James Watson, the discoverer of the structure of DNA , explains to DICK AHLSTROM the need for dissenting voices in science, and how we could excel

THE FACT that James Watson would like to start a gossip magazine for scientists is a clear indication of his mischievous wit. Yet his intention is less to offer tittle-tattle than to improve the conduct of science.

A magazine with “true” gossip would open up the possibility of real criticism in an overly polite and restrained scientific environment, says the joint winner, with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, of the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine.

“In literature there are critics that criticise authors. In science we don’t have critics. I would like a magazine for critics. There should be more of it in science. Even the best of people can get into ruts and no one is really criticising and there is no outside body so you never read anything [critical],” he argues.

He was giving the Inaugural Cancer Lecture at the Cork Cancer Research Centre, UCC, yesterday prior to receiving an honorary degree from University College Cork.

Watson is based at the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, Long Island, New York. He rails against the conservatism he believes inhibits scientists and serves to limit the proper advance of science. “Either they are worrying about getting their [research] published because of their lousy editors or they are worrying about the grants,” he says.

“They are fighting a system that is becoming inherently more and more conservative because nobody wants to offend anyone because you don’t want to offend someone who might give you money. And so science is not best when it is polite,” he says

“But there are some people who think, you know, that the aim is more consensus in society, more working for the common good and all that, but it is crap. You would never produce a good newspaper that way.”

His work in describing the structure of our genetic code DNA provided a starting point for much of the biological science being conducted today. Watson believes it has the potential to transform medical treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, obesity and neurological disorders. He described work under way at Cold Spring Harbour comparing the DNA of families where bipolar disorder occurs.

He well understands the burden caused when a family member develops neurological disease, given that his son suffers from just such a condition.

Watson, now aged 82, argues in favour of a “brain genome project”, an international effort to sequence the genomes of 100,000 people including families with mental diseases. “We might be able, in the next 10 years’ time, to pick it [disease] out in a family.”

Obesity represents another health issue where genetic research could have an impact. Watson believes that society will also have to respond, for example by levying taxes on the sugary and fatty foods causing much of the problem.

“If you were poor and only had enough money to eat nothing but fast food, you would still have enough to become obese,” he says.

Ireland could have an impact on disease research despite its size, Watson suggests. “Rationally, if you were planning ahead, you would, say, have 400 or 500 people all working on neuroscience. The group’s aim would be to be a significant factor in science, science that is going to change the future of the disease.

“If you look at a country the size of Ireland, you might have two groups, one in Dublin and one in Cork, one for cancer and one for neuroscience. And that would be better than if you were trying to put both into both niches because you need a critical mass of people to interact with one another. But that is not the way things are set up. It simply isn’t big enough.”

Surprisingly, it is not all about the money, be believes. “You have to have the money but the limiting factor is not money, the really truly limiting factor is brains. I am finding that now. What is really limiting in American cancer research is brains.”

Yet a surfeit of brain power is not always desirable. “One asks why isn’t the British parliament brighter or the US Congress. I think the answer is you succeed in society very much by getting along with your fellow human beings. And if you are pointing out that they are wrong, it does not help your cause. So it is a rare circumstance where being an outsider helps you.”

Watson did not control his own research group. “No, I never did. I kept my individuality writing books. I wrote textbooks from the age of 60, so that forced me to learn things and make decisions on what is important.”