Nobel laureate James Watson has died at the age of 97; alongside his seminal contribution to uncovering the structure of DNA with Francis Crick, a new historical study highlights Rosalind Franklin's pivotal role – and the complex legacy of one of the fathers of modern biology
James Dewey Watson, one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century and one of three Nobel Prize winners for the discovery of the structure of DNA, died on November 6, 2025, at his home in East Northport, New York, at the age of 97.
Watson, an American molecular biologist, geneticist, and zoologist, was born in Chicago in 1928. He completed his undergraduate degree at the University of Chicago as a teenager and his doctorate at Indiana University in 1950, under the supervision of Nobel laureate Salvador Luria. After a postdoctoral fellowship in Copenhagen, he came to Cambridge, England, where he met Francis Crick, his partner in the discovery that changed the face of modern biology.
In 1953, Watson and Crick published a short article inNature the model of The double helix – Two strands of DNA intertwined around each other, with a sugar-phosphate as an external “backbone” and nitrogenous bases paired between them. In 1962, Watson, Crick, and Maurice Wilkins won the Nobel Prize for the discovery, which is still considered a turning point in science: from the moment the structure of DNA was understood, the way was opened to molecular biology, genetic engineering, biotechnology, and finally the human genome project.
The controversy surrounding Rosalind Franklin – and new data on her role in the discovery
Alongside her scientific aura, Watson has been accompanied throughout the years by fierce controversy surrounding the pivotal role she played. Rosalind Franklin, the British biophysicist responsible for much of the experimental data on which the DNA model is based. Working in Wilkins' laboratory at King's College, Franklin developed X-ray diffraction photographs of exceptional quality—most notably the famous "Photo 51." Analysis of the images led her to the realization that DNA is a helical structure, with a sugar-phosphate backbone Outside For the coil – critical insight for building the right model.
According to historical records, Watson and Crick had access to Franklin's data and conclusions even before she published them in full, including through internal reports and conversations with Wilkins. This led to claims for years that the "idea was stolen" from her, coupled with the fact that Watson described it in his book. The double helix In a disparaging and sometimes sexist manner.
However, recent historical studies – including an article published inNature In 2023 – a more complex picture is offered: Franklin was not just a “victim robbed of fame,” but A full intellectual partner The solution, operating in a competitive and closed scientific environment, avoided publishing some of the insights in real time, and was also affected by a problematic gender climate. The new articles emphasize that her work was essential to disproving incorrect models (such as the triple helix) and confirming the double-stranded model, and that without her – as Watson and Crick already admitted in their follow-up articles – “the formation of the structure would have been improbable, if not impossible.” In later years, Watson himself publicly expressed regret for the way he presented Franklin in his book.
From Harvard to the Human Genome Project
From 1956 to 1976, Watson was a faculty member in the Department of Biology at Harvard, where he advanced the emerging field of molecular biology. At the same time, from 1968, he headed the Laboratory of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, and for about 35 years – as director, president and later chancellor – he turned it into a leading international center for research into genetics, cancer and neurological diseases.
From 1988 to 1992, Watson served as the head of the first phase of The Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and was one of the first to see the human genome as an asset of humanity, not a target for patents. After his retirement, he headed CSHL as president and then chancellor, and continued to write basic books on molecular biology, including Molecular Biology of the Gene, Molecular Biology of the Cell and-Recombinant DNA.
Statements that led to the severance of ties
The last decades of Watson's life were marred by a series of harsh statements on genetics, race, intelligence, and gender. He repeatedly argued for a genetic link between "race" and intelligence, spoke crudely about "curing stupidity" and genetic engineering of traits such as beauty, and made amateurish speculations about cognitive differences between ethnic groups. The statements were sharply condemned within and outside the scientific community, and were seen as racist and sexist.
In 2007, he was forced to resign from his position at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. In 2019, after a documentary showed him repeating his views on “race and intelligence,” the laboratory decided to cut ties with him and revoke all honorary degrees he had been awarded, officially sealing the gap between his scientific image and his public responsibility.
A legacy of revolution – and human complexity
The discoveries of Watson and his colleagues – and especially the double helix model of DNA – laid the foundations for modern biology, personalized medicine, and the entire biotechnology industry. At the same time, the way the story of the discovery is told, the treatment of Rosalind Franklin, and Watson's own later statements have made his figure a prominent example of how a scientist can be responsible for both tremendous breakthroughs and moral and cultural wounds.
With the death of James Watson at the age of 97, the world of science is left with An indisputable scientific legacy – and a very complex human legacy, which continues to spark discussion about the role of scientists, about partnership in science, and about how to tell the history of world-changing discoveries.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
One response
Nice article. It is definitely important to remember that science is a discipline that requires a lot of thought and experience. At the same time, being a thoughtful and experienced scientist are not qualities that in themselves grant immunity from ignorance, xenophobia, misogyny, and belief in one God.
Like judges, pilots, doctors, engineers – scientists are also a pattern of their native landscape and come in all shades and types. Genius in one field can easily live alongside utter, shameful and embarrassing stupidity in another.