Talk:Francis Crick/Archive 1

message: i think that Francis Crick is a great scientist but i hate to say i dont no much about him if any body has info on him please email me at vinndawg11@aol.com thanks alot
Francis Crick has been called the "greatest British scientist of the twentieth century".
I am no scientist; would those with greater scientific expertise agree with this assessment?
(217.41.240.18 10:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Info

message: Apparently the concept of DNA's double helix came to him while using LSD.  --Thoric 30 June 2005 15:51 (UTC)
:Even if it is true that Crick used LSD, you need a better source than a "he said that someone said that Crick said" story that Crick was ready to fight in court. Also, it would be hard to sort out to what extent drug use might have contributed to a particular scientific idea. --JWSchmidt 30 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)
fabrication<BR>
While Francis did try LSD, it wasn't before several years after the discovery. That is, at least, the consensus in the family. Fcrick 10:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some attempts to explore the effect of LSD on creativity (for example, see LSD and creativity. It is not unusual for biologists with an interest in brain function to be  interested in -and in some case experiment with- psychoactive drugs. There seems to be a minor industry among some drug users to publicize examples of famous people who may have used psychoactive drugs. Based on the history of edits to the Francis Crick article and this talk page, Crick's possible use of LSD is on the minds of some people who come to Wikipedia. I think it is better that Wikipedia say something about this issue rather than delete and ignore. --JWSchmidt 20:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LSD

message: "disprove the existence of the psyche" <-- What is does this mean? I cannot imagine a meaning for it that would apply to Crick. The whole section that starts with this statement is not an encyclopedic account of Crick's views on religion. Maybe some of the quotes could go on an article specifically about reactions to Directed Panspermia. --JWSchmidt 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  psyche 

message: This entire section should be struck.  As noted above, the opening sentence is embarrassingly imprecise.  And the rest of the entire section is not only a bizarrely ill-informed ad hominem from a "political analyst" / theatre critic, it's a copyrighted ill-informed ad hominem.  The author being "quoted" for the entire section doesn't understand the scientific utility of the panspermia argument, which is just to increase the size of the statistical pool of random variations that could lead to an unlikely event, thereby decreasing the importance of the "What are the chances?" argument.  Lacking this understanding, he then sadly conflates the argument with the irrational inherited belief systems of the ancients, and actually asserts that Crick "appears not to have noticed" the difference.  The irony of that assertion will doubtless be forever lost on the author, who was clearly out of his depth writing about science.   Mtiffany 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the critique by User:68.193.197.230 of Crick's motivation for exploring panspermia is rather lame. I wonder why User:Moriori reverted your edit when you removed this section of the article on 7 September 2005. However, I am not a knee-jerk deletionist. Based on other edits by 68.193.197.230, the original author of this section may be an advocate of Intelligent design and feel the need to claim that science and atheistic scientists never really escape their own religious motivations. I think it is valid to question the motivations of scientists and this kind of questioning is part of the wider public response to Crick. I think it might be constructive to craft a more encyclopedic account of the point raised by 68.193.197.230 and then follow that with an alternative view of Crick's scientific motivation for exploring the idea of panspermia. --JWSchmidt 17:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted User:Mtiffany's deletion because I thought the information added to the article. I still do, even though it needs work.  I was on vandal patrol when I noticed his deletion. Usually I revert when I see a non registered user delete information which may have some merit, particularly when a reason is not given for the edit, as happened on this occasion. I believe I get it right most of the time, but if I don't, editors who object can always drop a note on my talk page where we can discuss it.  It is a month since I made my edit, and only now am I made aware than someone disagreed with it!  However, that seems to be beside the point now, because if it is copyrighted as User:Mtiffany says then it must be junked. Moriori 20:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The current treatment of Crick's religious beliefs, panspermia, and reactions to same is a tremendous leap forward.  Your structural changes and writing have done the wikipedia a huge service, JWSchmidt; thanks. Mtiffany 05:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Beliefs

message: "For my generation, Francis Crick was probably the most obviously influential presence. He was often at lunch in the canteen of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology where he liked to explain what he was thinking about, and he was always careful to make sure that everyone round the table really understood. He was a frequent presence at talks in and around Cambridge, where he liked to ask questions. Sometimes, I remember thinking, they seemed slightly ignorant questions to which a man of his extraordinary range and ability ought to have known the answers. Only slowly did it dawn on me that he only and always asked questions when he was unclear or unsure, a great lesson." (Tim Hunt, the first Francis Crick Prize Lecture: June 2005)
=== Crick bobblehead ===
See: http://www.scivon.com/ for further information on both of them!
195.92.168.175 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tim Hunt quote

message: See: http://www.scivon.com/ for further information on both of them!
195.92.168.175 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crick bobblehead 

message: I removed the large section of text on the Crick/Watson sculpture, which is only marginally relevant and is a direct cut and past copyvio from here, and was not adapted from the short BBC source cited.--nixie 01:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions by 195

message: Francis Crick was an atheist, and is appropriate for the Religious Beliefs section of the article. It was central to his very being.  It is not appropriate to talk about a "talk show hosts" freudian analysis of him (which I attempted to delete since it is not appropriate, poorly written, boring, and was pointless). It was deleted by myself. If you have a problem with it, then you can change it back if that makes you feel good about yourself. Francis Crick also felt it was impossible for life to have come into being out of a primordial soup, and is appropriate for the Panspermia section of the article. It is not appropriate to say that he didn't have a belief or interest in it especially given the fact that he cowrote a book about it.
*While I don't entirely agree with 12. edits, I actually don't see the relevance of discussing Mark Steyn's analysis of Crick's religious belief at any length.--nixie 03:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a group of people who only care about/think about Crick because of his ideas about religion. Some of these people come to Wikipedia and add information to the article that concerns reactions to Crick's ideas about religion. It is reasonable for there to be something in the article about reactions to Crick's views on religion. Based on my search of the internet, it seems that Mark Steyn is a real hero for some people who love to discuss Crick's ideas about religion. In other words, it is not by some strange fluke that somebody added Steyn's analysis of Crick to Wikipedia. Steyn's published views apparently resonate with many people. Sure, there are people who are interested in Crick for reasons other than his ideas about religion and they may not want to see anything about religion in the article. Other people may feel that Steyn is particularly unwelcome. However, Crick was more outspoken about religion than most scientists and reaction to his ideas about religion is a valid topic to include in a description of Crick's impact on the world. Steyn's published views seem to be a reasonable place to start in describing one particular kind of reaction to Crick. --JWSchmidt 05:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're actaually looking at the credibility of Steyn and his ideas on Crick - it really should be noted that he is a just journalist with no background in psychology. A disproportionate section of the article is given to the decsription of and debunking Sterns opinion. If anything the Steyn argument might rate a brief mention in the section on Cricks Views on religion.--nixie 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems that we are dealing with a matter of taste. From my exploration of online commentary about Steyn's reaction to Crick's views on religion, I feel that there is a significant group of people who agree with Steyn. One of these people added the topic to the article. I can understand how other people would be bored by a description of Steyn's views and I agree that Steyn's views are not based on a professional psychological analysis of Crick. The usual Wikipedia system for dealing with this situation is for one editor to reduce the discussion of Steyn's reaction to Crick, leaving a terse sentence. After another month, another editor will remove that sentence for being insignificant clutter. An inconvenient POV will have been expunged! Ra! Ra! Ra! A month later someone else will add the topic back to the article and then we will get to play the whole game all over again. --JWSchmidt 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignorance of Key Points 

message: :The article already has Crick's own statement, "from then on I was a skeptic, an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism". If you can find a source in which Crick said, "I'm an atheist," then I think we should add that to the section Francis Crick#Views on Religion.  --JWSchmidt 06:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Crick's statement about being an agnostic could certainly be quoted in the  Views on Religion section. --JWSchmidt 04:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New User Comments

message: My advice on this would be to take the information gathered on this site with a grain of salt. Read the articles, and do your own research.  But don't try to change the articles unless you want to get in an all-out war with someone.  There really is no such thing as a totally neutral article on anything, and if it truly exists, I wouldn't want to read it anyway.  As of the moment, the scientists listed in the articles of Wikipedia are icons to the academic world (to people such as JWSchmidt), and changing "their" article is tantamount to saying Jesus Christ was a Satanist to Jerry Falwell!  Take it with a grain of salt and if you want to really get the inside scoop on a subject, just use Wikipedia as a starting point.  As of the moment, Wikipedia is ruled by administrators such as JWSchmidt who I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT have a hard job of keeping "true vandalism" at bay.  (see bottom commentary about my thoughts on this).  And for that, I applaud JWSchmidt.  He really does believe in this Wikipedia concept, and seems like a very reasonable person. And with that, I will shut my hole.
:The above was posted by IP 207.200.116.7, which does not seem to have made any edits to the Francis Crick article. I suggest that the user from IP 207.200.116.7 register a user name. That is a good first step towards having other editors be able to deal with you in a more constructive and professional way.  
:As for, "He turned me in for supposed POV violations," I'm not sure what you mean by being "turned in for POV violations". I'm guessing, but this anonymous editor may be in some way related to some edits of the Francis Crick article by IP 12.207.83.81.  (Sorry JWSchmidt, I guess that wasn't you who turned me in...) 
:As for, "made a complaint to someone named Zoe," I'm sure that I have never complained to User:Zoe about anything. (Sorry, JWSchmidt, I jumped to conclusions!)
:On the general subject of Crick's views on religion, I am in full support of including in the Francis Crick article discussion of Crick's views and reactions from others about Crick's views. My goal is make sure that what is said in the Francis Crick article can be verified by way of cited sources. It might be constructive for you to explain on this talk page what you want to say about Crick and also provide a list of sources to support your proposed additions to the article. <BR>--JWSchmidt 18:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Originally Pompousness) Retitled as "Frustration"  

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Wikipedia survives research test
John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.
But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
Open approach
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.
It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.
 We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good 
Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.
In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.
"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.
Writing style
Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.
The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.
"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.
"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."
Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.
The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.
Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.
Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles*.
195.92.168.174 13:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  this has everything to do with this particular article

message: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-1961321,00.html
festive greetings to almost everyone! 195.92.168.165 14:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''especially for Alun/Wobble and John Schmidt'''

message: "This of course is true, but it is often misunderstood that Creation Science is one thing, and Intelligent Design another. The fact that Crick wisely distances himself from disreputable creationists does not change the fact that his ideas fit like a glove into the logic of more mainstream and credentialed proponents of Intelligent Design. Namely, that in seeing the complexity of DNA, he was led to believe in some kind of intelligent designer, namely alien lifeforms."source
:Can you (User:140.180.164.138 or anyone else) provide a reference to the published work of an intelligent design advocate who has written about the possible movement of extraterrestrial  lifeforms to Earth? Can you provide a reference to support the idea that Crick went beyond exploring directed panspermia as an idea and that he actually held a belief "in some kind of intelligent designer"? --JWSchmidt 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I woke up this morning, read this, and thought, "huh"? Then I came here and saw JW had already asked my question. Thanks JW! Semiconscious · talk 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intelligent design 

message: Including information or a link on Crick's wobble hypothesis might be good for this article.--Drewlew 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wobble Hypothesis 

message: According to James Watson at the conference DNA: "50 years of the Double Helix" held in Cambridge (England) in 2003 : (quote) "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier. That's what it was saying." 
19 years later Crick left Cambridge for La Jolla, California.
NitramrekcapMPNitramrekcap
Not really pivotal if he stayed in Cambridge for another 19 years (appointed to head positions in the new MRC lab in 1962-3) and then left for the Salk Institute to focus on a different field Bwithh 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming you are a sock of Nitramrekcap as detailed above, I am mindful to treat your consistently patronising tone as a series of personal attacks. If you persist, and if other users agree, I would be disposed to begin the dispute resolution process and ultimately a request for arbitration. This could result in sanctions being taken against you. If you have some kind of social impairment-such as Asperger's syndrome- which might explain your behaviour, it would be beneficial to relate this to the other regular editors of this page, perhaps by email if you wish to maintain privacy. I must confess, I see little evidence from your edits that such a clinical explnation is likely, and assuming you don't have any such excuse, please learn to adopt a civil tone or leave the encyclopaedia. Badgerpatrol 13:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that was supposed to be a response to my comment above, then we also add dyslexia or similar to the list of your potential clinical problems. Please read the comment again more carefully. If you require further clarification I will be happy to explain it to you if necessary. Please learn to sign in to the system with a consistent username and also how to sign your posts properly; again, if you need to be taught how to do this I am quite certain that either myself or another editor will be able to do so.  Badgerpatrol 15:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am the uploader of the picture, and you are absolutely right. I also uploaded a similar picture for John Venn, and earlier today I realised that I made this mistake. I corrected it on the Venn page, but not here, so thanks for pointing it. And many thanks for the additional comments, which are very interesting. Schutz 09:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have corrected the description; fortunately, I got it right on the image description page on commons. I have also copied your comments (and a link to Once a Caian) there. Tell me is anything is still incorrect. Thanks ! Schutz 10:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Just a gentle reminder Martin- this page is for discussing the Francis Crick article specifically- it is NOT a general discussion board for the history of DNA research or even for Crick's life, outside of the scope of the Wikipedia article. Could you possibly make it clear in future how your contributions on this page are designed to increase the quality of the Crick article itself? Thanks, Badgerpatrol 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Martin, if you put as much effort into actually adding to and improving this article as you do to pointing out on this page (at excessive length) whenever a new publication emerges regarding Crick, then Francis Crick would be the best article in the encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us all know (again) that Matt Rdiley has a new Crick book out. If YOU have read the book and if it has any new information that should be added, then why don't you add it yourself? Over to you, Martin. Badgerpatrol 08:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "MARTIN"- This article "belongs" to NOBODY. If you have read the Ridley book, then add anything it has to offer to the article. This page is for discussing changes DIRECTLY relating to the WIKIPEDIA Crick article. It is not for discussing Crick generally. If you feel that you can't write well enough to contribute to the Crick article, then put in what you can and I or someone else will endeavour to correct it for you- this encyclopaedia is a colloboration, after all. As an aside, please sign in and use a regular account to avoid confusion. Badgerpatrol 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A pivotal moment in Crick's scientific career?

message: I DO admire the initiative of whoever put the image of the 'Crick' window into the article, but the following wording is WRONG;
"Stained glass window in the dining hall of Caius College, in Cambridge, commemorating the co-discovery of the structure of DNA by Crick."
The window commemorates Francis Crick with the words: "F.H.C. Crick..Honorary Fellow 1976", not the co-discovery of the structure of DNA. However to avoid being totally negative, the following may be of some interest from "Once A Caian" (Michaelmas 2005):
"..Crick gave his blessing (provided Watson agreed and as long as the window was not visible at night, for the DNA would be coiling the wrong way.).."
and - in case anyone has any doubts about WHO (not what) is really
commemorated, the caption in the above magazine from which the image was taken reads: "Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA with James Watson, and Nobel Prizewinner, is commemorated by a diagram of the double helix based with permission on a 1989 Swedish stamp."
QED. Thank goodness this is not the 'Rosalind Franklin' discussion page, otherwise the debate over the discovery would begin again..
well-informed critics are of course in short supply on Wikipedia!'''
NitramrekcapMPNitramrekcap
: I am the uploader of the picture, and you are absolutely right. I also uploaded a similar picture for John Venn, and earlier today I realised that I made this mistake. I corrected it on the Venn page, but not here, so thanks for pointing it. And many thanks for the additional comments, which are very interesting. Schutz 09:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the description; fortunately, I got it right on the image description page on commons. I have also copied your comments (and a link to Once a Caian) there. Tell me is anything is still incorrect. Thanks ! Schutz 10:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAIUS STAINED GLASS 

message: http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/vehicles/francis-crick-goes-to-heaven.html
This is the version in Heinz Pagels, The Dreams of Reason (p. 266); he says he got it from Sydney Brenner:
 
Crick, the co-discovered of the molecular structure of DNA, dies and goes to heaven. He is met by St. Peter, who asks if he has any special requests. ``Yes, says Crick, I want to meet the Man himself and ask him a few questions. Peter says that there are not many requests of that kind, but it can be arranged, and he tells Crick to follow him. After passing through the Elysian fields, with their cool springs and lakes around which beautiful people are at play, their every desire fulfilled, Peter and Crick come to the mountains and enter a dark valley. The way is strewn with wrecked machines, electronic parts, broken glass and test tubes, organic garbage, old computers ---- a junkyard. At the end of the valley is a shack, which they enter, and inside is an old man, his coveralls stained in grease, blood, and chemicals. He is bending over a lab table filled with more junk, hard at work. Francis, meet God; God, meet Francis, says Saint Peter. Pleased to meet you, says Crick, but what I want to know is how you made the muscle system for the fly's wing. It's so ingenious. Well, says God, I did it a long time ago, and it's really very simple. Let's see now if I remember. You just take a bit of tissue and then it's...well, twisted..and then, somehow...and then you rearrange...slap together these protein chains...and...Well, I don't remember all the details. But who cares, it works, doesn't it?
A RIB-TICKLER OR WHAT? Any comments would be appreciated; I think it is quite funny and subtle! 
and just a reminder of the more serious side of Sydney Brenner, who was present at the birth of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953:
Excerpted from My Life in Science by Sydney Brenner. Copyright © 2001. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved."Seeing DNA ...of course the most important thing that happened then is that Jack Dunitz told me about all the developments with DNA in Cambridge because he was following it all. He told me that Francis Crick and Jim Watson had solved the structure of DNA, so we decided to go across to Cambridge to see it. This was in April of 1953.Jack and I and Leslie [Orgel] and another crystallographer went to Cambridge by car. It was a small car. It was very cold I remember, and the car wasn't heated. No one had heaters in cars then. We must have arrived in Cambridge in the late morning, at about 11am or thereabouts. We went into the Austin wing of the Cavendish Laboratory. I went in with Jack and Leslie, into this room that was lined with brick, and there on the side I can remember very clearly was this small model with plates for the bases - the original model with everything screwed together. And I could see the double helix! Francis was sitting there. This was the first time I met him and of course he couldn't stop talking. He just went on and on and on, and it was very inspiring, you see. Of course at this stage neither of the two famous Nature papers had yet appeared. The first paper was expected in a few weeks. They talked mainly about what eventually was in the second paper. Jim was at his desk in that room which I came to occupy later when I came to the Cavendish, and he was interspersing comments with Francis. So that's when I saw the DNA model for the first time, in the Cavendish, and that's when I saw that this was it. And in a flash you just knew that this was very fundamental. The curtain had been lifted and everything was now clear [as to] what to do. And I got tremendously excited by this."
Never mind the politics of who really did what, it's the importance of the discovery itself that matters! To see Sydney Brenner at Cambridge on 1st of May 2006 53 years on was a vivid experience...but let's not forget the contribution made made by Sir Herbert Austin, later Baron Austin, at whose car plant in Birmingham cars/vans were built between 1905 and 2005; I say that as an ex-Austin apprentice (1969-1973) and ex-MG Rover employee (1969-2005)!      
62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194
::* Just a gentle reminder Martin- this page is for discussing the Francis Crick article specifically- it is NOT a general discussion board for the history of DNA research or even for Crick's life, outside of the scope of the Wikipedia article. Could you possibly make it clear in future how your contributions on this page are designed to increase the quality of the Crick article itself? Thanks, Badgerpatrol 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SYDNEY BRENNER'S JOKE ABOUT FRANCIS CRICK MEETING GOD 

message: any comments anyone? see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2220486,00.html
62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194
==== the first on-line review of matt ridley's biography? (this is not 'advertising'!) ====
http://www.cleveland.com/bookreviews/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1150619424219900.xml&coll=2&thispage=1
Selected quotes from the above: "This is one of science's signature stories, and Matt Ridley re counts it with verve and clarity in this compact, elegant biography...Deploying almost haiku brevity, Ridley sketches the missed opportunities, the blind alleys and the experimental slogging. Readers breathe the heady fumes of discovery as Brits competed against Americans and the King's College team in London pitted itself against the one at Cambridge. Oversized personalities abounded....Ridley gives Watson his due, who in turn provides his blessing for this perceptive little book. The author, however, is quick to dismiss claims that chemist Rosalind Franklin was cheated of credit in the DNA race. The essential persona here is Crick, "the dominant theoretical thinker, the best guesser, the indefatigable skeptic, the loudest debater, the conductor of the scientific orchestra"..."Francis Crick" shows off Ridley's command of the subject and offers the pleasure of thinking about a man whom Ridley ranks with Galileo and Darwin. And Ridley is among my favorite writers. His earlier book, "Genome" occupies a place of honor in my living room...Ridley's book is the first biography of Crick, who died in 2004, and the seventh in the new "Eminent Lives" series, which pairs a first-rate writer with a seminal life. The book lacks footnotes and an index, but a reader can hold it in the palm of one hand...While Ridley's writing skill makes "Francis Crick" almost a guilty pleasure, it is no piece of hero worship. Instead, we consider a man whom many scientists described as the cleverest person they ever met but also one prone to "doing other people's crosswords."
Doesn't this new book raise the bar for the revised Wikipedia article on Crick? Over to you, John Schimdt when you finally finish reading it! 
195.92.67.74195.92.67.74mp195.92.67.74
:Martin, if you put as much effort into actually adding to and improving this article as you do to pointing out on this page (at excessive length) whenever a new publication emerges regarding Crick, then Francis Crick would be the best article in the encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us all know (again) that Matt Rdiley has a new Crick book out. If YOU have read the book and if it has any new information that should be added, then why don't you add it yourself? Over to you, Martin. Badgerpatrol 08:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "MARTIN"- This article "belongs" to NOBODY. If you have read the Ridley book, then add anything it has to offer to the article. This page is for discussing changes DIRECTLY relating to the WIKIPEDIA Crick article. It is not for discussing Crick generally. If you feel that you can't write well enough to contribute to the Crick article, then put in what you can and I or someone else will endeavour to correct it for you- this encyclopaedia is a colloboration, after all. As an aside, please sign in and use a regular account to avoid confusion. Badgerpatrol 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''a shoddy piece of journalism from "the sunday times" (11.6.06)''' 

message: http://www.cleveland.com/bookreviews/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1150619424219900.xml&coll=2&thispage=1
Selected quotes from the above: "This is one of science's signature stories, and Matt Ridley re counts it with verve and clarity in this compact, elegant biography...Deploying almost haiku brevity, Ridley sketches the missed opportunities, the blind alleys and the experimental slogging. Readers breathe the heady fumes of discovery as Brits competed against Americans and the King's College team in London pitted itself against the one at Cambridge. Oversized personalities abounded....Ridley gives Watson his due, who in turn provides his blessing for this perceptive little book. The author, however, is quick to dismiss claims that chemist Rosalind Franklin was cheated of credit in the DNA race. The essential persona here is Crick, "the dominant theoretical thinker, the best guesser, the indefatigable skeptic, the loudest debater, the conductor of the scientific orchestra"..."Francis Crick" shows off Ridley's command of the subject and offers the pleasure of thinking about a man whom Ridley ranks with Galileo and Darwin. And Ridley is among my favorite writers. His earlier book, "Genome" occupies a place of honor in my living room...Ridley's book is the first biography of Crick, who died in 2004, and the seventh in the new "Eminent Lives" series, which pairs a first-rate writer with a seminal life. The book lacks footnotes and an index, but a reader can hold it in the palm of one hand...While Ridley's writing skill makes "Francis Crick" almost a guilty pleasure, it is no piece of hero worship. Instead, we consider a man whom many scientists described as the cleverest person they ever met but also one prone to "doing other people's crosswords."
Doesn't this new book raise the bar for the revised Wikipedia article on Crick? Over to you, John Schimdt when you finally finish reading it! 
195.92.67.74195.92.67.74mp195.92.67.74
:Martin, if you put as much effort into actually adding to and improving this article as you do to pointing out on this page (at excessive length) whenever a new publication emerges regarding Crick, then Francis Crick would be the best article in the encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us all know (again) that Matt Rdiley has a new Crick book out. If YOU have read the book and if it has any new information that should be added, then why don't you add it yourself? Over to you, Martin. Badgerpatrol 08:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "MARTIN"- This article "belongs" to NOBODY. If you have read the Ridley book, then add anything it has to offer to the article. This page is for discussing changes DIRECTLY relating to the WIKIPEDIA Crick article. It is not for discussing Crick generally. If you feel that you can't write well enough to contribute to the Crick article, then put in what you can and I or someone else will endeavour to correct it for you- this encyclopaedia is a colloboration, after all. As an aside, please sign in and use a regular account to avoid confusion. Badgerpatrol 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the first on-line review of matt ridley's biography? (this is not 'advertising'!) 

message: The article is long term tagged with  and . Nominating a cleanup tagged article for GA is quite frankly wasting the reviewer's time. Please renominate when these issues have been fully addressed and the maintenance templates removed. --kingboyk 15:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now one requested citation remaining concerning the quoted comments from James Watson made at the conference marking the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA. --JWSchmidt 07:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same quote is in the James D. Watson article. There the source is given as, "conference transcript". --JWSchmidt 07:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same quote was present twice in the Francis Crick article, the second time with reference made to the conference transcript as the source. I combined the two. I'm going to remove the tags from the top of the article. --JWSchmidt 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FailedGA

message: I could be mistaken but being a Visiting Professor to Harvard University does not make you formally a 'Professor' in my opinion?
Let's stick with "Doctor" until someone can prove me wrong!
Ironically the Crick article goes a long way to disproving that he was ever a Cambridge professor (quote) "James Watson claimed at a Cambridge conference marking the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 : "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier." (source: conference transcript)
According to the University of Cambridge's genetics department official website, the electors of the professorship could not reach consensus, prompting the intervention of then University Vice-Chancellor Lord Adrian. Lord Adrian first offered the professorship to a compromise candidate, Guido Pontecorvo (who refused) and then is said to have offered it to Crick, who also refused."
In the meantime, see:
 http://www.edgwaretimes.co.uk/display.var.803953.0.a_school_history_rich_with_anecdotes.php
for what has been wrongly described as his "lacklustre education" (by Matt Ridley) at Mill Hill School, London.
Nitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''''PROFESSOR' CRICK (sic?)''' 

message: Franlink is mentioned a dozen times in this article. That is not appropriate. This is Crick's biography. Please consolidate references to Franklin. -- 67.121.114.170 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please have ONE SECTION about Franklin 

message: The section of the article now called "Controversy About Using King's College London's Results" was restored to a version that lacks references. I will go into the history and attempt to find a version of that section that contains references. --JWSchmidt 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was wrong to imagine that this section of the article ever had any citations. It was created by user 70.25.90.3 on 25 March 2006. The section seems to have been changed very little since then. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No serious harm was done and I think it is fixed now. --JWSchmidt 03:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy About Using King's College London's Results 

message: A new article now exists: King's College (London) DNA Controversy.<BR>--JWSchmidt 12:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King's College (London) DNA Controversy

message: *this edit reverted some useful edits by several people. I will try to fix the damage. --JWSchmidt 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No serious harm was done and I think it is fixed now. --JWSchmidt 03:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: According to the replies to this Incident report, the banned user Amorrow is known to edit using IP addresses that start with numbers such as 75, 68 and 67. Augaeth started the King's College DNA controversy article and is listed as a suspected puppet of Amorrow. I guess all edits by the following users should be carefully examined and deleted if they do not improve the encyclopedia:
* 
* 
* -Watson
* -Watson & Crick
* -Watson
* -Watson & Crick & Franklin & King's College DNA controversy
* -Watson
* -Watson
* -Crick
* -Crick
* -Crick
* -Crick
**Note: some of these users also edited additional Wikipedia articles not mentioned above.<BR>
--JWSchmidt 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by a banned user

message: Is the addition of KCL to the list a joke or is someone seriously unbalanced? I claim equal rights for the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge of course; so why just add KCL to the list? Nitramrekcap
:I think the banned user that originally created the controversy article made the change (IP:67.121.114.170). I have reverted it today. Alun 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They also modified the Template:King's College DNA, but onlt to include the names in alphabetical order, so I haven't reverted that. Alun 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''DNA Pioneers''' dropdown menu: addition of King's College London

message: I could be mistaken but being a Visiting Professor to Harvard University does not make you formally a 'Professor' in my opinion?
Let's stick with "Doctor" until someone can prove me wrong!
Ironically the Crick article goes a long way to disproving that he was ever a Cambridge professor (quote) "James Watson claimed at a Cambridge conference marking the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 : "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier." (source: conference transcript)
According to the University of Cambridge's genetics department official website, the electors of the professorship could not reach consensus, prompting the intervention of then University Vice-Chancellor Lord Adrian. Lord Adrian first offered the professorship to a compromise candidate, Guido Pontecorvo (who refused) and then is said to have offered it to Crick, who also refused."
In the meantime, see:
http://www.edgwaretimes.co.uk/display.var.803953.0.a_school_history_rich_with_anecdotes.php
for what has been wrongly described as his "lacklustre education" (by Matt Ridley) at Mill Hill School, London.
Nitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'PROFESSOR' CRICK (sic?) 

message: This article needs Template:Infobox Scientist 24.126.199.129 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs infobox

message: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-07-30.html  Discuss? 81.78.67.35mp81.78.67.35
:It should be an inline reference. David D. (Talk) 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Skeptics Society from July 2004'''

message: The words highlighted are totally unacceptable as they are a matter of opinion, not fact!
Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004) was an English physicist, molecular biologist and neuroscientist, most noted for being one of the four co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins, using the work of Rosalind Franklin, were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material"[1]. His later work at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology until 1977 has not received as much formal recognition. His remaining career as the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies was spent in La Jolla, California until his death; "He was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end” (a quote from his close associate Christof Koch [2]).
62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194
:Two issues:
#Does Wikipedia need to specify how many co-discoverers there were?
#Should Rosalind Franklin be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia article about Crick?<BR>
:Can someone provide reasons for trying to include mention of these issues in the introduction? --JWSchmidt 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't put numbers on how many discovered the structure. It is clearly more complex than two. As far as i can see there is no reason to quantitate it. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH TO THIS ARTICLE

message: I have pasted in a comment that I made elsewhere about a year ago with slight modifications but it deserves a wider audience.  I have put it here so that more people might read it.
I have re-read Judson's Eight Day of Creation to check on Delbrück's role.  He gets credit for inspiring Schodinger and for passing on information but to give him a big billing on the DNA template seems to me to be unnecessary.  An unexplained sentence on p145 even says that Delbrück was "no friend of biochemistry".
In a transcript of a conversion between James Watson and David Baltimore, the President of Caltech , Baltimore mentioned the experiments by Oswald Avery: “One of the things I’ve always been curious about is why they didn’t have the impact that they might have. The genetics community, particularly around Luria and [Max] Delbrück, never seemed to appreciate that Avery —this is now 1944—and his colleagues had published a paper that quite clearly showed that as chemically pure DNA as you could get would transfer genetic characteristics. And yet the idea that DNA was the carrier of genetic information really didn’t take hold.”
I think it was just that everyone expected that proteins were going to be involved,” said Watson. “And also the covalent backbone—how the nucleotides were linked together—wasn’t established until ’51. It was the Avery result that was the stimulus for Erwin Chargaff to measure the relative concentrations of DNA’s four bases (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine) and for Alex Todd to get his organic chemists to establish the covalent structure. But neither Luria nor Delbrück thought in terms of molecules."
If you have to rank people in order of importance, a difficult thing to do, I would put the following people after Franklin, Watson, Crick and Wilkins:
* Oswald Avery, for showing that DNA carried genetic material and for proving that it was worth studying to begin with
* William Astbury, for showing them it was possible to take X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA
* Erwin Chargaff, for determining the ratio of the bases
* Alexander Stokes, for working out the mathematics of helical diffraction
* Phoebus Levene, for getting the components right
* Jerry Donohue, (see acknowledgement in the Nature article)
(After writing this Avery and Levene were added)
Obviously you could go back further and credit Pauling for his work on the chemical bond and the Braggs for inventing X-Ray diffraction, but I would draw the line there. 
Claiming that Delbrück could be included for just being a big influence on Watson seems odd, you could also cite his father and mother.  Pauling got the structure wrong, though he did propose the correct structure for an entirely unrelated molecule.  However in the DNA story, he was someone who unwittingly applied some pressure to Crick and Watson.  Again hardly merits inclusion in this box.  JMcC 20:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of Delbruck and Pauling on a pioneers' template

message: I added the following material to make the article more NPOV:
Phillip E. Johnson wrote in criticism of Crick: "Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through."  ken 18:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't add anything NPOV and you didn't even source it to the original but rather to an nth hand source. In any event, it runs afoul of the undue weight clause of NPOV. JoshuaZ 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I directly cited the quote from the essay and had a link to the essay.  Furthermore the sentence adds balance to the article.  I reverted your POV pushing deletion.  ken 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear from the essay by Johnson as to what is said by Crick in his autobiography and what is added by Johnson. Given the disparate fields of endevour in which Johnson operates compared to Crick (both temporal and spiritual). Given Johnson in his essay doesn't cite Crick (ideally page number etc) but is happy to cite bible verses I call that Johnson's essay not worth of inclusion. This smells of WP:OR by proxy. Ttiotsw 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the Crick quote: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - Francis Crick ( Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine), "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138. ken 06:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is quite apparent to me that you haven't read the quote in the original context because if you had how it doesn't support you would be obvious. The point was that things do look designed and amazing and one needs to think about it to understand how things could have evolved. If you've read the entire section and other works by Crick you would see that that is precisely his point the amazing fact (almost a miracle if you will) that natural selection can give rise to things which are so fantastically complex that they look designed. JoshuaZ 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks a lot like the way Darwin's eye quote is constantly quoted out of context by creationists.  Is this an example of moral bankruptcy? If so, how ironic, given this accusation is thrown at biologists by DI and others all the time. David D. (Talk) 08:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just another gem from the creationist quote mine. But in reality the Johnson quote really has nothing to do with Crick, it is simply a bit of sophist argument in support of creationism. In any case why would anything Johnson have to say on Crick be of importance enough to include in this article? --Michael Johnson 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crick and criticism by Phillip E. Johnson 

message: Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment