Working in Cambridge, James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helix in early 1953, while Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin, researchers at King’s College London, were also trying to crack the structure. Franklin was about to leave King’s and DNA work all together, while Wilkins was preparing to focus his mind more closely on the problem once Franklin left. It’s widely believed that Watson and Crick stole Franklin’s data and that this enabled them to make their breakthrough.

The idea can be traced back to Watson’s page-turning but unreliable memoir, The Double Helix, in which he describes seeing X-ray diffraction images at King’s in January 1953 and feeling excited about them. He does not say who made those images (although he does say that Wilkins had been repeating some of Franklin’s observations), but most people believe that this was one of Franklin’s images despite a lack of reliable evidence for this.  Even if the image had been so decisive, surely Franklin—an expert—would have realized this herself.

With Nathaniel Comfort (who is writing a biography of Watson), I discovered that in January 1953, Franklin suggested Crick talk to a colleague, who had an informal report of the work she and Wilkins were doing at King’s, if he wanted to learn more about her findings. There is no indication that she was concerned about sharing her results.

Interviews with Crick from the 1960s and a close reading of the Watson and Crick research papers show that the actual process of making the breakthrough did not involve using any of Franklin’s data. Instead, the pair spent a month fiddling about with cardboard shapes corresponding to the component molecules of DNA, using the basic rules of chemistry. Once they had finally, almost by accident, made the discovery, then they could see that it corresponded to Franklin’s data.

Franklin was not hostile to the pair—she continued to share her data and ideas with both men and subsequently became very close friends with Crick and his wife, Odile. She regularly stayed at their Cambridge home, went to their notorious parties and went to the theatre with Odile. Later, after her cancer diagnosis, she convalesced with the Cricks, twice. There are some charming letters from Odile that I quote in the book, describing their friendship.

In 1947, Crick set out his twin ambitions—to understand the nature of life, and of the human brain. With his work on molecular biology, he made huge strides toward achieving that first ambition; in 1977 Crick settled in California, working at the Salk Institute, with the aim of understanding consciousness. Although he made no single decisive breakthrough—we still do not understand how consciousness works—he played a decisive role in creating modern neuroscience.

First, he used his reputation and influence to argue for a focus on precise anatomy—the origin of today’s huge projects to map animal brains and, eventually, the human brain.

If the image had been so decisive, surely Franklin would have realized this herself.

Then, in the 1980s he was closely involved with the cognitive scientists and computer scientists who developed something called Parallel Distributed Processing—the distant precursor of today’s AI systems. He argued for fusing computer models of behaviour with precise anatomical knowledge to gain insight into how nervous systems work, and collaborated closely with AI pioneers Geoffrey Hinton and John Hopfield, who in 2024 shared the Nobel Prize for their work.

Above all, working with Christof Koch, he set out a materialist approach for investigating consciousness—much of today’s interest in the topic can be traced back to Crick’s pioneering advocacy and insight.

Although this contribution has largely been forgotten, before the turn of the millennia, his role was widely recognized. He regularly published articles and think-pieces in Nature, the leading scientific journal, and in 1994 he wrote a hugely successful popular book about his ideas, The Astonishing Hypothesis, which helped to shape the thinking of both scientists and the public about the nature of consciousness.

One aspect of Crick’s life that even his close collaborators did not know of was his fascination with poetry. He even tried his hand at writing verse—some of it was dreadful, but other attempts, quoted in my book, were pretty good.

His closest relationship with poetry came with the work of Michael McClure. In 1959, Crick bought a copy of one of McClure’s early works—Peyote Poem—in City Lights Bookstore in San Francisco. This described the psychedelic effects of chewing peyote; Crick did not know what this was, but he was struck by McClure’s writing and pinned the long poem in the hall of his Cambridge home.

In the early 1970s, he got a chance to meet McClure, who was by now quite well known—“the Prince of the San Francisco poetry scene,” said one observer—and the two struck up a close friendship (Crick had also experimented with LSD by this point). McClure would send Crick early versions of his poems and his essays; Crick would give his opinion, which McClure sometimes accepted, changing his work as a result. Their letters—scattered in archives around the world—reveal an intimate and unusual friendship.

For the next three decades the two men exchanged visits and letters, which reveal an emotionally charged, subjective side to Crick that might seem to contradict his materialist approach to science. But, in fact, his approach to science was not strictly logical, but full of fun and sudden, intuitive glimpses into facets of reality that were previously hidden. Understanding his interest in poetry, and in McClure’s work in particular, sheds light on Crick’s character and on his science.

Enjoying  Nautilus? Subscribe to our free newsletter.

Lead image: Maryna Olyak / Shutterstock

Sometimes it seems like half my life was spent learning something new. The more I’ve learned, the more I’ve thought about how to learn, and I’m going to distill part of the process down for you. These methods are primarily about intellectual matters: mastering a subject, but are easily adapted to practical and creative skills.

The four steps are:

1) Study/Read.

2) Think about.

3) Discuss (something is to be learned from your superiors/equals and inferiors.) 4

4) Do (write in intellectual disciplines). You must try out what you learn to own it.

The first step is reading or going to lectures or watching someone else do the task you want to learn. In intellectual matters I suggest finding the shortest book on the subject to start. If it’s well written it will give you a map of the subject. That map may be wrong or oversimplified, but it is a start.

Once you’ve got that map, spend some time thinking about it. This means two things: get it to the point where you can run thru the entire map or model in your head, or speaking out loud. Then spend time examining the map: are there places where it seems incomplete or potentially wrong?

In the discussion stage find someone to discuss what you’ve learned with. They need to be interested and engaged, but the level of knowledge is less important. If they’re ignorant, you wind up teaching them, and that shows what you don’t know. If they know about as much as you, you can easily bounce off each other. And if they know much more than you, they can point out issues and suggest further reading and interesting questions you should ask.

If you have no one available to talk to, have an imaginary conversation. Daydream it. You can use someone you know (I often imagine past teachers) or you can imagine someone well known you’ve never met. What would Socrates or Plato or Kant say about this philosophical issue? What would Napoleon or Sun Tzu say about these military issues? What would the Buddha or Jesus say about this religious issue? What would Adam Smith, Marx or Keynes say about an economic issue? What would FDR, Thatcher, Stalin, Pericles or Deng do about this political/economic issue?

The discussion stage can be viewed as an extension of the thinking stage, except you’re getting someone else’s thinking: a different viewpoint than your own. You can talk to multiple people, or seek multiple imaginary perspectives from historical figures whose thinking you understand well. “What would X say about this?”

In the doing stage either teach what you’ve learned, or write something about it. Explainers are fine, so are argumentative pieces. Once you’ve finished, get feedback from your student and think about what you had trouble teaching or put what you wrote aside, then read it a couple days later, ideally out loud. Ask yourself what you don’t understand yet, what doesn’t make sense, or what seems wrong.

Then read the next book or attend the next lecture or watch a practitioner performing. This recursion should be based on what you didn’t understand or problems you found or just what you’re curious to learn more about.

And then… think, and discuss, and do.

All thru this remember, you will only truly master what you love. This should be an enjoyable loop, even the frustration should encourage you as long as it comes with “I don’t get it, and I want to  and I look forward to figuring it out.”

If you want to do particularly well, learn to express what you’ve learned fairly and strongly, BUT look for where it doesn’t work. Is there a place where the logic doesn’t flow, where it’s not coherent. Are there real world cases it would not predict or predict incorrectly? These anomalies tell you where to go next.

Don’t just look for where it doesn’t work, though, look for where it does. Few intellectual tools work in all circumstances. What’s it good for?

And as you learn, stack up models. “Neo-classical economics works for this, Marxism works for that. Keynesianism explains this well. Austrian economics….”

Then you wind up with a multi-faceted understanding and an intellectual took you know when and where to use, and understand where they are inapplicable. And that is very close to mastery.

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

School districts are paying extra for basic supplies thanks to unpredictable dynamic pricing on Amazon, which is costing them on average 17 percent more, according to a report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). As reported earlier by The Guardian, unlike the contracts schools and local governments would traditionally make with local suppliers, who would bid to offer the best rates, Amazon Business doesn’t guarantee locked-in prices, resulting in huge pricing swings. 

For instance, the report mentions an employee of the City of Boulder, Colorado, who purchased a 12-pack of Sharpie markers for $8.99, while an employee of the nearby Denver Public Schools was charged $28.63 for the same product on the same day. ILSR cites similar price fluctuations for Crayola markers, Kleenex tissues, Expo dry erase markers, Elmer’s school glue, and more. 

In a statement shared with The Verge, Amazon spokesperson Jessica Martin claimed ILSR’s report was “flawed and misleading,” stating, “Pricing research is notoriously difficult to conduct accurately and typically lacks reliable methodology, including cherry-picked product selections, mismatched product comparisons, and comparing in-stock items with products out-of-stock at competitors.”

ILSR takes issue with Amazon’s lack of transparency around how dynamic pricing changes are calculated by its algorithm, and what triggers different prices for different buyers. However, it seems like the more often an item is ordered, the more significant the price fluctuations can be. ILSR found that “among the 100 most frequently ordered products, the highest prices Amazon charged were, on average, 136 percent higher than the lowest.” 

As the report points out, Amazon Business has also reduced competition for these necessary school and office supplies, cutting down the number of independent suppliers from 1,300 to 900 over the past decade. A price comparison of commonly-purchased school supplies found that an independent supplier was able to beat Amazon’s prices on 68 percent of products. 

A separate study published last month by Profitero and highlighted by Amazon found that Amazon offers, on average, 14 percent lower prices than 23 other leading U.S. retailers. In the case of state and local governments, though, that doesn’t necessarily reflect lower prices that could have been negotiated with local independent suppliers, such as bulk discounts, especially compared with the peak prices from Amazon’s dynamic pricing.

Amazon spokesperson Jessica Martin:

This flawed and misleading report based on data from 2023 misrepresents the facts and does not reflect the significant cost savings Amazon Business provides customers by offering everyday low prices that meet or beat other online providers and powerful tools to lower their spend. Pricing research is notoriously difficult to conduct accurately and typically lacks reliable methodology, including cherry-picked product selections, mismatched product comparisons, and comparing in-stock items with products out-of-stock at competitors. Amazon Business offers customers price ceilings that ensure they don’t pay above an agreed price, while automatically capturing savings when prices are lower.

Update, December 4th: Added comment from Amazon spokesperson Jessica Martin.

Thirty years ago today, Netscape Communications and Sun Microsystems issued a joint press release announcing JavaScript, an object scripting language designed for creating interactive web applications. The language emerged from a frantic 10-day sprint at pioneering browser company Netscape, where engineer Brendan Eich hacked together a working internal prototype during May 1995.

While the JavaScript language didn’t ship publicly until that September and didn’t reach a 1.0 release until March 1996, the descendants of Eich’s initial 10-day hack now run on approximately 98.9 percent of all websites with client-side code, making JavaScript the dominant programming language of the web. It’s wildly popular; beyond the browser, JavaScript powers server backends, mobile apps, desktop software, and even some embedded systems. According to several surveys, JavaScript consistently ranks among the most widely used programming languages in the world.

In crafting JavaScript, Netscape wanted a scripting language that could make webpages interactive, something lightweight that would appeal to web designers and non-professional programmers. Eich drew from several influences: The syntax looked like a trendy new programming language called Java to satisfy Netscape management, but its guts borrowed concepts from Scheme, a language Eich admired, and Self, which contributed JavaScript’s prototype-based object model.

Read full article

Comments

I’m currently revisiting Seinfeld with my youngest son. I haven’t watched the sitcom in decades. I am surprised at how genuinely funny it remains and how badly some of the core premises have aged.

Case in point: the non-fat yogurt episode from season five. The entire segment, which aired in 1993, hinges on the idea that this kind of food is a disastrous dietary choice and consuming it will make you “fat” (lots of weight gags throughout). The fat-is-evil theme is taken as a truism. As Jerry exclaims to a neighbour in the final scene (spoiler alert!), the yogurt actually had fat in it! “It’s not good for you!” Cue laugh track.

Fast forward to 2025. Fat, according to hype merchants, is good! It’s healthy! There is the ketogenic diet (lots of fat). The Atkins diet (a fat bomb). The carnivore diet (bursting with fat, cuz meat!). Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current United States Department of Health and Human Services secretary, wants full-fat dairy in schools across America. And he wants to change dietary guidelines to encourage people to eat more saturated fats. Bring on the full-fat yogurt!

Every few years, a new, of-the-moment, allegedly definitive bit of nutritional advice becomes so fully embraced by the news media, the food industry, and pop culture that it is taken—like “fat-free,” in the 1990s—as a truism. And then—flip—it isn’t anymore.

The current obsession taken up by the vast and growing Wellness Industrial Complex can be summarized in one word: protein. It is everywhere. Protein popcorn. Protein breakfast cereal. Protein ice cream. Protein potato chips. Protein candy bars. Starbucks is offering protein-infused lattes. There is an ever-expanding assortment of protein powders and supplements. And, the 1990s Jerry Seinfeld would be happy to hear, protein yogurt. Protein stacked on top of protein. This protein blitzkrieg has been felt. Consumers are responding. Marketing has won.

A 2024 survey found that 71 percent of Americans are trying to increase their protein intake. Another survey found that over 90 percent believe the inaccurate idea that it is essential to eat meat to get enough protein. In a 2021 industry survey involving a dozen countries, roughly half of respondents said they associate protein with a “healthy diet,” and 72 percent were willing to pay a premium for “protein fortification.” And the market for protein-rich food products is predicted to double over the next decade, rising to more than $100 billion (US) by 2034.

The reality is that most of us consume more than enough protein. Indeed, it has been estimated that the average adult male overshoots their protein consumption by 55 percent. While others put that overconsumption at less, there clearly isn’t some vast lack-of-protein crisis gripping the developed world. As Stuart Phillips, one of the world’s leading experts on all things protein, told me, “Protein is essential, but the hype has turned it into a farce. People have lost their minds on this one.”

Yes, research is exploring the benefits for certain populations, such as older adults and those on GLP-1 medications (which help regulate blood sugar levels). Study results are mixed, but some evidence suggests they may benefit from consuming slightly more protein than the conventionally recommended 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight. But despite the emerging science, Phillips, who has done some of the foundational work on this, feels it is important to emphasize that “the push for mega doses isn’t backed by any solid science.”

Indeed, for the vast majority of people, there are no health benefits to eating more protein than the recommended daily allowance. Extra protein doesn’t magically turn into extra muscle; it is flushed out of our bodies as urea. Or, as Marcia Clark, an orthopedic surgeon, sports medicine expert, and president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, told me, the extra protein mostly just “becomes expensive pee.” It is also worth noting that any excess calories connected to consuming all that protein aren’t stored in some special repository in our body. They are stored as fat.

Given the lack of evidence to support the protein craze, what is driving it? A big factor is socio-political. Manosphere influencers (think Joe Rogan, et al.) are one of the proteinification epicentres. Protein, especially if it comes from an animal, scans as manly. Fruits and veggies? Not so much. Studies consistently show a connection between traditional masculine norms and meat consumption. One recent study found that “men who support the use of physical violence and place high importance on sex” ate more meat. Okay, that example is a bit extreme, but you get the idea. Protein is manly, macho, MAGA.

Another huge reason for the rise of protein is that it is a massive opportunity for the food industry, which, of course, was also the case with the 1990s fat-free trend. Once a health trend starts to work its way into the public consciousness—think GMO-free, organic, natural, clean—the market responds by leveraging that trend into a new health halo. Health halos give the impression a product is a healthy and sensible choice, even if the evidence suggests otherwise. Health halos can also cause people to consume more calories because of this “It’s healthy!” misperception. But there’s no reason a protein-enhanced potato chip can’t have as many calories—and be just as unhealthy—as a regular potato chip.

• Sure, Ultra-Processed Foods Are Bad. But How Does That Help Anyone?
• The Multi-Trillion-Dollar Wellness Industry Is Making Us Sick
• You’re Not Imagining It. Health Misinformation Is Everywhere

Some studies suggest the processed foods bearing the “protein” badge can be troublesome in their own right. A recent study from Spain looked at thousands of food products and found that 90.8 percent of those with the “protein” label should be classified as “less healthy,” and over 50 percent were high in fat or sodium. A Snickers candy bar labelled “protein” (a real product, by the way) is still just a Snickers candy bar.

There are a host of other issues associated with the protein trend. It is bad for the environment—not just because higher demand for meat drives up greenhouse gas emissions, but because all that protein-polluted pee breaks down into nitrogen that can harm both water and air. (Seriously, this is a real, albeit still speculative, concern.) Protein supplements, which are part of a lightly regulated product, can have problematic toxins. For example, a recent analysis by Consumer Reports found that protein powders often contain worrying levels of lead. And, in case you are wondering, there also isn’t good evidence that a high-protein diet will lead to long-term weight loss.

The bottom line: the current fixation on protein is yet another evidence-free diet trend that will likely pass. Given RFK Jr.’s recent declarations about saturated fats, perhaps that will be the new wellness fad? Let’s debunk that one before it even starts. A large and consistent body of evidence tells us we don’t need to be eating more saturated fats.

Whenever you see a new health-halo label, think of Seinfeld and that fat-free yogurt. If you have health concerns or are worried about your diet, consult a dietitian or other science-informed health professional. But it is almost always a good idea to ignore the diet hype. As Phillips nicely concludes, “for most, real food and a balanced diet is still the big win.”

The post Bro, Enough with the Protein. You’re Just Making Expensive Pee first appeared on The Walrus.

Along the vast divide between AI optimists and pessimists, the main factor in determining which side you fall on may be where you see yourself in the future: above the effects of AI, or beneath them.