Avoid Boring People: And Other Lessons from a Life in Science [ハードカバー]

James Watson did not win the Nobel prize helping discover the double-helix structure of DNA by being stupid. Thus, it is no surprise that his "Avoid Boring People" is full of insightful and invaluable observations gained during his work. These "Remembered Lessons" are primarily aimed at those in academic/research endeavors; however, a large proportion apply to any area of focus. Examples follow:

College is for learning how to think. Learning "Why?" something occurred is much more important than a few facts (eg. the reasons for the rise and fall of the Roman Empire are more important than the birth date of Julius Caesar). It is better to simply know which books hold details you will need than to overload oneself with facts that never will be repeated. On the other hand, new ideas usually need new facts.

Students should choose courses that naturally interest them, and if one's grades are not largely a, they likely have not yet found their intellectual calling. One should narrow down their career objectives while still in college.

The academic world abounds in triviality. Choose a young thesis adviser - the older ones' expertise is most likely in fields that long ago had seen their better days, leaving devotees with diminished job expectations. Those breaking new ground inevitably threaten minds continuing in old ways. Extend yourself intellectually through courses that initially frighten - eg. math is necessary to pursue the frontiers of genetics. Never accept invitations to senior faculty homes unless you have reason to anticipate a very good meal or a fetching face.

Exercise exorcises intellectual blahs. If you are just a little sloppy you have a good chance of introducing an unsuspected variable and nailing down an important new phenomena; too sloppy, however, and you never get reproducible results.

Choose a research objective apparently ahead of its time - mopping up the details after a major discovery by others will not likely mark you as an important scientist; however, only take on problems where meaningful results can come over a 3-5 year interval. Work with a teammate who is your intellectual equal - this helps shorten flirtations with bad ideas.

Teaching can make your mind move onto big problems - especially when challenged by advanced students.

Exaggerations do not void basic truths; emphasizing exceptions and qualifying terms is not the way to get ideas across initially. Controversial recommendations require political backing.

Never offer tenure to practitioners of dying disciplines - eg. plant biology. The result will be an unwarranted appeal to less qualified students.

Begin and end every chapter of a book with a snappy sentence.

Don't take up golf - becomes too much of an obsession for too many. Similarly, two obsessions is one to many - must focus.

Managers should schedule as few appointments as possible - just say "Yes" immediately to legitimate requests, even if you don't have the money. Walk the grounds - get wind of problems early, see who is truly committed and probably going places (working weekends and nights). Institutions are either moving forward or backward - never stagnant (eg. top staff will leave if not moving forward).

Be a friend to your trustees - joining their clubs, donate to their causes. Attractive buildings project institutional strength.

At the end, Watson makes an important observation in today's too politically-correct world. "A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of people geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically."

Finally, Watson sympathizes with Larry Summers' recent removal as Harvard president for making an apolitical remark wondering if differences in women's brains accounted for their lower participation in scientific careers. Ironically, a similar recent slip-up by Watson jeopardized his leadership status at Cold Harbor.

I have read this book after being a fan of Francis Crick for years, and sure enough, James Watson is also cast from a similar mold... inquisitive, assuming nothing, fun, witty, and introspective. This would be a great read I would imagine for anyone sunk in the institution of academia, it reveals how those institutions really work. I applaud Watson personally for his very important work, and his relevant views, which are neither incendiary nor aggresive, but simply based on the facts of an observable universe. Which is right where we belong.

Jim, Jim, Jim....
You've written this story three times now. The first, "The Double Helix," is possibly the best history of science ever written. The second, "Genes, Girls, and Gamow: After the Double Helix," is undoubtedly the worst -- I had to wash my hands repeatedly from the offal emerging from each page. Now we have, "Avoid Boring People," a modest step up from the last. I'll leave it to the New York Times to decide whether or not this rendition of the same material is boring and to others to critique whether your use of "Manners" in the title of each chapter indicates you have the foggiest notion about etiquette. But the little science that appears in this book is shockingly bad in at least three instances.
First with regard to emphasis: Anyone not familiar with the history of Molecular Biology would conclude from this book that the second most important discovery of the 20th century (after your discovery of the structure of DNA) was the isolation of the lac repressor by Wally Gilbert. Nonsense. What about the breaking of the genetic code (1 sentence), the development of recombinant DNA technology (1 sentence) or even the development of DNA sequencing techniques for which Wally shared the Nobel Prize (not mentioned at all)? The repressor story has always been overblown in part because of Jacque Monod's incorrect insistence (that you initially bought into) that all regulation was via repressors and that activators didn't exist.
Your second mistake is the claim that Alfred Tissières failed to break the genetic code because his preparation of polyadenine had aggregated. Nonsense. PolyA is about as soluble as salt. The reason his experiment failed is the same reason Marshall, Heinrich and I failed. Namely, we were all using trichloroacetic acid to precipitate the polypeptide products and polylysine (encoded by polyadenine) is the one polypeptide that is soluble in trichloroacetic acid. It took Ochoa's group to recognize that one had to use tungstic acid.
The third is your notion that seemingly erudite "scientific" questions are valid even when there is no possible way to answer them. Nonsense, again. Aristotle's musings on the nature of the atom weren't prescient but merely an exercise in mental gymnastics and a waste of time except as an excuse for practicing Attic Greek. For the same reason Nobelist Shelly Glashow has argued repeatedly that String Theory is worthless unless and until it can come up with a testable prediction. So the argument against Larry Summers' ignorant statement with regard to women scientists has nothing to do with political correctness. The question as to whether women's brains make them more or less suitable for science is untestable and therefore stupid. Fewer than 5% of my medical school class ('60) were women. (By the way, the Blonde that you were lusting after at Woods Hole in 1956 was one of them, but has the good taste to wish to remain anonymous.) The Harvard Medical School class of '08 is closer to 50% women. Has the female brain really evolved that fast? Of course not, it's just that accessibility has changed. And I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of this century half of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences go to women. Please stop this nonsense about political correctness.
And let your story rest...