000 FrontMatter DH Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page i · PDF file000_FrontMatter_DH_Double...

s

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page i

Cambridge city center, early 1950s. Detail of a map published by W. Heffer & Sons.

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page ii

THE ANNOTATED AND ILLUSTRATED

DOUBLE HELIX

Edited by

Alexander Gann & Jan Witkowski

JAMES D. WATSON

SIMON & SCHUSTERNew York London Toronto Sydney New Delhi

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page iii

Simon & Schuster1230 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10020

Copyright © 1968 by James D. WatsonCopyright renewed © 1996 by James D. WatsonNew annotations, illustrations, and appendixes Copyright © 2012 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York.

All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever. For information address Simon & Schuster Subsidiary Rights Department, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020

First Simon & Schuster hardcover edition November 2012

SIMON & SCHUSTER and colophon are registered trademarks of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

For information about special discounts for bulk purchases, please contact Simon & Schuster Special Sales at 1-866-506-1949 or [email protected].

The Simon & Schuster Speakers Bureau can bring authors to your live event. For more information or to book an event, contact the Simon & Schuster Speakers Bureau at 1-866-248-3049 or visit our website at www.simonspeakers.com.

Designed by Denise Weiss

Manufactured in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Watson, James D., date.The annotated and illustrated double helix / James D. Watson ; edited by Alexander Gann &

Jan Witkowski. — 1st Simon & Schuster hardcover ed.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.I. Gann, Alexander. II. Witkowski, J. A. (Jan Anthony), date. III. Watson, James D., date.

Double helix. IV. Title.[DNLM: 1. Watson, James D., date. 2. DNA. 3. Genetic Code. 4. Molecular Biology.

QU 58.5]572.8'6––dc23 2012037483

ISBN 978-1-4767-1549-0ISBN 978-1-4767-1551-3 (ebook)

Portions of this book were first published in Atlantic Monthly.

s

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/27/12 3:59 PM Page iv

For Naomi Mitchison

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page v

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page vi

vi i

Preface to Annotated and Illustrated Edition ix

Sir Lawrence Bragg’s Foreword to the Original Edition xiii

Preface to the Original Edition xv

Prologue from the Original Edition 1

Chapters 1–29 3

Epilogue from the Original Edition 239

The Nobel Prize 241

Appendix 1: The First Letters Describing the DNA Model 257

Appendix 2: The Lost Chapter from The Double Helix 269

Appendix 3: Watson and the Merck Fellowship Board 273

Appendix 4: Writing and Publishing The Double Helix 283

Appendix 5: Chargaff’s Review and the Ensuing Controversy 303

Acknowledgments 309

Bibliography 313

Sources 317

Photo Credits 333

Index 337

Contents

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page vii

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page viii

ix

Preface to Annotated and Illustrated Edition

In Cold Spring Harbor’s Blackford Bar, one evening in June 2010, Sydney

Brenner suggested looking through the papers he had recently donated to

the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Archives. Among his own papers were,

he knew, some of Francis Crick’s correspondence that had become muddled

in with his during the 20 years they had shared an office in Cambridge. A few

days later we discovered that the trove included letters to and from Crick

written during the period when he and Jim Watson at Cambridge, and Mau-

rice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin in London, were searching for the struc-

ture of DNA.

Mislaid some 50 years earlier (“thrown out by an over efficient secre-

tary,” Crick believed), these letters had escaped the attention of the historians

of molecular biology who first started looking into this new field in the mid-

1960s. The letters provided some new insights into the proceedings, and in

particular the personal relationships of the protagonists in the DNA story.

The most celebrated account of that story is The Double Helix, Watson’s

novelistic version of the events as they appeared to a 23-year-old American

in Cambridge in the early 1950s. Written not in the tone of a formal autobi-

ography nor in the measured language of the historian, his racy and thriller-

like telling was reviled by some and praised by many upon publication in

1968.

In writing our article on the lost Crick correspondence, we naturally re-

read The Double Helix. We were struck by how Watson’s account in the book

accurately represented the vivid, contemporary descriptions of people and

events found in the letters, and not just those of Crick and Wilkins, but Wat-

son’s own. The social whirl of parties, tennis, French lessons, holidays, and

other events that featured prominently in the book—the “gossip,” as Crick

characterized it—were recorded in the weekly letters Watson wrote to his

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page ix

sister Elizabeth during his time in Cambridge. And the science covered in the

book was also discussed in contemporary letters to Max Delbrück and other

friends, and not just the DNA work, but Watson’s research on bacterial ge-

netics and tobacco mosaic virus, projects that figure prominently in the story.

In all of this contemporary correspondence, the character of Watson him-

self—the brash, self-confident yet at times also self-deprecating, young man

portrayed in his book—was transparent. We became intrigued to see all the

contemporary accounts we could find—not just those revealed in the letters

of Watson, Crick, and Wilkins, but of Franklin, Linus Pauling, and others as

well.

We also noticed just how many other characters appear in The DoubleHelix—many unrelated to the central scientific story. Watson, eager to keep

the narrative moving, often provides only the briefest of information, some-

times not even identifying the most intriguing of minor characters. We don’t

get to learn the interesting story of the “local doctor” who had rowing oars

mounted on the wall of his surgery, or the identity of the “antiquarian archi-

tect” who kept his house free of gas and electricity—or anything much about

Bertrand Fourcade except that he was the “most beautiful male” in Cam-

bridge. And what was the novel of ill-judged sexual indiscretions of Cam-

bridge dons that Watson reads at one point in the story? We wanted to know.

And so the idea of an annotated edition of The Double Helix took shape,

a version in which an array of viewpoints and voices would be added as com-

mentary, together with background information and illustrations to enrich

the text. The current volume is the result. In addition to the numerous pho-

tographs (a number being published for the first time), we have reproduced

many letters and other documents in full or in part as facsimiles. One of the

pleasures of visiting archives is to see and handle original documents and

while we cannot match that experience, we hope that readers will enjoy see-

ing letters and manuscripts as their original recipients saw them.

The sources of material used in our annotations are many, both published

and unpublished. Of the former, we used many books—including the histo-

ries and biographies of the field. These are listed in the bibliography at the

THE DOUBLE HELIXx

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page x

xi

end of the book. Among unpublished sources, Watson’s letters to his sister

and also his parents are a major source of information about his Cambridge

life and have not been used before, except by Watson, while his letters to

Delbrück, Luria, and others provide scientific content. In addition to Wat-

son’s papers, we have drawn on those of Crick, Wilkins, Pauling, and

Franklin among others. We have also included reminiscences written by Ray

Gosling specially for this edition. Gosling worked with both Wilkins and

Franklin in those years and actually took the most famous and influential

diffraction pictures of DNA. The source for each annotation is included in

a reference list at the back of the book.

In addition to the annotations and illustrations, we have added a num-

ber of other pieces. We have included Watson’s account of winning the

Nobel Prize, previously published in his later book, Avoid Boring People.

This seems, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of that award, a fitting

conclusion to the tale. We have also added five appendices. These include

one in which we reproduce facsimiles of the first letters Watson and Crick

each wrote in 1953 describing the discovery, and another in which we pub-

lish for the first time a chapter from the draft manuscript of The DoubleHelix which was left out of the published book. While not describing any-

thing new about the work on DNA, the missing chapter fills in the story of

Watson’s summer spent in the Alps in 1952.

We have corrected some errors of fact by adding annotations where nec-

essary, but Watson’s original text is unchanged.

It will be clear that this edition is not an exhaustive academic treatise.

Rather, we chose items that appealed to us and hope that this somewhat

quirky selection will prove useful and enjoyable to both new readers and

those familiar with the original text.

Alexander GannJan WitkowskiCold Spring Harbor 2012

PREFACE TO ANNOTATED AND I LLUSTRATED EDIT ION

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page xi

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page xii

xi i i

Sir Lawrence Bragg’s Foreword to the Original Edition

This account of the events which led to the solution of the structure of

DNA, the fundamental genetical material, is unique in several ways. I

was much pleased when Watson asked me to write the foreword.

There is in the first place its scientific interest. The discovery of the

structure by Crick and Watson, with all its biological implications, has been

one of the major scientific events of this century. The number of researches

which it has inspired is amazing; it has caused an explosion in biochemistry

which has transformed the science. I have been amongst those who have

pressed the author to write his recollections while they are still fresh in his

mind, knowing how important they would be as a contribution to the history

of science. The result has exceeded expectation. The latter chapters, in which

the birth of the new idea is described so vividly, are drama of the highest

order; the tension mounts and mounts towards the final climax. I do not

know of any other instance where one is able to share so intimately in the

researcher’s struggles and doubts and final triumph.

Then again, the story is a poignant example of a dilemma which may

confront an investigator. He knows that a colleague has been working for

years on a problem and has accumulated a mass of hard-won evidence,

which has not yet been published because it is anticipated that success is

just around the corner. He has seen this evidence and has good reason to be-

lieve that a method of attack which he can envisage, perhaps merely a new

point of view, will lead straight to the solution. An offer of collaboration at

such a stage might well be regarded as a trespass. Should he go ahead on his

own? It is not easy to be sure whether the crucial new idea is really one’s

own or has been unconsciously assimilated in talks with others. The real-

ization of this difficulty has led to the establishment of a somewhat vague

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page xiii

code amongst scientists which recognizes a claim in a line of research staked

out by a colleague—up to a certain point. When competition comes from

more than one quarter, there is no need to hold back. This dilemma comes out

clearly in the DNA story. It is a source of deep satisfaction to all intimately

concerned that, in the award of the Nobel Prize in 1962, due recognition was

given to the long, patient investigation by Wilkins at King’s College (Lon-

don) as well as to the brilliant and rapid final solution by Crick and Watson

at Cambridge.

Finally, there is the human interest of the story—the impression made by

Europe and England in particular upon a young man from the States. He

writes with a Pepys-like frankness. Those who figure in the book must read

it in a very forgiving spirit. One must remember that his book is not a his-

tory, but an autobiographical contribution to the history which will some day

be written. As the author himself says, the book is a record of impressions

rather than historical facts. The issues were often more complex, and the mo-

tives of those who had to deal with them were less tortuous, than he realized

at the time. On the other hand, one must admit that his intuitive understand-

ing of human frailty often strikes home.

The author has shown the manuscript to some of us who were involved

in the story, and we have suggested corrections of historical fact here and

there, but personally I have felt reluctant to alter too much because the fresh-

ness and directness with which impressions have been recorded is an essen-

tial part of the interest of this book.

W. L. B.

Sir Lawrence Bragg (1890–1971) was the director of the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge

University at the time of the discovery of the double helix. He and his father, William Henry,

the originators of X-ray crystallography, received the Nobel Prize in 1915.

THE DOUBLE HELIXxiv

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page xiv

Here I relate my version of how the structure of DNA was discovered. In

doing so I have tried to catch the atmosphere of the early postwar years

in England, where most of the important events occurred. As I hope this book

will show, science seldom proceeds in the straightforward logical manner imag-

ined by outsiders. Instead, its steps forward (and sometimes backward) are often

very human events in which personalities and cultural traditions play major

roles. To this end I have attempted to re-create my first impressions of the rel-

evant events and personalities rather than present an assessment which takes

into account the many facts I have learned since the structure was found. Al-

though the latter approach might be more objective, it would fail to convey the

spirit of an adventure characterized both by youthful arrogance and by the be-

lief that the truth, once found, would be simple as well as pretty. Thus many of

the comments may seem one-sided and unfair, but this is often the case in the

incomplete and hurried way in which human beings frequently decide to like

or dislike a new idea or acquaintance. In any event, this account represents the

way I saw things then, in 1951–1953: the ideas, the people, and myself.

I am aware that the other participants in this story would tell parts of it in

other ways, sometimes because their memory of what happened differs from

mine and, perhaps in even more cases, because no two people ever see the same

events in exactly the same light. In this sense, no one will ever be able to write

a definitive history of how the structure was established. Nonetheless, I feel

the story should be told, partly because many of my scientific friends have ex-

pressed curiosity about how the double helix was found, and to them an in-

complete version is better than none. But even more important, I believe, there

remains general ignorance about how science is “done.” That is not to say that

all science is done in the manner described here. This is far from the case, for

styles of scientific research vary almost as much as human personalities. On the

Preface to the Original Edition

xv

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page xv

other hand, I do not believe that the way DNA came out constitutes an odd ex-

ception to a scientific world complicated by the contradictory pulls of ambition

and the sense of fair play.

The thought that I should write this book has been with me almost from the

moment the double helix was found. Thus my memory of many of the signifi-

cant events is much more complete than that of most other episodes in my life.

I also have made extensive use of letters written at virtually weekly intervals to

my parents. These were especially helpful in exactly dating a number of the in-

cidents. Equally important have been the valuable comments by various friends

who kindly read earlier versions and gave in some instances quite detailed ac-

counts of incidents that I had referred to in less complete form. To be sure, there

are cases where my recollections differ from theirs, and so this book must be

regarded as my view of the matter.

Some of the earlier chapters were written in the homes of Albert Szent-Györ-

gyi, John A. Wheeler, and John Cairns, and I wish to thank them for quiet rooms

with tables overlooking the ocean. The later chapters were written with the help

of a Guggenheim Fellowship, which allowed me to return briefly to the other

Cambridge and the kind hospitality of the Provost and Fellows of King’s College.

As far as possible I have included photographs taken at the time the story

occurred, and in particular I want to thank Herbert Gutfreund, Peter Pauling,

Hugh Huxley, and Gunther Stent for sending me some of their snapshots. For ed-

itorial assistance I’m much indebted to Libby Aldrich for the quick, perceptive

remarks expected from our best Radcliffe students and to Joyce Lebowitz both

for keeping me from completely misusing the English language and for innu-

merable comments about what a good book must do. Finally, I wish to express

thanks for the immense help Thomas J. Wilson has given me from the time he

saw the first draft. Without his wise, warm, and sensible advice, the appearance

of this book, in what I hope is the right form, might never have occurred.

J. D. W.Harvard University Cambridge, MassachusettsNovember 1967

xvi THE DOUBLE HELIX

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page xvi

THE ANNOTATED AND ILLUSTRATED

DOUBLE HELIX

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page xvii

000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page xviii

In the summer of 1955, I arranged to join some friends who were going

into the Alps. Alfred Tissieres, then a Fellow at King’s, had said he would

get me to the top of the Rothorn, and even though I panic at voids this did

not seem to be the time to be a coward. So after getting in shape by letting

a guide lead me up the Allinin, I took the two-hour postal-bus trip to Zinal,

hoping that the driver was not carsick as he lurched the bus around the nar-

row road twisting above the falling rock slopes. Then I saw Alfred standing

in front of the hotel, talking with a long-mustached Trinity don who had been

in India during the war.

Since Alfred was still out of training, we decided to spend the afternoon

walking up to a small restaurant which lay at the base of the huge glacier

falling down off the Obergabelhorn and over which we were to walk the next

day. We were only a few minutes out of sight of the hotel when we saw a

party coming down upon us, and I quickly recognized one of the climbers.

He was Willy Seeds, a scientist who several years before had worked at

King’s College, London, with Maurice Wilkins on the optical properties of

DNA fibers. Willy soon spotted me, slowed down, and momentarily gave

the impression that he might remove his rucksack and chat for a while. But

all he said was, “How’s Honest Jim?” and quickly increasing his pace was

soon below me on the path.1

Later as I trudged upward, I thought again about our earlier meetings in

London. Then DNA was still a mystery, up for grabs, and no one was sure

who would get it and whether he would deserve it if it proved as exciting as

we semisecretly believed. But now the race was over and, as one of the win-

ners, I knew the tale was not simple and certainly not as the newspapers re-

ported. Chiefly it was a matter of five people: Maurice Wilkins, Rosalind

Franklin, Linus Pauling, Francis Crick, and me. And as Francis was the dom-

inant force in shaping my part, I will start the story with him.1

Prologue from the Original Edition

1 Willy Seeds’ remark provided Watsonwith the title he originally wanted touse for what became The DoubleHelix. See the handwritten title pagefrom an early draft (shown overleaf)and Appendix 4.

pp001-002_Prolog_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:14 AM Page 1

79

Igave John and Elizabeth Kendrew the scoop about DNA when I joined

them for breakfast on Monday morning.1 Elizabeth appeared delighted

that success was almost within our grasp, while John took the news more

calmly. When it came out that Francis was again in an inspired mood and I

had nothing more solid to report than enthusiasm, he became lost to the sec-

tions of The Times which spoke about the first days of the new Tory gov-

ernment. Soon afterward, John went off to his rooms in Peterhouse, leaving

Elizabeth and me to digest the implications of my unanticipated luck. I did

not remain long, since the sooner I could get back to the lab, the quicker we

could find out which of the several possible answers would be favored by a

hard look at the molecular models themselves.

1 Kendrew had married Elizabeth, thewidow of a close friend who waskilled in World War II, in 1948. Eliza-beth was a physician who qualifiedin 1951. The Kendrews divorced in1956.

Chapter 12

This is the headline in The Times of October 30, reporting the early days of the new Tory govern-ment. In the General Election of October 23, 1951, the Labour government of Clement Attlee hadbeen ousted and Sir Winston Churchill became Prime Minister for the second time.

pp079-088_CH12_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:22 AM Page 79

Both Francis and I, however, knew that the models in the Cavendish

would not be completely satisfactory. They had been constructed by John

some eighteen months before, for the work on the three-dimensional shape

of the polypeptide chain. There existed no accurate representations of the

groups of atoms unique to DNA. Neither phosphorus atoms nor the purine

and pyrimidine bases were on hand. Rapid improvisation would be necessary

since there was no time for Max to give a rush order for their construction.

Making brand-new models might take all of a week, whereas an answer was

possible within a day or so. Thus as soon as I got to the lab I began adding

bits of copper wire to some of our carbon-atom models, thereby changing

them into the larger-sized phosphorus atoms.2

Much more difficulty came from the necessity to fabricate representations

of the inorganic ions. Unlike the other constituents, they obeyed no simple-

minded rules telling us the angles at which they would form their respective

80 THE DOUBLE HELIX

2 Watson refers to Sven Furberg’s deter-mination of the structure of cytidine inthe caption of this figure (right). Pub-lished in Nature in 1949, it is recog-nized as a tour-de-force. Furberg wasa Norwegian physical chemist whospent two years with Bernal at Birk-beck College.

Sven Furberg, 1950.


81CHAPTER 12

Furberg’s paper on the structure of cytidine (Nature, July 2, 1949).


chemical bonds. Most likely we had to know the correct DNA structure before

the right models could be made. I maintained the hope, however, that Francis

might already be on to the vital trick and would

immediately blurt it out when he got to the lab.

Over eighteen hours had passed since our last

conversation, and there was little chance that

the Sunday papers would have distracted him

upon his return to the Green Door.

His tenish entrance, however, did not

bring the answer. After Sunday supper he had

again run through the dilemma but saw no

quick answer. The problem was then put

aside for a rapid scanning of a novel on the

sexual misjudgments of Cambridge dons. The

book had its brief good moments, and even

in its most ill-conceived pages there was the

82 THE DOUBLE HELIX

3 The novel was A Perch in Paradise, byMargaret Bullard (Hamish Hamilton,1952). Bertrand Russell enjoyed it, too.In a letter to Bullard on April 10, 1952,he wrote:

“If Cambridge is as you represent it, itmust have become more amusing sinceI was an undergraduate, which was inthe early ’90s. In those days we wereall strictly celibate, which cannot besaid of your characters. I am findingyour novel amusing and pleasant read-ing and am hoping that it gives a truepicture of Cambridge life.” A Perch in Paradise.

Rosalind Franklin’s copy of Furberg’s definitive paper on the structure of cytidine. Furberg’s barelylegible note beneath his signature reads “Hope you have been able to interpret your beautiful fibrediagram of Na-thymonucleate.” Unfortunately we do not know when Franklin received this reprint.


question of whether any of their friends’ lives had been seriously drawn on

in the construction of the plot.3

Over morning coffee Francis nonetheless exuded confidence that enough

experimental data might already be on hand to determine the outcome. We

might be able to start the game with several completely different sets of facts

and yet always hit the same final answers. Perhaps the whole problem would

fall out just by our concentrating on the prettiest way for a polynucleotide chain

to fold up. So while Francis continued thinking about the meaning of the X-ray

diagram, I began to assemble the various atomic models into several chains,

each several nucleotides in length. Though in nature DNA chains are very long,

there was no reason to put together anything massive. As long as we could be

sure it was a helix, the assignment of the positions for only a couple of nu-

cleotides automatically generated the arrangement of all the other components.

The routine assembly task was over by one, when Francis and I walked

over to the Eagle for our habitual lunch with the chemist Herbert Gutfreund.

These days John usually went to Peterhouse, while Max always cycled home.

Occasionally John’s student Hugh Huxley would join us, but of late he was

finding it difficult to enjoy Francis’ inquisitive lunchtime attacks. For just prior

to my arrival in Cambridge, Hugh’s decision to take up the problem of how

83CHAPTER 12

Hugh Huxley, Kendrew’s Ph.D. student and Ann Cullis,Max Perutz’ assistant, 1950s.

Herbert (Freddie) Gutfreund flanked by Crick and Watson, outside ClareCollege, 1952.


muscles contract had focused Francis’ attention on the unforeseen opportunity

that, for twenty years or so, muscle physiologists had been accumulating data

without tying them into a self-consistent picture. Francis found it a perfect sit-

uation for action. There was no need for him to ferret out the relevant experi-

ments since Hugh had already waded through the undigested mass. Lunch

after lunch, the facts were put together to form theories which held for a day

or so, until Hugh could convince Francis that a result he would like ascribed

to experimental error was as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.4 Now the con-

struction of Hugh’s X-ray camera was completed, and soon he hoped to get ex-

perimental evidence to settle the debatable points. The fun would be all lost if

somehow Francis could correctly predict what he was going to find.

But there was no need that day for Hugh to fear a new intellectual inva-

sion. When we walked into the Eagle, Francis did not exchange his usual rau-

cous greetings with the Persian economist Ephraim Eshag, but gave the

undistilled impression that something serious was up.5 The actual model build-

ing would start right after lunch, and more concrete plans must be formulated

to make the process efficient. So over our gooseberry pie we looked at the pros

and cons of one, two, three, and four chains, quickly dismissing one-chain he-

lices as incompatible with the evidence in our hands. As to the forces that held

the chains together, the best guess seemed to be salt bridges in which divalent

cations like Mg++ held together two or more phosphate groups. Admittedly

there was no evidence that Rosy’s samples contained any divalent ions, and so

84 THE DOUBLE HELIX

4 The Rock of Gibraltar is the promon-tory, 1400 feet high, bordering Spainand guarding the entrance to theMediterranean. It has been in Britishhands since the Treaty of Utrecht in1713. Despite numerous sieges, theRock has never been captured, hencethe expression used by Watson.

5 Eprime Eshag was an Iranian econo-mist, an ardent follower of John May-nard Keynes, who came to Cambridgeto work for a Ph.D. thesis on the his-tory of monetary theory. He workedfor the United Nations before joiningWadham College, Oxford. According tohis obituary he was also “an unrepen-tant man of many girlfriends” whomarried late, in 1992, dying 6 yearslater at the age of 80.

How Mg++ might be used to bind negatively chargedphosphate groups in the center of a compound helix.


we might be sticking our necks out. On the other hand, there was absolutely

no evidence against our hunch.6 If only the King’s groups had thought about

models, they would have asked which salt was present and we would not be

placed in this tiresome position. But, with luck, the addition of magnesium or

85CHAPTER 12

6 This is the first page of a memoran-dum Crick wrote soon after Franklin’scolloquium, setting out the principleswhich would guide Watson and him indevising a structure for DNA. In con-trast to Franklin’s view that experi-mental data were paramount, theywould try “…to incorporate the mini-mum number of experimental facts”

while acknowledging “…that certainresults have suggested ideas to us.”Crick emphasized that care had to betaken not to reject a model just “…be-cause of some difficulty which willsort itself out at a later stage.”

First page of Crick’s memo on their triple helix model.


possibly calcium ions to the sugar-phosphate backbone would quickly gener-

ate an elegant structure, the correctness of which would not be debatable.

Our first minutes with the models, though, were not joyous. Even though

only about fifteen atoms were involved, they kept falling out of the awk-

ward pincers set up to hold them the correct distance from one another. Even

worse, the uncomfortable impression arose that there were no obvious re-

strictions on the bond angles between several of the most important atoms.

This was not at all nice. Pauling had cracked the α-helix by ruthlessly fol-

lowing up his knowledge that the peptide bond was flat. To our annoyance,

there seemed every reason to believe that the phosphodiester bonds which

bound together the successive nucleotides in DNA might exist in a variety

of shapes. At least with our level of chemical intuition, there was unlikely to

be any single conformation much prettier than the rest.

After tea, however, a shape began to emerge which brought back our

spirits. Three chains twisted about each other in a way that gave rise to a

crystallographic repeat every 28 Å along the helical axis. This was a feature

demanded by Maurice’s and Rosy’s pictures, so Francis was visibly reas-

sured as he stepped back from the lab bench and surveyed the afternoon’s ef-

fort. Admittedly a few of the atomic contacts were still too close for comfort,

but, after all, the fiddling had just begun. With a few hours’ more work, a pre-

sentable model should be on display.

Ebullient spirits prevailed during the evening meal at the Green Door.

Though Odile could not follow what we were saying, she was obviously

cheered by the fact that Francis was about to bring off his second triumph

within the month. If this course of events went on, they would soon be rich and

could own a car. At no moment did Francis see any point in trying to simplify

the matter for Odile’s benefit. Ever since she had told him that gravity went

only three miles into the sky, this aspect of their relationship was set. Not only

did she not know any science, but any attempt to put some in her head would

be a losing fight against the years of her convent upbringing. The most to hope

for was an appreciation of the linear way in which money was measured.

Our conversation instead centered upon a young art student then about

to marry Odile’s friend Harmut Weil. This capture was mildly displeasing to

86 THE DOUBLE HELIX


Francis. It was about to remove the prettiest girl from their party circle.

Moreover, there was more than one thing cloudy about Harmut. He had come

out of a German university tradition that believed in dueling.7 There was

also his undeniable skill in persuading numerous Cambridge women to pose

for his camera.

All thought of women, however, was banished by the time Francis

breezed into the lab just before morning coffee. Soon, when several atoms

had been pushed in or out, the three-chain model began to look quite rea-

sonable. The next obvious step would be to check it with Rosy’s quantitative

measurements. The model would certainly fit with the general locations of

the X-ray reflections, for its essential helical parameters had been chosen to

fit the seminar facts I had conveyed to Francis. If it were right, however, the

model would also accurately predict the relative intensities of the various

X-ray reflections.

A quick phone call was made to Maurice. Francis explained how the

helical diffraction theory allowed a rapid survey of possible DNA models,

and that he and I had just come up with a creature which might be the answer

87CHAPTER 12

Members of the M.R.C. Biophysics Unit at the annual Cricket match (1950s). From left toright: Maurice Wilkins, William (Willy) Seeds, Bruce Fraser, Mary Fraser, Ray Gosling (stand-ing), Geoffrey Brown.

7 Alexander Todd (pictured on page 46)went to Frankfurt in 1929 to do re-search for his Ph.D. He recounts in hisautobiography how he attended aduel, at 5 a.m., the object of whichwas for each opponent to inflict awound on the face of the other. After-wards, the combatants and observers“despite the early hour consumedvast quantities of beer” at a nearbyinn.


we were all awaiting. The best thing would be for Maurice immediately to

come and look it over. But Maurice gave no definite date, saying he thought

he might make it sometime within the week. Soon after the phone was put

down, John came in to see how Maurice had taken the news of the break-

through. Francis found it hard to sum up his reply. It was almost as if Mau-

rice were indifferent to what we were doing.

In the midst of further fiddling that afternoon, a call came through from

King’s. Maurice would come up on the 10:10 train from London the fol-

lowing morning. Moreover, he would not be alone. His collaborator Willy

Seeds would also come. Even more to the point was that Rosy, together with

her student R. G. Gosling, would be on the same train. Apparently they were

still interested in the answer.

88 THE DOUBLE HELIX


119

Linus, however, was blocked from descending on London. His trip

abruptly terminated at Idlewild through the removal of his passport.1

The State Department did not want troublemakers like Pauling wandering

about the globe saying nasty things about the politics of its onetime invest-

ment bankers who held back the hordes of godless Reds. Failure to contain

Pauling might result in a London press conference with Linus expounding

peaceful coexistence. Acheson’s position was harassed enough without giv-

ing McCarthy the opportunity to announce that our government let radicals

protected by U.S. passports set back the American way of life.

Francis and I were already in London when the scandal reached the

Royal Society. The reaction was one of almost complete disbelief. It was far

more reassuring to go on imagining that Linus had taken ill on the plane to

1 Initially named after the golf courseit displaced, Idlewild was renamedJohn F. Kennedy International Air-port on December 24, 1963, onemonth after the assassination ofPresident Kennedy.

Idlewild Airport observation deck, late 1940s.

Chapter 17


New York. The failure to let one of the world’s leading scientists attend a

completely nonpolitical meeting would have been expected from the Rus-

sians. A first-rate Russian might easily abscond to the more affluent West. No

danger existed, however, that Linus might want to flee. Only complete sat-

isfaction with their Cal Tech existence came from him and his family.2

Several members of Cal Tech’s governing board, however, would have

been delighted with his voluntary departure. Every time they picked up a

newspaper and saw Pauling’s name among the sponsors of a World Peace

Conference they seethed with rage, wishing there were a way to rid South-

ern California of his pernicious charm. But Linus knew better than to ex-

pect more than confused anger from the selfmade California millionaires

120 THE DOUBLE HELIX

2 Letter from Ruth B. Shipley, Chief ofthe Passport Division of the State De-partment, to Pauling, February 14,1952. Addressing him as “My dear Dr.Pauling,” she nevertheless denies hisapplication for a passport “since theDepartment is of the opinion that yourproposed travel would not be in thebest interests of the United States.”Shipley was chief of the division from1928 until 1955, and wielded almostcomplete power over who got a pass-port and who didn’t. Franklin Roo-sevelt described her as a “wonderfulogre,” Secretary of State Dean Ache-son said the Passport Division was her“Queendom of Passports,” and in De-cember 1951 Time magazine claimedshe was “the most invulnerable, mostunfirable, most feared and most ad-mired career woman in Government.”

Letter from Shipley to Pauling.


121CHAPTER 17

3 The withholding of Pauling’s passportreceived comment on both sides ofthe Atlantic. On the left, a pieceprinted in the Los Angeles Examinerfrom May 12, and, above, a letter fromSir Robert Robinson, former Presidentof the Royal Society, to The Times onMay 2. Probably because of suchpress attention, the State Departmentreversed its decision soon afterwards,allowing Pauling to travel later thatsummer (see Chapter 19).

whose knowledge of foreign policy was formed largely by the Los Ange-les Times.3

The debacle was no surprise to several of us who had just been in Ox-

ford for a Society of General Microbiology meeting on “The Nature of Viral

Multiplication.” One of the main speakers was to have been Luria. Two

weeks prior to his scheduled flight to London, he was notified that he would

Los Angeles Examiner article.

Letter to The Times.



Although Luria’s name and article appear in the published volume of the Sym-posium proceedings, he was refused a visa and did not attend the meeting.


123CHAPTER 17

not get a passport. As usual, the State Department would not come clean

about what it considered dirt.4

Luria’s absence thrust upon me the job of describing the recent experi-

ments of the American phage workers. There was no need to put together a

speech. Several days before the meeting, Al Hershey had sent me a long letter

from Cold Spring Harbor summarizing the recently completed experiments by

Left-leaning attitudes among scientistsweren’t restricted to Pauling andLuria, nor fear of them exclusive to theU.S. authorities: Maurice Wilkins hadbeen investigated by MI5 and the FBI.They suspected that one of nine scien-tists from New Zealand or Australiahad leaked A-bomb secrets. Wilkinswas one of the nine suspects, havingworked on the Manhattan project (seeChapter 2). The investigation began in1945, but was still going on in 1953, asindicated by this request that theH.O.W. (Home Office Warrant, whichallowed his mail to be searched) betransferred to his new address. Hisphone was also tapped. All this de-spite an informant suggesting aroundthe same time that while Wilkins was“a very queer fish,” he was probably asocialist rather than a communist.

One of many documents in Wilkins’ MI5 files.

4 In a letter to his sister on April 3,1952, Watson writes:

“I have just learned from mother thatLuria will not be coming. I do notknow the reason but I would suspectpassport difficulties. I am quite sorrythat he isn’t coming since I hadhoped to discuss my future with him.Now I shall have to do some involvedletter writing.”



which he and Martha Chase established that a key feature of the infection of a

bacterium by a phage was the injection of the viral DNA into the host bac-

terium. Most important, very little protein entered the bacterium. Their exper-

iment was thus a powerful new proof that DNA is the primary genetic material.

Nonetheless, almost no one in the audience of over four hundred mi-

crobiologists seemed interested as I read long sections of Hershey’s letter.

Obvious exceptions were André Lwoff, Sey-

mour Benzer, and Gunther Stent, all briefly

over from Paris. They knew that Hershey’s ex-

periments were not trivial and that from then

on everyone was going to place more emphasis

on DNA. To most of the spectators, however,

Hershey’s name carried no weight. Moreover,

when it came out that I was an American, my

uncut hair provided no assurance that my sci-

entific judgment was not equally bizarre.5

Dominating the meeting were the English

plant virologists F. C. Bawden and N. W. Pirie.

No one could match the smooth erudition of Bawden or the assured nihilism

5 François Jacob, then still a student withLwoff, encountered Watson for the firsttime at this meeting at Oxford, record-ing the incident in his autobiographyThe Statue Within.

“At that time, to a French student whohad not yet been inside an American uni-versity or seen its denizens, Jim Watsonwas an amazing character. Tall, gawky,scraggly, he had an inimitable style. Inim-itable in his dress: shirttails flying, kneesin the air, socks down around his ankles.Inimitable in his bewildered manner, hismannerisms: his eyes always bulging, hismouth always open, he uttered short,choppy sentences punctuated by ‘Ah!Ah!’ Inimitable also in his way of enteringa room, cocking his head like a roosterlooking for the finest hen, to locate themost important scientist present andcharging over to his side. A surprisingmixture of awkwardness and shrewd-ness. Of childishness in the things of lifeand of maturity in those of science.”

Martha Chase and Al Hershey, 1953.

Max Delbrück (left) with AndréLwoff at Cold Spring Harbor, 1953.

Watson in shorts, Cold Spring Harbor, 1953.


125CHAPTER 17

of Pirie, who strongly disliked the notion that some phages have tails or that

TMV is of fixed length. When I tried to corner Pirie about Schramm’s ex-

periments he said they should be dismissed, and so I retreated to the politi-

cally less controversial point of whether the 3000 Å length of many TMV

particles was biologically important. The idea that a simple answer was

preferable had no appeal to Pirie, who knew that viruses were too large to

have well-defined structures.6

If it had not been for the presence of Lwoff, the meeting would have

flopped totally. André was very keen about the role of divalent metals in

phage multiplication and so was receptive to my belief that ions were deci-

sively important for nucleic-acid structure. Especially intriguing was his

hunch that specific ions might be the trick for the exact copying of macro-

molecules or the attraction between similar chromosomes. There was no way

to test our dreams, however, unless Rosy did an about-face from her deter-

mination to rely completely on classical X-ray diffraction techniques.

At the Royal Society Meeting there was no hint that anyone at King’s

had mentioned ions since the confrontation with Francis and me in early De-

cember. Upon pressing Maurice, I learned that the jigs for the molecular

models had not been touched after arriving at his lab. The time had not yet

come to press Rosy and Gosling about building models. If anything, the

6 Having met at Cambridge in the late1920s, Frederick Bawden and NormanPirie subsequently worked togetherfor many years at Rothamsted Experi-mental Station at Harpenden. Theycollaborated first on potato virus Xand then, starting in 1936, on TMV.They worked with Bernal andFankuchen (see Chapter 16) on deter-mining the chemical nature of TMV,and were the first to show the pres-ence of RNA in the viral preparations.François Jacob’s autobiography de-scribes them at this meeting as “…oldcronies who loved to play the buffoon,trading jokes and metaphysical apho-risms, all in a rapid, choppy Englishwhich left me in a cold sweat.”

Pirie’s later interests in a broad range ofscientific and social issues are reflectedin his picture above, which shows himleaving the Soviet Embassy with J. B.Priestly and others after talks on nu-clear armament in September 1961.

F. C. Bawden. N. W. Pirie (second from left).


squabbling between Maurice and Rosy was more bitter than before the visit

to Cambridge. Now she was insisting that her data told her DNA was not a

helix. Rather than build helical models at Maurice’s command, she might

twist the copper-wire models about his neck.

When Maurice asked whether we needed the molds back in Cambridge,

we said yes, half implying that more carbon atoms were needed to make

models showing how polypeptide chains turned corners. To my relief, Mau-

rice was very open about what was not happening at King’s. The fact that I

was doing serious X-ray work with TMV gave him assurance that I should

not soon again become preoccupied with the DNA pattern.


Watson in Paris on his way to the Riviera, spring 1952.He wrote to his sister (April 27): “I’m enclosing aphoto of myself in Paris. It rather horrifies me sinceI did not realize how much hair I have. Needless tosay I no longer have a crew cut.”


A

Abbaye at Royaumont, 140, 140, 141, 143,147, 151, 269

Acheson, D., 119, 120α-helix model

Bragg humiliated by Pauling’s success,73–74

helical theory of, 57, 60–61, 62, 71,89–91, 181

Pauling’s work on, 29–32, 29, 30, 31Perutz tests Pauling’s model, 35, 35strategy for deducing molecular struc-

tures, 44, 46, 48, 64, 86Amis, Kingsley, 284Armstrong-Jones, Anthony, 226Astbury, W.T., 15, 32, 48, 48, 49, 118Athenaeum, London, 37, 38Atlantic Monthly, 295Avery, Oswald T., 7, 7, 8, 17, 130, 138

B

Bacteriophages (phages), 16–21, 124, 125, 151, 151, 230

Ballet School (painting), 256Barrington Brown, Antony, 226Bath Hotel, 159, 159Bawa, Geoffrey, 190Bawden, F.C., 124–125, 125Beadle, George, 138Bell, Florence, 48, 49Bennett, Christine, 161Benzer, Seymour, 124Bernal, J.D.

communist sympathies, 112and Franklin, 154, 155, 182, 240Franklin’s opinion of, 170, 170

Luria’s opinion of, 32non-research work, 69photos, 71, 112support of The Double Helix, 291, 292,

293TMV X-ray work with Fankuchen,

112–115, 112, 115, 116, 125work with Furberg, 80–81, 80–81

Beskow, Bo, 256, 256Bessel functions, 89, 90, 129Bevan, Edward, 159Bexhill-on-Sea, 90Beyond This Limit (Mitchison), 106Big Bang Theory, 132, 245Biochemistry of Nucleic Acids (Davidson),

194, 203Blackwell’s bookshop, 76, 76BLAST magazine, 106Blunt, Anthony, 189Bohr, Niels, 3, 19, 272Bondi, Herman, 131, 132Bonifas, V., 19Boot, H.A.H. “Harry,” 23Born, Max, 133Boulat, Pierre, 187Bragg, Lawrence, 35, 61, 63, 100, 118,

142, 152, 153, 167, 171, 173, 207,226, 229, 233, 236, 272, 273

approval for building DNA model, 185

ban on Watson and Crick working onDNA, 95–99, 95, 97

Cavendish work, 4congratulations offered to Watson and

Crick on Nobel Prize, 244Crick’s anger over the hemoglobin

paper, 51–52, 51, 55, 57

description of by Watson, 37, 37, 38encourages Watson and Crick to re-

sume model building, 185misjudged polypeptide configurations

paper, 73–74, 73, 74move to the Royal Institute, 239, 239Nobel Prize winner, 3, 4photos, 4, 51, 95problems with Crick, 5, 55sending DNA papers to Nature, 222,

232, 235soap bubbles interest, 99, 99views double helix model, 217writing the foreword to The Double

Helix, 285, 290, 293–294, 294

Bragg, William Henry, 4Brains Trust, The (radio program), 69Brenner, Sydney, 284, 299Bronowski, Jacob, 299Brown, Geoffrey, 87Brown, Greta, 246–247Bullard, Margaret, 82Burgess, Guy, 189

C

C2 space group, 196Cairncross, John, 189Caius College, 6, 6, 55Campbell, Commander, 69Carradale House, 103–107, 105, 284Caspersson, Torbjörn, 39Cavalli-Sforza, 147, 148, 150, 171Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge

University, 3, 3Cavendish machine shop, 186, 186Cavity magnetron, 23

337

Index

Page references in italics refer to information found in the annotations and figure legends.

pp337-346_Index_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 2:16 PM Page 337


Chargaff, Erwin, 137base ratios (Chargaff’s Rules), 130–

131, 130, 131, 135, 150–151, 205,208, 217

opinion of Watson and Crick, 136–137,227

photo, 130review of The Double Helix, 195, 299,

303, 304, 306supplies DNA to Wilkins, 50visit to Cambridge, 135–136, 136What Is Life?, influence of, 7

Chase, Martha, 124, 124Christina, Princess, 256Clare Bridge, 212, 212Clare College, Cambridge, 36, 43, 83, 157,

157, 158, 158, 188, 194, 201Clarke, Hans, 39, 278Cochran, Bill, 57, 57, 60–61, 61, 71Cohen, Seymour, 230, 230, 231Cohn, Waldo, 137Coiled-coils, 100, 100, 151–153, 152Cold Spring Harbor, 17, 18, 18, 39, 123,

124, 130, 138, 148, 245Conrad, Joseph, 284Corey, Robert, 165

α-helix work with Pauling, 30, 31, 118coiled-coils work with Pauling, 152photo, 225three hydrogen bonds in DNA

determination, 207triple helix, 166, 172, 173, 224

Cornford, Frances, 186“Cozy corners” and TMV (tobacco mosaic

virus), 116, 117, 130Creeth, James Michael, 197Crellin Laboratory of Chemistry, Caltech,

169Crick, Francis, 1, 13, 15, 44, 46, 63, 68, 79,

106, 107, 119, 125, 140, 142, 147,154, 157, 162, 163, 178, 180, 181,182, 183, 184, 186, 193, 198, 200,207, 221, 248, 272, 280

asks Wilkins for permission to restartDNA model building, 191, 191

ban on Watson and Crick working onDNA , 95–99, 95–98

base ratios, thinking about the signifi-cance of, 131, 135

bases, discussions with John Griffinabout interactions between, 131–136, 134

bases, experiments to examine interac-tions between, 150–151

Bragg, conflicts with, 5, 51–52, 51, 55,55, 74, 74, 95, 172, 185

building model of a DNA triple helix,80, 82–88, 85

building the double helix model, 208,211–219, 214

builds model of A form of DNA, 230,232

C2 space group, sees implications of,196

career after the double helix, 239, 240coiled-coils, research on proteins, 100,

100, 151–153, 152correspondence with Wilkins, ban on

Watson and Crick working onDNA, 96–98

costume parties, 60, 118Crick, Gabrielle (daughter), 185, 250,

254Crick, Jacqueline (daughter), 185Crick, Michael (son), 59, 59, 257, 258discusses TMV structure with Watson,

113, 115–117, 130discusses two or three chain models

based on photograph 51, 187–191dislikes Watson’s like-with-like base

pairing model, 205early life and career, 53, 53, 55, 55, 59,

59fellowship of a college, 6, 6Franklin is misinterpreting her A form

diffraction picture, 179Franklin’s A form photograph would

have worried him considerably, 179Franklin’s pleasure in discussing crys-

tallography with, 223–224

gene replication as the “perfect biologi-cal principle,” 132

helical theory for protein structure, 57–58, 60–61, 61–62

Hodgkin, Dorothy, visits with Watson,71, 71

home, “Green Door”, 58, 59, 82, 86home, Portugal Place, 160, 161, 161,

236importance of Watson to, 43Kreisel, George, friendship with, 77,

77, 152laugh, 4, 6, 52, 77, 153, 171marriage to Odile, 58, 58, 59Nature of the Chemical Bond, Christ-

mas gift to Watson, 101, 101Nature of the Chemical Bond, source

for sizes of ions, 75–76, 75Nature paper, correspondence about

and publication of, 222, 222, 223,232, 233–234, 235

Nobel Prize, 241–243, 243, 248, 250,251, 253, 254, 254, 255

Pauling, Linus, interactions with, 61,236–238

Pauling’s triple helix, impact of, 165,167, 171–175

Pauling’s writing style, influence of, 31personality, 5–6, 5, 83–84personality, Watson’s descriptions of,

3–6, 43, 43, 138photos, 5, 43, 52, 58, 61, 135, 161, 185,

211, 226, 236, 240, 250, 251, 254Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, 153,

171, 215, 216reads “dark lady” letter from Wilkins,

218, 219, 219reads MRC report, 194, 195reluctance to compete with Wilkins,

9–10research for Ph.D. thesis, 52–53, 55,

55, 95, 99, 100, 150role in Cavendish polypeptide structure

fiasco, 73–74secret of life, discovery of, 209, 209


339INDEX

self-replication of the gene as the perfect biological principle,131–132

shows double helix model to visitors,217, 221–222, 225–227, 227

Strangeways Laboratory, 53, 53, 54strategy for tackling DNA structure,

43–49The Double Helix, favorable assess-

ment after publication, 299–300The Double Helix, trying to prevent

publication, 283, 284–287,290–291, 291, 292, 293–295,296–298, 298

visit of King’s group to see incorrecttriple helix DNA model, 88–93, 91

Vogue, preferred to The Times forbreakfast reading, 59, 59

war work for Admiralty, designingmines, 53, 53

Watson’s misremembers Franklin’sdata on DNA water content, 71–73,71

What Is Life?, influence of, 7, 14wine tasting, 58women, enjoyment of, 60, 60, 61

Crick, Gabrielle, 185, 250, 254Crick, Jacqueline, 185Crick, Michael, 59, 59, 257, 258Crick, Odile (née Speed), 58–60, 58, 59,

86, 106, 118, 147, 153, 157, 159,160, 161, 162, 167, 186, 186,214–216, 216, 236, 240, 250, 287

Cuban missile crisis, 244, 246Cullis, Ann, 83, 240Cytoplasm viscosity, 54

D

Dachinger, Hugo “Puck,” 190Daily Worker, The (newspaper), 69Dark Lady letter, 218, 219Darlington, C.D., 68Davidson, J.N., 194, 194, 202, 203Delbrück, Max, 127, 137, 142, 144, 151

campaigns on Watson’s behalf overNRC fellowship, 275, 278

comments on Watson’s “folly” in pub-lishing bacterial genetics paper, 201,201

double helix model, description in a let-ter from Watson, 219, 225, 257,265–267

lack of interest in biochemistry, 17, 32,138

letter from Pauling conceding Watsonand Crick are probably correct, 237

letters from Watson, 20, 43, 77, 111,131, 137, 151, 161, 202, 227, 229,230, 238

letters to Watson, 201, 201, 224, 230like-with-like base pairing, description

in a letter from Watson, 201–202,225

paper with Pauling on intermolecularforces, 133, 133

passes news of the double helix to Paul-ing, 229, 229, 230

phage research with Luria, 17, 17, 18,19

photo, 124reports to Watson on Pauling’s triple

helix model, 224–225Watson complains about lack of women

in Cambridge, letter to, 161Watson enthuses about Crick to, 43, 138Watson reports frustration with the

King’s College group in a letter to,111

worries about the double helix unwind-ing during DNA replication, 227

Demerec, Milislav, 18Deoxyribonucleic acid. See DNADepartment of Genetics, Carnegie

Institute, 18DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)

A form (“crystalline”), 65, 179, 180,181, 182, 196, 230, 232, 240, 242

anti-helical views of Franklin, 178, 179B form (“wet”), 65, 179, 180–182, 187,

189–191, 194, 221– 224, 223, 232,236, 240

Bragg’s decision to end Watson andCrick’s early modeling attempts,95–99

C2 space group significance, 196chemical structure by Todd, 45discovery of base pairing, 207–208discovery of dry (A) and wet (B)

forms, 65Donohue’s contribution to the model,

221–222experiments by Avery, 7, 8Mg++ ions and divalent metal content,

84–85, 84, 91, 93, 151, 217model of double helix, 221, 226orientation of the helix, 214original demonstration model, 221phage work by Hershey, 123–124publication of the structure, 232, 233–

235, 235schematic of the double helix, 215self-replication, 227triple helix model of Pauling and

Corey, 164, 170–175, 172, 173, 178triple helix model of Watson and Crick,

80, 82–87, 85, 89–93Watson and Crick’s success in finaliz-

ing details of the model, 211–217X-ray diffraction pictures of DNA, 25,

48, 182DNA bases

5-hydroxy-methyl cytosine confirmsbase pairing, 230, 231

base plate used in the original model,214

Chargaff and base ratios, 130–131, 131,135, 136, 136, 151, 208

chemical structure of, 47–48, 47,204–205

Crick’s focus on forces between bases,150–151

Crick’s interest in base forces involvedin DNA replication, 132–136, 134

enol and keto forms of, 202, 204–205


DNA bases (continued)problem of fitting the bases into the

model, 194, 196–200, 199, 200Watson’s growing realization that the

enol base forms were incorrect, 202,203, 204–206, 206

Dodd, Doreen, 59Dohrn, Anton, 22Donohue, Jerry, 202, 203, 204, 205, 205,

206, 207, 208, 221, 221, 226, 236Doty, Helga, 243, 246Doty, Paul, 243, 246, 291, 293Double Helix (sculpture), 157Double Helix, The (Watson)

Bragg’s writing of the forward to TheDouble Helix, 285, 293–294

Chargaff’s review of, 299, 303–304,308

Crick’s objections to the book, 294–295, 296–298

Crick’s reaction to the book when itwas published, 299–300

dedication to Naomi Mitchison, 299Harvard University Press reneges on

publishing, 295manuscript changes made to

accommodate others, 290–291search for a publisher, 284–285success of the book, 301supporters of publication, 291,

292–293, 293title choice, 284, 286Watson’s determination to publish

without Crick’s approval, 291Watson’s response to Crick’s

complaints, 290Watson’s writing of, 283–284Wilkins’s objections to the book, 287,

288–290, 291Driesch, Hans, 22Dueling, 87, 87

E

Eagle, The (pub), 52, 52, 58, 83, 84, 89,162, 175, 209, 209, 212, 300

Eckardt, Maggi, 187Edmond de Rothschild, 143Edouard de Rothschild, Baroness, 143Edsall, John, 291, 293–295Ehrensvaard, G., 19Enders, John Franklin, 256, 256Enders, Thomas, 256Ephrussi, Boris, 138, 138, 144, 149, 227Ephrussi, Harriet, 138, 141, 227Eshag, Eprime, 84, 84Experientia, 131

F

Falkman, Kai, 249, 249, 256Fankuchen, Isador, 112, 112, 115, 115, 116,

118, 125Fell, Honor, 12Feynman, Richard, 132, 248, 248, 291Fourcade, Bertrand, 186–190, 187, 198,

212, 219Fourcade, Dominique, 187Fourcade, Vincent, 187Fourcade, Xavier, 187Frank, Frederick Charles, 116, 116, 117Franklin, Rosalind “Rosy,” 167, 175, 234,

236acceptance of double helix model,

222–224Adrienne Weil, letter to, 170altercation with Watson, 177–180Ann Sayre, letters to, 12, 66, 67, 154,

155, 170C2 space group, importance of, 196colleagues, comments on, 66, 67Colloquium November 1951, 63–66“Dark Lady” letter from Wilkins to

Crick, 218“Death of a Helix” postcard, 179discovery of A and B forms of

DNA, 65Furberg, copy of his paper, 82model building, dislike of, 64, 100,

125–126, 191, 272move to Birkbeck College, London,

154, 155, 170, 170, 218

MRC Report and, 194Nobel Prize, 242–243origin of nickname “Rosy,” 10, 10photograph 51, giving to Gosling, 181,

182photos, 10, 64, 113, 177, 240portrayal in The Double Helix, Wilkins’

comment, 287, 289, 290position of at King’s, 10, 11, 46record of an X-ray diffraction

experiment, 180TMV research at Birkbeck, 239–240unhappiness over move to London, 12use of King’s data by Watson and

Crick, 74, 84–87, 217, 236use of Signer DNA, 50, 180visit to Cambridge to see triple helix

model, 88–93Watson misreports her talk to Crick, 71Watson’s description of, 63–64, 64Wilkins, conflict with, 13, 49–50, 69,

151, 151, 153, 218writes paper with Gosling, 223, 232,

234Fraser, Mary, 87Fraser, R.D.B. (Bruce), 87, 181, 181, 232,

234Fry, Margery, 69Furberg, Sven, 80, 81, 82

G

Gamow, George, 132, 245, 245Genetics of Bacteria and Their Viruses

(Hayes), 147Gibbs, James, 213Gibbs Building, 212, 213Glaser, Don and Bonnie, 247–248Gold, Tommy, 131, 131, 132Goldwasser, Eugene, 27Goldwasser, Florence, 33Gordon Conference on Nucleic Acids and

Proteins, 113Gosling, Ray, 48, 125, 180

becomes Franklin’s student, 11C2 space group, importance of, 196



“Death of a Helix” postcard, 179DNA X-ray diffraction pictures taken

with Wilkins, personal account, 25Franklin, description of, 64Haldane and “untwiddle-ase enzyme,”

227photograph 51, giving to Wilkins, per-

sonal account, 181, 182photos, 87, 89, 93to tell Watson that Wilkins “has left

country,” 27visit to Cambridge to see Watson and

Crick triple helix model, 88–93visit to Cambridge to see Watson and

Crick triple helix model, personalaccount, 91

women in the King’s MRC BiophysicsUnit, 12

writing paper with Franklin, 222, 223,223, 233, 234

X-ray diffraction equipment, 25Graves, Robert, 69Green Door, 58, 59, 82, 86, 161Griffith, John, 131–133, 134–136, 134,

150, 151Grumbold, Thomas, 212Gulland, J.M., 197, 197Gustaf VI Adolf, 251Gutfreund, Herbert “Freddie,” 83, 83,

157, 161

H

Haeckel, Ernst, 22Haldane, J.B.S., 69, 76, 103, 103, 227Halliwell, Leslie, 193Hammarskjöld, Dag, 249, 256Hammersmith Hospital, 147, 153, 154Hammond, Nicholas G.L., 158, 158Harker, David, 153, 153, 216Harrison, R.G., 22Harvard University, 285Harvard University Press (HUP), 285, 290Hawksmoor, Nicholas, 213Hayes, Bill, 147, 147, 153, 154, 171, 171,

175, 257

Heffer and Sons bookshop, 213, 213Heisel, Jytte, 27Heisenberg, Werner, 133Hemingway, Ernest, 106Hemoglobin, 43–44, 51–52, 55, 74Hershey, Al, 18, 123, 124, 124, 230Hill, A.V., 53, 53, 55Hodgkin, Dorothy, 71, 71, 76, 112, 196Hoff-Jorgensen, E., 27Honest Jim, 1, 10, 284–287, 291, 295, 299Horace Mann Grammar School, 246, 247Houghton Mifflin, 284–285Hoyle, Fred, 131, 132Huggins, Charles, 241, 241Hughes, Arthur, 54Hughes, Henry Stuart, 244, 244Huldt, Ellen, 256Huxley, Hugh, 51, 61, 83, 83–84, 117, 127,

166, 167, 239, 239Huxley, Julian, 69Hyden, H., 19

I

Idlewild Airport, 119, 119Indiana University, 15, 15, 16, 32International Biochemical Congress, 137,

143International Poliomyelitis Conference,

32, 33

J

Jacob, François, 124, 125Jarnum, Audrey, 27Jencks, Charles, 157Jennings, Lady, 161Jerne, Niels “Taj,” 33, 151, 151Joad, CEM, 69John F. Kennedy International Airport, 119Jones, Monica, 284Jones, R.V., 116Jordan, D.O., 197, 197Jordan, Pascual, 133, 133J. Press (shop), 248Judson, Horace Freeland, 12, 136, 179, 219

K

Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes for Biochemistryand Biology, 115

Kalckar, Herman, 15, 25, 32, 239, 273Naples meeting, 15, 22, 24photos, 18, 19, 27, 33Watson’s attempt to learn biochemistry

under, 16–20, 20, 27Watson’s desire to work in Cambridge,

38, 38, 39, 273, 277–278Karolinska Institutet, 241, 241, 244Keilin, David, 118Kendrew, Elizabeth, 41, 79, 79, 158, 159Kendrew, John, 37, 79, 79, 100, 144, 152,

163–164association with Watson in Cambridge,

32, 32, 35, 53, 275, 276, 280hosts Chargaff’s visit to Cambridge,

135–136later career, 239misjudged polypeptide configuration

paper, 73, 73myoglobin research, 44, 44Nobel Prize win, 245, 245, 254opinion of Watson, 280–281photos, 32, 44, 61, 240provides lodging for Watson, 41, 41,

118, 158publication of The Double Helix, 292–

293, 294, 294supervises Francis Crick, 51–53writes to Maurice Wilkins about the

double helix model, 219Kennedy, Edward M., 244, 244Keynes, John Maynard, 6, 84Khrushchev, Nikita, 112, 246King’s College, Cambridge, 6, 6, 35, 35,

212, 213, 284King’s College, London, 9, 9, 12, 23, 43Kjeldgaard, Niels Ole, 27Klein, George, 291Klenow, Hans, 27Klug, A., 155, 196, 223, 240, 294Kornberg, Arthur, 241, 241Kreisel, George, 77, 77, 78, 152

341INDEX


L

Lamarr, Hedy, 193, 194Landau, Lev, 245, 245Langmuir, Irving, 153Lapp, C.J., 38, 273, 274, 277Larkin, Philip, 284Latarjet, R., 19Lebowitz, Joyce, 290Lederberg, Esther, 148Lederberg, Joshua, 147–149, 148, 149,

150, 171Leopold, Urs, 149Lessing, Doris, 107Lewis, Wyndham, 106, 106London, Ephraim, 295Lord Jim, 284Los Angeles Examiner, 121Los Angeles Times, 121Lucky Jim, 284Luria, Salvador, 219, 257

phages study, 16–17, 16–17scheme with Watson over the Merck

Fellowship, 39, 39, 40, 108, 109,127, 275–278, 280

support of Watson learning X-ray diffraction, 32, 32

withholding of his passport, 121–123,122, 123

Luzzati, Vittorio, 64, 155Lwoff, André, 124, 124, 125, 140–142,

140, 145, 227

M

Maaløe, Ole, 19, 19–21, 21, 33, 38, 151,257

Maddox, Brenda, 11, 179Maddox, John, 291Magdalen College, 76, 77Manhattan Project, 14, 23Maid of Morren, The, 103Markham, Roy, 32, 39, 39, 118, 135, 174,

275–277Martin, Lorna, 108Martin, Major-General, 108

Massey, Harrie, 14Matthew & Son Ltd., 58, 58, 213Maxwell, James Clerk, 3McCarthy, Joseph, 119McClintock, Barbara, 18McCullough, W.D.H., 69McIntosh, Denis, 103McLean, Donald, 189McNutt, Walter, 27Medawar, Peter, 299Medical Research Council (MRC) report,

194, 195Mellanby, Edward, 37Merck & Co., 20Merck Fellowship Board of the NRC

award of Merck Fellowship to Watson, 20

cancelation of Watson’s original fellow-ship, 39, 108–109, 109, 278, 279

conflict over Watson’s unauthorizedmove to Cambridge, 38–41, 273–281

Kalckar’s recommendation for Watsonto go to Cambridge, 38

Mering, Jaques, 64Meselson-Stahl experiment, 241Meyer, Vibeke “Vips,” 20Mg++ ions and DNA structure, 84, 84–85,

91, 93, 151, 217MI5, British Security Service, 123Mitchison, Avrion “Av,” 76–78, 76, 103,

104, 106, 107, 108Mitchison, Gilbert “Dick,” 103, 103, 104,

105, 107Mitchison, Graeme, 299Mitchison, Lois, 107Mitchison, Murdoch, 104, 107, 107, 108,

189Mitchison, Naomi, 103, 103, 104, 106,

106, 107, 107, 108, 299Mitchison, Val, 103, 104, 107Molecular Biology of the Gene (Watson),

284Monod, Jacques, 140, 150, 241Morgan, T.H., 22, 138Mott, Nevill, 3

MRC (Medical Research Council) report,194, 195, 196, 305, 306–308

Muller, Hermann, 15, 16, 133, 148Munro, Hamish N., 113Murdoch, Iris, 77Myoglobin, 32, 44, 44, 100, 111, 245

N

National Research Council, 20, 109, 273.See also Merck Fellowship Boardof the NRC

Nature, 31, 185, 185, 303Cochran-Crick paper on the Fourier

transform of an α-helix, 61–62Crick’s essay on the 21st anniversary of

the double helix, 300Crick’s paper on coiled-coils, 152–153,

152double helix papers, 181–182, 222,

229, 232, 233, 235Furberg’s paper on the structure of

cytidine, 80–81Perutz’ paper supporting Pauling’s α-

helix, 35spoof paper on “Terminology in

Bacterial Genetics,” 138, 149Nature of the Chemical Bond (Pauling), 75,

75, 100, 101New York Times, 301Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine

(1962)announcement and celebration, 242–244events, ceremony, and dinner, 249–252fellow winners, 242, 245formal addresses, 255Nobel week itinerary, 244–245nomination, 241racing Linus Pauling, 198, 212speeches, 252–254visits to Chicago and San Francisco,

246–248week’s conclusion, 255–256

North, Tony, 285Nye, John, 99



O

Orgel, Leslie, 76Oster, Gerald, 13

P

Paestum, Greece, 26Paolozzi, Christina, 187Parsons, J. Graham, 256, 256, 257Pauling, Ava Helen, 139, 141–143, 142,

237Pauling, Crellin, 142Pauling, Linda, 142–143, 142Pauling, Linus, 61, 73–75, 137, 191, 201,

204, 205, 221, 225, 225, 230, 240,242, 272, 290, 291, 294

α-helix polypeptide structure, 29–31,29–31, 32, 35, 35, 43–45, 48, 57,64, 73, 86, 212, 242, 242

coiled-coils and dispute with Crick,100, 151–153, 152

Crellin Laboratory of Chemistry, Caltech, 189

error in triple helix paper, 173–175,224, 224

intermolecular forces paper with Delbrück, 133, 133

model building strategy of, 43–45, 48,49, 64, 86, 111

Nature of the Chemical Bond, 75, 75,101, 101

Nobel Prizes of, 175passport difficulties of, 119–121, 120,

121, 138, 139, 139photos, 12, 45, 142reaction to the double helix model, 229,

229, 235–236, 237shows three hydrogen bonds between

guanine and cytosine, 207triple helix model of, 164, 165, 165,

166, 167, 169–173, 172, 173, 177,178, 181, 181, 183, 224, 224

visit to Cambridge to view double helixmodel, 234, 235–238

visit to the Abbaye at Royaumont,141–143

Watson and Crick race to beat, 150,151, 174, 175, 181, 183, 183, 185,212

Watson compares Crick to, 34, 138writes to Wilkins asking to see diffrac-

tion pictures, 12, 13, 13Pauling, Peter, 161, 163, 183, 188, 189,

191, 193, 198, 212, 221, 235, 238,239, 285, 290, 291

Ava Pauling and Watson discuss, 142,143

coiled coils controversy, 151, 152Linus Pauling’s triple helix, 164–165,

165, 170–173, 177, 224Linus Pauling’s visit to Cambridge,

235–236photos, 142, 165

Perch in Paradise, A (Bullard), 82Perfect Cosmological Principle, 131, 132Perutz, Max, 43, 55, 55, 80, 83, 89, 106,

138, 153, 157, 158, 161, 167, 171,174, 185, 188, 213, 294, 303

decision to end Watson and Crick’searly modeling attempts, 95, 96, 97,99

helical theory, 57, 60, 61, 61later career, 239, 239misjudged polypeptide configuration

paper, 51–53, 73, 74MRC report given to Watson and Crick,

194, 195, 299, 303, 306–308Nobel Prize, 44, 239, 245, 245, 250Pauling writes to about Crick’s coiled-

coil theory, 152photos, 4, 61, 245proves α-helix correct, 35, 35recounts how Bragg saved his career,

37response to Chargaff review, 299,

306–308role in Watson coming to Cambridge,

32, 32, 35, 37, 38, 38, 39, 39, 109,273, 275, 277

What Is Life?, opinion of, 7Phage Course, Cold Spring Harbor, 17

Philby, Kim, 189Photograph 51, 182Pippins & Pies, 60Pirie, N.W., 124–125, 125Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, 153, 216Pomerat, Gerard, 236Popsies, 60, 60, 136Portugal Place, 160, 161, 166, 167, 186,

189, 236Potato virus X, 116, 125Preston, R.D., 15Price, Vincent, 27Prior, Camille “Pop,” 161–162, 162, 186,

186, 188, 193, 206, 212, 237Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 21, 30, 171, 173, 175,201, 245

Profumo, John “Jack,” 103Pusey, Nathan M., 244, 244, 256, 290–

291, 294

R

Randall, John, 24, 25, 155, 222, 224, 236career of, 23cavity magnetron development, 23ending of Watson and Crick’s early

modeling attempts, 96, 97Franklin leaving King’s, 170, 182hiring Franklin to work on DNA, 10, 11MRC report, 194, 195Pauling’s DNA work and, 13, 166photos, 23, 68reputation for hiring women, 12

Raverat, Gwen, 186Rayleigh, Lord, 3Rex cinema, 193Rich, Alex, 166, 167, 214Richardson, Albert Edward, 188RNA Tie Club, 132, 245, 248Robbins, Frederick, 256Robinson, Robert, 121Rock of Gibraltar, 84, 84Roosevelt, Franklin, 120Rothamsted Experimental Station, 125

343INDEX


Rothschild, Victor, 188, 189Roughton, Alice, 118Roughton, F.J.W., 118Roughton, Geoffrey, 118, 118Rous, Peyton, 241Royal Postgraduate Medical School, 154Russell, Bertrand, 82Rutherford, Lord, 3, 3, 127

S

Sans Souci, 143, 143Sayre, Anne, 12, 66, 67, 154, 155, 170Schachman, Howard K., 113Schomaker, Verner, 173, 224, 225Schramm, Gerhard, 113, 113, 114, 115,

115, 125Schrödinger, Erwin, 7, 7, 14Science, 133, 133, 195, 299, 303–308Seeds, William “Willy,” 1, 1, 10, 87, 88,

93, 93, 284Sepia sperm, 180Shipley, Ruth B., 120Sibylla, Queen, 256Signer, Rudolph, 50, 180Snow, C.P., 283–284Snowdon, Lord, 226Solutions Three (Mitchison), 299Solvay, Ernest, 229Solvay Conference, 207, 229, 229, 235Spear, Frederick, 5Spiegelman, Sol, 140, 145, 145Statue Within, The (Jacob), 124, 125Stazione Zoologica Napoli, 22Steady State Theory, 132Steinbeck, John, 245, 249, 250, 250, 252,

252, 256, 256Stent, Gunther, 19, 19, 20, 27, 124, 303St. Lucia, 256, 256Stokes, Alex, 11, 49, 90, 90, 179, 181, 182Stokes-Cochran-Crick Theory, 62, 72, 181Strangeways, Thomas Pigg, 53Strangeways Laboratory, 5, 53, 53, 54, 55Sturtevant, A., 201Szilard, Leo, 14

T

Tea time for British academic institutions, 5

Thomson, J.J., 3Time, 120, 226Times, The, 59, 59, 72, 72, 79, 79, 121,

141, 158, 213Tiselius, Arne, 252Tissieres, Alfred, 1TMV (tobacco mosaic virus)

“cozy corners” and, 116, 117, 130Schramm’s evidence for protein build-

ing blocks and, 113, 114, 115start of Watson’s work with, 111, 111Watson’s pursuit of evidence of a TMV

helix, 116–118, 117, 126, 127–130,128, 129

X-ray work by Bernal and Frankuchen,112–113, 115, 115–116, 116, 125

Todd, Alexander, 45, 46, 46, 87, 217, 225–227, 227

Tolkien, J.R.R., 103Tompkins, C.G.H., 245Topoisomerase, 227Trenches, Great War, 4

U

“Untwiddle-ase enzyme,” 227

V

Vand, Vladimir, 57, 57Varsity, 226Visconti, N., 19, 140Vogt, Marguerite, 201Vorticists, 106

W

Walking in the Shade (Lessing), 107Watson, Elizabeth, 188, 193, 212, 236,

239, 242, 295attendance at Nobel events, 248,

248–249, 256Carradale visit, 104, 104, 106–107first meeting of Wilkins, 26–27

letters from her brother, 32, 36, 37, 39,41, 49, 76, 104, 108, 123, 126, 144,150, 157, 162, 186, 193, 273, 275,276, 278

Paris visit, 238photos, 27, 33, 104, 186types Nature paper, 232, 235

Watson, Jamesaltercation with Franklin over DNA

structure, 177–180arrival at Cambridge to learn X-ray

techniques, 35–37attempt to learn biochemistry under

Kalcker, 18–20bacterial sexes work on, 147–150, 150,

171bacteriophage work with Luria and

Maaløe, 16–21base pairs insight, 207–208biochemical congress, 134–145Bragg’s decision to end Watson and

Crick’s early modeling attempts,95–99

Bragg’s eventual permission to make amodel, 185

building a correct model of DNA, 207,209, 211–219

building a wrong model of DNA, 80,82–87, 85

Christmas holidays at Carradale, 103–107

complains to Delbrück about lack ofwomen in Cambridge, 161

costume party, 118criticisms of his bacterial genetics

paper, 201enthusiasm for tennis, 193excitement over Wilkins’s DNA work,

25–27fellowship renewal issues. See Merck

Fellowship Board of the NRCfriendship with the Mitchisons, 76–77,

76, 108frustration over not being allowed to

work on DNA, 111



holiday in Italian Alps (1952), 144,145, 269–272

housing situation in Cambridge, 41, 41ideas on DNA-RNA-protein relations,

162, 163impressions of Franklin and her talk on

DNA, 63–66, 64influence of Pauling’s style on, 31interest in Magdalen College, 76–77,

77investigations of divalent metal content

of DNA, 151Jacob’s impression of, 124letter to Delbrück after DNA structure

discovery, 265–267letters to his sister, 32, 36, 37, 39, 41,

49, 76, 104, 108, 123, 126, 144,150, 157, 162, 186, 193, 273, 275,276, 278

life at Clare College, 157, 157–159,161, 161–162

like-with-like base pairs, 198, 199,200–205, 200

Nobel Prize win. See Nobel Prize forPhysiology and Medicine

opinion of Crick, 43on Pauling’s appearance at the bio-

chemical conference, 138–143Ph.D. project change to phages, 16photos, 15, 19, 27, 43, 108, 124, 126,

141, 150, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251publication of his book. See Double

Helix, Therealization that the Pauling triple helix

model is wrong, 173–175response to the Chargaff review, 306–308spoof paper on genetic terminology, 149start of work with Perutz, 35TMV work. See TMVtriple helix model unveiling results, 89–93

trip to Naples, 22, 23–24walk with Doris Lessing, 107

Watson Sr., James, 242, 248, 248, 249Waves at Bessel-on-Sea, 90Weidel, Wolf, 19, 20Weigle, Jean, 29, 29, 30, 149Weil, Harmut, 86–87Weill, Adrienne, 170Weiss, Paul, 39, 40, 109, 275–278, 280Weller, Thomas, 256Westergaard, M., 19What Is Life? (Schrödinger), 7, 7, 14What Mad Pursuit (Crick), 74, 300Whim, The (restaurant), 158, 158,

201, 212Wilkins, Maurice, 1, 15, 23, 29, 32, 46, 65,

72, 74, 86, 90, 141, 150, 167, 175,177, 178, 180, 181, 183, 186, 214,217, 230

avoiding Watson, 27co-authorship with Watson and Crick,

rejects, 222correspondence with Crick, ban on

Watson and Crick working onDNA, 95, 95, 96–98, 100

Crick asks permission to restart DNAmodel building, 191, 191

“Dark Lady” letter to Crick, 218, 219,219

“Death of a Helix” postcard, 179Double Helix, The trying to prevent

publication, 283, 285–287, 288,289, 290, 294

early DNA photograph by Gosling andWilkins, 25, 48

Franklin, conflicts with, 10, 10, 11, 12,13, 49–50, 66, 69, 126, 151, 151,153–154, 155, 170, 179–180, 184,224

investigated by MI5, 123

lack of urgency in working on DNA,10, 100, 169–170, 183, 225

later career, 239, 240MRC report, 194, 195, 303, 306, 308Naples, meeting Watson, 15, 15, 23–27,

25Nature paper, correspondence about

and publication of, 222, 223, 232,233, 234

Nobel Prize, 242, 243, 248, 250, 250,252, 253, 255

“ownership” of DNA, 9–10, 111, 191Pauling’s request for data, 12, 13, 13photograph 51, 180–181, 182photos, 9, 49, 68, 87, 113, 190, 250reaction on seeing double helix model,

221–222, 221–222role in DNA research at King’s, letter

from Randall to Franklin, 11Signer DNA given to Franklin, 49–50, 50trip to Brazil, 140, 140visit to Cambridge to see triple helix

model, 87–93, 91war work, separating uranium for

atomic bomb, 13, 14What Is Life?, influence of, 7

Wilkinson, Denys, 158, 158Wilson, E.B. (biologist), 22Wilson, E.B. (editor), 201Wilson, Herbert, 180, 181Wilson, Tom, 285, 290, 294, 295Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 77, 159Wollman, E., 19Wright, Barbara, 19, 20, 33Wyatt, Gerry, 230, 230, 231Wyman, Jeffries, 141, 141, 142

Z

Zinder, Norton, 148

345INDEX


000 FrontMatter DH Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page i · PDF file000_FrontMatter_DH_Double...

Documents

Transcript of 000 FrontMatter DH Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page i · PDF file000_FrontMatter_DH_Double...