Talk:Francis Crick/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Crick to Alexander Rich Letter

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/X/W/_/scbbxw.pdf clearly does not give the entire story. Is this letter referenced anywhere else? Doug youvan (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion categories

He is listed under both the English atheists and English agnostics categories. Did he change his position from one to the other at some point? CopaceticThought (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In his autobiography, Crick described himself as agnostic. It would nice to have additional data points. --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious stance: This is an example of one of the past attempts to characterize Crick's position with respect to religion. More commonly, Crick is labeled as an atheist (example). The article (in a footnote) quotes what Crick wrote in his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit (see Chapter 1): after having told his mother that he no longer wished to attend church services: "...from then on I was a skeptic, an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism." In my view, this statement by Crick indicates that he leaned towards atheism, but did not adopt atheism as his stance. Wikipedia lists multiple types of agnosticism, but I'm not sure that Crick would have adopted any of them. I have the tendency to object to the use of a template that has a field for "religion", so I have been filling that field with the word none (etc). What is the best thing to do here? --JWSurf (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Agnostic atheism is the best descriptor: "An agnostic atheist […] does not believe any deities exist, and […] does not claim to know that they don't". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making me take another look at that. When I read, "do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods" I could not understand what agnostic atheism meant. I'll change it to religious stance = agnostic, the label he applied to himself. --JWSurf (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On his religion

Why are his religious views being discussed by someone who is politically motivated? Why not use something which is politically neutral or better yet, find a quote or source directly from Crick that points out his views on religion. The subject of Crick's reviews on religion ought to simple observations, not commentary. I'm removing the current "Religion" section until I can find a better source because having his views be presented from a politically biased view point is not exactly academic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.123.112 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin 91.108.21.160 (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

my removal of the religous beliefs section recently added

I was asked to explain in more detail why i removed this section. I'm sorry if I'm not really up to wikipedia's standards in terms of procedure or explanation. There were a few reasons:

1. To be honest I found it a little insulting - here was someone inserting quotes from a man's obituary about what the man thought about my grandfather - some auther Steyn using terms "hyper-rationalism" and "militant atheist" - I'm no language expert but those both just sound like ways of saying someone is crazy without using the word crazy. They seem obviously intended to cast him in a negative light - I have no idea what these terms actaully mean if they are even used outside this obituary.
2. I figured that if there is a questionable part of an article, it shouldn't be included until there's a consensus that it should indeed be included. I saw no harm in simply removing the section - I figured with an article as closely watched as this one, multiple people would soon appear to support the section if it was indeed deemed appropriate by consensus. The section was added by an anonymous user, and it had in fact been previously removed by another anonymous user from 144.92.123.112 - EdJohnston wrote on my talk page claiming this was me but it simply wasn't. That IP address is from the University of Wisconson, and I've never been to Wisconson in my life.
3. There is already a section addressing Francis' religous views, and another focusing specifically on Directed panspermia. I guess I missed on first pass that the section of note was part of a 'reactions' section - and I thought this was ambiguous, though I guess this isn't neccesarily the case.
4. I don't see why the reactions of one particular "conservative political analyst" belong in the article as a reaction of any significance. I'm sure Sean Hannity also has something to say about Francis' work, but I don't see why it would ever belong in wikipedia.

I'm not against keeping the section if it is the consensus of the editors that it be kept, but I do mind if it is just placed their by someone who doesn't even write as a wikipedia user without being discussed in more detail beforehand by a larger collection of people. Fcrick (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The section removed was as follows:

The conservative political analyst Mark Steyn published an obituary of Crick and attempted a deconstruction of Crick's scientific motivations. Steyn characterized Crick as a militant atheist and asserted that it was his atheism that "drove" Crick to move beyond conventional molecular biology towards speculative topics such as panspermia. Steyn described the theory of directed panspermia as amounting to, "gods in the skies who fertilize the earth and then retreat to the heavens beyond our reach." Steyn categorized Crick’s ideas on directed panspermia as a result of "hyper-rationalism" that, "lead him round to embracing a belief in a celestial creator of human life, indeed a deus ex machina."

I looked a little deeper into the source of this section. I think it was originally added September 7th 2005 by an an anonymouse user, and has existed in a few different forms over the last three years. Its been gradually stripped down piece by piece and actually has been removed completely several times over the last three years but always added back in some form. When I first removed the section on the 5th of November, I was unaware it was more than a few days old, as someone had removed it a month before, and it had only recently been reintroduced a few days before I first removed it. Well, I'll leave it to the experts... Fcrick (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Francis,

I have put the link to the article: [[1]] at the end of Miscellaneous, and will NOT revert of course. (You are entitled to your opinion of it!)

Martin 91.110.151.41 (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

There are now suitably licensed images of Francis Crick in Commons (see commons:Category:Francis Crick), so the fair use rationale for the two images of Crick used in this article doesn't apply anymore. I think they should be deleted and replaced with the free images. --Yerpo (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the previous portrait with the excellent one from the above, but I am not convinced of the merit of the other one, so I hope you are happy with 50% replacement? Martin

91.110.153.225 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned edit

tell it's a myth, about the LSD thing. I know it's a controversial and atention drawing subject, i admit that myself wouldn't be here now if i wasn't fascinated by that data, but it's not a little thing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.222 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

UCSD

He is widely cited by UC as at least being employed and regularly giving lecutres at UCSD and its School of Medicine. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/nobel/list.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.16.104 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I notice that there are a number of external links on this page, e.g. Hear or see Crick

   * An interview with Francis Crick and Christof Koch, 2001
   * Listen to Francis Crick

Please consider adding this link to an in depth video of Francis Crick telling his life story. The video is freely available on the Web of Stories website (http://webofstories.com):

• Francis Crick video at Web of Stories

Fitzrovia calling (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Readdition of redundant/unimportant info

My recent edits were reverted. I'd like to defend them here. First, much of the information is overly specific or gives undue weight, and goes into depth about things not really related to Crick or the scope of the article (especially the part about the statue: it is sufficient to mention just the part that related to Crick). The excessive quoting damages the readability of the article and really offers very little. In addition, my formatting changes were reverted, leading to an improperly formatted bit at the end. An improperly formatted citation was also corrected in my revision. For these reasons, I'm reinstating these changes, but I am open to discussion and do not wish to edit war. A dullard (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

THAT 1953 'BRITISH' SUNDAY NEWSPAPER!

In his book "genes, girls, and gamow", James Watson states (quote): "During my absence, the first newspaper article that reflected an interview with Francis Crick came out. It was in the Sunday Telegraph and reached a large audience." (from page 21, Chapter 4: Cambridge July-August 1953.) This error was repeated by Victor K. McElheny in the biography "Watson and DNA" published in 2003.

The only problem being that the Sunday Telegraph did NOT exist in 1953, and repeated searches of the newspaper archives have NOT yet found any trace of such an article, with a Francis Crick interview! So Watson may not be an entirely reliable source for this quotation, even when repeated by the BBC; I suggest that the text and the BBC reference need to be qualified to reflect the above?

IF ANYONE CAN CONFIRM DETAILS OF THE JUNE 1953 BRITISH SUNDAY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, DO PLEASE ADVISE THEM TO ME ASAP! Martin Packer 213.120.97.230 (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

Can anyone in the 'Wikipedia' lunatic asylum, explain why the article refers to "University College of London"? It is well known as UCL, which stands for UNVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON. Guess what the name of the article is? [University College London!] Enough...

    At the age of 21, after studying at University College of London (UCL) Crick earned his B.Sc. degree in physics from the University of London[6] after he had failed to gain his intended place at a Cambridge college, probably through failing their requirement for Latin; his contemporaries in British DNA research Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins both went up to Cambridge colleges, to Newnham and St. John's respectively. Crick later became a PhD student and Honorary Fellow of Caius College and mainly worked at the Cavendish Laboratory and the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge. He was also an Honorary Fellow of Churchill College and of University College of London. 194.74.54.58 (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

At the age of 21, after studying at University College of London (UCL) Crick earned his B.Sc. degree in physics from the University of London [6]

There's a surprise! 194.74.54.58 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst we're being pedants on syntax, there's a grammar error in the opening: "He TOOKED his results from ..."?!!?

Now fixed.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Conceptualization of Double-helix shape of DNA

From a calendar published by the Multidisciplanary Association of Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) under the section titled , This month in psychedelic history - Febuary 28, 1953: "Francis Crick first conceived of the double-helix shape of DNA while under the influence of LSD, later winning the Nobel Prize for his discovery."

2007 Calendar Multidisciplanary Association for Psychedelic Studies; Ben Lomond, CA;

Its not that I doubt MAPS, but does anyone else have a collaborating source; I haven't looked yet, but I thought I'de post first. Buekerc1 22:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting indeed, MAPS is usually a reliable source of information, anyone know of any sources for this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.190.229 (talk) 19:10, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Please guys, research again and either accept as a fact or claim or tell it's a myth, about the LSD thing. I know it's a controversial and atention drawing subject, i admit that myself wouldn't be here now if i wasn't fascinated by that data, but it's not a little thing at all.

Many serious and intelligent truth-seekers, galileos, in their time thought of LSD as a revelation or enlightment drug. If the double helix structure, the "secret of life" was in fact discovered under it's influence, it should be noted. If it's a myth or something subject to discussion, too.

A guy before published a refutation to this according to a biography, i don't think i'm yet capable of dealing with this things but please those who can, research further. 201.212.109.6 (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all discussed extensively, below on this page. There is no reliable evidence that LSD had any significant impact on Crick's work and in particular, there is no reliable evidence that Crick had experimented with LSD before the discovery of the double helix. There are drug use advocates who attempt to link famous people and events to drug use and they can say anything they want without supporting their claims with evidence. Wikipedia is very careful to only repeat what has been previously published by reliable sources such a biographies published by reputable publishing companies. I do not see how the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies can be viewed as a reliable source for information about Crick's use of LSD. Have they published their evidence in a peer-reviewed journal or something? --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's right. That's explained among others on p. 159 of the "Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code" (11/2009) book. Twipley (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us be quite frank. Crick abandoned all other cientific fields and redirected his whole work toward the phenomenon of consciousness, isn't it obvious why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.182.59 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 November 2011

Please use four tilde characters to sign messages, and keep them on the topic of discussing improvements to the article. See WP:TP. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Honours

The article states that "he refused an offer of a CBE in 1963 and later refused an offer of a knighthood". Recent information released by the UK cabinet office (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/document2012-01-24-075439.pdf) confirms that he refused an offer of a CBE, but does not list him as having been offered a knighthood. I have added a "citation needed" tag. Digitig (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The DNA article

"In 1953 James D. Watson and Francis Crick suggested what is now accepted as the first correct double-helix model of DNA structure in the journal Nature[6]. Their double-helix, molecular model of DNA was then based on a single X-ray diffraction image (labeled as "Photo 51")[135] taken by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling in May 1952, as well as the information that the DNA bases were paired--also obtained through private communications from Erwin Chargaff in the previous years. According to James Watson, after they had figured out the structure of DNA on February 28, 1953, he and Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub in Cambridge, England and Crick announced.. "We have found the secret of Life." [142]"

Unfortunately the above paragraph perpetuates the apparent myth of 'We have found the secret of life' and to make matters worse puts the apparent quotation into bold, which needs to be reverted. There is in fact NO reliable record of Francis Crick having said this; in Francis Crick's 1988 autobiography, he said of this event: "According to Jim, I went into the Eagle, the pub accross the road where we lunched every day, and told everyone that we'd discovered the secret of life. Of that, I've no recollection, but I do recall going home and telling Odile that we seemed to have made a big discovery." (Page 77, "What Mad Pursuit", Chapter 6, "How to live with a Golden Helix".)

However James Watson said (quote) "Francis winged into The Eagle to tell everyone within hearing distance that we had found the secret of life." (Page 111, Chapter 26, "The Double Helix)".

Why does this quotation from James Watson need to be taken with the proverbial 'pinch of salt'?

The fact that the person said to have made the statement could not remember having said it! In his book "genes, girls, and gamow", James Watson states (quote): "During my absence, the first newspaper article that reflected an interview with Francis Crick came out. It was in the Sunday Telegraph and reached a large audience." (from page 21, Chapter 4: Cambridge July-August 1953.)

The only problem being that the Sunday Telegraph did NOT exist in 1953, and repeated searches of the newspaper archives have NOT found any trace of such an article, with a Crick interview!

So Watson may not be an entirely reliable source for this quotation, even when repeated by the BBC; I suggest that the text and the BBC reference need to be qualified to reflect the above?

IF ANYONE CAN CONFIRM DETAILS OF THE JUNE 1953 SUNDAY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, DO PLEASE ADVISE THEM ASAP!

91.110.183.238 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Martin Packer

Does noone else think it odd that the DNA section obsesses so much about Rosalind Franklin? It is surely for gender-politics reasons that so much is made of Crick being shown the MRC report, and seeing information that had already been given in public meetings (that Crick had not been present at). And then the information that she had handed to Wilkins anyway...

And it is not clear what is meant by "Of great importance to the model building effort of Watson and Crick was Rosalind Franklin's understanding of basic chemistry, which indicated etcetc" Hadn't Watson in fact made a mistake in his notes from a lecture of hers, which she corrected when they displayed the 1st model? The wording seems like a rather desperate exaggeration of Franklin's role in their efforts (for which there is no need, her place in history is assured). This is someone trying to rewrite history for political reasons and has no place in Wikipedia, in my view. That section should be rewritten--92.2.230.62 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Death by colon cancer

I note that Dr. Crick's cause of death was listed in the lede as by colon cancer. Is that really of such significance that it should be included in the brief bio in the lede? Is it common to include such info? If he was a proponent of this or that cure for an ailment and then died at a young age from the ailment after using the cure it might be included but unless it is a standard practice on wikipedia maybe it should not be include. Just asking. Zedshort (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Francis Crick and James Watson

Being a Wikipedia editor does not give you the right to vandalise the FRANCIS CRICK and JAMES WATSON articles; the late Rosalind Franklin was not a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Please desist P.Schrey!

Martin Packer, U.K. Researcher for "Francis Crick: Hunter of Life's Secrets" by Professor Robert Olby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.32.42 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I replied here. Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 22:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record ROSALIND FRANKLIN had no involvement in the "discovery of DNA" either; the structure of DNA was elucidated by JAMES WATSON and FRANCIS CRICK. No other editor will be able to prove otherwise. The suggestion that ROSALIND FRANKLIN was involved is not supported by the facts. M.D.P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.4.91 (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, people trying to rewrite history again to say that Franklin played a bigger part than was in fact the case. The BBC do this from time to time - they've got rather political in recent years - and it showed in a Radio 4 programme on Crick as one of the "New Elizabethans". The story was told very clumsily to make it sound as though Franklin knew it was a double helix, when quite the opposite was the case at the time of the first model - she was announcing the death of the helix idea. It's clear that a particular section of feminists don't understand, or care at all about, historical accuracy

I think we seriously need a look at how this bit of scientific history has been hijacked by those with a political agenda. I will be keeping an eye on developments with this article. I urge others to continue to do the same.--86.164.129.8 (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

LSD Use

Why isn't the fact that he was high on LSD when he discovered the double-helix model mentioned in the article? [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] Wikipediarules2221 03:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a neat idea, and I would like to think it was true just because of the novelty of it. However, all evidence for its truth appears to be anecdotal and promulgated almost exclusively after his death. 71.156.103.213 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Say it's anecdotal, then. Surely it is significant to a biography? beefman (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IT should be added, as I find it is very important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.119.110 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right... except it isn't true. Just another romantic story for the pro-drug movement. I mean arent there enough of those already? One point that seems to have gotten lost in the debate over minutiae above is that the burn-out lobby WANTS this material included SPECIFICALLY because of this "double helix discovery" urban legend. As is correctly pointed out above, there is NO "moment of discovery" on that point, so the whole thing becomes moot. The double-helix was the product of thousands of hours of collaborative work. So sorry potheads and acid trippers, even if Crick was stoned out of his mind 24x7, the "discovery of the double helix" is something that simply doesn't exist. It just demonstrates a tremendous ignorance of the scientific process to think that the fundamental structure of DNA just magically popped into one mans head. But I guess for most who *need* legends like that to be true, there isn't a lot of interest in the real scientific process (which is usually long and drawn out and boring and doesn't involve lava lamps, The Dead, and pounds of mood altering substances)

Just because pro-drug people have a poor understanding of the history of the discovery of DNA chemistry doesn't mean Crick didn't take acid. The use of LSD at Cambridge during this period is well-documented. From where I'm sitting, you also need it to not be true. beefman (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What in God's name are you talking about? Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of things that AREN'T true. Shall I also edit Clint Eastwood's wiki to note that he is not homosexual, has never been charged with paedophilia, and might not like kalamari? The obvious fact is that the idea that LSD-use may have been common in Cambridge at this time, this is likely the sole basis for the claim that Francis Crick used it, not the other way around.216.185.250.92 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't he get the idea of the DNA structure while on LSD? Unless I missed it, no mention of this seems to be here. Why is there no mention? Zachorious 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This matter was discussed by Crick biographer Matt Ridley in Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code published by HarperCollins Publishers; ISBN 0-06-082333-X. The available evidence indicates that Crick tried LSD many years after the DNA double helix discovery. One "newspaper" published a headline saying that LSD played a role in the discovery, but there is no evidence to support that claim. --JWSchmidt 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

John, no much doubt about the newspaper, it was The Mail on Sunday, dated: 8 August 2004; not sure exactly what you imply by saying "newspaper" by the way - is it meant to be a quote? mp 91.110.182.41 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the quotes around "newspaper" were because the Daily Mail isn't exactly known for accuracy in reporting. thx1138 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

People have been sued for saying less than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.164.211 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Crick's drug use (although probably not at the time of the double helix discovery) is verified, encyclopaedic, and should be put in to the article, probably as a one or two sentence aside somewhere. However, one editor obstinately and rather rudely refuses to compromise on this - and I'm not getting in to that again. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We could include something about Crick's use of LSD in this article. If we do, I would like to first see some coherent discussion of why the topic is important enough to be mentioned. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the Ridley book right now, and I think his use of LSD is relevant for a few reasons. First, he joined a drug advocacy group (Soma), so this was one of his "other interests". Second, it provides some social context for his life, as he was introduced to LSD by a major LSD distributor (Henry Barclay Todd) in 1967. Finally, and most importantly, Ridley writes that Crick was an adamant anti-vitalist, and wanted to demonstrate that all aspects of life emerged from regular physical/chemical reactions. He was particularly interested in consciousness, and according to this interview [9], he seemed to view the psychoactive drugs as a key for investigating the chemical nature of consciousness. AdamRetchless (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See also the above section called "LSD Use". beefman (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

James Watson and Francis Crick published the structure of DNA in 1953. Crick's work on deciphering the genetic code occurred between the years 1958-1966. And according to Matt Ridley's biography, Crick was "introduced to LSD about 1967 by Henry Barclay Todd." This poses problems for the LSD hypothesis. (Ridley, Matt (2009). Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code. New York: Harper Collins, p. 156. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just another anecdote but James Fadiman told in his lecture at the Psychedelic Science in the 21st Century conference in 2010 that Crick told him at the end of his life that if James was to publish he's use of LSD, he would be really mad. I don't know how well Fadiman and Crick were acquainted but Fadiman was on of the pioneers of psychedelic problem solving studies so in that sense he's a likely candidate to have Crick confess this kind of information. He didn't mention if Cricks LSD use was before, during or after his work on the double helix. http://www.maps.org/videos/source4/video5.html The mention is at running time 27 minutes (Custoo (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)).

Interesting anecdote, per this story, with its overtly ideological "moral" - LSD makes users smarter, yet is denied due credit (by miscreant society) for the crucial role it played, in the discovery of something as momentous as DNA's organic structure (a case 'proving' its 'ensmartening' effects). As attempts to insert the canard here reflect, it apparently functions as propaganda. Indeed, its a 'talking point' of contemporary psychedelia, endlessly broadcast as a story to promote, regardless whether its true or not. I conclude that from noticing, its promoters consistent refusal, by argumentative oppositional defiance, to the facts. Apparently its not just innocent misinfo (which is amenable to factual correction). Its disinfo, no intention of being corrected. Good if Fadiman in 2010, wasn't part of that. But, considering his audience and constituency - has he been enlisted since, to take up and toe that line? Here's a troubling 2011 quote, from his book THE PSYCHEDELIC EXPLORER'S GUIDE - unsourced; true to 'rumor' form (just like the tall tabloid tale that founded the fallacy in 2004): "Near his death, Francis Crick let it be known that his inner vision of the double helix of DNA was LSD-enhanced." (p 4) May I comment to good question raised above (JWSchimdt) - why the topic is important enough to be mentioned in this entry? As reflects here and elsewhere, a lot: Crick has been targeted as a 'poster child' - for psychedelics, "proving" (as a case-in-point) they boost intelligence. Because of his prominence and the importance of his work, he's become an object of an active subcultural interest - in using his DNA research as a workhorse for the movement's 'message.' As his biographer documents, Crick did try LSD - as of 1967, no sooner. I feel it'd be appropriate, this entry to briefly note the facts. Not for their intrinsic importance - but because of psychedelia's aggressive designs on his reputation and profile; the subculture or movement - doggedly determined to exploit his name and fame for its purposes. Crick deserves better, as do WP readers, who don't know about this. I feel they'd be well-served, considering how aggressively this canard is promulgated. "The most brilliant technique of propaganda, is to focus on certain points and repeat them over and over ..." Mein Kampf, 1925, Vol 1 Chap 6 (amateur transl.) 4 tilds: Akersbp (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC) akersbp

Chapel controversy

Crick had agreed to become a fellow on the basis that no chapel be placed at Churchill. A donation was later made by Lord Beaumont of Whitley to Churchill College for the establishment of one, and the majority of fellows voted in favour of it. Crick claimed that Winston Churchill wrote to him saying that no-one need enter the chapel unless they wished to do so, and therefore it did not need to be a problem. Crick, in short order, replied with a letter accompanied by a cheque for 10 Guineas saying that, if that were the case, the enclosed money should be used for the establishment of a brothel. This story was repeated by Crick in an interview with Matt Ridley (Crick's biographer), quotes from which are reported in the Daily Telegraph.

I fail see to see why the above has been copied across from the Churchill College article; it is not the case that "Crick claimed that Winston Churchill wrote to him"; the copy of Crick's letter dated 12th October 1961 is on display at Churchill College and starts (quote) "Dear Sir Winston, It was kind of you to write. I am sorry you do not understand why I resigned. " The whole incident is not a 'story' as suggested by the anonymous author of the above, it is a fact! Martin Packer [UK researcher for Robert Olby's biography of Francis Crick, published 2009) 2.30.214.142 (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC) yes yes yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.243.201 (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Synthetic DNA

There's a few lines on this, and allied topics. I think they belong in another article. Notreallydavid (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I also don't understand why there is a whole paragraph about synthetic biology within the section "1951–1953: DNA structure". Moreover, the whole paragraph starting with "In addition, the entire field of synthetic biology began..." and ending with "...but in creation of new materials.[44]" is duplicated, it's written once at the end of the section and once four paragraphs earlier. I would suggest to remove both copies of the paragraph, because they mainly report the work of Eric Kool, who was not even born at the time the section refers to. His work on synthetic biology is something completely different and has virtually nothing to do with Crick's contribution to solving the structure of DNA. It appears to me like someone tries to promote synthetic biology by prominently placing the reference here. --89.15.104.36 (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Francis Crick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RVVZY00MZNrK2YCTTzVrbTFH2t3RxoAZah128gQR-NM/pubhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005105825/http://www.americanhumanist.org:80/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/document2012-01-24-075439.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825101712/http://orpheus.ucsd.edu:80/speccoll/testing/html/mss0660a.html to http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/html/mss0660a.html#abstract
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618160456/http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk:80/selectedTATAwebsites.htm to http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/selectedTATAwebsites.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)