Things in the Same Amount Usually Go Together^*

A Critical Review by David Large
of
James Watson in Conversation with Nick Ross,
an event held as part of the first
Newcastle Science Festival,
Life Conference Centre
International Centre for Life
26 April 2003.

Click Here to return to Newcastle Science Festival reviews page.

In their paper ‘A Structure for DNA’, published in Nature on 25 April 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson described the double helix of DNA with its base pairing mechanism, A to T and G to C, that allows science to explain and account for genetic heredity. For this work they received the Nobel Prize.

Watson went on to write papers and textbooks on molecular biology before becoming the first head of the Human Genome Project. He has courted controversy throughout his life with outspoken views on how science should be pursued and used.

Jim is also a trustee of the International Centre for Life. This was his only public interview in what was not only the week of the 50th anniversary of the publication of the discovery, but also the week of his 75^th birthday. It was then an occasion for much backslapping not least from celebrity scientists such as Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins and Lewis Wolpert. The whole thing was introduced by a sweater-wearing Matt Ridley, clearly yet to dress for dinner.

Jim was here to discuss his life and work with the broadcaster Nick Ross. Nick did his usual stuff, teasing difficult issues into bite-sized packages for easy consumption. He began by holding up the famous paper, pointing out that it takes up just one side plus credits. He asked about the discovery itself, the actual Eureka Hour when they built the model that showed the true structure of DNA, and the competition from the King’s College London team of Ros Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, and also from the American Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling.

Jim said it was all so obvious. Ros had excellent x-ray crystallography plates and Nottingham had published all the figures needed in 1946. In fact, he said, if Linus had read the Nottingham papers the whole thing would have been done and dusted long before he and Francis came on the scene. He suggested that Nobel Laureates are not, however, in the habit of reading the work of others. While it was not clear whether this remark was meant to apply to himself as well as Linus Pauling, this gentle bonhomie and semi-barbed wit set the tone for the evening. Pushed on Ros’s contribution he grudgingly conceded that if he and Francis hadn’t discovered the structure of DNA then Franklin and Wilkins, or somebody else, certainly would have done. It was just a matter of time and, unlike Mozart who was the only person who could have written Mozart’s music, they were in no way necessary to the process.

Both he and Francis had been heavily influenced by the physicist Erwin Schodinger’s philosophical work ‘What is Life?’ For Erwin the secret of life is the genetic information stored in a molecule. To reveal the structure of DNA and to show how it could copy and replicate this information was then, by Schodinger’s definition, to reveal the secret of life. Indeed, Jim went so far as to suggest their work be written up and titled ‘This is Life!’ He went onto say that what they had done was deliver the big picture of life. It was now important for others to work out the details - the consequences of the form and function of DNA for the human body, and, in particular, for the brain. If on little else, on this point he and Francis still agree.

Next up, a surprise - a video tribute from Francis Crick himself. Francis began by saying he regretted not being present as he has long wanted to see the International Centre for Life. On addressing their discovery, where Jim dissembled he was unequivocal - it was important to acknowledge Ros Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. He had obviously been primed for he went on to say that yes, they probably had discovered the secret of life, but no, they weren’t responsible for any major new developments - they certainly had not foreseen the rapid advent of cheap DNA sequencing methods.

Francis appeared wise and generous. His enthusiasm for science, for knowledge, and indeed for life itself has not diminished. Although he may not lead the charge as he did in the early days of molecular biology, he is eager to promote research on the brain and the nature of consciousness. In his tribute to Jim he sounded the clarion for young scientists everywhere. The brain sciences have a very long way to go but the fascination of the subject and the importance of the answers sought will carry it forward. For Francis it is essential to understand our brains in some detail if we are to assess correctly our place in the vast and complicated universe around us. His recent research includes work to find the neural correlate of consciousness. As an ecological philosopher I find his aims worthy of the highest praise but his approach strained if not misconceived. Here, however, he was right on the money, not least with the hint that, maybe, Jim wasn’t quite as all-knowing about matters as he’d like to think he is.

And so to God. Nick was keen to ask where God was in all this. Jim, quite reasonably, answered nowhere, and was content to let the question rest there. When pressed he said yes, there had been some concern among science as to the existence of something divine beyond the physical that set the whole of life, the Universe and everything going, but the discovery of the structure and function of DNA showed that even this Aristotelian nudger did not exist. As for religion in a wider context all that shows is that people desire safe explanations of their circumstances and reassuring leaders to follow. There was, however, and is, no need to worry about any of this. At this point, I thought Richard Dawkins would perhaps leap up and stamp once more upon the grave of theism. Richard, however, remained seated.

Nick persisted: But if there’s no God then doesn’t this mean there’s no morality? For my part, I’m constantly amazed that people still confuse the existence of divine beings with the existence of morality. Socrates put that old chestnut to bed many years ago. Put simply, why on earth do we need religious fanatics, of whatever kind, to tell us how to behave? We can work out what to do, and what not to do, on our own thank you very much - and, if you insist, isn’t that just what Jesus (to name but one) tells us we have to do?

Anyway, Jim’s naive approach to morality was astonishingly blunt - For Jim, morality is a product of human nature. And what may this be? Well, just as dogs have dog nature, humans have human nature. That’s it, QED. (Down Pinker, down!) For Jim it’s as straightforward as that. Well of course, it’s not, but this isn’t the time or place.

Nick then asked about the consequences of the discovery of the structure of DNA. Yes, there had been wonderful benefits not least in the area of crime detection (Nick hosts a show called Crimewatch that reports this very work), but wasn’t there also a downside and wasn’t Jim concerned about that? Jim had been waiting for this slow train coming and said it was true that lots of people who don’t share your values have lots of kids. He had especially in mind those born to Republicans. So whatever you do, things you don’t want to happen, happen anyway. Genetic manipulation won’t make any difference to this, and in any case, like it or not, genetic manipulation is going to happen anyway. True, if you close every IVF clinic you may slow the process down, but you don’t want to do this because IVF clinics do some people a lot of good. Moral: You can't quantify the bad, but you can quantify the good, so do it anyway.

Whoah! Let’s take that again - you can’t quantify the bad outcomes but you can quantify the good outcomes so you should just go ahead and do it anyway! Throw in a backdrop of fatalism, and not for the first time, or the last, Jim shows breathtaking naiveté in a ‘well it worked out all right for me’ kind of way.

It is a shame how often debates about genetic breakthroughs come down to how much people should be allowed to fiddle with their kids. Nevertheless Nick then raised a couple of interesting cases: What about deaf parents wanting deaf children? Jim said it runs counter to common sense but it’s their rights they’re asserting. What about being black in a racist white community? Sidestepping the question, Jim said we should make white skins darker to prevent sunburn and skin cancer. He went on to say that we face pressures to alter the way we look. We’re always being told that we need to be better looking. His view is that genetic intervention for purely cosmetic purposes is frivolous and should have a very low priority.

Nick said okay to this but pointed out that Francis placed emphasis on the extraordinary speed of techniques of genetic manipulation - isn’t the whole process already beyond our control? To this Jim insisted that people have always been trying, and always would try, to design themselves better, and he sees no reason why they should be prevented from doing this. Indeed, it is right that people should be allowed to improve themselves whether through genetic manipulation, cosmetic surgery, private education or whatever.

Nick was disturbed - but don’t we need genetic diversity to ensure humanity survives diseases such as AIDS and SARS? No, said Jim, it’s not as simple as that. Just as we don’t all need to look the same, maybe we don’t all need the same immune system. Sameness isn’t always good, and with respect to looks, people get bored with sameness. On the other hand, making all humans resistant to cancer through genetic intervention - what’s wrong with that?

But it’s not just human embryos that are genetically modified. What about GMOs? Nick pointed out that GM crops have caused a big fuss in the UK but not in the USA. Why’s this? Jim laughed - In the UK it’s a combination of the Daily Mail, BSE, Prince Charles, and so on. Seriously, if there were no GMOs then there’d be sick farm workers having to use organo- phosphates etc. Besides, it’s not clear what benefits there are to eating organic food. Jim has real fears about such things as biological warfare, but no fears about the use of genetics.

Like other eminent figures, including Greg Stock and Francis Fukuyama, Jim seems incapable of understanding the good objections to GMOs, such as those put forward by the Soil Association, or offering good arguments in favour of GMOs. No one says you should jump off the Tyne Bridge because you don’t know that the consequences will be bad (indeed, they may be good!) and besides you may get killed by a bus crossing the road that avoids the Bridge. So why do eminent people offer the same sort of arguments in support of GMO development and GMO use? It doesn’t seem to be that, having thoroughly researched the issues, they can prove there are no dangers. It does seem to be sheer blind faith and the acceptance of scientific research by Governments and multi-national corporations as the only possible path to progress.

Jim likes to look at things on a bigger scale - Humans are the product of evolution, not God’s design. People don’t like this. Evolution can be cruel; it makes inequalities. It’s almost as if all inequality comes from the geneticists revealing that we are the product of evolution. Despite all the accolades, Jim clearly feels hard done by.

Picking up this theme, Nick asked whether evolution could ever give way to human grand design. This would be more than selective breeding, which we do now. Could evolution ever give way to planned genetic manipulation? Could we, should we, produce genetically modified humans?

With his usual charming evasion Jim insisted that this was not the way to look at it. What we might aim for is not a Darwinian superman but that, for example, all children are able to use a PC. If there were fewer handicapped (Jim’s word) children then society wouldn’t be so burdened and would be able to reach this goal more easily. Genetics only gives marginal improvements. We are all born with a desire to improve ourselves. What Darwin tells us is that the marginal advantage is, in Darwinian terms, the decisive advantage. Why deny ourselves this? Why say we can improve in all ways except through genetic advantage? Why shouldn’t humanity have an enhanced future, and why can’t that be a genetically enhanced future?

Nick pointed out that one of Jim’s children has epilepsy. Wouldn’t you want that genetically fixed? Yes, said Jim, that would be wonderful. Being handicapped is not a good thing. So, asked Nick, does this mean that eugenics is not a threat to humanity but an improvement? Yes replied Jim, adding that Nick is a fast learner. The people at the bottom of society want the improvements eugenics brings. It is only those at the top who want to block enhancements for all. It is those at the top who feel they have something to lose.

Nick then asked whether Jim sees himself and Francis as especially qualified as bioethicists. Well, said Jim, we’re both pretty good at common sense. This is an offhand, but devastating quip. For Jim there’s no need for philosophy, ethics, bioethics and stuff like that because common sense and optimism are all you need. Common sense governs all and optimism will see you through. Well, what if your common sense isn’t the same as someone else’s common sense? What if optimism doesn’t see you through? Others are far better qualified than I to comment on this. For the first question you might start by taking a look at John Stuart Mill’s ‘On Liberty’. For the second question one suggestion is Primo Levi’s ‘If This is a Man’. Jim may realise just how lucky he has been, but simply saying what you think and thanking your lucky stars won’t get the rest of us by.

There then followed several questions in the course of which we learned the following:

• Jim said nothing to the Pope as it would not have been productive.
• No one will ever know how the first cell came into existence, but we do know that RNA came before DNA, and that it was a chance thing - No divine push was needed. The question is not whether there was primordial soup, it’s what was in the primordial soup, and that we’re never going to know.
• Young people shouldn’t watch TV; they shouldn’t choose entertainment as a way of life. They should do something they’re curious about.
• Jim believes in progress. Thanks to GM crops and the like, the future is going to get better. A lot of people don’t believe this; Jim does.
• Patents slow development and the whole process holds discoveries back. Because lawyers win over scientists every time, we have to put up with designs and patents. Jim would have liked to have signed over all the human genome rights to a body of worthies who would distribute, and withdraw, licences at low or no cost, as they saw fit. Alas, he was overruled and this did not happen.
• Though there are around 26,000 human genes, lots of them do nothing. It is the ones in the brain that count. The better the brain, the fewer the genes [that count]! After all, most mammals have roughly the same genes. When it comes to numbers of genes and how many are shared across species, don’t be too quick to be too surprised.

The event ended by considering the developments we can expect in the next fifty years. Jim thinks we will find out how genes control behaviour, how the brain works, how we can fix genes that have gone awry, and, yes, we will develop a cure for cancer.

Finally, Nick asked Jim what he would like to improve about himself. Why his hair and ear lobes, of course.

The event was not without controversy. A small number of orderly demonstrators handed out leaflets that more or less questioned whether Jim Watson is as nice as people make him out to be and, on a separate point, insisted that the whole business of genetics is very worrying indeed. To his credit, Nick raised this with Jim who shrugged it off with his customary faith in the common sense possessed by humanity. Indeed, on non-scientific matters Jim came across as a kind of open handed Pangloss who doesn’t even pretend to have read any of the relevant literature.

So now that Jim’s achievement and birthday have been celebrated, perhaps it is a good time to look at his current impact. Well, Stephen Jay Gould’s considerable tome ‘The Structure of Evolutionary Theory’ contains two references to Francis Crick and none to Jim Watson. Could it be then, that Jim’s contribution is done and gone? He doesn’t seem to think so and nor did the very distinguished audience present. Perhaps then, it’s just that, strictly speaking, genetics and evolution have little or nothing to do with each other? This might seem heretical to a contemporary scientist, but not necessarily to a philosopher, or to makers of models seeking to seize the truth.

John Gray - Straw Dogs, Granta, 2002, p.19

And, while I may not go so far as Gray, these points apply equally to Genetics, Darwinism, Psychological Sciences, Social Sciences, Pseudo- Sciences, mathematics and Analytic Philosophy. For anything with scientific pretensions, anything can be attempted, and anything goes to get it done.

Experiments escorts us last -
His pungent company
Will not allow an Axiom
An opportunity

- Emily Dickinson

*A remark made by Francis Crick

Click Here to return to Newcastle Science Festival reviews page.