The funny thing is that the article remembers him, and it remembers him for both his good and bad attributes. I think that’s really the way to do it. “Oh yeah that guy was an asshole adulterer and invented PCR.”
Yeah, I know. But the headline is so egregiously anti-intellectual that it's embarrassing to see it in an academic context. And it's worse, because they're doing it to cater to their audience.
Then of course, they had to make it explicitly political, with the inclusion of this quote:
> Schekman, who calls Mullis’s Nobel a “complete fluke,” compares him to the man in the White House. “He’s the molecular biology equivalent of Donald Trump in terms of his personal behavior,” he says.
And they end the article with this line:
> Maybe the best way to remember Mullis and his invention of PCR is to make some space for the others who made it a reality.
It's just childishness. Whatever other bad things the man did, he really did invent PCR, which changed the world forever.
I think it’s very interesting that hitler was an aspiring painter, really gives a window into his psychology. I’m glad they bothered to write that down in the history books. Is your argument that they shouldn’t have, or are you just reflexively responding to some wrong perception I’m attempting to launder the reputations of bad people.
Then of course, they had to make it explicitly political, with the inclusion of this quote:
> Schekman, who calls Mullis’s Nobel a “complete fluke,” compares him to the man in the White House. “He’s the molecular biology equivalent of Donald Trump in terms of his personal behavior,” he says.
And they end the article with this line:
> Maybe the best way to remember Mullis and his invention of PCR is to make some space for the others who made it a reality.
It's just childishness. Whatever other bad things the man did, he really did invent PCR, which changed the world forever.