MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, Telephone : Cambridge 48011 Dr J.D. Watson, Harvard University Biological Laboratories, 16 Divinity Avenue,-.,.- Cambridge, Nags. 02139, U.S.A. LABORATORY OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY POStGRADUATE MEDICAL SCHOOL, HILLS ROAD, CAMBRIDGE. 13th April 1967. Dear Jim9. basic The new version of Honest Jim is naturally a little better, but my objections to it remain the same as before. They are: I.'The book is not a history of the dis.covery of DNA, as you claim in the preface. Instead it is a fragment of your autobiography , which covers the period when you worked on DNA, I do not see how anybody can seriously dispute this, for the following reasons:- a)'Important scientific considerations, which concerned you at the time, are omitted. For example the w,ork of Furberg, which established,the relative configuration of the sugar and the . base. There are many.other examples. b) Such scientific details that are mentioned are referred to rather than described. For example , you do not explain exactly why you got the water content of DNA wrong, nor m,ake it clear that if there had been so little water electrostatic forces were bound to predominate. You do not mention that Pauling worked from an old X-ray picture of A&bury+ which had both the ,A and B pictures on the same photograph. There are many other c)-The examples. thread of the argument is often lost beneath the mass of personal details. For example the following 'question, I asked both Bragg and,Doty "Since we had realized that 1~1 -20 Dr J.D. Watson. 13th April 1967. base ratios mean that the bases went together in pairs why did we not immediately use this idea when we started model' building the second time?" Neither could give the correct answer. a> No attempt is made to ask or answer questions which would interest the his-toaian (such as the one above)&/!& example, the advantages or disadvantages of collaboration, or when the structure would have been solved if..we'had not solved it. Nothing is said about the importance of the MRC, nor why they decided to finance ltbiophysics'l after the war. e) Gossip is preferred to scientific considerations. For example, you explain how Bragg and I had a misunderstanding but you omit to say what the scientific issue was. f) Much of the gossip and even some of the,science is irrelevant to a history of DNA. For example , your work on TMV and bacterial genetics is only of marginal importance to the main theme. Whole chapters, such as Chapter 15 'on your visit to Carradale, are irrelevant as far as DNA is concerned. Even when -personal matters should be mentioned they are described in quite unnecessary detail. g) Absolutely no attempt is made to document your assertions, many of which are not completely accurate,because of your faulty memory. You have not troubled to consult documents which you could easily lay your hands on, nor have you made available to others the documents you yourself have, such as the letters you wrote at the time to your mother, which are in fact not even mentioned in the book. Dates are given in the book only . very casually. It is thus absolutely clear that your bo'ok 'is not history as ,normally understood. .However once it is realized that it is not history but a part of your autobiography many'of the points made above become irrelevant. Unfortunately you yourself claim it as history, and the misguided but wqrthy people who are supporting you in publishing it also use this as their maj.or excuse for publication. Should you persist in regarding your book as history I should add .- that it shows such a naive and egotistical view of the subject - as to be scarcely credible,, Anything which concerns you and your reactions, apparently, is historically relevant, and any- thing else is thought not to matter. In particular the.history - 3- Dr J. D. V?atsO& 13th April 1967. ,II* of scientific discovery is displayed as gossip. Anything with any intellectual content, including matters which were of central importance to us at the time, is skipped over or omitted. Your view of history is that found in the lower class of women's magazines. The objections to your book considered as an autobiography are not so clear-cut as the objections to it considered as history. The criticisms are naturally more amatter of personal opinion. However-it seems to me that some of these are beyond dispute. My second major objection is therefore: Considered as autobiography your book is misleading and in bad taste. a) Your book is misleading because it does not in factaccurately convey the atmosphere in which the work was done. Most of the time we were engaged in complicated intellectual discussions concerning points in crystallography and biochemistry. The major motivation was to understand. Science is n .ot d one me rely by gossip ing with other 9 cien let alone by qua rrelli ng with them. The most imp or 'tant requirements in theore tical work are a combination . 0 f tists, accurate thinking and imaginative ideas. To understand . these they must be described at the intellectual level involved. I conceed that the idea that scientific work is impersonal is,ridiculous, but you have gone much too far in the other direction in trying to correct this . misconception. b) Your book is in poor taste because of,the style. I select a few examples: L "waited for the day when he could fall flat on his face by botching something important." ItThe scuttleb uck about Pete r centred on girls a nd was confused. But now Ava Helen gav e me the d ope tha Peter was an exceptiona lly fine b oy whom ey erybody would enj oy having arou nd as much . as she di d". `I QOOs.QO Linus' chemistry was screwy". t II 8899.48 he knew that the presence of, po%ies does not inevitably lead to a scientific futu'e". -49 Dr J.D. Watson. 13th April 1967. The examples show some of the more glaring features, but' longer quotations and comments would be needed to'bring out the attitude behind much of the writing. For example, . the tone used to describe Rosalindfs ,work in the Epilogue is perfectly reasonable, but contrasts ludicrously with the descriptions of her in the text itself. c) It is not customary to write intimate books about your friends without their permission, at least until they are dead. I would remind you that Betrand Russell delayed the publication of his autobiography till he was over 90, and that Lord Moran% much criticized account of Churchill% health was not published till after the latter% death. The fact that a man is well-known: does not by itself excuse his friends from respecting his privacy while he is alive. Only if a person himself either ,gives permission or discusses his own personal affairs in public should his friends feel free to write about them. The only exception is when private matters are of prime and dir&t public. concern, as in the case of Mrs Simpson and King Edward, and even then the British press wrote nothing for many months. 1-t cannot really be said that the way the ,structure of DNA was discovered is of major public concern. Next I must deal with miscellaneous points made by various people. I do not concede that pure scientific research lies in the public realm in the same way that politics. or military affairs do. People who engage in the latter activities,naturally expect to have their behaviour written about. But the point of scienceis what is discovered, not how it was discovered or by whom. brought home to the public. It is theresults which need to be It is quite inexcusable to invade someone% privacy to describe how the structure of DNA was discovered to people who don't even know what it is, nor why it is important. I have no objection to a genuine historical description, ization which is indefensible, It is vulgar pOphi?- I am also unimpressed by the numberof people who favour publication. The fact is that those most intimately concerned, Maurice, Pauling and myself have all protested strongly. Bragg was furious when he first read the book, and, was only subsequently~talked round. He still has considerable doubts. publish. I understand ,that Beadle has advised you not to No doubt a number of people who(know nothing about the -50 Dr J.D. Watson. . . 13th April 1967. subject have enjoyed the book, but what is that to me? I very much doubt if any historian of science has thought it worth much. You -should realize that the approval of people like Jacques Barzun is not worth having. Nor can I see any logic in the argument that since 50 people have read it already, it will make no difference if 50,000 now read it. I can assure you that it makes all the difference to me. Nor Ido I believe that the book is so fascinating that everybody will want to have an underground Xerox copy. I agree your book is "unprecedented " but that by itself does not make it acceptable. It certainly "provides something which cannot be brought out in any other way", namely a lot of,tasteless gossipabout the past, It does not illuminate the process of scientific discovery. It grossly distorts it. Again there is no force in the argument that if the book were only to be published in 40 to 50 years time nokone would.be alive to,set straight the errors. The people actually involved can correct the 'errors now, using the present manuscript. Wide publication would not make this process any easier, I must also point out to you, once'again, the risks you will run if you publish such a book. The'picture which emerges of yourself is not only unfavourable but misleadingly so. Moreover I do not'think you realize what others will see in it. One psychiatrist who saw your collection of pictures said it could only hav'e been made by a man who hated women; In a similar way another psychiatrist, who read,Honest Jim, said that what ,emerged most strongly was your love for your sister. This was much discussed by your friends while yoti were working in Cambridge, but so far they have refrained from writing about it, I doubtif ,others will show this restraint. Finally we come to the'question, what should you do about the book. I can see only two courses which you can honourably take:. 1, Scrap the present book, and write a proper history of the subject. I can understand that you may'not wish to do t&is, especially as Olby is planning to write such a book.. 2, Put the book on one side, with instructions that it may be published either when all the major participants agree to it, or after those who object are dead. -60. Dr J.D. Watson.' . 13th 'April 196'7. There is no reason why your bock, as it stands, should not be There is no reason why your bock, as it stands, should not be made available to selected scholars, made available to selected scholars, pr.ovided any documents you may pr.ovided any documents you may ' ' have (such as your letters to your mother) which bear on the subject have (such as your letters to your mother) which bear on the subject are also made available at the same: time.(. are also made available at the same: time.(. 1. 1. My objection,- My objection,- in short, is tothe widespread dissemination of a in short, is tothe widespread dissemination of a book which grossly invades my privacy, and I have yet to'hear an, book which grossly invades my privacy, and I have yet to'hear an, argument which adequately excuses such a violation of friendship. argument which adequately excuses such a violation of friendship. If If you publish your book now, you publish your book now, in the teeth of my opposition, history will' in the teeth of my opposition, history will condemn. you, condemn. you, for the: reasons set out in this letter, for the: reasons set out in this letter, I have written separatelyto Wilson pointing out several cases of factual errors in your latest draft. ' I enclose a copy of my letter to him. Yours sincerely, F.H.C. Crick. : Copies to:.President Pusey. Sir Lawrence Bragg, M. H. F, Wilkins. I;. Pauling. T. J. Wilson. J.T. Edsall. I?. Doty. J.C. Rendrew. M.F. Perutz. A. Klug,