Hmm. Well here's what he wrote about Rosalind Franklin. Judge for yourself.Hmm, I didn't know all that, certainly.
However I don't think you can include sexist comments made in 1968 as evidence of much. The whole western world was unbeliveably sexist by modern standards in that era. Just watch any film from that period.
"By choice she did not emphasize her feminine qualities. . . . There was never lipstick to contrast with her straight black hair, while at the age of thirty-one her dresses showed all the imagination of English blue-stocking adolescents. So it was quite easy to imagine her the product of an unsatisfied mother who unduly stressed the desirability of professional careers that could save bright girls from marriages to dull men. . . . Clearly Rosy had to go or be put in her place. The former was obviously preferable because, given her belligerent moods, it would be very difficult for Maurice [Wilkins] to maintain a dominant position that would allow him to think unhindered about DNA. . . . The thought could not be avoided that the best home for a feminist was in another person's lab."
Watson was incredibly lucky (and not entirely ethical) in getting a glimpse of Franklin's x-ray data on DNA. Without that, it seems likely that Franklin herself might have discovered the structure of DNA on her own in the next few weeks.
She was poorly treated by both Watson and Crick, in terms of giving credit where it was due.
I am no expert on Watson, but my own impression is that he was not the main driver of the DNA research; Crick was far more significant. And Watson was no match for Franklin in terms of dotting I's and crossing T's (i.e. doing careful, methodical research).The comments from 1997 onward seem to me more troubling. Goes to show that heroes in science can be total gits in other respects, just like anyone else.
For more on Franklin's contributions, and the whole DNA discovery story, here's a reasonable place to start:
https://www.strangescience.net/rfranklin.htm
Last edited: