[underlipton]

I'll be the one to sacrifice my Internet Points by bringing up the notion that the question of who discovered DNA's structure is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant. It is, of course, primarily and famously the specter of the erasure of women from scientifically and socially significant developments, the thematic subject that this article addresses.

There is another aspect of this significance, however, in the way that James Watson's impropriety - in his work, and in his telling of the story of his work - reflects on, and is reflected by, his later racist and sexist intellectual misadventures. The myth of a singular - well, dual - genius who moves humanity forward lends credence to his bigotry - how can the father of genetic science be wrong about the influence of genetics on society? - while the truth dashes that credibility (without necessarily undoing the significance of his actual contributions). And it is a controversy that gets re-litigated perennially not because people truly care that much about the discovery or discovers, but because our understanding of these events underpin beliefs, our understanding of the world, that are as sharply relevant today as a shard of glass.

To retreat to attempting an exhaustive reconstruction of events might be comfortable, but it is also a bit dangerous - it assumes a totality of understanding that may be found wanting - and, more importantly, it misses the core of why the controversy exists in the first place. Peer esteem may be foremost on an academic's mind, but we've long left the ivory tower on this one.

[dang]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here but this is the sort of flamewar tangent that the HN guidelines ask users not to take threads on. Please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[khazhoux]

> erasure of women

Is there any reason to believe that they would have been more generous in giving credit had the work been from a man? And are there not dozens of other researchers who Watson and Crick drew inspiration and results from, who are not listed on the Nobel Prize?

[anonymouskimmer]

> Is there any reason to believe that they would have been more generous in giving credit had the work been from a man?

The what-ifs of one specific notable instance doesn't really matter. This is merely being used for illustrative purposes.

It is also the case that it is not just women who are denied credit, but until relatively recently it was common practice to not even think to give equal credit to women.

> And are there not dozens of other researchers who Watson and Crick drew inspiration and results from, who are not listed on the Nobel Prize?

This direct? No. Franklin generated the key bit of information from which anyone generally adept in the discipline of the time could verify the double-helical nature of DNA.

[peterfirefly]

> No. Franklin generated the key bit of information

No. Her student did.

[anonymouskimmer]

Sure. Under direction from her. This is another problem entirely in the Sciences, and society in general (particularly looking at politics).

[unmole]

> This is merely being used for illustrative purposes.

Stated more cynically, it's being used to craft a narrative in support of an agenda.

[anonymouskimmer]

I don't see inductive reasoning used for debate as particularly cynical.

[jyscao]

>how can the father of genetic science be wrong about the influence of genetics on society? - while the truth dashes that credibility

That's your own biased judgment. Others may perceive what happened as Watson speaking truth to power, and paying the price for it.

[underlipton]

I think you misunderstood. In referring to "truth", I wasn't addressing the veracity of Watson's statements (which, however you come down on that, were objectively racist, in the sense of making judgments based on race). I was talking about his impropriety, the truth of which even TFA admits (even if it emphasizes his attempts to later "correct" the record). Watson used a colleague's work in a way that appears less than on-the-level. Watson misrepresented the events of the discovery in which he played a major part. That is what would lead a dispassionate observer, without bias, to reasonably question his statements, especially ones which we are expected to accept, in part, based on the strength of his record.

[jojobas]

He was not judging based on race, he was asserting that other attributes are correlated with race.

[underlipton]

He was making a prediction of capability, based on attributes which he chose to couch in terms of race, and which have inconclusive applicability to the capability in question. Notably, those attributes are known to be affected by, as opposed to the cause of, the outcomes which that capability is supposed to effectuate.

[phs318u]

If you’re referring to Watson’s 2007 claim that Africa is unlikely to succeed n part because of the inhabitants’ inferior intelligence, as the “truth” he is speaking to “power” perhaps it is you who are biased.

[notsosec]

Power in the sense he got completely cancelled in the west for saying things that are not considered taboo in other parts of the world.

[saghm]

I think most people consider "truth" to require a higher threshold than "some people believe it somewhere".

[peterfirefly]

The problem is that all our empirical data back up his (quite mild) point of view, whether we like it or not. I don't like it and don't think he does either.

[908B64B197]

> is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant.

I feel there's a push now to go find people of the right race or gender that were adjacent to scientific achievement and somewhat exaggerate their contributions or their importance. Like Ada Lovelace or Katherine Johnson. There's even a British government employee who decided to write 1000+ wikipedia pages for early career scientists of the same gender as her [0].

I don't know how this trend is going to look back in retrospect, because to me this could have the side effect of reinforcing impostor syndrome for people of the same demographics.

> how can the father of genetic science be wrong about the influence of genetics on society?

What does Gregor Mendel has to do with this?

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/10/17/jess-wad...

[tpoacher]

Quite. It is likely true that deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined what's commonly referred to as Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics. Revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility, and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of "objectivity".

It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical "reality", no less than social "reality", is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific "knowledge", far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities.

[californiadreem]

To be fair, if you want to go drown in the cosmic ocean of unbeing, I don't think anyone, hegemon or no, is stopping you but your own self-imposed linguistic and social structures.

It is ultimately an irony that the epistemological position--that Civilization is fundamentally about domination and cannot stand marginalized or dissident narratives--has only and could only flourish under civilizations in their least-connected-to-quotidian-life institutions. It requires being sheltered to recognize that ultimately everything is a social and linguistic construct. Everyone else doesn't have the luxury and are just trying to survive.

Even further, the idea that everything reduces to social and linguistic games isn't new. It is one of the oldest ideas in history found in both Buddhism (through depedent coarising) and in Graeco-Roman philosophy culminating in Christianity (the Logos). Both institutions developed monasticism for precisely the same reasons.

This world isn't real. You have to be out of this world to see the illusion behind it and to be free from it.

Everyone does not have to stop pretending it's real for you to stop pretending it's real.

[tpoacher]

I have to say, I am slightly disappointed that the opening of Sokal's "Transgressing the boundaries" paper isn't immediately recognizable by an HN audience ...

oh well.

[apocalypstyx]

Social construct != not real™.

A king is only a social construct. One can still order your head cut off.

[californiadreem]

So what? I'm not real either.

[dkural]

Studying, say, the food preferences of snails, is a very roundabout way to dominate society. A lot of the post-structuralist way of thinking comes down to a couple of obvious claims: - "Scientists were part of a society that did Bad Things(tm) like genocide, slavery etc." Yes, indeed they were. Thanks for pointing out. This is not as profound a revelation as you might think. - "Physical reality is just another discourse among many. There's no objective truth." This applies equally to just about any claim, including this second point denying privileged narratives. So why bother having a conversation? It's obviously a self-immolating belief system. There's in fact physical truth and reality. The phenomenon we describe as gravity will be around long after humans are no longer around to contemplate it. Also I'd argue that the post-modern argument is nihilistic. Just because you don't believe in my existence or choose not to articulate it in your "text" doesn't mean I don't exist. If we deny the power of language to represent and communicate reality, all we're left with is raw destructive brute force to decide what is real and who actually exists. Kind of like the USA we are slowly converging upon.