History and Science United to Vindicate Perutz a Generous Team Player, He Was Backed by Colleagues in Clearing His Name Over DNA
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
correspondence History and science united to vindicate Perutz A generous team player, he was backed by colleagues in clearing his name over DNA. Sir — Floods of ink, electronic and actual, London team and Linus Pauling of Caltech. issue was to prove his innocence. “Watson have been spent on celebrating the fiftieth A year later, Perutz published a rebuttal asked … why I had not shown the report anniversary of the discovery of DNA’s to Lwoff and Chargaff, in which he to [Watson] and Crick immediately,”he structure, recollecting facts and testimonies described the non-confidential nature of wrote to Randall. “Was it because I did not from the protagonists (see www.nature.com/ the MRC report (Scientific American 221, want them to get on with the model, etc? nature/DNA50). A gripping correspondence 8; 1969 and Science 164, 1537–1538; 1969). And if the report was not confidential, then that I recently uncovered among the papers Why did it take him so long to respond? surely there was no need to ask your acquired by Jeremy Norman in Novato, What was not known until now is that permission to show it to them.” California, adds a further motif of Perutz’s brief rebuttals were the result of Perutz went into the historical evidence, reflection on one much-debated episode. backstage scientific teamwork starting in scrupulously interviewing his colleagues The facts are well known. André Lwoff 1968. This correspondence, which I have and MRC administrators while going of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, reviewing now uncovered, offers a fascinating look at through his initial draft, sentence by Jim Watson’s book The Double Helix a chorus of scientists determined to set an sentence, to build up a definitive version. (Athenaeum, New York; 1968), highlighted official version of events before the public, Two letters in particular are worth a crucial sentence that implied a breach and gives an insider perspective on the mentioning. Randall’s prompt reaction to of faith by Max Perutz, who seemed to politics of scientific discovery. being asked whether it was wise to open have given key scientific material to his “As you may have gathered,”Perutz the lid was to firmly advise leaving it to colleagues Watson and Crick (Scientific wrote to a colleague, “I am anxious to the historians. Maurice Wilkins, however, American 219, 133–137; 1968), without correct a story in Watson’s book which took the opposite view, because he thought permission. Soon after, biochemist Erwin suggests that I gave Watson and Crick a that science and its discoveries belong to Chargaff denounced Perutz for the same confidential report… I have now drawn up scientists, in the sense that they are the reason (Science 159, 1448–1449; 1968). the enclosed letter which I propose to send only ones who can fully understand them The precious information was part of to the Scientific American and to Science … and therefore say what the true facts are. a Medical Research Council (MRC) report Randall, Wilkins, Gosling and Crick have To quote the biochemist John Edsall, that Sir John Randall, director of King’s all agreed. So have Lwoff … and Chargaff. … presenting Perutz’s letter to the editor of College London, had circulated to all the Watson is writing an addition to my letter, Science: “An important issue of scientific members of the Biophysics Research with an apology for having misrepresented ethics is involved and the matter should be Committee, including Perutz, who visited the incident.” cleared up not only in order to do justice to his unit on 15 December 1952. As Watson Perutz, who died early last year (see Perutz but also because of the influence and Crick both acknowledged, the report, Nature 415, 851–852; 2002), was an extra- that this episode may have on other people.” containing Rosalind Franklin’s precise ordinary experimentalist, a hard worker at Marta Paterlini measurements, gave them an important the bench and a cautious man of science. Laboratory of Human Neurogenetics, clue that helped them unravel the anti- Not interested in the rat race, he just The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, parallel nature of DNA and scoop both the wanted to solve problems. This time, the New York, New York 10021, USA Were Cro-Magnons too look modern, so there is a suspicion that Multitude of reference they are indeed modern, the result of like us for DNA to tell? contamination. You report views that the styles delays publication DNA of Cro-Magnons can be studied only Sir — Your News report “Anthropologists if they were different from us. If they had Sir — Peter Kareiva et al. make a cast doubt on human DNA evidence” the bad luck to be like us, their sequences compelling argument in Correspondence (Nature 423, 468; 2003) refers to our study must remain unknown forever. (Nature 420, 15; 2002) that “slow-moving of two 24,000-year-old anatomically That is an unusual way to conceive journals hinder conservation efforts”.Our modern Europeans, whose mitochondrial science, and one that leads to paradox. If appraisal of the 14 journals they assessed DNA sequences were similar to those in we are to apply this criterion of certainty shows that time in review is at least partly today’s humans (D. Caramelli et al. Proc. to other areas, we should have abandoned related to length of reference sections, and Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 6593–6597; 2003). anaesthesia (it may have side effects), air citation lists in the three conservation and You report views from the community that transportation (planes can fall down), applied-ecology journals are among the ancient DNA evidence cannot be used to cooked food (it may burn your fingers) and longest. Although many factors affect draw conclusions about the evolution of sexual reproduction (you might get AIDS). speed of publication, surely time lost modern humans because of fundamental If it can be shown that there is an error by scientists and scientist-editors on problems in the technique. in our paper, we shall be happy to formatting journal-specific reference The criticisms you report are not based reconsider our conclusions. Should our sections is one of the most frustrating. on the quality of our study. Neither of the results be confirmed, we will be even There may not be as many reference quoted specialists questions our method- happier. But if we did all the right things, styles as there are journals, but sometimes ology, which was defined by one of them as seems to be the case so far, it seems this can appear to be the case to a (A. Cooper and H. N. Poinar, Science 289, irrational to question our study just beleaguered author. The considerable time 1139; 2000). The problem is in the results. because one never knows. wasted on formatting citation lists into a None of the nine tests we carried out Guido Barbujani, Giorgio Bertorelle journal’s style is exacerbated by the high suggests contamination by modern DNA, Department of Biology, University of Ferrara, likelihood of a submitted paper being but the ancient sequences we determined Via L. Borsari 46, 44100 Ferrara, Italy rejected and requiring resubmission NATURE | VOL 424 | 10 JULY 2003 | www.nature.com/nature © 2003 Nature Publishing Group 127 correspondence elsewhere, perhaps more than once. The between control and experimental groups the start of the second sentence, and bibliographic software developed to assist (as in Fig. 4 of ref. 4) have a visual advantage to make it the subject of the sentence with formatting citations only encourages over graphs that show multiple experiments followed by an active verb, was to the problem, in that individuals and on the same axis (see Fig. 3 of ref. 5). emphasize that it is only because of this institutions are compelled to spend their Scientific journals often insist on a very marker and its continuous expression limited money on products that require traditional, bland presentation of text and that identification of a somitic tendon scientists to spend time learning software graphics. Perhaps a more creative approach progenitor population has become rather than doing research. And, of course, to this on the part of editors would benefit possible. Placing this information later the software does not encourage progress writers and readers alike. in the sentence obscures the gene’s toward standardization. To summarize, before an author importance to the research and cheats the A common citation format, familiar to submits a paper to a journal, he or she reader of the excitement of discovery — all, would be sensible. It has been achieved should ask what kind of visual impact it of Scleraxis as well as the somitic tendon for online versions of papers with the has. Attention to this question would not progenitor population it marks. In short, Digital Object Identifier system (DOI), so only improve the paper’s readability but Swan’s preferences, and mine, come down it should be possible for print journals. would also allow referees to concentrate on to a question of nuance and style. Coordination could be undertaken by an data without getting frustrated by the lack While I agree that science writers organization such as the International of clarity. It might even decrease the should strive for clarity, they must be given Council for Science via its committee on rejection rate of essentially good papers. the same latitude as writers in other dissemination of scientific information, Marek H. Dominiczak, Kathy McFall disciplines to temper traditional rules of or the Society for Scholarly Publishing. Medical Humanities Unit, Gartnavel General usage with individual stylistic choices that Certainly, the substance of papers in Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, enhance what they want to communicate.