Talk:James Watson

King's College Controversy

If there is to be a section on it, the section should aim primarily at James Watson. I read the section and have no idea what any of it has to do with James Watson. There may be some connection, and if so this section fails to convey it. The size of this section should be reduced to however this controversy applies to James Watson. All the extraneous details can be included in the Wikipedia Article on the controversy itself.2605:6000:6947:AB00:C4C5:C9EE:D9CC:FC12 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed the heading title to address this comment. The section deals mostly with Dr. Watson's use of Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling's DNA data and their interactions, so the title now reflects this better. The prior title about King's College made little sense.Tensorsum (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin?

Why is Rosalind Franklin given credit as the co-discoverer along with Watson and Crick in this article? Quite frankly, I don't understand why there's so much hype surrounding her when she didn't even take the photo that helped Crick and Watson achieve their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:24A7:F40B:B1D:4E34 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't edit articles based upon your personal opinions or lack of understanding. Your edit to this article, which would have deleted Franklin's name has been rejected. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

But Crick's page does not say the same as this page and instead mentions how her studies helped Crick and Watson on their own work. I think calling her the co-discoverer along with them on this page is extremely misleading. In my opinion, the opening on Crick's and Watson's pages should reflect one another since they were partners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:64D4:1182:E8E:3C84 (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The statement that "Watson is best known as the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA with Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin" just not true: he is famous for being one half of Watson and Crick. (The same is true for Crick.) I have amended the statement accordingly. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an area that needs to be handled carefully, if the recent controversy over Donna Strickland is anything to go by. Rosalind Franklin did not propose the double helix structure of DNA, and Photo 51 was taken by Raymond Gosling, which is a lot like the situation with Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who was working as a postgraduate student when she played a key role in the discovery of pulsars, but did not win a Nobel Prize, causing much controversy ever since. Franklin's death meant that she could not be awarded a Nobel Prize, and the prize could only be awarded to three people. This has also led to controversy with people believing that Franklin was wrongly excluded from being named as discovering DNA. I agree with the edit removing the implication that Franklin proposed the double helix structure along with Watson and Crick, because this is inaccurate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You need to be even more careful here. According to her Wiki. article, she was aware and published her conclusion that DNA had two helices. I'm not skilled enough in the art to interpret Photo_51, but it clearly shows that the DNA molecule has astounding symmetry. This symmetry severely limits the possible structures. Whether she should be credited as "co-discoverer" is a matter of definition. She seems to have contributed, her student Gosling (and the photo) certainly contributed since any proposed structure would have to take it into account. From Franklin's wiki. article:"One of the most important accomplishments of Maddox's widely acclaimed biography [of Franklin] is that Maddox made a well-received case for inadequate acknowledgement [for DNA structure]. "Such acknowledgement as they gave her was very muted and always coupled with the name of Wilkins"." These people were both competitors and collaborators, colleagues and enemies. From what Watson knew at the time, his failure to cite her work was misconduct, but is (was) that significant in deciding who should be credited? IDK.72.16.99.93 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It is well established that Watson and Crick used Franklin's work without proper attribution. As noted above, her work revealed the double helix structure of DNA. This is indicated in many external sources, and the details of it are also summarized in Dr. Watson's page. To accurately reflect events, his page does need employ active voice to state that Watson and Crick did not properly attribute Franklin's work. Reversions to a passive voice serve to unduly muddy this issue ("it has been recognized that Rosalind Franklin did not receive full credit for her contributions to the discovery of the double helix structure"). So, Franklin did not receive full credit from whom, exactly? Moreover, this extensive use of the passive voice to obscure the actor is simply not good writing.2601:280:3:9E72:95F9:9855:3DE5:7FA0 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In October 2017, a vandal added Franklin's name to the plaque outside the Eagle Pub in Cambridge.[1] Less well known is the plaque inside the pub which credits Franklin's work.[2] It is important to avoid giving the impression that the April 1953 paper in Nature was co-authored by Franklin. The plaque in the pub says "In memory of Rosalind Franklin, whose exceptionally skilled crystallography enabled Crick and Watson to unravel the double helix structure of DNA. Tragically she died before the Nobel Prize was awarded. Her contribution was not fully recognised until much later." The wording on the 2005 sculpture at Clare College [3] has helped to correct this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Various controversies and lack of reference to them in the introduction

Consider adding a "Controversies" section to this page in accordance with standard Wikipedia practice to improve organization, and note them briefly in the introduction. Dr. Watson's legacy is increasingly tied in both the popular and scientific press to the many controversies mentioned (and not mentioned) in this article. However, reference to these controversies are scattered throughout in a disorganized fashion, and there is no acknowledgement of them in the introduction. See, for example, articles in Nature magazine on Rosalind Franklin's discovery of the double helix structure (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01399, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02144-4?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20200723&utm_source=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20200723&sap-outbound-id=797B8CD7A840B755135F8C22E203C84EA82398BF#ref-CR5). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.210.32 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The pieces linked above (and BTW let's not call Nature a magazine) do not state that Franklin 'discovered' the double helix study. Franklin was one of the giants on whose shoulders Watson and Crick stood. And before I am accused of denigrating Franklin, I consider that had she lived, and had she never had anything to do with the DNA saga, she would have been fully deserving of a Nobel for her work on TMV. As for Wilkins: he was under the impression, due to a miscommunication, that he was Franklin's supervisor. When I was a research student (20 years later) my supervisor would regularly pass on details of my findings to others. It never occurred to him to ask me; and it never occurred to me to question it. This is how research proceeds. It's not a race - or at least it wasn't in those days - because we all had the objective of advancing human knowledge. That sounds a little quaint these days, I know. Cross Reference (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope, see WP:CSECTION. Sections headed "Criticism", "Controversy" or similar are discouraged on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Point well taken. No need for a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section in that case. However, the point remains that Dr. Watson's various controversies (race, Franklin attribution, misogyny, refusing to hire fat people) are scattered and disorganized throughout this long article. As another commenter has noted, like it or not Dr. Watson has gained considerable notoriety in the popular and scientific press for these issues and they have become central aspects of his legacy (see above references to Nature magazine and The NY Times, among many others).Tensorsum (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

First Nobel laureate to auction Nobel prize

Didn't Leon Lenderman (physics 1988) sell off his prize before ? 2603:6010:B801:9C9E:51C:EB1C:E47D:C938 (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Watson sold his in December 2014, Leon Lederman sold his in May 2015.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)