Ishiyama 1

The Double Helix is an autobiographical account by James Watson, about one of the most
important discoveries in modern biological research. This book garnered much attention from
both the scientific and the literary communities. It was a scientific journal unlike any before it as
it told Watsons first-hand account on the research done to finding the structure of the double
helix. Unlike most scientific works, The Double Helix also drew attention to the personal lives
and relationships of the scientists outside of research. The book also drew out many
controversies surrounding the research conducted by Watson and his team, to the point that
Harvard, the university Watson worked at, would not publish the book in fear of it offending
someone (Sullivan, xxiv-xxv). Reviewers of the book both embraced and scolded the book
which is likely due to the James Watsons expression of his candid, unaltered views and opinions
in the writings of his book, no matter how harsh or short-sighted.
Watsons book, The Double Helix, gained many opponents upon publishing. Critics such
as Robert Sinsheimer and John Lear feared that the book would, have a corrupting effect on the

How is Honest Jim?

impressionable minds of high school and college students (Stent, 165). The basis of
Sinsheimers criticism is most clearly displayed in the end of his review stating that The Double
Helix portrays the scientist as one who is, clawing up a slippery slope using, cadged data
with malice towards most and with charity for none (Sinsheimer, 194). This view that
Sinsheimer and Lear possess is not without its evidence. It is portrayed clearly in Watsons book
that his ambitions and actions he was willing to take are calculated and scandalous. One clear-cut
example is when his sister begins to converse with Maurice Wilkins, James Watson hopes their

Ishiyama 2
relationship would build so that he could get close to Wilkins research on X-Ray work on DNA
(Watson, 24). Despite his claims that he partially wanted the relationship for his sisters sake, it
seemed apparent that most of his pure intention was to get close to Wilkins work.
Another critic, Mary Ellmann, brings light to one of the more well-known controversial
topics that The Double Helix presented which is that surrounding Rosalind Franklin. Ellmann
condemns Watsons depiction of Franklin in that Watson portrayed her as being masculine and
that she refused to exert her feminine charm she wore no lipstick [and] dressed dowdily
(Ellmann, 191). The critique of Watsons apparent sexist view and demeaning portrayal of
Rosalind Franklin is also observed in a less direct manner in Erwin Chargaffs review, A Quick
Climb Up Mount Olympus. The indirect critique of Watson is noted in the manner in which
Chargaff uses Franklins name. He describes Watsons work as containing a merciless persiflage
concerning Rosy (Chargaff, 1449). It is in the immediately following sentence where Chargaff
states about knowing, Miss Franklin personally (Chargaff, 1449). By juxtaposing both Rosy
and Miss Franklin, Chargaff somewhat sarcastically and indirectly denounces the manner in
which Watson portrays and addresses Rosalind Franklin. Chargaff also criticizes Watson for not
giving enough credit towards Rosalind Franklin by stating that she had made a clearly important
contribution towards the research and, a careful reading even of this book will bear [that] out
(Chargaff, 1499). This criticism, though not directly stated, reproaches Watson for his lack of
recognition of Franklins contribution.
One of the strongest points that many critics seem to drive forwards is the motive in why
Watson was trying to solve the mystery of DNA. Ellmann puts it plainly, what was Watsons
motive? Fame, of course (Ellmann, 189). The ideal that science is pursued purely for the pursuit
of knowledge has been revealed as a falsehood. The Double Helix contains many instances that

Ishiyama 3
clearly state that the finding of the structure of DNA was not purely for scientific curiosity. In
Robert K. Mertons review, Making it Scientifically, it is explained that to Watson, finding the
answer to DNA was a race, mainly against Linus Pauling. When Watson learns of Paulings
misguidedness towards an alpha-helix structure for DNA, Watson responds with delight and
states that, though the odds still appeared against us [Watson and Crick], Linus had not yet won
his Nobel (Merton, 214). Because of the nature in which Watson received the Nobel Prize, and
his ambitions for only the Nobel Prize, Lewontin states that by acquiring the prize, Watson
devalues [the image of the prize], debasing the currency of his own life (Lewontin, 187).
Even with all the negative reviews and the shortcomings of the book, it cannot be said
that Watsons The Double Helix is not an excellent piece of literary work. Alex Comfort, in his
review Two Cultures No More, praises Watsons ability to bring out the characters as people
rather than a caricature (Comfort, 199). Peter B. Medawar believes, in his review Lucky Jim,
that the book will become massively popular and deserves to be so (Medawar, 223). Medawar
believed that it is the candid nature of the book that would make it so successfully. He does
admit that the nature of the book and its honesty would most likely offend some people, but it is
the truthfulness in which Watson writes that makes it such a great work (Medawar, 223). Other
reviewers shared the view that Watson voiced his literary work, perhaps too honestly. A recurring
theme continues to occur which surrounds Honest Jim, alluding to a previous manuscript, of
the same name, which was bombarded with much criticism about how it was, gratuitously
hurtful in its characterizations of many people (Stent, xxiii).
It is not only the skill in which Watson writes that make it such a success, it is also the
insight that the book gives on the actual method in which research is conducted. Rather than
write a scientific journal in the classic sense, Watson provides a story that gives insight into the

Ishiyama 4
nature of scientific research done in a way that is engaging and enjoyable to the reader. The
quality of the book lies not only in the presentation, but also in the amazing insight to the views
and life of James Watson. Robert K. Merton explains it perfectly in his review Making it
Scientifically where he describes the book as containing mixed motives of pleasure, contest and
reward. Merton also praises the non-linear path that Watson took in his scientific endeavors as
well as the nagging yet productive symbiosis in which neither could really do without the
special abilities of the other (Merton, 214). This new angle on how the scientific world works is
one of the special qualities of Watsons book that makes it such a desirable piece of literature.
Watsons book The Double Helix is one that is praised as highly as it is denounced
harshly. The book is both criticized for containing sexist, arrogant and injuring content as well as
praised for the great literary work that it is. Watson writes the book in a candid, revealing and
honest voice, which in turn might be the reason why some of what is said could be seen as cruel
and arrogant. Sinsheimer attacks Watson for this when he critiques the condescending tone of
Watson when referring to other scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrowminded and dull, but also just plain stupid (Sinsheimer, 192-193). These words by Watson are
words that Watson probably believes in. This honesty, while bringing forth a light to the inner
mind of James Watson, is also Watsons largest enemy to the image he portrays in his research
and himself as a person. There is a story that is told in the preface of The Double Helix where
Watson encountered Willy Seeds, a former colleague, while hiking in the Alps and all Seeds says
is, Hows Honest Jim? (Watson, 7). As Andre Lwoff would conclude his review, one can only
wonder, Yes, how is Honest Jim? (Lwoff, 234)