stands, but this is really John S.'s issue and not mine..

"My main point still stands in that there is only ONE substantive biography of Francis Crick to date, and everything else - especially on the internet - is endlessly recycled again and again; there is little or no original information on Francis Crick and his alleged use of L.S.D.: QED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)

Well Martin you should know by now that we cannot use original research on Wikipedia, so even if there were "original information" it's use would be prohibited. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. If there are reliable sources that make the claim that Crick took LSD, then this is good enough for the information to be included. In compliance with Wikipedia's neutrality polocy, if there is a reliable published source that contradicts te claim that Crick used LSD, then this should also be included. Information on the Internet is perfectly acceptable as long as it derives from a reliable source, one cannot claim that all content on the Internet is equally unreliable, just as one cannot claim that all content on the internet is reliable. The only thing you appear to have demonstrated is your continuing lack of understanding of the most basic of Wikipedia policies, something very odd as I have directed you to these policies time and again. I can only conclude that you have absolutelly no interest in producing reliably sourced and neutral articles, and have gone out of your way to ignore Wikipedia rules regarding content and eding. If you were a newbie this would of course be forgivable, as it is it seems more like wanton POV-pushing. Alun 10:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

ditto Why did you copy this template [11] on to John Schmidt's talk page? Badgerpatrol 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not "BADGERPATROL", I was trying to moderate this overheated debate over FHCC and LSD, which to me seems pretty pointless. The heated discussion says more about Wikipedia and the poor relationship between you (whoever you are) and John Schmidt, than FHCC/LSD by the way.

Although I naturally support John's views as I think he has done more than anyone to create the Francis Crick article - in the same way as Alun and REF - what must non-Wikipedians think of this argument? I hate to think! I hope John can be allowed to respond to your last response and then go to Arbitration over the whole issue rather than dragging Wikipedia's name and FHCC's reputation through the mud. I have had arguments over REF with Alun but respect his commitment to the REF article, unfortunately I cannot say the same of yourself in the same way as for FHCC.

As a distinguished, old friend of mine says to me "ENOUGH!"; alternatively 'get a life'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)

Ah Marty, or whatever your IP [[WP:SOCK)) of choice is at the moment. Learn Wiki rules. Alun 22:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ "The Times Advertisement and the Wooton Report" by Steve Abrams.
  2. ^ Rees, Alun. "Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD when he discovered the secret of life.", The Mail on Sunday, 2004-08-04. Retrieved on 2007-08-04. 
  3. ^ McKie, Robin. "Genius was in his DNA", The Guardian, 2006-09-17. Retrieved on 2007-08-04. 

[edit] LSD Use

Why isn't the fact that he was high on LSD when he discovered the double-helix model mentioned in the article? [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] Wikipediarules2221 03:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a neat idea, and I would like to think it was true just because of the novelty of it. However, all evidence for its truth appears to be anecdotal and promulgated almost exclusively after his death. 71.156.103.213 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IT should be added, as I find it is very important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.119.110 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right... except it isnt true. Just another romantic story for the pro-drug movement. I mean arent there enough of those already? One point that seems to have gotten lost in the debate over minutiae above is that the burn-out lobby WANTS this material included SPECIFICALLY because of this "double helix discovery" urban legend. As is correctly pointed out above, there is NO "moment of discovery" on that point, so the whole thing becomes moot. The double-helix was the product of thousands of hours of collaborative work. So sorry potheads and acid trippers, even if Crick was stoned out of his mind 24x7, the "discovery of the double helix" is something that simply doesnt exist. It just demonstrates a tremendous ignorance of the scientific process to think that the funademental structure of DNA just magically popped into one mans head. But I guess for most who *need* legends like that to be true, there isnt a lot of interest in the real scientific process (which is usually long and drawn out and boring and doesnt involve lava lamps, The Dead, and pounds of mood altering substances)

[edit] GA Review

[edit] Problems to fix for GA

I'm not committing to a full review just yet, but some things to fix before this will be Good Article quality:

  • Overlinking. Generally, only the first use of a term should be wikilinked. In some cases, it's good to link the reappearance of an important name or term if it has not appeared for a a considerable length of text, but in general, one link per item. Also, years should not be linked unless they are paired with a specific date. So "1953", but "January 1, 1953".
  • Lead should be about three paragraphs. The vague sentence about post-1953 work at the MRC should be replaced with an actual description of what he was doing.
  • Fix all the places marked "citation needed".

Cheers--ragesoss 02:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Luckily Crick's work in biology can be divided into three parts, so the article now has three introductory paragraphs that summarize the Double Helix discovery, Crick's work on the genetic coding problem and his work on the neurobiology of consciousness. I removed a large number of "extra" links. There are probably more that could be removed, however, for many of the technical terms I do not think it hurts to leave a significant number of linked ocurrences in the text. Today there was one outstanding "citation needed" that I addressed. The article now has 63 numbered reference. --JWSchmidt 21:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This article does not currently meet the GA criteria, and will not be listed. It still needs a good deal of work prior to GA status, and is probably, IMHO, still at a good, solid B-class article. First, I agree with the above-mentioned issues raised by ragesoss, although the lead is not quite as bad as he suggests. While there is no "three paragraph" minimum, the lead should provide an accurate summary of the article, and this lead does not do that. For starters, the last two sentences provide new info that's not even mentioned in the article itself! And it's rather trivial, so I'm not sure it really needs to go into the lead at all.

The major problems with the article are prose and organization. The prose can get really long-winded at times, and isn't really concise. Several sections really drag on, such as info in 'biology research' (the last two subsections, mainly). Consider going over this and paraphrasing much of the information. I'm also not sure why the myoglobin x-ray image is in the article at all, especially where it is. I don't see context for it mentioned in the text near it, and there's only a vague reference to it later down in the article, of which the sentence mentions that it was really Watson's work and not Crick's. So this just doesn't make much sense here.

Many of the major sections can be combined into other sections and areas, and the header titles are also not in compliance with WP:MSH. They could also be shortened, as some of them are rather long, making it more difficult to read the table of contents. I would recommend starting with a section called 'personal life', and then a section called 'education', then 'research career' (or maybe 'academic career'. The 'career' section should have some notable subsections, one of which should obviously be 'discovery of DNA'. I also don't think that it's necessary to include the years in the section header specifically, as this can make the TOC look somewhat awkward.

The 'views on religion' section can largely be shortened and probably combined with the 'personal life' section.

Some of the controversy and reactions sections is really getting into POV, and much of this material should be merged with other sections, specifically, it should be discussed in areas close to where the research in question is mentioned, so that all the information is in one place.

The 'Neuroscience, other interests, Crick's death' should go into other sections; most of it can go into the section on his career. His death should go into the 'personal life' section, at the very end.

'Recognition' is poorly organized, and it's getting quite listy near the end, with the lists taking several different formats, which just looks bad.

The two books sections should be combined into one section called 'further reading'. It still might be helpful to separate books he wrote from books about him, but the name 'Francis Crick' should not be in the subsection headers, per WP:MSH.

The 'external links' section is quite long; consider pruning it. Links that are used as inline citations should appear only in the 'references' section as sources, and not in the 'external links' section. It might help to review WP:EL for guidelines on this section.

I think this covers the major issues. The list may not be complete, but this should give editors a good start at improving the article. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I tried to make clear why the myoglobin image is the article by expanding the caption for the image. It provides an example of the kind of data Crick analyzed for his thesis research. It is also the kind of data that was important for the double helix discovery. --JWSchmidt 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Several sections really drag on" (from the GA review, above). <-- A possible path to improvement would be to move most of the details about the discovery of the DNA double helix model to Double helix. As things stand now, there are multiple accounts of the same material related to the discovery spread out in the Crick, Watson, Wilkins, Franklin and Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWSchmidt (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSD

Didn't he get the idea of the DNA structure while on LSD? Unless I missed it, no mention of this seems to be here. Why is there no mention? Zachorious 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This matter was discussed by Crick biographer Matt Ridley in Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code published by HarperCollins Publishers; ISBN 0-06-082333-X. The available evidence indicates that Crick tried LSD many years after the DNA double helix discovery. One "newspaper" published a headline saying that LSD played a role in the discovery, but there is no evidence to support that claim. --JWSchmidt 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

John, no much doubt about the newspaper, it was The Mail on Sunday, dated: 8 August 2004; not sure exactly what you imply by saying "newspaper" by the way - is it meant to be a quote? mp

91.110.182.41 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the quotes around "newspaper" were because the Daily Mail isn't exactly known for accuracy in reporting. thx1138 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Crick's drug use (although probably not at the time of the double helix discovery) is verified, encyclopaedic, and should be put in to the article, probably as a one or two sentence aside somewhere. However, one editor obstinately and rather rudely refuses to compromise on this - and I'm not getting in to that again. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
We could include something about Crick's use of LSD in this article. If we do, I would like to first see some coherent discussion of why the topic is important enough to be mentioned. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] satanist

In his biography it says he attended a satanist church as a boy this isn't true is it?

76.102.119.62 (talk)

Until this can be confirmed I am going to remove it because it looks like vandalism to me.

68.247.213.186 (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bob Olby's new biography of Francis Crick due in December 2008

Francis Crick: A Biography by Robert Olby; Hardback - ISBN 9780879697983; December 2008; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; Price: $TBA

"This engrossing biography by one of molecular biology' s foremost scholars reveals the remarkable evolution of Francis Crick' s scientific career and the shaping of his personality. From unpromising beginnings, he became a vital contributor to a remarkably creative period in science. Olby chronicles Crick' s life from his early studies in biophysics, to the discovery of the structure of DNA, to his later work in neuroscience and the nature of consciousness. This account is woven together with insights into his personal life gained through access to Crick' s papers, family, and friends. Robert Olby's book is a richly detailed portrait of one of the great scientists of our time." (from Scion)

Contents Time Line Introduction 1. ' You're a Dog If You Haven't Got A Nobel Prize' 2. A Difficult Act to Follow 3. From the Provinces to the Big City 4. War Work for the Royal Navy 5. Biology at the Strangeways 6. Helical Molecules at the Cavendish Laboratory 7. The DNA Fiasco 8. Two Pitchmen in Search of A Helix 9. A Most Important Discovery 10. Publishing the Model 11. Employed by the John Wayne of Crystallography 12. The Genetic Code 13. Preaching the Central Dogma 14. Crick as Experimentalist 15. Speaking out on Controversial Subjects 16. Biological Complexity 17. Leaving the 'Old Country' 18. Taking the Plunge: Neuroscience 19. From the Searchlight to the Soul 20. Eighty-eight Years Biographical Index Subject Index

No doubt whatever Professor Olby has to say about Francis Crick can be used to improve this article; very little of Matt Ridley's 'potted' biography has been interpolated into this article, but Olby's full length (450 pages) scientific biography contains references and an index, both of which were missing from the Matt Ridley biography for reasons of space. Bob Olby's biography of Crick has been many years in writing as Crick insisted that it NOT be published during his lifetime. Four years after his death, a full biography is being published by CSHL Press.

91.110.217.162 (talk)