James Watson & Francis Crick 1953
Articles in the journal “Nature” are short. Shorter than in many other scientific journals, and they used to be even shorter, as the fuller details of a discovery would be reported elsewhere, while only its announcement would be made on the pages of the distinguished journal. Importance does not need length, but it does need clarity. Clarity of thought and of purpose, as well as clarity and brevity of prose. One of my favourite sentences ever written in the communication of science was in one of those short, but beautifully formed, “Nature” papers. The year was 1953 and the authors were a gangly, rather obnoxious, American called Jim Watson and an older, slightly eccentric Englishman, Francis Crick. The sentence in question came as the finale to their staggeringly simple, yet elegant, proposition of the structure of DNA; a proposition in less than 900 words that would change biology and medicine forever. “It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.”
Such understatement was English, and could only have been the work of Crick. To me, it encapsulates everything that is good about the communication of science. It is well written, it is economical, and it makes the hairs stand on the back of your neck when you read it, thrilling you by the sheer wonder of it all. What happens next? After that sentence comes the development of a whole new science, new technologies, new inventions and further discoveries that have helped us understand who we are, by showing us, more precisely, what we are. To emulate that sentence has been my goal in my science writing. I have never matched it, but I’m still working on it, just as I have been ever since I met the man who wrote it.
In 1993, I was a post-doctoral research fellow at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. On one of the many air-conditioned afternoons in the lab, we were told that at a forthcoming molecular genetics symposium the keynote speakers would be Watson and Crick. Now, many of the great and the good in science had come to Dallas to give seminars, even in the year that I had been there, but this was different. Watson and Crick were mythological. Yes, they had won the Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology in 1962, but so had others. My two bosses, Joe Goldstein and Mike Brown had pulled off the same feat in 1985 and several other members of the Nobel Club worked in the building or had been part of that cavalcade on the Dallas seminar circuit. No, Watson and Crick were beyond that, for they had not simply won a Nobel, they had discovered the structure of life itself. In physics there was Einstein; in Biology there were Watson and Crick. And, they were coming here. Would we attend? Of course. Would we like to meet them? Are you kidding? Wouldn’t we be burned by getting that close to the sun? The symposium came and we downed pipettes for the day and attended. And, we hung on every word that dripped from their mouths. In the coffee break we mingled and so did they. I had decided that it would indeed be wonderful, if a little frightening to meet and speak with these two titans. Partly as a souvenir, and partly as an insurance policy to ensure I plucked up the courage to talk to them, I had gone to the university library the day before and made a photocopy of their seminal paper describing the structure of DNA. My intention was to have it signed. Anxious to speak with Watson, I joined the huddle around him and worked my way closer to the great man. Finally, I got to speak. I can’t really recall what inanities I uttered but it was flattering and saccharine and he’d heard it all before and said as much with a sneer. I asked him if he would be kind enough to sign my copy of his 1953 paper. He snapped that he was drinking his coffee. This I could see and I apologised politely. I waited, however, for I wanted the evidence of my climb up Mt Olympus and my meeting with the gods. He drained his coffee cup and snatched the paper and put his signature on it. I thanked him for his kindness and left him in peace, or at least in as much peace as someone so obviously grumpy could muster.
But, I needed two gods to sign my paper. I peered around the room on tip-toes, trying to look over the heads of the bustling coffee crowd to find the tall, white-haired head of Crick. Nowhere. The meeting was due to restart and I wondered if perhaps he had already re-entered the lecture room. I escaped the crowd and sure enough as I pushed through the swing doors of the auditorium I found him entirely alone taking the seat reserved for him in the front row. “Professor Crick. I wonder if I could prevail upon you sir to sign my paper?” He knew I wasn’t an American, he smiled and shook my hand. He was a tender grandfather of a man, the opposite of his spikey, co-author. “Where should I sign?” he asked. He scanned the familiar paper and answered his own question, “Oh, probably under Jim’s name” spotting Watson’s freshly scribed signature. But, with a quirkiness and disregard for the norm that probably helped him achieve what he did, he chose to sign to the left of Watson’s signature, thus leaving the greatest discovery in biology re-ascribed.
James Watson & Francis Crick 1993
Crick was a gentleman willing to take a few moments to make a post-doc he had never met feel special. Watson, on the other hand, was interested in the sound of his own voice and was rather captivated, I thought, by his own celebrity. When they spoke at the symposium, it was Crick who gave the inspirational and considered presentation. Watson resorted to sensationalism and it was Crick – who else on the discussion panel could have done it? – that took him to task when he felt he was not answering the question. I liked Crick; I did not like Watson, and I am more than pleased to have hanging on my office wall today a copy of their 1953 paper signed not “Watson and Crick”, but much more appropriately, “Crick and Watson”.
© Allan Gaw 2012
My books available on kindle: