The Theorist Ridley Makes No Mention of a Meeting She Had Then with the Physicist Alexander Stokes and a Half a Dozen Scientists and Laboratories to Solve
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NATURE|Vol 443|26 October 2006 AUTUMN BOOKS the spring of 1950 (not in December, as Ridley writes). She joined the lab in January 1951, and The theorist Ridley makes no mention of a meeting she had then with the physicist Alexander Stokes and a half a dozen scientists and laboratories to solve. graduate student, Raymond Gosling, at which Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Crick himself did very little of the laboratory John Randall, the lab’s director, gave her a sup- Genetic Code work. Rather, he was the explicator, the arbiter, ply of the best DNA they had and appointed by Matt Ridley the taskmaster. Gosling her assistant. Crucially, Wilkins was HarperCollins: 2006. 213 pp. £12.95, $19.95 Crick was above all the theorist — and that’s away on vacation. Franklin had every reason Horace Freeland Judson the unifying thread. Not just with the coding to think the DNA was exclusively hers. When Any biographer of Francis Crick faces a dif- problem but throughout his career, Crick was Wilkins returned and expected to collabo- ficult problem: he was the greatest biologist the one who put other scientists’ thoughts in rate with her, she shut him out. He grumbled of the latter half of the twentieth century, yet order. He soaked up data, mostly other people’s, about her to Crick and Watson, and in Feb- his life was curiously one-dimensional. It was but saw beyond the data to their meaning, their ruary 1953 he notoriously showed Watson an intensely concentrated but narrowly focused. shape, their implications. He found principles, X-ray diagram she had obtained — which they By far the most important part of his life was and did it with a preternatural clarity of mind interpreted as she had failed to do. his science, and because of his pre-eminence and in inimitable style. Crick’s boldest, most enduring exercise in and unique role, his life was the life of his sci- theory came in a remarkable paper, “On pro- ence in his day. And what a day it was — the tein synthesis”, that he read at a meeting in Sep- golden age of molecular biology. tember 1957. It culminated in what he called A biography will therefore be shaped by stra- the ‘central dogma’ of molecular biology: “Once tegic choices: how far to go in addressing the ‘information’ has passed into protein it cannot other dominant aspects of Crick’s life and per- get out again.” Information here meant “the sonality — his vivid sexuality and his obdurate precise determination of sequence”, either atheism — and, more importantly, at what of bases in nucleic acids or of amino acids level of detail to treat the science. Crick in proteins. This was a characteristically was erotically hyperactive and successful, practical assertion. At a time when so although not predatory as far as I know. much was still to be learned, it ruled Matt Ridley does write of this, lightly out great swaths of speculation. Yet it and tactfully — an acknowledgement has great philosophical force, for it is a rather than an examination. That’s fine. radical statement of the physiological The atheism was rooted and militant. reason why the inheritance of acquired Ridley introduces it where it determined traits cannot occur. Crick’s choice of problems: molecular The paper forever altered the funda- biology in the late 1940s to dispel the last mental logic of biology. And it epito- traces of vitalism, neurobiology in the mizes Crick’s essential intellectual style. 1970s to demystify consciousness. All well Throughout the book, Ridley’s account, and good. But I came away from the book despite ticking off the wide range of regretting that Ridley did not engage Crick’s Crick’s scientific interests and accomplish- science and his intellectual style more closely, ments, seems to convey only fuzzily the because here lies the richness of Crick’s life. scope, the rigour, and beyond that the clarity As Crick’s first biographer, Ridley has missed and energy that Crick displayed — the basis, a unique opportunity. He could have been after all, of his dominance of the field. definitive, pre-empting later biographers. This In 1976, Crick moved from Cambridge to book is one of a series, under the rubric ‘Emi- the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California — and nent Lives’, intended to be short, snappy pair- from molecular biology to neurobiology, in ings of top people with strong writers. Ridley is particular the neural, cellular basis of con- an established science journalist who writes a sciousness. He winnowed the literature, then pleasant, ambling prose. But he has not reached with new colleagues put forth a succession to the well-springs of Crick’s singular role. In the interplay with Watson that led to the of ideas and strictures. As he himself recog- The subtitle is symptomatic, for Crick was structure of DNA, it is clear that while Watson nized, he did not get far. Yet, as Ridley writes, both less and far more than “discoverer of the had the immediate visual insights, Crick Crick’s interest, his unflagging skill at incisive genetic code”. Breaking the code was a para- framed their approach in general terms. Rid- gen eralization, and his reputation made the digmatic example of collective–competitive ley, by necessity, tells the old familiar story of physiology of consciousness respectable. His effort. The idea that there must be a code had the discovery, but he fails to capture the nature style persisted. been put forward in 1944 by the physicist of the intellectual interaction — or the psy- Ridley’s book is marred by factual errors, Erwin Schrödinger. From the moment in the chological dimension, which was driven by which perhaps ought to be beneath the atten- spring of 1953 when Crick and James Watson Watson’s intense admiration of Crick’s prowl- tion of a brief review, yet they occur in such a announced the structure of DNA, the need ing, relentless intelligence and by his envy of swarm that they sap the reader’s confidence. to determine how the structure carries the Crick’s success with girls. For example, the first experimental sighting of code was obvious. That summer, the eccen- Ridley also fails to reach the origins of the what came to be recognized as messenger RNA tric physicist George Gamow was the first to historic conflict between the other scientists was made not by two Russian scientists, as propose an actual mechanism, wildly wrong working for the structure, Rosalind Franklin Ridley writes, but by Elliot Volkin and Lazarus but forcing the question. The task itself — to and Maurice Wilkins at King’s College Lon- Astrachan, both American born, who worked identify which of the 64 triplet codons of the don. Wilkins had been getting important new at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Ten- four bases in DNA specify which of 20-odd X-ray-diffraction patterns from DNA. Frank- nessee. Again, writing of the French molecu- amino acids — took several years and at least lin, an X-ray crystallographer, was recruited in lar biologist Jacques Monod, Ridley lists his 917 ©2006 Nature PublishingGroup AUTUMN BOOKS NATURE|Vol 443|26 October 2006 remarkable qualities: sailor, cellist, and so on, all of France. After the war he quietly dropped of the bayesian approach. Pragmatically, the and includes “communist”, without explana- out, until in 1948 he publicly denounced the two interpretations should be considered tion. This is a reprehensible distortion. Monod fraudulent claims of Stalin’s geneticist and sci- as complementary, rather than competing. joined the French communist party during the ence chief, Trofim Lysenko — and with terrific Undoubtedly, bayesian inference has profound war for just one reason, he told me: it was the effect. ■ implications as it concerns critical thinking only way he could have any influence on the Horace Freeland Judson is at 807 West and may lead to a deeper understanding of strategy and tactics of the armed resistance, in University Parkway, Baltimore, the scientific method. However, the ability to which he then rose to chief of operations for Maryland 21210, USA. develop a new hypothesis or theory relies in the end on scientists’ creativity, something that can hardly be delimited within a methodological framework. Coping with uncertainty I have a minor observation. Randomness, which is intrinsically related to probability, deserves a more detailed discussion than is suffer deeply from an incorrect use of statistics. given here. In particular, the Monte Carlo From Cosmos to Chaos: The Science of To illustrate how probability theory works, method is mentioned only briefly, despite its Unpredictability Coles presents some intriguing and often importance and wide use in virtually every by Peter Coles Oxford University Press: 2006. 224 pp. surprising examples, encouraging readers to branch of science. £25, $44.50 think for themselves and providing them with Altogether, the book provides a truly enjoy- material to entertain and amaze their friends. able overview of the role of probability in sci- Gianpietro Malescio I particularly appreciated the historical notes ence, as well as in everyday life. It is aimed If the process through which civilization and lively anecdotes that highlight the famous essentially at non-specialist readers, but even evolved were condensed into a few words, these and less well-known personalities who con- those who are familiar with its contents will could be: posing questions, finding answers. tributed to the development of the statistical enjoy the stimulating presentation. Finally, As those with children know well, wondering about the world is intrinsic to human nature. This attitude is generally lost as we grow up (life is a tough business), but a good scien- tist retains it as an adult.