How to Remember a 'Flawed Giant': The Passing of James Watson, Co-Discoverer of DNA's Double Helix
James Watson, the scientific giant who secured his place in history for elucidating the code of life—the DNA double helix structure—passed away on November 6, 2025, at the age of 97.
His passing not only marks the end of an era, but also once again brings to the public forefront one of the most complex and thought-provoking legacies in the history of science. Watson was synonymous with genius, a pioneer who ushered in the molecular biology revolution; yet he was also a controversial figure constrained by his own prejudices, and some of his views and remarks have sparked debate within the scientificcast long shadows in the hall.
On April 6, 1928, James Watson was born in Chicago, United States. He displayed exceptional intellect from an early age, skipping grades to enter the University of Chicago at the age of 15. After reading physicist Erwin Schrödinger’s book *What is Life?*, Watson developed a strong interest in genetics, which charted the course for his future scientific career.
In the early 1950s, the mystery of DNA’s structure became the ultimate intellectual battleground for the world’s leading scientists. At that time, the scientific community generally accepted DNA as the genetic material, yet no one could unravel the secrets of its molecular configuration—it was as if everyone held a mysterious key but could not find the corresponding lock on the door of life. Then, the renowned American chemist Linus Pauling had already proposed a molecular model for DNA, although this model was later proven incorrect. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, two groups of scientists were engaged in intense competition: Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins at King’s College London were delineating the true structure of DNA through X-ray diffraction experiments.
In 1951, young American scholar James Watson met physicist Francis Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory of the University of Cambridge. The two instantly clicked, forming the most legendary partnership in the history of molecular biology. Their breakthrough relied heavily on Rosalind Franklin’s famous “Photo 51”—an X-ray diffraction image whose clear X-shaped pattern hinted at the existence of a double helix structure and proved key to unraveling the mystery of DNA. Maurice Wilkins showed Photo 51 to Watson without Franklin’s consent, an act that has become a widely debated episode in the history of science.
After obtaining the data, Watson and Crick grasped the core principle of “complementary base pairing”—adenine (A) always pairs with thymine (T), and guanine (G) pairs with cytosine (C), with the two DNA strands intertwining like a zipper. In 1953, the pair jointly published a thousand-word paper titled “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid” in Nature, announcing the discovery of the DNA double helix structure and ushering in the era of molecular biology. At the time, Watson was only 25 years old.
Figure: DNA double helix structure (Source: Sangharsh Lohakare/Unsplash)
This discovery unveiled the molecular mechanisms underlying the storage, replication, and transmission of genetic information, fundamentally transforming biology and medicine. Since then, modern life technologies—including gene therapy, human genome sequencing, monoclonal antibodies, and next-generation gene editing—have all been built upon the foundation of this double helix. As Bruce Stillman, current president of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, stated, “The elucidation of the double-helix structure ranks among the three greatest discoveries in the history of biology, alongside the findings of Mendel and Darwin.”
In 1962, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Franklin did not receive the Nobel Prize due to her untimely death in 1958 (the Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously). However, the glory surrounding the discovery of the DNA structure has always been accompanied by controversy. In their 2023 research article, historians of science Matthew Cobb and Nathaniel Comfort stated bluntly that Watson and Crick “could have—and should have—requested permission to use the data, and clearly explained their methods and data sources to Franklin, Wilkins, and the wider scientific community.”
History is set, yet what cannot be ignored is how genius and ethics, competition and cooperation, contribution and fairness intertwine to paint a complex portrait of human nature in this scientific revolution.
Following his Nobel Prize win, Watson’s scientific career continued to flourish. He taught at Harvard University and authored the highly influential textbook Molecular Biology of the Gene. In 1968, he assumed leadership of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, transforming it into a world-leading center for biological research. Furthermore, as a staunch advocate and the first director of the Human Genome Project, he made significant contributions to the first complete sequencing of the human genome.
Yet, as his fame grew, Watson’s remarks became increasingly brazen, gradually eroding his scientific aura.
For instance, after the discovery of the DNA structure, Watson was particularly unkind toward Franklin and held dismissive views regarding the role of women in science. In his best-selling book, The Double Helix, which details the process of discovering the double helix, he criticized Franklin’s appearance and wrote, “The thought inevitably arose that the best place for a feminist was in another person’s lab.” Furthermore, Watson made discriminatory remarks targeting women and the LGBTQ+ community; for example, he claimed that the presence of female scientists made male scientists’ work “more interesting,” but that their efficiency was “probably lower.”
In 2001, Watson delivered a lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, in which he made remarks linking skin color to libido and body type to ambition, shocking many in the audience.
In 2007, Watson canceled his book tour after claiming that Black people have lower intelligence than White people. At the time, he still held a position at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, but he was removed from his leadership role at the laboratory due to his remarks on race and intelligence. Watson also has a history of antisemitic comments, such as stating in 2007 that “some antisemitism is justified.”
In 2020, after Watson made similar remarks again, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory severed all ties with him and rescinded all his honorary titles.
Figure: Watson in his later years (Source: Wikipedia)
Many scientists who were mentored by Watson, including Nancy Hopkins, a molecular biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, felt both gratitude and distress over some of his remarks in his later years. Hopkins recalled that Watson had encouraged her to pursue a Ph.D. and staunchly supported her application for tenure, even stating, “Keep working. When you apply for tenure, if the letters of recommendation are strong enough, you will get the position. Otherwise, I will sue them.”
Hopkins candidly acknowledged that she was merely one of the many female researchers Watson had assisted. Precisely for this reason, she found it even harder to comprehend why such a genius, who had unraveled the mysteries of life, would hold such narrow and disappointing views on issues of gender and race. She stated, “That was the beginning of the end... I truly cannot explain what happened afterward.” This irreconcilable contradiction has left those close to him perpetually puzzled and regretful.
The Life of James Watson: A Striking Case of the Coexistence of "Genius and Prejudice"
His passing has once again sparked public debate over his complex legacy. From the perspective of scientific achievement, Watson is undoubtedly one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century. Together with his colleagues, he elucidated the double-helix structure of DNA, laying the cornerstone for the birth of molecular biology; this discovery stands as a milestone in the history of life sciences. Furthermore, Watson long led the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, driving scientific innovation and playing a pivotal role in major initiatives such as the Human Genome Project. In his autobiographical work, The Double Helix, he candidly and straightforwardly recounted the arduous journey of scientific exploration, shattering the stereotypical image of scientists as purely rational and lofty figures, and allowing the public to gain a more intuitive glimpse into the humanity behind scientific discoveries.
However, Watson’s achievements are accompanied by controversies that cannot be ignored. He has repeatedly made discriminatory remarks regarding race and gender in public settings. These statements have not only severely damaged his personal reputation but have also been widely criticized as contrary to the spirit of science, exerting a negative impact on society. His portrayal of Rosalind Franklin in The Double Helix is also considered biased, to some extent downplaying her significant contributions to the discovery of the DNA structure. This has drawn greater attention to historical issues of gender and academic injustice. Consequently, Watson is often viewed as a paradoxical figure in whom genius and prejudice coexist; his personality, achievements, and controversies continue to provoke reflection within both society and the academic community.
James Watson is both a distinguished figure who has made enormous contributions to scientific understanding and a controversial scientist known for his stubbornness and inflammatory rhetoric. As his colleagues have had to confront, people are now grappling with how to fairly evaluate an individual who has had a major impact on the history of science yet has repeatedly engaged in inappropriate speech and conduct. Perhaps there is no simple answer. Should we choose to celebrate only his outstanding scientific achievements, or must we also confront the negative consequences stemming from his flaws as a human being?
As the DNA double helix revealed the essence of life, Watson himself also exhibited the contradictions of human nature. Perhaps the fairest stance is to cherish and remember his scientific contributions, while neither avoiding nor condoning the prejudices he held and propagated.