books and arts Completing the helix trilogy , who shared a Nobel with Crick and Watson, tells his story.

The Third Man of the Double Helix: The Autobiography of Maurice Wilkins by Maurice Wilkins Oxford University Press: 2003. 274 pp. £16.99, $27.50 The first story of the discovery of the struc- ture of DNA was The Double Helix, Jim Wat- son’s racy account in 1968. Twenty years later, published What Mad Pursuit, a more scholarly heavy-going personal view of scientific discovery. The Nobel laureates’ trilogy is now completed by Maurice Wilkins’ autobiography, The Third Man of the Double Helix. In addition, we have Brenda Maddox’s Maurice Wilkins (left) studied nucleic acids at King’s College London under (right). very readable biography of (see 418, 725–726; 2002). What shines muddle,leading ultimately to the truth.Not at “as science becomes increasingly global and through in all of these books is their common all the logical process set out in the published interdisciplinary,the idea of anyone standing agreement that it is the importance of DNA papers,which were written after the event. up like someone at the top of Everest becomes that makes the story of the people concerned It is fascinating to learn how close the labs increasingly inappropriate.” He goes on to worth telling. As Crick said: “It is the mol- in Cambridge and London came to arrang- discuss the work that he, and ecule that has the glamour, not the scientists.” ing formal collaboration on DNA research, their colleagues at Kings did over the next Wilkins’ autobiography gives us an inti- but that Wilkins turned it down, apparently seven years to establish the correctness of the mate picture of a thoughtful, introspective with Randall’s support. This led to a mora- Watson–Crick model. He also writes charm- man who has devoted his life to the pursuit of torium agreed by Randall and Lawrence ingly that it was during this period that he science and its impact on society.The buoyant Bragg, director of the met Patricia, who has mellowed this lonely, sense of fun in the labs at King’s College Lon- in Cambridge,that Watson and Crick should doubt-torn man into a happy father of four. don, under the strong direction of John Ran- stop working on DNA modelling. Chapters four to nine make most informa- dall,does not emerge as clearly as it might.For In the chapter entitled “The Double tive and interesting reading, from the discus- the lay reader I doubt if things will leap off the Helix”,Wilkins lays claim to having realized sions of X-ray diffraction to how it feels to be page as they do in Watson’s The Double Helix. that ’s base ratios were impor- told by a journalist you’ve never heard of that In the first three chapters,Wilkins sets out tant to the structure of DNA. But he admits you have won the Nobel Prize. However, there his ancestry. He establishes the provenance that he had not realized that specific pairing are three omissions from the account of the of his social conscience, which has so influ- linking the phosphate–sugar strands to one period surrounding the 1960 Lasker award, enced his work on the social impact of sci- another with equivalent X-ray scattering ties won by Wilkins, Crick and Watson: Wilkins’ ence over the past two decades. But for me would explain the predominantly helical election to the Royal Society in 1959,his being the book only really comes alive when we diffraction pattern,which would be unaltered made Companion of the British Empire in reach chapter four, “Randall’s circus”.How- by any combination of base sequences. This 1962,and the knighthood given to Randall for ever, this may be because I joined the ‘circus’ has always seemed to me to have been the services to science in 1962. So many personal in 1949 and can subconsciously fill in the quantum leap that Watson made,and shows details are proffered to the reader, yet these backdrop to the words from my first-hand the advantages of model-building. events are excluded;I wondered why. knowledge. Although I didn’t know until I Wilkins eloquently describes his feelings at I have mixed feelings about this book,writ- read the book that Wilkins had tried, unsuc- seeing the double-helix structure for the first ten as it is by someone I worked closely with cessfully, to persuade Randall to give Crick a time: “It seemed that non-living atoms and and greatly admire. I sometimes found his job at King’s College — ah,if only! chemical bonds had come together to form life ‘warts and all’approach to the details of his life The next chapter takes the reader into the itself. I was rather stunned by it all.”This sums almost embarrassing, and feel a little resentful detail of DNA. This is set well into a general up beautifully how Franklin and I felt. It was that I will now share such intimacy with the context, showing the breadth of Wilkins’ so elegant an explanation of all of the complex thousands who will read the book. However, interests and contacts with other scientists. properties required of DNA, and contained this personal account of the way in which However, his account of his first meeting so many elements familiar from our own work important research was conducted may well with Franklin seems to be coloured heavily using X-ray diffraction. At the time I did not achieve one of the author’s intentions,making with hindsight. This chapter gets to the heart know that Wilkins was offered co-authorship everyone realize that they can, and should, of their relationship, describing the growing by Watson and Crick, but refused. It would make the effort to play a part in influencing polarization between them in their different certainly have been appropriate, and seems to the way that science is shaping our world. I approaches to seeking the structure of DNA.It be something that he later came to regret. Raymond Gosling is emeritus professor of is worth getting this book just for this chapter In discussing the model, Wilkins men- applied to medicine, United Medical and Dental and the next, which portray the way that tions many of the scientists concerned with Schools, . Please address successful scientific research is often actually laying the foundation of knowledge on which correspondence to Ruth Francis, King’s College done — a crab-like procession of mistakes and the structure rests. He perceptively writes: London, 57 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8WA, UK.

NATURE | VOL 425 | 30 OCTOBER 2003 | www.nature.com/nature © 2003 Nature Publishing Group 901