James Watson, Dead at 97, Was a Scientific Legend and a Pariah Among His Peers
Postedabout 2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
statnews.comResearchstory
controversialmixed
Debate
80/100
James WatsonDna DiscoveryScientific Ethics
Key topics
James Watson
Dna Discovery
Scientific Ethics
The article discusses James Watson's legacy as a scientific legend and a pariah among his peers due to his controversial views and actions, sparking debate among commenters about his achievements and personal character.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
28m
Peak period
2
0-2h
Avg / period
1.5
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 9, 2025 at 5:51 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 9, 2025 at 6:19 AM EST
28m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
2 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 10, 2025 at 9:42 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45864641Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 5:58:05 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Watson and Crick are notorious for having secretly accessed and used Rosalind Elsie Franklin's personal x-ray images (of DNA) while she was not in the lab.
To me, Franklin is the real hero in discovering the DNA's structure, and she should have received the Nobel prize (50%), perhaps jointly with Watson (25%) and Crick (25%).
Objective scientific research means: never let your personal prejudice or ideology clout your own search for truth. The fact that Watson and Crick did not even mention or cite Franklin's article, which ironically even appeared in the same issue of _Nature_ as Watson and Crick's paper, is most dishonorable and dishonest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin
Photo 51 was Gosling's work, which Franklin had looked at briefly in May 1952 and had been ignoring ever since. She never worked on it. Gosling writes: "Rosalind was going to leave, so she suggested that I go down the corridor and give this beautiful structure B pattern, this photo 51, to Maurice." [Wilkins] This was in the context of Gosling returning to Wilkins, who was his original DNA-structure supervisor before Franklin began working with DNA.
Franklin didn't have the tools and process for determining the structure of DNA, only Watson and Crick did, because they used actual physical models to measure the angles and positions of the molecular components.
Further, by the time Watson and Crick did their work, Franklin had already left to work on the tobacco mosaic virus (TMV)[0].
That Watson and Crick could only nail the structure of DNA because of her crystallography work is almost certain. That she would have discovered the structure of DNA without them and their process/approach is a furphy[1]. It's their combined efforts which made it possible, with Franklin's work being the pointer in the right direction and confirmation, but Watson and Crick's being the bulk of the heavy-lifting necessary to map the molecule structure.
In the end, she probably didn't share in the Nobel because she died before the prize was awarded for the research.
[0] https://www.cinz.nz/posts/rosalind-elsie-franklin-1920-1958 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furphy
Our era is no different.
But to take you at face value: Are you sexist and racist because of politics, or is it simply because you're a bigot?
If it's politics, then just which political party do you subscribe to that has sexism and racism and bigotry as its guiding principles, hmmm?