by Matthew Cobb
24.New York Times, 21 February 1955.
25.New York Times, 23 January 1949.
26.Taylor (1949).
27.Hotchkiss (1949).
28.Lwoff (1949), p. 202.
29.Delbrück (1949), Hotchkiss (1979), p. 330.
30.Boivin et al. (1949), p. 67.
31.Boivin et al. (1949), p. 75.
32.Olby (1994), p. 201.
33.There is no biography of Boivin. Roche (1949) wrote a brief obituary.
34.Mazia (1952), p. 109.
35.Mazia (1952), p. 114.
36.Pollister et al. (1951), p. 115.
37.Chargaff (1951).
38.This and subsequent quotes are from Ephrussi-Taylor (1951), pp. 445–8.
39.Anonymous (1980), p. 25.
40.Judson (1996), p. 41.
41.Deichmann (2004, 2008), Olby (1972), Pollock (1970), Wyatt (1972, 1975). For a survey of the long-running debate over this issue, see Cobb (2014). For a pugnacious defence of Avery’s work by a participant, see Hotchkiss (1979).
42.Stent (1972). Stent was prompted to write this piece because in an earlier article on the history of molecular genetics he had not mentioned the name of Avery and had been criticised for this (Stent, 1968a, b).
43.Stanley (1970), p. 262.
44.Judson (1996), p. 41.
45.Judson (1996), p. 43.
46.Hershey (2000), p. 105.
47.Hotchkiss (2000), p. 36.
48.Northrop (1951), p. 732.
49.Letter of 16 November 1951, Hershey (1966), p. 102.
50.Anderson (1966), p. 76.
51.Creager (2009).
52.http://library.cshl.edu/oralhistory/interview/cshl/memories/szybalski-martha-chase/.
53.Hershey and Chase (1952); for a discussion of the impact of this paper and a detailed analysis of all its experimental steps, see Wyatt (1974). Only the key experiments are described here. A similar experiment was carried out by Watson and Maaløe (1953).
54.Hershey and Chase (1952), p. 56.
55.Symonds (2000), p. 93.
56.Hershey (1953).
57.Hershey (1966), p. 106.
58.Stern (1947). The only people to have been interested in Stern’s models, rather than his biochemical procedures, are historians from 1970 onwards.
59.Caspersson and Schultz (1939), Brachet (1942), Caspersson (1947).
60.Boivin and Vendrely (1947).
61.Caldwell and Hinshelwood (1950).
62.Dounce (1952).
63.Dounce (1952).
Chapter 5
1.Business Week, 15 February 1949.
2.Conway and Siegelman (2005), p. 183.
3.Wiener (1956), pp. 315–17.
4.‘Cybernétique’ had been used by the French physicist Ampère in 1845 to describe the science of civil government; Wiener’s meaning was both far more broad and far more precise. De Latil (1953), pp. 23–4. In a lecture given in 1950, Wiener implied that he had been inspired to use the Greek word for ‘steersman’ by the use of negative feedback in power steering on ships; see http://www.wnyc.org/story/men-machines-and-the-world-about-them/.
5.New York Times, 10 April 1949.
6.Wiener (1948b), pp. 27–9.
7.Quotes in this paragraph are from Wiener (1948b), pp. 11, 58 and 132.
8.In the middle of the 1940s, feedback was mathematically formalised by Wiener and his group, as well as by Hans Sartorius in Germany and a Bell Labs mathematician, Le Roy MacColl. MacColl (1945), Mayr (1970), Bennett (1996).
9.New York Times, 19 December 1948.
10.Rosenblith (1949), p. 187.
11.Eisenhart (1949); Brillouin (1949), p. 566; Brillouin (1956).
12.Pfeiffer (1949), p. 16.
13.Le Monde, 28 December 1948. Wiener was sufficiently impressed (or flattered) by Dubarle’s article to reproduce substantial parts of it (Wiener, 1950). See also Dubarle (1953).
14.Wiener (1956), p. 331.
15.Shannon and Weaver (1949), p. 31.
16.Shannon and Weaver (1949), p. 8.
17.Shannon and Weaver (1949), p. 17.
18.As Weaver put it in an article in Scientific American: ‘it is most significant that an entropy-like expression appears in communication theory as a measure of information’ (Weaver, 1949, p. 12).
19.Kay (2000), p. 94.
20.Kay (2000), p. 101.
21.All material in this paragraph is from von Neumann (1951), pp. 28–31.
22.Kay (1995), p. 623.
23.Kay (2000), pp. 118–19.
24.Anonymous (1950), pp. 193–4.
25.http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/the-reith-lectures/transcripts/1948/#y1950.
26.de Latil (1953, 1957), Colnort-Bodet (1954).
27.King (1952), Gabor (1953).
28.Keller (1995), p. 92.
29.Wiener (1950), p. 16.
30.Times Literary Supplement, 20 July 1951.
31.Wiener (1950), p. 15.
32.Wiener (1950), p. 110.
33.Gleick (2011), p. 232.
34.Kay (1995), p. 624.
35.See the letters from Lederberg to Quastler in the Lederberg papers, http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Collection/CID/BB. Letters are dated 3 May 1951 (reference BBARI) and 16 May 1951 (BBAFAL). For Lederberg’s 1993 view of this episode, see his handwritten comments to Lily E. Kay, on a copy of the 3 May 1951 letter (BBAFAK).
36.Linschitz (1953), p. 251.
37.Dancoff and Quastler (1953), pp. 269–70.
38.Apter and Wolpert (1965), pp. 249–50.
39.Macrae (1992).
40.Conway and Siegelman (2005).
41.The suggestion that heredity involves a kind of memory was first put forward by Ewald Hering and Samuel Butler in the 1870s (Forsdyke, 2006).
42.Kalmus (1950, 1962).
43.Watson (2001), p. 12.
44.Lederberg (1952). One of Lederberg’s coinages – ‘plasmid’ – is still used to describe small extrachromosomal bacterial DNA molecules.
45.Ephrussi et al. (1953).
46.Biologists Spiegelman and Landman (1954), Cavalli-Sforza (1957) and Thomas (1992) all showed they knew it was a joke. Historians and philosophers Kay (1995, 2000), Keller (1995) and Sarkar (1991) all took it seriously.
47.Kay (1995), p. 627.
Chapter 6
1.Maddox (2002), Wilkins (2003).
2.The main books used in this chapter are Crick (1988), Ferry (2007), Gann and Witkowski (2012), Hager (1995), Inglis et al. (2003), Judson (1996), Maddox (2002), McElheny (2003), Olby (1994, 2009), Ridley (2006), Sayre (1975), Watson (1968, 2001), Wilkins (2003). The most potent account, which has framed all others, is Jim Watson’s The Double Helix (Watson 1968, Gann and Witkowski 2012). For a collection of articles covering this period and afterwards, see Witkowski (2005).
3.Daly et al. (1950), p. 506.
4.Chargaff (1951), p. 44. See also Chargaff (1950) and Manchester (2008).
5.Daly et al. (1950).
6.Chargaff et al. (1951), p. 229.
7.Chargaff (1950).
8.Creeth et al. (1947), p. 1141.
9.Wilkins (1964).
10.Wilkins (2003), p. 121; Attar (2013).
11.Attar (2013), p. 5.
12.Olby (1994), p. 355.
13.This was the meeting in Naples that excited Jim Watson so much.
14.Wilkins et al. (1951).
15.Fraser and Fraser (1951).
16.There were seven articles by Pauling on the α-helix in the May 1951 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
17.Cochran and Crick (1952), Cochran, Crick and Vand (1952).
18.Judson (1996), p. 95.
19.Maddox (2002), p. 160.
20.Gann and Witkowski (2012), p. 11. For Franklin, see Maddox (2002), Piper (1998), Sayre (1975).
21.Maddox (2002), p. 151.
22.Wilkins (2003), Attar (2013).
23.Olby (1994), pp. 338–9.
24.Maaløe and Watson (1951).
25.Perutz recalled this moment shortly before he
died, in his last letter to Watson: Inglis et al. (2003), p. 73.
26.Gann and Witkowski (2012), p. 43.
27.Judson (1996), p. 88.
28.Olby (1994), p. 354.
29.Maddox (2002), p. 149.
30.Maddox (2002), p. 154.
31.Judson (1996), p. 104.
32.Klug (2004).
33.Gann and Witkowski (2010), p. 524.
34.Judson (1996), p. 117.
35.Chargaff (1978), p. 101.
36.Judson (1996), p. 120.
37.Cochran and Crick (1952), Cochran et al. (1952).
38.Davies (1990), Hall (2011, 2014), Olby (1994).
39.Pauling to Tinker http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/coll/pauling/dna/corr/corr410.17-lptinker-19520506–02.html. Pauling eventually published a brief article describing Ronwin’s model as ‘extraordinary. Deserves no serious consideration’ (Pauling and Schomaker, 1952).
40.Rowen et al. (1953), p. 90.
41.Interview with Gosling, 2013. http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index-gosling-2013–04–20.html.
42.Judson (1996), p. 131.
43.Olby (1994), pp. 376–7.
44.Pauling and Corey (1953).
45.Interview with Gosling, 2013. http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index-gosling-2013–04–20.html.
46.Gann and Witkowski (2012), p. 181.
47.Wilkins (2003), p. 224; Maddox (2002), p. 196.
48.Judson (1996), p. 142.
49.Judson (1996), p. 132; Maddox (2002), p. 190.
50.Maddox (2002), pp. 201–2.
51.A few days later, the iconic picture of Watson and Crick, with the model of DNA, was taken by Antony Barington Brown, although the photo was not used at the time. De Chadarevian (2003).
52.Wilkins (2003), pp. 212–14.
53.Olby (1994), p. 422. For contrasting views on the impact of the double helix paper, see Olby (2003) and Gingras (2010). There were two contemporary press accounts of the discovery: ‘Why you are you: nearer secret of life’, which appeared in the London-based News Chronicle (15 May 1953), and ‘Clue to chemistry of heredity found’, which appeared in the New York Times (13 June 1953).
54.Creager and Morgan (2008).
55.Perutz (1969).
56.Donohue (1978), p. 135.
57.Watson and Crick (1953a), p. 737.
Chapter 7
1.Judson (1996), p. 153.
2.Watson and Crick (1953b).
3.They did not use the term ‘double helix’ until a year later (Crick and Watson, 1954).
4.Watson (2001), p. 11. For a discussion of the language used by Watson and Crick and its significance, see Halloran (1997); for a post-modern exploration of the rhetoric of molecular biology, see Doyle (1997).
5.Olby (1994), p. 421.
6.Wilkins (2003), p. 224.
7.http://www.webofstories.com/play/francis.crick/84.
8.The nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein kindly sent me 120 pages of FBI documents relating to Gamow that he obtained through a freedom of information request. In 1951 the FBI concluded that Gamow was ‘not the type of individual who would possess deep-rooted convictions of loyalty to any government.’ US Federal Bureau of Investigation, George Gamow FBI file (116-HQ-12246), via Freedom of Information Act Request 1227772–0.
9.Watson (2001), p. 125. ‘Combinatorix’ presumably refers to the branch of mathematics known as ‘combinatorics’.
10.Watson (2001), p. 24.
11.Crick (1966a); Crick (1988), pp. 92–3; Watson (2001), pp. 46–7. Crick (1988) recalls the ‘Tompkins’ article as being the Nature paper; this contradicts his earlier account.
12.Gamow (1954).
13.Olby (2009), p. 221.
14.Crick (1958), p. 140.
15.Watson and Crick (1953c), p. 127.
16.Crick recalls discussing Gamow’s diamond model and his list of 20 amino acids with Watson in Cambridge after the receipt of Gamow’s first letter (Crick, 1988, p. 91). This must be an error: Gamow’s letter does not contain the diamond model and makes no mention of amino acids at all.
17.See, for example, Gamow’s letter to Yčas of 2 July 1954, http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/125.6as.jpg and http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/125.6bs.jpg.
18.Watson (2001), Brenner (2001), Crick (1988), among many others.
19.Watson, letter to Crick, 10 February 1955, p. 2. http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBBJL.pdf.
20.Judson (1996), p. 264.
21.Watson’s tie can be seen on the cover of Watson (2001). Gamow can be seen wearing his tie in the photo in the plate section of this book.
22.http://www.webofstories.com/play/francis.crick/84.
23.Judson (1996), pp. 307–12.
24.Kay (2000), pp. 141–2.
25.Rich (1997), p. 122.
26.For example, Dounce et al. (1955).
27.Gamow and Metropolis (1954), Gamow et al. (1957).
28.Crick (1955), p. 1.
29.Sanger and Tuppy (1951a, b), Sanger and Thompson (1953a, b), Stretton (2002).
30.Crick (1955), p. 4.
31.Crick (1955), pp. 5–6.
32.Crick (1955), p. 17.
33.Schwartz (1955).
34.Gamow et al. (1957).
35.Judson (1996), p. 282.
36.Brenner (1956), p. 3.
37.Brenner (2001), p. 55; Friedberg (2010), p. 82.
38.Brenner (1957), Gamow (1955), Gamow et al. (1957).
39.Judson (1996), pp. 282 and 299.
40.Judson (1996), p. 299.
41.Olby (2009), p. 263.
42.Neel (1949).
43.Pauling et al. (1949), Hager (1995).
44.Allison (2004).
45.Ingram (2004).
46.Pauling (1955), p. 222.
47.Ingram (1956), p. 794.
48.The Times, 1 September 1956.
49.Ingram (1957).
50.The Times, 23 August 1957.
51.Morange (1998), pp. 130–1; Strasser (2006).
Chapter 8
1.Olby (2009), p. 247; Crick (1988), p. 108.
2.Jacob (1988), pp. 287–8.
3.Judson (1996), p. 335.
4.Crick (1957, 1958). Crick (1957) has been cited less than 20 times.
5.Crick (1958), p. 144, pp. 138–9.
6.Crick (1958), p. 144.
7.Glass (1957), p. 757.
8.Zamenhof (1957), p. 354. For Zamenhof’s early acceptance of Avery’s findings, see Zamenhof’s 28 February 1978 letter to Joshua Lederberg. http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/CCAALE.pdf.
9.Beadle (1957), p. 5.
10.Crick (1958), p. 145.
11.Crick (1958), p. 144.
12.Crick (1958), p. 144.
13.Crick (1958), p. 152.
14.Chargaff (1957), pp. 521, 526.
15.Burnet (1956), p. 25.
16.Roberts (1958), p. viii. Roberts’s explanation for the change of vocabulary was as follows: during the conference, entitled ‘Microsomal particles and protein synthesis’, ‘a semantic difficulty became apparent’ as different people used the term microsome to mean very different things. Roberts wrote: ‘During the meeting the word “ribosome” was suggested; this seems a very satisfactory name, and it has a pleasant sound.’
17.Zamecnik and Keller (1954).
18.Hoagland et al. (1957).
19.Hoagland et al. (1958).
20.Crick (1958), pp. 143–4. See also Rich (1962).
21.Crick (1957), pp. 198–200.
22.Crick (1970), p. 562.
23.http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBBFT.pdf.
24.Crick (1988), p. 109.
25.Crick (1970), p. 562.
26.Olby (2009), p. 253; Morange (1998), pp. 169–70.
27.Judson (1996), p. 333.
28.Burnet (1968), Davis (2013).
29.Burnet (1956), pp. 170–1.
30.Burnet (1956), p. 171.
31.Watson (1965).
32.Morange (1998), pp. 172–3.
33.Crick (1988), p. 110.
35.Organ et al. (2008).
36.Burnet (1956), p. 21.
37.Burnet (1956), p. 22.
38.The book that contains the papers from the meeting has the more enticing title Symposium on Information Theory in Biology (Yockey et al., 1958).
39.Yockey (1958), p. 51.
40.Yockey (1958), p. 52.
41.Yčas (1958), p. 94.
42.Bar-Hillel (1953).
43.Augenstine (1958), p. 112.
44.Quastler (1958a), p. 41.
45.Augenstine (1958), p. 115.
46.Quastler (1958b), p. 190.
47.Quastler (1958b), p. 188.
48.Quastler (1958c), p. 399.
49.Young (1954), p. 281.
50.Correspondence between Lederberg and von Neumann, 10 March 1955 – 16 September 1955. http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Series/2722.
51.Burnet (1956), pp. 164–5.
52.Young (1954), pp. 284–5.
53.George (1960), p. 190.
54.Elias (1958).
55.Elias (1959), p. 225.
56.Heims (1991). For an example of this approach, see George (1962).
57.Quoted in Kay (2000), p. 125.
58.Kay (2000), p. 115.
59.Quoted in Kay (2000), p. 126.
60.Quastler (1958c), p. 402.
Chapter 9
1.For biographical studies of Monod, his science and his politics, see Carroll (2013), Debré (1996), Morange (2010) and Ullmann (2010).
2.Quoted by Kay (2000), p. 200, from an original draft. In the published version, Monod removed the fruit-merchant reference (Monod, 1972a).
3.Grandy (1996), Lanouette (1994, 2006), Maas (2004).
4.Monod (1972a), p. xv.
5.Jacob (1988), p. 293.
6.Pappenheimer (1979); Yates and Pardee (1956), p. 770.
7.For the anti-Lysenko explanation of this change, see Carroll (2013), Morange (1998) and above all Kay (2000), pp. 201–3.
8.Novick and Szilárd (1954), p. 21.
9.Cohn et al. (1953a), Monod and Cohen-Bazire (1953a, b), Pardee (1959).
10.Yates and Pardee (1956).
11.Umbarger (1956), p. 848. See also Kresge et al. (2005).
12.Morange (2013).
13.Grmek and Fantini (1982), p. 204.
14.Pardee et al. (1958, 1959), Jacob (1979), Pardee (1979). For the role of US links in work at the Institut Pasteur, see Burian and Gayon (1999) and Gaudillière (2002).
15.Pardee (1985, 2002).
16.In Belgium, Chantrenne and Jeener were developing similar ideas – see Thieffry (1997).
