Talk:James Watson

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~2025-31952-94 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If it is about reports that he has died, it will not go anywhere near the article without a reliable source. X (Twitter) is reporting that he has died, but there is no mainstream news coverage yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/science/james-watson-dead.html ~2025-31994-69 (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a gut feeling that this tweet by Edward Dutton was correct, but to prevent controversy it would need to be in a mainstream news source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Is that photo definitely from 1962? Because that doesn't look like a 34-year-old to me. ~2025-31783-26 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

File:James D Watson 2.jpg says that it is from 1962, but given that the source for this is an eBay listing, I wouldn't place much faith in it. Anyway, the weird look on Watson's face is unflattering and this makes it unsuitable for the infobox. I've reverted it to File:James D Watson.jpg which is a Featured Picture. It is far and away the best image of Watson on Wikimedia Commons and is the longstanding consensus image for the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• This image shows Watson receiving the Nobel Prize in 1962. I think we can safely say that the eBay image is not Watson in 1962, because he is far older in this image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

According to [Gazette Direct]

His views on genetics also veered into ethically dangerous territory. He was a proponent of genetic selection, once saying that if a woman could discover a “gay gene,” she should be allowed to abort a homosexual child. Furthermore, he suggested that a fetus should not be considered alive until three days after birth, which would give parents the option of infanticide if they discovered a birth defect.

But I was unable to find a source for this. -Wk ~2025-32194-78 (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Katzrockso (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This Time article contains a direct quote from the "three days" remark which is subtly but I think meaningfully distinct from Gazette Direct's paraphrase (he never actually says "should", at least in the quoted excerpts)

It doesn't mention the "gay gene" but I did find that here. The full interview may also be accessible somewhere. —Rutebega (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The Times piece is directly quoting the system he proposed, which doesn't use language like "should". But obviously he is advocating this system, which is why Time says "Thus the laboratory-conceived baby ought to be considered in a different light." "Watson proposes a redefinition of the legal status of all newborn infants." Katzrockso (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

See File:James_D_Watson_Genome_Image.jpg ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

See section title and source (file metadata). ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm sorry, but I'm convinced this can be done with the info provided above. Thank you to whomever. ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not how you reactivate a request. The correct way is to set the |answered= parameter to no. NotJamestack (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I don't care any more. Live with your mistakes, then. ~2025-31522-63 (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on the link in the file description, the photo was posted on genome.gov on February 9, 2006. ~2025-32465-23 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Good call: https://web.archive.org/web/20060926100449/http://www.genome.gov/pressDisplay.cfm?photoID=57 it's been around since at least 2006. I'll change the caption to circa 2006, since that's more accurate. tony 03:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Britannica lists this as circa 1990. I'm updating the caption in the article to match. Anyone know the MOS on if/how to cite a reference for it? I'm weary of dumping a reference into the infobox...

• https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Dewey-Watson
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Double-Helix#/media/1/637603/232727

--tony 02:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

We still don't seem to be any closer to knowing the year this photo was taken, and it is not impossible that Britannica has got it wrong. It might be worth asking the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory if they have a year for this photo, to get it straight from the horse's mouth. The lack of attribution to the photographer is a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that; we have a source attesting to a year. It's moot anyway now, though, as the image recently added by Howardcorn33 is probably better overall (thank you Howard for adding it!) tony 14:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@TonySt: bad news. I checked the copyright logs again and I discovered that specific issue indeed had its copyright renewed. You will now have to reconsider. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I know I’m new and should edit boring things, but this article completely snubs Dr. Rosalin Franklin, whose immaculately skilled crystallography exposures were —and this word is uncontested— stolen to facilitate Watson & Crick’s un-peer-reviewed paper that is too short to demonstrate respect for the scientific method. They’re not wrong. That is the structure of DNA, but big whoop that they got out the molecular modelling kits to piece together the very simple puzzle created by Dr. Franklin’s groundbreaking work. It could be said that they were so worried about peer review resulting in someone “stealing their discovery” because they, themselves, had stolen it.

im not saying we completely desecrate this page and his accomplishments (like he deserves), but, as a compromise, could she be linked and mentioned in his article even if it doesn’t mention that he had another colleague steal the key for her office and steal the x-ray exposures? ThisAintTexas (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The exact molecular structure in the March 1953 paper was very much the work of Crick and Watson, and they were pointed in the right direction by the work of Franklin (who should have received a Nobel Prize) and Gosling. It is somewhat exaggerating to say that Franklin's work was stolen, because Wilkins allowed access to it without her consent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait. “Allowed access to her intellectual property without her consent” isn’t “stolen”?

Dr. Franklin couldn’t receive a Nobel prize because thé x-rays that she worked with that created their stolen map gave her cancer and took her life early.

can we just give her a mention in this article? ~2025-32403-00 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Why? Because she's a woman, and he's a man, and of course, to you and your ilk, the former just have to be mentioned because the latter are the reason for all the world's ills, and should prostrate themselves to implore forgiveness for every aspect of their lives. ~2025-33678-96 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Um. Sounds like you’re having a lot of big feelings that aren’t facts. ThisAintTexas (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, but there are more complex geometric questions in a quality high school geometry class. ThisAintTexas (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

It is doubtful that many people in a high school geometry class would produce the March 1953 paper after looking at Franklin's work. Please don't exaggerate. Franklin is mentioned in this article, but she has her own article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

They already knew the chemical composition of DNA. It was just measuring distances and distance ratios on the X-ray that she produced of perfectly crystallized (no joke, very difficult) DNA and then figuring out which molecular sizes corresponded. One could easily give the problem as an exam question in a high school geometry course and the class would do very well. There would be no need for a curve, particularly if supplied with geometrically accurate molecular modeling kits like Watson and Crick used.

The question is, why not include one of the people whose original work was in that Nature paper in the list of people who discovered the structure of DNA.

As a woman in STEM, the Mathilda Effect and its apologists get old. ThisAintTexas (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The profound impact was the definitive evidence that DNA is a double helix structure. That’s obvious to anyone who can read x-ray crystallography exposures. It was a very simple project after that bit of information, particularly since the exposure also includes all the distance ratios that one needs to determine base pairs. ThisAintTexas (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

As an editor, my current strong inclination is to have one sentence about Rosalind Franklin (and her student, Raymond Gosling), and I think it makes the most sense to put it at the end of the first paragraph. The first paragraph, naturally, centers on Watson's role in discovering the double-helix structure of DNA. Franklin should be mentioned here because that is her primary connection to Watson.

In terms of writing an article about James Watson, Franklin is clearly not the main character, and she has her own article for good reason. However, what I have written so far does reflect key elements of their interactions as a matter of the history of science: Franklin had her own work, which was focus on getting better and better observational data; and when Francis, Crick, and Wilkins gained recognition and the Nobel prize, Rosalind was excluded, and not given credit until later.

At the same time, I don't think it should be more than one sentence, and I hope what I have written so far is clear and free from excessive moralizing. Tikwriter (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The article is a biography of Watson and using it for WP:RGW about how badly Franklin was treated is a mistake, particularly in the opening paragraph. It was not the fault of Watson or Crick that Franklin could not be awarded a Nobel Prize, because she was dead and the prize could only be given to three people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the citation to WP:RGW, and I think that's the key issue here. In reviewing the relevant criteria, however, I think this is solidly a case where the topic should be included, not excluded.

The RGW guidelines say

...We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources, and we base articles on secondary and independent sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. We reflect what the wider world of serious thought has made of what is right and wrong, but we present that neutrally, instead of advocating for what we think is right. Even if you are sure or know something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it...

The fact is that all of this happened years ago, and by now it is very well documented. It's not a perfectly unambiguous story, but that's how history is. Rosalind Franklin died in 1958, and a lot has been said and written about her and Watson. It's not a case of me inserting my own ethical judgment, but assessing that this is part of how historians recount the importance of these figures. Tikwriter (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

It still isn't suitable for the opening paragraph. It could be mentioned later on in the lead, but the purpose of the opening paragraph is to introduce Watson, not Franklin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, you didn't put it in later in the lead, did you? You just deleted it.

I looked again at WP:LEADBIO, and the relevant line is "When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article."

So for the moment, I am going to put my sentence back, but will delete the other sentence, later in the lead, about misogyny toward Franklin. You might feel that still gives too much emphasis, and I am open to hearing a good counter-proposal, but I would expect you to suggest an alternative place in the lead, not deleting it entirely.

And, to be fair, if we are the verge of another round of undoing each others' edits, we should probably ask more experienced editors to sort out the disagreement between us. Tikwriter (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with ianmacm that this does not belong here. Dead people are not eligible for the Nobel Prize so nobody who knows about this stuff thinks it was "controversial" that she did not receive it. John (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that the biggest controversy is that Watson was rude and dismissive about Franklin. This showed that he was a dislikeable person who usually rubbed people up the wrong way. Crick has received less criticism because he was a much more polite person.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is not the biggest controversy. The controversy is that Franklin in fact had a major role in the discovery of the double helix, and was not given credit until later. Although @John makes a fair point that she was not eligible for the Nobel after her death, I included the phrase about the Nobel because it illustrated the stakes of this particular discovery without verbose. (I can see that it would need re-wording, though, so thank you John).

I'd like to contrast the current state of the lead with other related article. In the lead of Nucleic acid double helix,the last paragraph says

The double helix structure of DNA was first proposed by James Watson, and Francis Crick based on the work of Rosalind Franklin, Raymond Gosling, Maurice Wilkins, and others. The term "double helix" entered popular culture with the 1968 publication of Watson's The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA.

The first sentence here gives the greatest emphasis to Watson and Crick as a pair, but Franklin, Gosling, and Wilkins are close behind. It makes sense that the controversy is not mentioned, because the article is about the helix, not the biography of persons or the history of science.

The lead on Franklin herself has it like this:

Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA while at King's College London, particularly Photo 51, taken by her student Raymond Gosling, which led to the discovery of the DNA double helix for which Francis Crick, James Watson, and Maurice Wilkins shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962. While Gosling actually took the famous Photo 51, Maurice Wilkins showed it to James Watson without Franklin's permission.

Watson suggested that Franklin would have ideally been awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, along with Wilkins, but it was not possible because the pre-1974 rule dictated that a Nobel prize could not be awarded posthumously unless the nomination had been made for a then-alive candidate before 1 February of the award year and Franklin died a few years before 1962, when the discovery of the structure of DNA was recognised by the Nobel committee.

Here, it's a much bigger deal because the controversy impact Franklin directly (perhaps her legacy more than her life, but still). Nevertheless, all five of them - Crick, Watson, Wilkins, Gosling, and Franklin herself - are mentioned in close proximity.

In sum, I am hardly saying I want to demonize Watson. I am saying that, to the extent this Wikipedia article accurately reflects history, it should mention Franklin (and Gosling) in close proximity to Watson, Crick, and Wilkins. I also think that a short statement or allusion to the controversy is warranted, but something shorter than what Franklin's article has. Currently, mention of any controversy is brief, which feels right, but it seems out-of-order that Franklin is in the fourth paragraph, that Gosling is not mentioned at all, but Watson, Crick and Wilkins are all in the first paragraph. Tikwriter (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Not hearing any objections now, I added mentions Franklin and Gosling to the first paragraph, but let mention of controversy sit where it is in the fourth paragraph. Tikwriter (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

'In 2007, Watson said, "I turned against the left wing because they don't like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail because we have bad genes. They want all failure in life to be due to the evil system."'

Why is this in the section 'Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory'? I would have expected it to be in a section about his views, the closest thing currently being the section 'Public remarks on genetics, intelligence, and race'. ~2025-31121-91 (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Photo of James Watson in 1963 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the references for Watson's religious beliefs is a book called Atheist Acrimonious by David Mandell. I have read some on the source and its reviews and it is not a scholarly or appropriate source. Reviews state that it is vulgar, does not use any sources, and from reading it, it makes many erroneous claims. Here is a review of the book so you know what I am talking about. https://www.amazon.com.be/-/en/David-M-Mandell/dp/1606432443#:~:text=Donahue's%20mold%20infection%20grossed%20me,the%20Muses%20be%20with%20you! Since the claim that Watson was an atheist already has another source, this one should be removed. If possible, other sources should be used instead. Here are a few: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/mar/24/20030324-090202-5705r/, https://time.com/4259269/nobel-scientist-religion/ Thank you for your consideration. ~2026-39915-0 (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)