Thanks for correcting those enormous footnotes to history. It could become a burdensome job and I am discouraged from entering
this field of "scholarship".
Attached are two semi-popular accounts that should be understandable by Simon (note p. 8 in the 1971 paper and the section
in the Sci. Amer. one). Had he read the Sci. Amer. account he would surely have realized the biochemist's view of DNA
in the mid-50's, even after W-C.