[HN Gopher] James Watson has died
___________________________________________________________________
James Watson has died
https://archive.ph/KaTaT
Author : granzymes
Score : 168 points
Date : 2025-11-07 19:30 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://archive.today/KaTaT
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson
| hiddencost wrote:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5
| TheRealNGenius wrote:
| Good riddance
| mellosouls wrote:
| Plenty of non-paywall links that would be better here eg
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8xdypnz32o
| nerf0 wrote:
| What's with the "is dead at"? I'm not a native speaker but it
| seems a bit disrespectful.
| echelon wrote:
| This is native English and quite colloquial. It's been used in
| widespread use in newspapers and in the media since forever.
|
| From just recently:
|
| > James Watson, Co-Discoverer of the Structure of DNA, Is Dead
| at 97
|
| > '90s rapper dead at 51: 'He went out in style'
|
| > Anthony Jackson, Master of the Electric Bass, Is Dead at 73
|
| > Chen Ning Yang, Nobel-Winning Physicist, Is Dead at 103
|
| > Ace Frehley, a Founding Member of Kiss, Is Dead at 74
|
| > Ruth A. Lawrence, Doctor Who Championed Breastfeeding, Is
| Dead at 101
|
| > Soo Catwoman, 'the Female Face of Punk,' Is Dead at 70
|
| More famous headlines:
|
| > Jimmy Carter, Peacemaking President Amid Crises, Is Dead at
| 100 [1]
|
| > Nancy Reagan, Former First Lady, Is Dead At Age 94 [2]
|
| > Dick Cheney Is Dead at 84 [3]
|
| > Ozzy Osbourne Is Dead At 76 Years Old, Just Weeks After The
| Final Black Sabbath Concert [4]
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/29/us/politics/jimmy-
| carter-...
|
| [2] https://www.scrippsnews.com/obituaries/nancy-reagan-
| former-f...
|
| [3] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/dick-cheney-dies
|
| [4] https://uproxx.com/indie/ozzy-osbourne-dead-76/
| muskyFelon wrote:
| Its not always included. I think they added it to highlight how
| old he was.97 years is quite the accomplishment, so I don't
| interpret it as disrespectful.
| observationist wrote:
| It's a way of communicating his age; it's standard phrasing for
| American english. No disrespect is implied or intended. There
| are generally no holds barred when it comes to dunking on
| people that are truly disliked, and when newspapers want to
| disrespect someone, they will leave no room for doubt (there
| are some awfully hilarious examples of such obituaries
| throughout American history.)
|
| "Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States, dead at 56"
|
| It's meant for headline brevity, replacing things like "has
| died at age 97" and is standard practice.
| carabiner wrote:
| This is normal english.
| golem14 wrote:
| Claude Achille Debussy, Died, 1918. Christophe Willebald
| Gluck, Died, 1787. Carl Maria von Weber, Not at all well,
| 1825. Died, 1826. Giacomo Meyerbeer, Still alive, 1863.
| Not still alive, 1864. Modeste Mussorgsky, 1880, going to
| parties. No fun anymore, 1881. Johan Nepomuk Hummel,
| Chatting away nineteen to the dozen with his mates down the
| pub every evening, 1836. 1837, nothing. --
| Michael Palin
| runnr_az wrote:
| 97 years old... must've had good genes...
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| _Oh eu..._
|
| Seriously though: RIP to an incredible contributor to both
| Science & future of humanity.
| flkiwi wrote:
| Lots of brain responses in rapid succession:
|
| - I had no idea he was still alive!
|
| - Wow, good genes!
|
| - Was he the nice one or the jerk one? (Ignoring for a moment the
| Rosalind Franklin part of the story, he was the nice one.)
|
| _Edit:_ (I know he was an asshole. It 's been a long day and
| wryness didn't work.)
| dekhn wrote:
| both of them were jerks.
| saghm wrote:
| I'm not sure what your definition of "nice" is, but mine
| doesn't include saying most of what's here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_race
| flkiwi wrote:
| There was irony involved.
| gaogao wrote:
| > In 2007, the scientist, who once worked at the University
| of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, told the Times newspaper
| that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa"
| because "all our social policies are based on the fact that
| their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the
| testing says not really".
|
| > While his hope was that everybody was equal, he added,
| "people who have to deal with black employees find this is
| not true".
|
| Yeah, pretty racist
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| In 2013, I sat in on one of his talks at the Salk
| Institute. This guy was one of the most openly racist and
| sexist people I've ever seen. He spent 5 minutes shitting
| on the former NIH head for not funding him because she was
| a "Hot blooded Irish woman"
|
| This is the sort of turn-of-century Mr. Burns type racism
| that I don't think most Americans even remember.
| lordnacho wrote:
| I always wonder with that kind of racist explanation, how
| the line of reasoning goes.
|
| Suppose for the sake of argument, there's a place where
| everyone has 10 IQ points less, on average, than the West.
|
| The Flynn effect is about 14 points over a few decades.
|
| How do you square those things? Did the West not have a
| society a few decades ago? Is there some reason you can't
| have civilization with slightly dumber people? There was a
| time when kids were malnourished in the west, and possibly
| dumber as a result. Also, not everyone in society makes
| decisions. It tends to be very few people, and nobody
| thinks politicians are intelligent either.
|
| I've never heard an explanation of intelligence that had
| any actual real-world impact on a scale that matters to
| society.
|
| The explanation would have to have quite a lot of depth to
| it, as you have to come up with some sort of theory
| connecting how people do on a test to whatever you think
| makes a good society.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > Wow, good genes!
|
| Said with irony? I mean, the guy was into eugenics--thought
| some races are smarter than others.
| terminalshort wrote:
| > the guy was into eugenics
|
| So are you (probably). Do you think incest should be
| legalized?
|
| > thought some races are smarter than others
|
| What other conclusion can you reasonably come to based on the
| available data?
| efilife wrote:
| Again, downvoted for being sane
| rafale wrote:
| If you say person X thought Y was true, ask yourself if Y was
| true would you accept it? If the answer is no you are not
| ready for this kind of discussion.
|
| As for whether it's true or not, let's just say we don't know
| for sure because scientists either are not allowed or don't
| want to research this question.
| dekhn wrote:
| Even if he was "into eugenics", there is strong evidence that
| your genetic makeup contributes significantly to your
| longevity.
| flkiwi wrote:
| I mean, he lived to 97. Given what he's known for, it made me
| chuckle. Anyway, I thought it was Crick who was into
| eugenics. If it was both of them, I'm afraid I shall have to
| amend my opinion of both of them from "disturbingly
| troubling" to "unredeemable so let's just get them out of the
| textbooks thanks" right away.
| droptablemain wrote:
| And why wouldn't that be plausible given effectively all
| available cognitive data support this conclusion?
|
| Of course I'm being facetious. I know why. No one wants to
| ponder that because of the stigma, so everyone puts their
| head in the sand and avoids the uncomfortable.
| efilife wrote:
| But isn't this true? Asians are proven to have the highest IQ
| culi wrote:
| Watson was the one who described Franklin as "belligerent,
| emotional, and unable to interpret her own data" in his book.
| He also repeatedly referred to her as "Rosy", a name Franklin
| never used.
|
| Wilkins was the one who showed Franklin's Photograph 51 to
| Watson. This was without Franklin's consent and before her
| photographs were officially published. Watson and Crick then
| rushed to publish their findings before Franklin could
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| Watson is one of the most openly racist and sexist public
| figures I've ever seen in person.
|
| Also he devoted the last 15 years of his life obsessed with
| longevity. Dude took anti-oxidants, tennis, and Vitamin C up
| the wazoo to keep living longer.
| efilife wrote:
| looks like it paid off
| sharadov wrote:
| Wasn't his partner Crick high on LSD when he discovered the
| double-helix structure of DNA?
| shevy-java wrote:
| I am not sure. What I do know is that they used to go to pubs,
| so they probably used to drink pints.
| jacksnipe wrote:
| You mean plagiarized it?
| echelon wrote:
| Franklin and her grad student produced key experimental data
| that corrected and confirmed the model that Watson and Crick
| were already hard at work on.
|
| Franklin's experimental data wasn't the only key experimental
| data, but it was pivotal.
|
| Franklin could have elucidated the structure of DNA herself,
| but she was working on other problems.
|
| Watson and Crick were head's deep in the problem and were
| building stick figure models of all the atoms and bonds. They
| synthesized the collection of experimental measurements they
| had to correct and confirm their model.
| culi wrote:
| This is not an honest depiction of the full picture.
|
| At the time, scientists already suspected a corkscrew
| structure but there was disagreement between what that
| looked like or whether it was double or triple helixed.
|
| Franklin's key experiments resulted in the Photograph 51
| that almost single-handedly proved the structure. Before
| Franklin could publish her data, Wilkins--without the
| consent or knowledge of Franklin--took that photo and
| showed Watson. Watson later stated that his mouth dropped
| when he saw the photo. It proved to him the double helix
| structure and that guided the rest of their modeling/work.
| At that point they knew _what_ they were proving. Two
| months later they 'd advanced their model far enough and
| rushed to publication before Franklin could be credited
| with her own work
|
| Not only did they use Franklin's work without her consent,
| not only did they not credit her, but they even belittled
| her in their books and talks. They even referred to her as
| "Rosy", a name she never used herself.
| echelon wrote:
| You're probably thinking about Mullis, inventor of PCR [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
| dekhn wrote:
| No, Mullis wrote the Nature paper on time reversal due to the
| LSD trip (https://www.nature.com/articles/218663b0)
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| High on unkindness and plagarizing behaviour perhaps for not
| crediting Franklin when he should. We definitely need a debate
| on men who did amazing contributions to science but were
| terrible human beings
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "We definitely need a debate on men..."
|
| What should be the outcome or even content of such debate?
| They existed; they were great and terrible; they are dead.
| Given the usual inability of mankind to deal with nuance,
| some will hate them and some will worship them.
|
| In general, it can be expected that people who really shift
| the scientific status quo will score low on agreeableness. It
| usually means trampling on someone else's theories and
| results.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Maybe thinking of August Kekule and the carbon ring [1]? I have
| read elsewhere it was a "pipe dream".
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Kekule#Kekule's_dream
| aidenn0 wrote:
| https://maps.org/2004/08/08/nobel-prize-genius-crick-was-hig...
|
| But also
|
| https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6835/was-franci...
| culi wrote:
| There wasn't ever a "moment" when they "discovered" the
| structure of DNA.
|
| The closest thing is Franklin's Photograph 51 which took about
| 100 hours to compile and then took another year to do all the
| calculations to confirm the position of each atom.
|
| Watson and Crick (without the consent of Franklin) saw this
| Photograph, did some quick frameworks, and came up with a
| couple of models that could match Franklin's photograph. Watson
| and Crick were already at work trying to crack the model of
| DNA, but once they got access to Franklin's work, it became the
| entire basis of their modeling. After about 2 months of this
| they finally found the double helix structure that matched
| Franklin's findings.
|
| I doubt Crick was on LSD for an entire 2 months. Perhaps he was
| tripping when he first viewed the photograph?
| dupdup wrote:
| whoisalive.com
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| Years ago I had the pleasure of sitting in on one of his talks on
| longevity. Other than the casual racism and sexism (Watson is the
| only person in my entire life I've seen say racist things about
| Irish people), he made a big comment on Linus Pauling's obsession
| towards the end of his life regarding Vitamin C consumption.
|
| The main idea is that primates such as humans and chimps lost the
| ability to synthesize vitamin C eons ago, and as a result evolved
| excellent color vision for finding fruits and in some cases
| hunting other animals. Pauling supplemented his diet assiduously
| with Vitamin C and lived to be 93 years old.
|
| Watson has now beaten this record. Maybe it was the Vitamin C,
| but maybe it was the casual racism and objectivation of female
| coworkers and subordinates... Who knows?
| Aurornis wrote:
| Linus Pauling's obsession with Vitamin C is a famous case of an
| accomplished scientist getting sidetracked with baseless
| medical quackery. Even during his lifetime there were clinical
| trials including by the Mayo Clinic that failed to support his
| claims, but he rejected them all because he was convinced he
| was right and they were wrong.
|
| Linus Pauling was also famously in favor of eugenics directed
| at African Americans, proposing things like compulsory sickle
| cell anemia testing for African Americans and forehead tattoos
| for carriers of the sickle cell gene. So maybe not a surprise
| that James Watson would vibe with Linus Pauling's legacy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-07 23:00 UTC)