Watson, shared his Nobel Prize in 1962 with Francis Crick for their discovery of the nature of the DNA spiral helix molecule in 1953. Crick died in 2004.
A mind-blowing discovery. You must admit. I learned we owe much that we know of genetics to these two men. We all sat there in the science amphitheater stunned they could figure its shape. It is a difficult to conceptualize structure.
Imagine a very long rope made as a very tight ladder that by chemical signal twists until it cannot twist any further.
Pressure builds as twisting continues and the length of ladder rope responds by twisting the twists forming a coil maintained by the pressure of continuous twisting. Coil upon coil until the length is fully coiled and there is no room left for any more coiling. The length is now much shorter and wider.
The tightening continues as pressure builds by twisting until the coil loops up on itself as if a thousand Slinkies™ connected together are twisted until they they loop in a length of loops that is shorter and wider. Loop upon loop until there is no room for more loops and the length is shorter and wider.
Twisting continues until the loops wrap around themselves along the fat shortened length, wrap upon wrap until there is no more room for any more wraps along the length that has become even shorter and wider.
Twisting continues until the length of wrapped looped coiled twists writhe into a tight bundle awaiting a chemical signal to unwrap and another chemical signals to rip another copy of the stretched out ladder.
No, the world does not want your opinions on genetics. It has deeper concerns. You must go away now so the politicized social world can continue its trajectory. There is balance all around to consider you know. It's all fun and genetics until somebody puts an eye out. And that goes for your friends studying climate. We have no need for your conjectures stated forthrightly and honestly. Goodness, how you have failed to evolve!
Smart as you are, you're just crap at political science and sociology, and the art of playing along. Now you pay.
13 comments:
Generic DNA structure was one thing but learning to read it and do so quite specifically -- was another. A plethora of prizes surrounded that one.
What Watson said was nothing compared to what William Shockley said.
He described being an "unperson."
Quite so.
He noticed what Charles Murray noticed.
Noticing is a thought crime.
Doubleplus ungood,,
A mind-blowing discovery. You must admit. I learned we owe much that we know of genetics to these two men.
Compare the hypothetical: "A mind-blowing discovery. You must admit. I learned we owe much that we know of America to Christopher Columbus."
Obviously, Columbus was the sine qua non of American history. But can one seriously credit him with everything after 1492? On the one hand I see the point about precedent and priority; but on the other I see the invaluable subsequent contributions of others.
Perhaps that is why the frogmarching of Watson is very much like the frogmarching (historical erasure?) of Columbus.
"But can one seriously credit him with everything after 1492? "
Yes, I think you can. Wasn't it Newton who talked of standing on the shoulders of giants? It all flows from the vision and courage, leadership and fundraising ability of a flawed man. We object because the entire narrative isn't pretty enough to share with our special snowflakes.
Look at the wheel. Whether it was one person or many who invented it, societies without it were disadvantaged when confronted, in a zero sum world, by civilizations with it. Whoever developed tank treads made an important contribution, but it flowed from that long ago wheel.
I do believe in American exceptionalism. And I think it flows from Columbus proving that a long scary sea voyage could yield riches beyond imagination. And I'm not just talking about material riches. I think I'm talking about a non-zero sum world, which, while material, is a way of thinking that transcends.
"he suggested that people of African descent were inherently less intelligent than white people."
What an unintelligent thing to suggest. Who believes that "white people" are not of African descent"?
Christy: Watson and Crick's achievement isn't so flattering when read in the light of Pauling's contemporaneous work, especially the part about withheld data: link
@Meade: On the other hand, there's no reason to credit genes for intelligence, is there? Or physical attributes for that matter. The illusive smart gene.
Watson was destroyed for saying the wrong thing. A true thing but a wrong thing. The word went out to kill him. And the compassionate ones did.
"withheld data?" How was it withheld? Not found perhaps, but it wasn't withheld. Was Pauling a man of his time and dismissive of Franklin's contribution? She was robbed of her share of Watson and Crick's Nobel imho.
I do agree that ideas are sometimes in the air. The groundwork has been laid and more than one great mind, thinking about a problem can recognize the solution. The development of Calculus separately by Leibniz and Newton, famously.
Christy said...
"withheld data?" How was it withheld? Not found perhaps, but it wasn't withheld. Was Pauling a man of his time and dismissive of Franklin's contribution? She was robbed of her share of Watson and Crick's Nobel imho.
The controversy is old but it never goes away. More here: link.
I forget which one, but Crick or Watson had announced that he had an IQ of only 114 or 115. So maybe his dumb remark about the relationship between IQ and race was due to his low IQ. Ironic, huh........I disagree with that statement about standing on the shoulders of giants. Modern medicine and science were held back hundreds of years by those who deferred to the authority of Hippocrates and Aristotle. We travel blindly because we we with our heads up the asses of giants.
Is "James Watson auctions his Nobel prize" accurate?
As I understand it, he's auctioning the medal only. The Nobel "prize" is more than just the medal.
Also, as controversial as his opinions about race and stupidity are, Watson has other controversial opinions, one that could get him shunned by social conservative pro-lifers: "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual [or heterosexual] child, well, let her."
He also seems to be okay with discriminating against fat people — potentially insulting to people who operate dress stores for fat ladies.
Post a Comment