That’s a good long life, so there’s that at least. But otherwise, let this be an object lesson to everyone: you can make marvelous discoveries and launch science in bold new directions, but if you treat people badly, that’s what you’re going to be remembered for. The Washington Post even brought it up.
Dr. Watson also was known for his unsparing, even mean-spirited candor when commenting on the personalities and rivalries at the cutting edge of science. A longtime colleague at Harvard, eminent biologist Edward O. Wilson, called him “the most unpleasant human being I had ever met” and compared him to Roman emperor Caligula, the mad degenerate who fancied himself a god.
I have to paraphrase an old and familiar joke:
So a man walks into a bar, and sits down. He starts a conversation with an old guy next to him. The old guy has obviously had a few. He says to the man:
“You see that lab out there? Built it myself, recruited the staff, and it’s the best lab in town! But do they call me “Watson, the lab builder”? No!”
“And you see that book over there, I wrote that, number one bestseller in the country! But do they call me “Watson the author”? No!”
“And you see that double helix over there? I figured that out, took me years, against the resistance of the establishment, but do they call me “Watson the co-discoverer of DNA? No!”
The old guy looks around, and makes sure that nobody is listening, and leans to the man, and he says:
“but you peddle a lot of racist and sexist ideas…”
I do have to say, though, that I met his wife, Elizabeth, who seemed very nice and struggled to get Jim to shut up, and I feel sorry for her. She seemed to care very much for him, and I hope she’s coping well.
Bit unfair on old Caligula there eh? At least he was well liked by the common people of Rome, and seemed to have a lively sense of humour. Also lived for seventy fewer years.
Closest I got to meeting him was when he almost hit me with his car barreling down one of the narrow roads on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories while I was jogging about 30 years ago. Closer than I needed to get to him.
IIRC, didn’t E. O. Wilson have some racist ideas himself? I guess difference is he treated those around him a better.
Perhaps ironically, Wilson had his own asterisks on his permanent record.
The shadow of racism cast over E. O. Wilson, a giant of biology
From the post title, and from this site’s stances, I had expected a mention for Rosalind Franklin, who was not given due credit for the discovery of DNA’s structure; that was only attributed to him and Crick.
… Edward O. Wilson, called him “the most unpleasant human being I had ever met”…
It seems Wilson must not have met many major Republicans.
I remember the double entendre of the WC model in first year biology. When I later read about the crappy treatment of Rosalind Franklin I realised there was some truth in it.
@John Morales,
I heard about Watson about 20 minutes ago on MPR. They did bring up that Rosalind Franklin’s work on x-ray crystallography was key to the discovery of the structure of DNA. They also mentioned he was, um, a bit rude about describing her and her work they ripped off.
and, sadly, Franklin passed away at 38 yrs old, and was therefore, not eligible to be considered for the Nobel prize for her contributions when it was awarded.
Robbo, procedural exclusion is still exclusion.
(Anyway, I am glad she has not been forgotten)
—
It is meet we talk of her and not of him; she never sullied her reputation.
How about as the guy who ripped off Franklin’s work without acknowledging her contribution?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5
Or the guy who promoted and subscribed to eugenics? Whose laboratory’s research was used to support eugenics, both in the US and was referenced by Hitler in Mein Kamp?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Record_Office
Or the sexually-harassing asshat who turned CSHL into a toxic work environment for female scientists?
His wife may be a perfectly nice woman; plenty of sexually harassing assholes have very nice wives; it’s part of their cover. Exhibit A: Jim Frenkel, who is married to Joan Vinge. Everybody loves Joan, Frenkel not so much.
https://www.jimchines.com/2017/04/odyssey-con-frenkel-and-harassment/
Crick does seem to be a good fellow, but both knowingly robbed Franklin.
I’m always amused by the trope, “He’s such a schmuck, but his wife is such a lovely, kind person.”
If Watson had married a woman (or anyone) with a personality like his own, it would have been the world’s shortest marriage.
Anyone who could stay married to such an asshole, would have to be the most kind, forbearing person.
[Surely everyone is aware of the allegorical payload of PZ’s ‘I have to paraphrase an old and familiar joke’]
Teacher to classroom : What did Crick and Watson discover?
Student : Rosalind Franklin’s notes sir..
Joke / point recaleld from somehwere, unsure of who firts came up with that.
Why no mention of Maurice Wilkins? As I recall, Sir John Randall hired Franklin on the understanding that she would report to him directly whilst giving Wilkins the impression that she would be under his supervision. Naturally, resentment arose on both sides and was exacerbated by the college blocking Franklin, as a woman, from the the common room.
silvrhalide@10
Wait what? James Watson isn’t even mentioned in that Wikipedia article on the ERO: “Both its founder, Charles Benedict Davenport, and its director, Harry H. Laughlin, were major contributors to the field of eugenics in the United States.”
Watson was born in 1928. The ERO: “serv[ed] as a center for eugenics and human heredity research from 1910 to 1939.” Timeline stuff.
I’m not sure how much Watson was into actual eugenics per se. He could be racist and sexist without being a eugenicist.
To follow up to nomdeplume@11, Crick seems to have toyed with eugenic ideas. Eugenics is a widely (and often too loosely) applied term meaning an array of things, some much worse than others. From this: https://wellcome.org/press-release/francis-cricks-controversial-archive-first-public-display
Ernst Mayr wrote a letter in 1971 to Crick in which he expressed his own awkward views on a form of positive eugenics, but emphasized in reaction to Shockley, a decoupling from racist views.
https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101584582X183-doc
So both Crick and Mayr toyed with eugenics. That is unsettling but does not make them Nazis. Nazis emphasized race and took negative eugenics to an extreme not seen in the US. Plus they shifted to contagion and parasitic metaphors.
Every eugenicist that I’ve heard of was obviously full of nonsense because they never advocated for the perquisite for successful selective breeding – making sure that the stock you are breeding is healthy and demonstrates the characteristics that you wish to breed for. With humans this prerequisite means being raised well, with plenty of food, love, and medical care, as well as a diverse education that enables the individuals to maximize their capacity for wisdom and creativity. Since the effects of ill-treatment tend to echo for at least a couple of generations any attempt to breed an ‘improved human’ has to wait until we have several generations of people who have seriously had plenty of opportunities to be the best they could be. Of course once we get to having multiple generations of people who grew up well-fed, loved, well-educated, etc., the issue of ‘who to breed to whom’ will become irrelevant because people will (as they always have) generally try to find ‘the best possible mate’, as they define it. No coercion required. (The most notable long-term effect I would expect to see from everyone being well-fed, well-educated, etc., over the long term would be that over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years we would become more efficient at cooperation.)
I almost met Watson, 15 or 16 years ago. I was entering a science festival event and about to take my seat when a small group of men came in just behind me. In the middle was Watson, who I sort of recognised but hadn’t yet put a name to the face when I overheard someone near me say, “That’s Jim Watson” to his colleague.
I remember him shuffling in, with his shoulders hunched and a determined grimace on his face, and taking one of the reserved seats three rows in front of me. He looked like they’d fed him wasps for lunch. One of the local university biology professors I knew was in that group so for a few seconds I considered going over to him to say hello, to see if I could get an introduction to Watson (just for the sheer hell of it, because I was aware of his, um, less popular views), but I decided against it and just took my seat.
He was considerably shorter than I would have expected, but that’s probably down to having seen Jeff Goldblum play him.
@15 Thank you, interesting, I had not heard that. The misogyny of the 50s is back in the age of Trump.
@16 Again, interesting with Mayr’s involvement. I dredge my memory and seem to remember Crick is religious? Perhaps that contributed to eugenics ideas?
nomdeplume, cf. https://www.liquisearch.com/francis_crick/views_on_religion
(The opposite of religious, he was)
@ 19. nomdeplume : Watson was raised religious to begin with – kinda – but soon became an atheist :
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Early_life_and_education
FWIW from same wikipage :
Which, huh, no. I don’t think so. Disappointed that someone so suppsoedly intelligent could fall for such an obvious overgeneralisation and strawman fallacy.
The irony is strong, here.
Not “supposedly” intelligent. Actually intelligent.
And therefore, able to rationalise better.
Here, for you: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/11/11/207
↓
Abstract
A review of the research shows that critical thinking is a more inclusive construct than intelligence, going beyond what general cognitive ability can account for. For instance, critical thinking can more completely account for many everyday outcomes, such as how thinkers reject false conspiracy theories, paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, psychological misconceptions, and other unsubstantiated claims. Deficiencies in the components of critical thinking (in specific reasoning skills, dispositions, and relevant knowledge) contribute to unsubstantiated belief endorsement in ways that go beyond what standardized intelligence tests test. Specifically, people who endorse unsubstantiated claims less tend to show better critical thinking skills, possess more relevant knowledge, and are more disposed to think critically. They tend to be more scientifically skeptical and possess a more rational–analytic cognitive style, while those who accept unsubstantiated claims more tend to be more cynical and adopt a more intuitive–experiential cognitive style. These findings suggest that for a fuller understanding of unsubstantiated beliefs, researchers and instructors should also assess specific reasoning skills, relevant knowledge, and dispositions which go beyond what intelligence tests test.
At WEIT Coyne has expressed his recollections of Watson. It was a bit mixed in the OP. I’m not familiar enough with Watson but even Coyne had some negative vibes: “yes, the conversation showed that he was a bit of a bigot” and “Truth be told, I did see signs of bigotry in Watson during the conversation, but for the life of me I can’t remember what he said about that.”
One of the commenters offered this gem which was revealing on his affinity for the Bell Curve:
https://www.statnews.com/2025/11/07/james-watson-remembrance-from-dna-pioneer-to-pariah/
But from there the comments go to shit with several insinuating Watson was correct on race and IQ but it’s woke to assume otherwise. I did not glean that particular take from Coyne himself, but he does have a bias on how he chooses to push back on commenters. The woke are verboten over there.
@20 Thanks John – my failing memory failed me…
No worries, nomdeplume. Ta.
I have mentioned that I had dinner with Watson, the most uncomfortable social event in my life. There was more than “signs of bigotry” from him, he was a flaming race-realist bigot.
“signs of bigotry,” my ass. All he wanted to talk about was the superiority of the white race, especially the men.
@22. John Morales : “Not “supposedly” intelligent. Actually intelligent.””
To a degree, sure, in some areas and about some things, yeah. But NOT so intelligent or critically thinking well enough that James Watson said, well, what I noted he said in #21 above and failed to note how absurdly fallacious and wrong it was. Because intelligent he was but the falalcies of strawperson arguing and overgeneralising he missed really badly there – & never saw through later or thought better upon at least not that I’m aware of.
Intelligent people do have their blind spots and flaws and can obvs rationalsie away thins that should not be rationalsied away as even Descartes indicates.
@16
Watson didn’t create the ERO but he sure was a fan of their work. The Wikipedia link is included for information on the ERO, not Watson. Watson, as director and later as president & chancellor definitely kept CSHL on the same racist/misogynist/ableist track that it had been on previously with the ERO. He didn’t start the ERO but he was happy to keep its work and ideals (if you can call it that) humming right along. Watson’s real talent was in bringing donor funds and scientific grants into CSHL and he didn’t mind rubbing shoulders/chatting up some fairly questionable donors and unblushingly taking their money. True, he pulled CSHL from the financial brink but he also turned CSHL into a toxic cesspit of misogyny, racism and favoritism while he was there. I heard quite a bit about Watson & the way he ran CSHL from a neighbor (one of the original Manhattan Project scientists–one of the chemists) whose stepdaughter was doing graduate & postgraduate genetics research there. Her stepfather’s reputation in scientific circles did offer her protection from the worst excesses of the lab but it was still an incredibly stressful and toxic place to work. Keep in mind that Watson is not singlehandedly responsible for all the harassment that occurred at CSHL, but like most bigots, he attracted other bigots to the lab and did nothing to crack down on their BS either. There’s a reason CSHL has a hiring and retention problem to this day.
Sorry for the late reply; I’ve been trapped in the tristate mass transit hell all weekend. The airports are cooked because of the federal shutdown but buses and trains were completely FUBAR this weekend too.