What do you think?
Rate this book
What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery
En estas animadas memorias, el autor nos narra, entre otras cosas, su vida «anterior a la doble hélice», su implicación en el descubrimiento del mayor adelanto científico del siglo XX, la forma en la que la historia del DNA fue finalmente llevada a la pequeña pantalla y cómo la ruptura del código genético y el inicio de la revolución biológico-molecular se dieron por la simple combinación de elección y azar. Para el estudio de esta obra, Crick se inspira en la «Oda sobre una urna griega», del poeta Keats, en la que este afirma que belleza y verdad son sinónimos. En su estilo chispeante y ameno Crick explora, en Qué loco propósito , la complejas relaciones que encuentra entre ambas, entre la teoría y la práctica de las ciencias y en la vida misma. De este libro Linus Pauling , Premio Nobel de Química en 1954 y Premio Nobel de la Paz en 1962, dijo : «Una interesante descripción de la vida de un científico y su participación en el descubrimiento de la estructura de doble hélice del DNA, uno de los descubrimientos más importantes de la historia». Actualmente Francis Crick es profesor en el Salk Institute de La Jolla, California, y el mundo entero lo considera uno de los grandes sabios de nuestro siglo. Este libro ha alcanzado un éxito desbordante en Los Estado Unidos y en otros países donde se ha traducido, pues el autor consigue transmitir al lector curioso y ajeno al mundo científico, en qué consiste la exaltación de descubrir aquello que se persigue con entusiasmo y tesón.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
64 people are currently reading
1353 people want to read
About the author
Francis Crick
13 books123 followersFrancis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004), was a British molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist, and most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material" .
Crick is widely known for use of the term "central dogma" to summarize an idea that genetic information flow in cells is essentially one-way, from DNA to RNA to protein. Crick was an important theoretical molecular biologist and played an important role in research related to revealing the genetic code.
During the remainder of his career, he held the post of J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. His later research centered on theoretical neurobiology and attempts to advance the scientific study of human consciousness. He remained in this post until his death; "he was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end" said Christof Koch.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_...
Crick is widely known for use of the term "central dogma" to summarize an idea that genetic information flow in cells is essentially one-way, from DNA to RNA to protein. Crick was an important theoretical molecular biologist and played an important role in research related to revealing the genetic code.
During the remainder of his career, he held the post of J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. His later research centered on theoretical neurobiology and attempts to advance the scientific study of human consciousness. He remained in this post until his death; "he was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end" said Christof Koch.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
August 4, 2010
I guess the risk of reading autobiographies is that you might come out not enjoying the book because you don't like the person.
In James Watson's 'The Double Helix' Francis Crick is painted as brilliant, impatient, prone to irritate others with his bumptious nature and unwelcome knowledge-sharing. Watson portrays himself as the shyer, more uncertain half of the duo - out of place both culturally (as an American) and scientifically (he's blagging time away when he's meant to be working on - phages, I think).
Crick's 'What Mad Pursuit' is, like 'The Double Helix', a story about scientific research. He is however a more self-conscious story-teller than Watson, possibly because he is writing after several attempts have been made to tell the story of the discovery of the structure of DNA in different media.
As he writes at the beginning of the chapter 'Books and movies about DNA':
"I recall when Jim was writing his book he read a chapter to me while we were dining together at a small restaurant near Harvard Square. I found it difficult to take his account seriously. "Who," I asked myself, "could possibly what to read stuff like this?" Little did I know!"
Crick shows some impatience with the general reader:
"The average adult can usually enjoy something only if it relates to what he knows already, and what he knows about science is in many cases pitifully inadequate. What almost everybody is familiar with is the vagaries of personal behaviour. People find it much easier to appreciate stories of competition, frustration, and animosity, against a background of parties, foreign girls, and punting on the river, than the details of the science involved."
This cut me to my reading quick. It's shit like this that I get off on - and it's stuff like this that has taken me from someone who gave up on chemistry in 5th form (because I, with typical teenage disdain, despised my teacher) and suffered through physics in 6th form without learning a damn thing, to someone who now actually understand what the LHC is.
Crick often comes across as quite abrasive. His demeaning adjective of choice is 'sloppy' - sloppy thinking, sloppy model-making, sloppy maths. My favourite write-off, when describing a mathematician he clearly felt to be lack-lustre: "Either he had not read our paper carefully enough or, if he had read it, he had not understood it. But then in my experience most mathematicians are intellectually lazy and especially dislike reading experimental papers."
So, the tone of the book was not one I admired. I did come to appreciate Crick's sheer mental avidity: in his sixties he moved to the Salk Institute and took up serious research on the brain, applying the same vigour and challenging attitude to this that he did back in Cambridge in the 1950s.
And one small paragraph just blew my mind:
"The laws of physics, it is believed, are the same everywhere in the universe. This is unlikely to to be true of biology. We have no idea how similar extraterrestrial biology (if it exists) is to our own. We may consider it likely that it too will be governed by natural selection, or something rather like it, but even this is only a plausible guess."
The closest I've ever come to a religious feeling was when I read about cosmic rays - muons that come from outerspace, pass through the earth's atmosphere, and down into the Earth. I suddenly felt like something much bigger than myself. Particles that had come from the sun could be passing through me right now. Light, sound, rainbows - none have had this almost physical sense of coming to an understanding and connection that this did.
The three sentences above had a similar thrill. I've never been interested in aliens. But the idea that they might not be subject to the same evolutionary mechanism that we are - I imagine I felt the same way that some Christian astronomer did once, laying eyes on a distant galaxy and suddenly wondering - can my God be there too?
And for that moment, I will forgive much else.
In James Watson's 'The Double Helix' Francis Crick is painted as brilliant, impatient, prone to irritate others with his bumptious nature and unwelcome knowledge-sharing. Watson portrays himself as the shyer, more uncertain half of the duo - out of place both culturally (as an American) and scientifically (he's blagging time away when he's meant to be working on - phages, I think).
Crick's 'What Mad Pursuit' is, like 'The Double Helix', a story about scientific research. He is however a more self-conscious story-teller than Watson, possibly because he is writing after several attempts have been made to tell the story of the discovery of the structure of DNA in different media.
As he writes at the beginning of the chapter 'Books and movies about DNA':
"I recall when Jim was writing his book he read a chapter to me while we were dining together at a small restaurant near Harvard Square. I found it difficult to take his account seriously. "Who," I asked myself, "could possibly what to read stuff like this?" Little did I know!"
Crick shows some impatience with the general reader:
"The average adult can usually enjoy something only if it relates to what he knows already, and what he knows about science is in many cases pitifully inadequate. What almost everybody is familiar with is the vagaries of personal behaviour. People find it much easier to appreciate stories of competition, frustration, and animosity, against a background of parties, foreign girls, and punting on the river, than the details of the science involved."
This cut me to my reading quick. It's shit like this that I get off on - and it's stuff like this that has taken me from someone who gave up on chemistry in 5th form (because I, with typical teenage disdain, despised my teacher) and suffered through physics in 6th form without learning a damn thing, to someone who now actually understand what the LHC is.
Crick often comes across as quite abrasive. His demeaning adjective of choice is 'sloppy' - sloppy thinking, sloppy model-making, sloppy maths. My favourite write-off, when describing a mathematician he clearly felt to be lack-lustre: "Either he had not read our paper carefully enough or, if he had read it, he had not understood it. But then in my experience most mathematicians are intellectually lazy and especially dislike reading experimental papers."
So, the tone of the book was not one I admired. I did come to appreciate Crick's sheer mental avidity: in his sixties he moved to the Salk Institute and took up serious research on the brain, applying the same vigour and challenging attitude to this that he did back in Cambridge in the 1950s.
And one small paragraph just blew my mind:
"The laws of physics, it is believed, are the same everywhere in the universe. This is unlikely to to be true of biology. We have no idea how similar extraterrestrial biology (if it exists) is to our own. We may consider it likely that it too will be governed by natural selection, or something rather like it, but even this is only a plausible guess."
The closest I've ever come to a religious feeling was when I read about cosmic rays - muons that come from outerspace, pass through the earth's atmosphere, and down into the Earth. I suddenly felt like something much bigger than myself. Particles that had come from the sun could be passing through me right now. Light, sound, rainbows - none have had this almost physical sense of coming to an understanding and connection that this did.
The three sentences above had a similar thrill. I've never been interested in aliens. But the idea that they might not be subject to the same evolutionary mechanism that we are - I imagine I felt the same way that some Christian astronomer did once, laying eyes on a distant galaxy and suddenly wondering - can my God be there too?
And for that moment, I will forgive much else.
February 4, 2018
This is an exceptionally well written and invigorating work of one of the most ingenious minds in the fields of molecular biology, and science, at large. The entire book can be divided into four parts:
The first part focuses on Crick's decision to change fields from physics to molecular biology (he was interested in neurobiology as well, to which his interests return during his later years) and the discovery of the structure of proteins using X-Ray Crystallography by Crick and his seniors (Bragg, Perutz, Bernal, Kendrew, etc). Crick mentions the erroneous techniques, assumptions and inferences along with the correct discovery made by Pauling of the α-helix structure of proteins. The α-helix structure of polypeptide chains turns out to be one of the important contributors in the discovery of DNA structure.
The second part delves in depth regarding the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA by James (Jim) Watson and Crick (including experimental data provided by Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin). Moreover, there is an extensive but amusing review on a docudrama (Life Story) and the other denouements of the vital discovery (books, documentaries, movies, etc). The discovery is a fascinating account of acute observational skills, valid interpretation of data, certain intuitive skills and an authorative ruthlessness in approaching the 'correct' question. In the words of Crick himself,
The third part would be the questions left to be answered after the knowledge and conclusive data after the revelation of DNA's structure and the pivotal role Crick played in these experimental and theoretical approaches. These include: the nature of the genetic code, the number of bases in a codon, the requirement of a messenger for protein synthesis (which turned out to be mRNA instead of rRNA after arduous experiments), the central dogma (turned out to be an inaccurate hypothesis later on), presence of an adaptor molecule in the protein synthesis machinery, and so on. Here, Crick mentions the blurring of distinctive boundaries between genetics and molecular biology (and biochemistry, to a certain extent). In his own words,
He frankly cites his mistakes in some of his wrong assumptions and warns other researchers to be on the lookout for the same errors in the manner of thinking. Of particular brilliance are his words on the importance of knowing the distinction between a demonstration and a model for a theory.
Finally, the fourth part would include his switch to neurobiology and cognitive science. The best part of the entire book is in those few pages of Conclusion where he delineates biology from other fields of Science; i.e., Mathematics and Physics. He states the limitations as well as the challenges in trying to establish a fundamental law in biology due to the constraints put by constant evolution and workings of natural selection.
This was an astonishing and exemplary memoir filled with anecdotes and guidance all along the way. Crick is modest, candid and brilliant. But what is really amazing and inspiring to see is his passion to know and to find answers. The title itself (which is taken from John Keats' poem, Ode on a Grecian Urn) is suggestive of the impossibility of certain endeavours but what he sets out to prove is this: it can be achieved if people keep asking the right questions. And he certainly accomplishes in doing just that, both in his lifetime as well as in this excellent book.
The first part focuses on Crick's decision to change fields from physics to molecular biology (he was interested in neurobiology as well, to which his interests return during his later years) and the discovery of the structure of proteins using X-Ray Crystallography by Crick and his seniors (Bragg, Perutz, Bernal, Kendrew, etc). Crick mentions the erroneous techniques, assumptions and inferences along with the correct discovery made by Pauling of the α-helix structure of proteins. The α-helix structure of polypeptide chains turns out to be one of the important contributors in the discovery of DNA structure.
What attracted me to them was that each contained a major mystery—the mystery of life and the mystery of consciousness. I wanted to know more exactly what, in scientific terms, those mysteries were. I felt it would be splendid if I finally made some small contribution to their solution, but that seemed too far away to worry about.
The second part delves in depth regarding the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA by James (Jim) Watson and Crick (including experimental data provided by Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin). Moreover, there is an extensive but amusing review on a docudrama (Life Story) and the other denouements of the vital discovery (books, documentaries, movies, etc). The discovery is a fascinating account of acute observational skills, valid interpretation of data, certain intuitive skills and an authorative ruthlessness in approaching the 'correct' question. In the words of Crick himself,
The main difference of approach was that Jim and I had an intimate knowledge of the way the α helix was discovered. We appreciated what a strong set of constraints the known interatomic distances and angles provided and how postulating that the structure was a regular helix reduced the number of free parameters drastically. The King’s workers were reluctant to be converted to such an approach. [...] I believe there were at least two others. Neither Jim nor I felt any external pressure to get on with the problem. This meant that we could approach it intensively for a period and then leave it alone for a bit. Our other advantage was that we had evolved unstated but fruitful methods of collaboration, something that was quite missing in the London group. If either of us suggested a new idea the other, while taking it seriously, would attempt to demolish it in a candid but nonhostile manner. This turned out to be quite crucial. [...] However, I don’t believe all this amounts to much. The major credit I think Jim and I deserve, considering how early we were in our research careers, is for selecting the right problem and sticking to it. It’s true that by blundering about we stumbled on gold, but the fact remains that we were looking for gold. Both of us had decided, quite independently of each other, that the central problem in molecular biology was the chemical structure of the gene. The geneticist Hermann Muller had pointed this out as long ago as the early 1920s, and many others had done so since then. What both Jim and I sensed was that there might be a shortcut to the answer, that things might not be quiteas complicated as they seemed. Curiously enough, I believed this partly because of my very detailed grasp of the current knowledge of proteins. We could not at all see what the answer was, but we considered it so important that we were determined to think about it long and hard, from any relevant point of view.
The third part would be the questions left to be answered after the knowledge and conclusive data after the revelation of DNA's structure and the pivotal role Crick played in these experimental and theoretical approaches. These include: the nature of the genetic code, the number of bases in a codon, the requirement of a messenger for protein synthesis (which turned out to be mRNA instead of rRNA after arduous experiments), the central dogma (turned out to be an inaccurate hypothesis later on), presence of an adaptor molecule in the protein synthesis machinery, and so on. Here, Crick mentions the blurring of distinctive boundaries between genetics and molecular biology (and biochemistry, to a certain extent). In his own words,
I think that there is a lesson here for those wanting to build a bridge between two distinct but obviously related fields (a possible modern example would be cognitive science and neurobiology). I am not sure that reasoned arguments, however well constructed, do much good. They may produce an awareness of a possible connection, but not much more. Most geneticists could not have been easily persuaded to learn protein chemistry, for example, just because a few clever people thought that was where genetics ought to go. They thought (as functionalists do today) that the logic of their subject did not depend on knowing all the biochemical details. The geneticist R. A. Fisher once told me that what we had to explain was why genes were arranged like beads on a string. I don’t think it ever occurred to him that the genes made up the string!
What makes people really appreciate the connection between two fields is some new and striking result that obviously connects them in a dramatic way. One good example is worth a ton of theoretical arguments. Given that, the bridge between the two fields is soon crowded with research workers eager to join in the new approach.
He frankly cites his mistakes in some of his wrong assumptions and warns other researchers to be on the lookout for the same errors in the manner of thinking. Of particular brilliance are his words on the importance of knowing the distinction between a demonstration and a model for a theory.
The path to success in theoretical biology is thus fraught with hazards. It is all too easy to make some plausible simplifying assumptions, do some elaborate mathematics that appear to give a rough fit with at least some experimental data, and think one has achieved something. The chance of such an approach doing anything useful, apart from soothing the theorist’s ego, is rather small, and especially so in biology. Moreover I have found, to my surprise, that most theorists do not appreciate the difference between a model and a demonstration, often mistaking the latter for the former.
In my terminology, a “demonstration” is a “don’t worry” theory [...] That is, it does not pretend to approximate to the right answer, but it shows that at least a theory of that general type can be constructed. In a sense it is only an existence proof. Curiously enough, there exists in the literature an example of such a demonstration in relation to genes and DNA.
Finally, the fourth part would include his switch to neurobiology and cognitive science. The best part of the entire book is in those few pages of Conclusion where he delineates biology from other fields of Science; i.e., Mathematics and Physics. He states the limitations as well as the challenges in trying to establish a fundamental law in biology due to the constraints put by constant evolution and workings of natural selection.
Physics is also different because its results can be expressed in powerful, deep, and often counterintuitive general laws. There is really nothing in biology that corresponds to special and general relativity, or quantum electrodynamics, or even such simple conservation laws as those of Newtonian mechanics: the conservation of energy, of momentum, and of angular momentum. Biology has its “laws,” such as those of Mendelian genetics, but they are often only rather broad generalizations, with significant exceptions to them. The laws of physics, it is believed, are the same everywhere in the universe. This is unlikely to be true of biology. We have no idea how similar extraterrestrial biology (if it exists) is to our own. We may certainly consider it likely that it too will be governed by natural selection, or something rather like it, but even this is only a plausible guess.
What is found in biology is mechanisms, mechanisms built with chemical components and that are often modified by other, later, mechanisms added to the earlier ones. While Occam’s razor is a useful tool in the physical sciences, it can be a very dangerous implement in biology. It is thus very rash to use simplicity and elegance as a guide in biological research. While DNA could be claimed to be both simple and elegant, it must be remembered that DNA almost certainly originated fairly close to the origin of life when things were necessarily simple or they could not have got going.
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.
This was an astonishing and exemplary memoir filled with anecdotes and guidance all along the way. Crick is modest, candid and brilliant. But what is really amazing and inspiring to see is his passion to know and to find answers. The title itself (which is taken from John Keats' poem, Ode on a Grecian Urn) is suggestive of the impossibility of certain endeavours but what he sets out to prove is this: it can be achieved if people keep asking the right questions. And he certainly accomplishes in doing just that, both in his lifetime as well as in this excellent book.
May 30, 2020
An interesting read that nicely complements Watson’s “The Double Helix.”
Aside from discussing the trajectory of Crick’s career, it offers some words of wisdom that apply not just for scientists, but anyone hoping gain a deeper understanding of the world around them.
Crick tells us to ask of ourselves, “what is the essence of the type of theory I have constructed, and how can it be tested?”
The importance of constantly finding ways to test newly developed models is consistently reiterated in the book and remains the main way by which science works, whether it be by trying to falsify a model, or trying to prove the validity of a model.
Aside from discussing the trajectory of Crick’s career, it offers some words of wisdom that apply not just for scientists, but anyone hoping gain a deeper understanding of the world around them.
Crick tells us to ask of ourselves, “what is the essence of the type of theory I have constructed, and how can it be tested?”
The importance of constantly finding ways to test newly developed models is consistently reiterated in the book and remains the main way by which science works, whether it be by trying to falsify a model, or trying to prove the validity of a model.
January 29, 2020
I was surprised to see so many "I"s when describing his research and the process behind. So different from biology research these days.
Some of the advice about the role of theory and experiments seem generally applicable to all research!
Having thought a little more about this, I don't think I can make a general statement like this. Overall I agree with Crick that theory should guide us in figuring out new experiments. However, given the lack of theory in a lot of "empirical" experiment driven fields like psychology, it might be useful if more people thought about theory before running an experiment.
Having thought a little more about this, I don't think I can make a general statement like this. Overall I agree with Crick that theory should guide us in figuring out new experiments. However, given the lack of theory in a lot of "empirical" experiment driven fields like psychology, it might be useful if more people thought about theory before running an experiment.
February 18, 2015
Francis Crick is no Jim Watson...and that's a good thing! This little book, an intellectual biography of one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, is a revealing look at the "road to the double helix" as well as an update on what Crick did professionally after moving out of molecular biology. Whereas Watson's book ("The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA") is all about personalities, scientific rivalries, and competition for the ultimate (Nobel) prize, Crick provides, as his subtitle states, "A Personal View of Scientific Discovery" that is short on drama but long on the details of the doing of science. As such, this book provides a long overdue tonic to Watson's telling of the most important biological work of the 20th century.
What I find one of the amazing things about Crick is well described in the "Epilogue: My Later Years". At the age of 60, with a Nobel Prize in hand, he left molecular biology and the study of DNA and the genetic code to study neurobiology, the nature of consciousness, and the workings of the brain at the Salk Institute in La Jolla. Not surprisingly he made some fundamental contributions to that field too. According to his long-time colleague at the Salk Institute, Christof Koch, Crick was "editing a manuscript on his deathbed, a scientist to the bitter end".
What comes through most clearly in this wonderful book is Crick's life-long dedication to scientific understanding and the power of his intellect. Perhaps what set him apart was his ability to clearly see what the big scientific problems were and how best to move forward, sometimes incrementally and sometimes in brilliant flashes, but always as a result of dedication, focus and clarity of thought.
What I find one of the amazing things about Crick is well described in the "Epilogue: My Later Years". At the age of 60, with a Nobel Prize in hand, he left molecular biology and the study of DNA and the genetic code to study neurobiology, the nature of consciousness, and the workings of the brain at the Salk Institute in La Jolla. Not surprisingly he made some fundamental contributions to that field too. According to his long-time colleague at the Salk Institute, Christof Koch, Crick was "editing a manuscript on his deathbed, a scientist to the bitter end".
What comes through most clearly in this wonderful book is Crick's life-long dedication to scientific understanding and the power of his intellect. Perhaps what set him apart was his ability to clearly see what the big scientific problems were and how best to move forward, sometimes incrementally and sometimes in brilliant flashes, but always as a result of dedication, focus and clarity of thought.
October 28, 2018
Crick caught me off-guard in the first few pages: Why is he so abstracted when describing his personal background and the wondrous discoveries that made his life an enduring exemplar of scientific discovery during the explosive intellectual aftermath of World War II? And why did I find his sideways verbal constructions so absurd that I'd giggle at them?
Because the man was one of the driest wits that dry-wit England ever produced. After I latched on to this (obvious) truth, his gentle yet needle-sharp jabs at his contemporaries, both friend and too-uninformed-to-be-foe, left me howling with glee through to the last page.
So that's the style, but it's not what the book is or is about. It's perhaps the closest, most caring look at how both experimental and theoretical science is done in the real world. He set out to provide illumination and education, rather than glittering hyperbole, and he succeeded, with a personal yet, as much as possible, objective account of the mechanisms of discovery. My only quibble is his failure now and then to explain a term that must seem obvious to him but sent me online to clarify.
Crick spares neither his cohorts nor himself the careful delineation of the failures and blunders he and they stumbled over on the road to greater success. Or the help received from dumb luck and gratuitous timing.
You meet the giants of modern biology and chemistry, some well-know (Linus Pauling, George Gamow and, of course, James Watson), some familiar only within or around their own disciplines (Rosalind Franklin, Sydney Brenner); you greet them in their personal lairs as well as the lab.
Crick comes across as a firm believer in all areas of scholarly pursuit, but without blinders when kicking the shams and misdirections that litter the intellectual highway.
Damn, I wish I could have met this man.
Because the man was one of the driest wits that dry-wit England ever produced. After I latched on to this (obvious) truth, his gentle yet needle-sharp jabs at his contemporaries, both friend and too-uninformed-to-be-foe, left me howling with glee through to the last page.
So that's the style, but it's not what the book is or is about. It's perhaps the closest, most caring look at how both experimental and theoretical science is done in the real world. He set out to provide illumination and education, rather than glittering hyperbole, and he succeeded, with a personal yet, as much as possible, objective account of the mechanisms of discovery. My only quibble is his failure now and then to explain a term that must seem obvious to him but sent me online to clarify.
Crick spares neither his cohorts nor himself the careful delineation of the failures and blunders he and they stumbled over on the road to greater success. Or the help received from dumb luck and gratuitous timing.
You meet the giants of modern biology and chemistry, some well-know (Linus Pauling, George Gamow and, of course, James Watson), some familiar only within or around their own disciplines (Rosalind Franklin, Sydney Brenner); you greet them in their personal lairs as well as the lab.
Crick comes across as a firm believer in all areas of scholarly pursuit, but without blinders when kicking the shams and misdirections that litter the intellectual highway.
Damn, I wish I could have met this man.
May 4, 2019
A book to rekindle the spirit of scientific inquiry. Francis Crick describes their journey leading to discovery of structure of DNA and his use of tools such as logic, pursuit of chance encounters and sense of ruthlessness in tackling problems.
Felt inspired and also admire the honesty in his describing of how scientific inquiry can and should be conducted - build hypothesis, develop models that satisfy most criteria and send it out for others to vet. Most importantly accept that there could be strong rebuttals and that sometimes your understanding may not always be correct.
Felt inspired and also admire the honesty in his describing of how scientific inquiry can and should be conducted - build hypothesis, develop models that satisfy most criteria and send it out for others to vet. Most importantly accept that there could be strong rebuttals and that sometimes your understanding may not always be correct.
April 23, 2024
Discussing certain works and writing reviews may fall short in capturing their true essence; to truly appreciate their beauty, one must delve into their pages. In a succinct summary, I would describe this book as nothing short of a true masterpiece.
November 21, 2014
اني اكتشف ان كريك فى الاصل فيزيائي امر يجعلني سعيد للغاية لانه يؤكد لي سطوة وهيمنة فيزيائية علي العقول المبدعة فى مجال العلوم
لنرجع الي الجد
القصة الشخصية فى بداية الكتاب التي يحكي فيها كريك عن تطورات معرفته العلمية هي الافضل حتي من مناقشته لتفاصيل وحوارات اكتشافه للDNA كالحلقة الاساسية فى التطور الوراثي
كتاب رائع للغاية
لنرجع الي الجد
القصة الشخصية فى بداية الكتاب التي يحكي فيها كريك عن تطورات معرفته العلمية هي الافضل حتي من مناقشته لتفاصيل وحوارات اكتشافه للDNA كالحلقة الاساسية فى التطور الوراثي
كتاب رائع للغاية
April 9, 2023
A short autobiography by Crick that includes the events leading up to Watson's and his discovery of the helical structure of DNA. He does a good job of showing the many pieces of research that lead to the discovery, and the many people who made a contribution. Further chapters describe the work done to understand the code that controlled the production of amino acids. An epilogue describes work he did on the brain and vision in his latter years.
One of Crick's objectives is to show what works and what doesn't in research. His message to experimentalists: "Be sensible but don't be impressed too much by negative arguments. If at all possible, try it and see what turns up. Theorists almost always dislike this sort of approach."
"A good model in biology, then, not only should address the problem in hand but if at all possible should serve to unite evidence from several different approaches so that various sorts of tests can be made of it." " ... a theory will always command more attention if it is supported by unexpected evidence, particularly evidence of a different kind."
Crick started in physics, moving into biology later. He reflects on the differences in the disciplines, suggesting it may be difficult for physicists to adapt to most biological research. "Physicists are all too apt to look for the wrong sorts of generalizations, to concoct theoretical models that are too neat, too powerful, and too clean. Not surprisingly, these seldom fit well with the data. To produce a really good biological theory one must try to see through the clutter produced by evolution to the basic mechanisms lying beneath them, realizing that they are likely to be overlaid by other, secondary mechanisms. What seems to physicists to be a hopelessly complicated process may have been what nature found simplest, because nature could only build on what was already there."
In considering what messenger conveyed the genetic message of each gene from the DNA, they assumed that it had to be RNA. However, it turned out to be a different kind of RNA, as yet undetected. "Only the gradual accumulation of experimental facts that appeared to contradict our base idea could jolt us out of our preconception. Yet we were acutely aware that something was wrong and were continually trying to find out what it was. It was this dissatisfaction with our ideas that made it possible for us to spot where the mistake was. If we had not been so conscientious in dwelling on these contradictions we should never have seen the answer."
"Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long. It is difficult to believe that one's cherished theory, which really works rather nicely in some respects, may be completely false.<<<<<<<'
"Theorists in biology should realize that it is extremely unlikely that they will produce a useful theory ... just by having a bright idea distantly related to what they imagine to be the facts. Even more unlikely is that they will produce a good theory at their first attempt. It is amateurs who have one big bright beautiful idea that they can never abandon. Professionals know that they have to produce theory after theory before they are likely to hit the jackpot. The very process of abandoning one theory for another gives them a degree of critical detachment that is almost essential if they are to succeed." "It seems to me that very few theoretical biologists adopt this approach. When confronted with what appears to be a difficulty, they usually prefer to tinker with their theory rather than seeking some crucial test."
In looking into research being done on the brain: "I soon found that much theoretical work was going on. It tended to fall into a number of somewhat separate schools, each of which was rather reluctant to quote the work of the others. This is usually characteristic of a subject that is not producing any definite conclusions. (Philosophy and theology might be good examples.)"
One of Crick's objectives is to show what works and what doesn't in research. His message to experimentalists: "Be sensible but don't be impressed too much by negative arguments. If at all possible, try it and see what turns up. Theorists almost always dislike this sort of approach."
"A good model in biology, then, not only should address the problem in hand but if at all possible should serve to unite evidence from several different approaches so that various sorts of tests can be made of it." " ... a theory will always command more attention if it is supported by unexpected evidence, particularly evidence of a different kind."
Crick started in physics, moving into biology later. He reflects on the differences in the disciplines, suggesting it may be difficult for physicists to adapt to most biological research. "Physicists are all too apt to look for the wrong sorts of generalizations, to concoct theoretical models that are too neat, too powerful, and too clean. Not surprisingly, these seldom fit well with the data. To produce a really good biological theory one must try to see through the clutter produced by evolution to the basic mechanisms lying beneath them, realizing that they are likely to be overlaid by other, secondary mechanisms. What seems to physicists to be a hopelessly complicated process may have been what nature found simplest, because nature could only build on what was already there."
In considering what messenger conveyed the genetic message of each gene from the DNA, they assumed that it had to be RNA. However, it turned out to be a different kind of RNA, as yet undetected. "Only the gradual accumulation of experimental facts that appeared to contradict our base idea could jolt us out of our preconception. Yet we were acutely aware that something was wrong and were continually trying to find out what it was. It was this dissatisfaction with our ideas that made it possible for us to spot where the mistake was. If we had not been so conscientious in dwelling on these contradictions we should never have seen the answer."
"Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long. It is difficult to believe that one's cherished theory, which really works rather nicely in some respects, may be completely false.<<<<<<<'
"Theorists in biology should realize that it is extremely unlikely that they will produce a useful theory ... just by having a bright idea distantly related to what they imagine to be the facts. Even more unlikely is that they will produce a good theory at their first attempt. It is amateurs who have one big bright beautiful idea that they can never abandon. Professionals know that they have to produce theory after theory before they are likely to hit the jackpot. The very process of abandoning one theory for another gives them a degree of critical detachment that is almost essential if they are to succeed." "It seems to me that very few theoretical biologists adopt this approach. When confronted with what appears to be a difficulty, they usually prefer to tinker with their theory rather than seeking some crucial test."
In looking into research being done on the brain: "I soon found that much theoretical work was going on. It tended to fall into a number of somewhat separate schools, each of which was rather reluctant to quote the work of the others. This is usually characteristic of a subject that is not producing any definite conclusions. (Philosophy and theology might be good examples.)"
June 6, 2024
THE FAMED SCIENTIST MUSES ABOUT BIOLOGY, AND OTHER MATTERS
Francis Crick (1916-2004) was a British molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist, who was jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. In later years, Crick had been exploring more "philosophical" areas of science (see his books such as ['Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature']).
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1988 book, “The main purpose of this book is to set out some of my experiences before and during the classical period of molecular biology…There is an important difference between the scientific work described in the main body of the book and that touched on in the epilogue… many of my remarks in the epilogue are a matter of opinion. My comments in the main body of the book have somewhat more authority… I have written both for my fellow scientists and for the general public… The most important theme of the book is natural selection… Biological replication… is nothing like … physics or in related disciplines. That is one reason why, to some people, biological organisms appear infinitely improbable.”
He notes, “isomorphous replacement … had already been used successfully to help solve the structure of small molecules… I had told John Kendrew the sort of thing I intended to say and asked him what I should call it. ‘Why not,’ he said, ‘call it, “What Mad Pursuit”?’ (a quotation from Keats’ ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’)---which I did.” (Pg. 50)
He recalls, “The problem of finding a solution having twenty sense triplets is actually not an especially difficult one… I was booked on a night flight from the States to England. Waiting to board I found myself chatting to Fred Hoyle, the cosmologist… I explained to him the idea of the comma-free code. The next morning, as the plane approached the English coast, he came back to where I was sitting with a solution he had worked out overnight. Naturally, Orgel, Griffith, and I were excited by the idea of a comma-free code. It seemed to pretty, almost elegant… Without more ado we wrote it up for the RNA Tie Club. Nevertheless I was hesitant. I realized that we had not OTHER evidence for the code, other than the striking emergence of the number twenty. But then if some other number had come up we would have discarded the idea and looked around for some other code that led to twenty amino acids, so the number twenty by itself was not confirmatory evidence.” (Pg. 99-100)
He explains, “I also wrote a scientific book, for lay readers, on the origin of life. Leslie Orgel and I… had hit upon the idea that perhaps life on Earth originated from microorganisms sent here, on an unmanned spaceship, by a higher civilization elsewhere… We called our idea ‘directed panspermia.’ … The object of my book was not to solve the problem of life’s origins but to convey some idea of the many kinds of science involved in the problem. I myself had a rather detached view of directed panspermia---I still have---and there was even a passage in the book saying … why our theory, though not unprovable, was obviously very speculative. The book… was entitled ‘Life Itself.’ While I considered this title rather too board for the contents, the publisher insisted on it.” (Pg. 148)
He concludes, “The present state of the brain sciences reminds me of the state of molecular biology and embryology in, say, the 1920s and 1930s. Many interesting things have been discovered… but the major questions are still largely unanswered and are unlikely to be without new techniques and new ideas… The brain sciences still have a very long way to go, but the fascination of the subject and the importance of the answers will inevitably carry it forward. It is essential to understand our brains in some detail if we are to assess correctly our place in this vast and complicated universe we see all around us.” (Pg. 163)
This book will be of keen interest to those concerned with the development of Crick’s thought, and should spur an interest in his later books.
Francis Crick (1916-2004) was a British molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist, who was jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. In later years, Crick had been exploring more "philosophical" areas of science (see his books such as ['Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature']).
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1988 book, “The main purpose of this book is to set out some of my experiences before and during the classical period of molecular biology…There is an important difference between the scientific work described in the main body of the book and that touched on in the epilogue… many of my remarks in the epilogue are a matter of opinion. My comments in the main body of the book have somewhat more authority… I have written both for my fellow scientists and for the general public… The most important theme of the book is natural selection… Biological replication… is nothing like … physics or in related disciplines. That is one reason why, to some people, biological organisms appear infinitely improbable.”
He notes, “isomorphous replacement … had already been used successfully to help solve the structure of small molecules… I had told John Kendrew the sort of thing I intended to say and asked him what I should call it. ‘Why not,’ he said, ‘call it, “What Mad Pursuit”?’ (a quotation from Keats’ ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’)---which I did.” (Pg. 50)
He recalls, “The problem of finding a solution having twenty sense triplets is actually not an especially difficult one… I was booked on a night flight from the States to England. Waiting to board I found myself chatting to Fred Hoyle, the cosmologist… I explained to him the idea of the comma-free code. The next morning, as the plane approached the English coast, he came back to where I was sitting with a solution he had worked out overnight. Naturally, Orgel, Griffith, and I were excited by the idea of a comma-free code. It seemed to pretty, almost elegant… Without more ado we wrote it up for the RNA Tie Club. Nevertheless I was hesitant. I realized that we had not OTHER evidence for the code, other than the striking emergence of the number twenty. But then if some other number had come up we would have discarded the idea and looked around for some other code that led to twenty amino acids, so the number twenty by itself was not confirmatory evidence.” (Pg. 99-100)
He explains, “I also wrote a scientific book, for lay readers, on the origin of life. Leslie Orgel and I… had hit upon the idea that perhaps life on Earth originated from microorganisms sent here, on an unmanned spaceship, by a higher civilization elsewhere… We called our idea ‘directed panspermia.’ … The object of my book was not to solve the problem of life’s origins but to convey some idea of the many kinds of science involved in the problem. I myself had a rather detached view of directed panspermia---I still have---and there was even a passage in the book saying … why our theory, though not unprovable, was obviously very speculative. The book… was entitled ‘Life Itself.’ While I considered this title rather too board for the contents, the publisher insisted on it.” (Pg. 148)
He concludes, “The present state of the brain sciences reminds me of the state of molecular biology and embryology in, say, the 1920s and 1930s. Many interesting things have been discovered… but the major questions are still largely unanswered and are unlikely to be without new techniques and new ideas… The brain sciences still have a very long way to go, but the fascination of the subject and the importance of the answers will inevitably carry it forward. It is essential to understand our brains in some detail if we are to assess correctly our place in this vast and complicated universe we see all around us.” (Pg. 163)
This book will be of keen interest to those concerned with the development of Crick’s thought, and should spur an interest in his later books.
December 29, 2020
A fairly candid and humble account of Crick's career, including a few significant episodes such as his involvement in the development of the double helix model of DNA. Crick focuses on presenting some of the reality of research, including the many ways theories fall down, the lack of any sense of immediate gratification when you get something right (they were worried their model would be shown to be nonsense) and the need to engage closely with a lot of experimental details to generate meaningful theoretical models.
Crick tries to write for the lay reader, but there are many segments of the book which become disorienting without a solid understanding of basic organic chemistry and cell biology. He can write good communicative analogies, but it seems that he forgets or overlooks the need for them at some points, with an understandable focus on the historic research problems and occasions he wants to discuss.
Not the best book for picking up bits of molecular biology, but serves as a slightly scattershot history of the field, with some anecdotes that humanise the big figures of the era, and hints about general approaches to scientific research. Crick is relatable and drily amusing, which helps smooth over the difficult portions.
Crick tries to write for the lay reader, but there are many segments of the book which become disorienting without a solid understanding of basic organic chemistry and cell biology. He can write good communicative analogies, but it seems that he forgets or overlooks the need for them at some points, with an understandable focus on the historic research problems and occasions he wants to discuss.
Not the best book for picking up bits of molecular biology, but serves as a slightly scattershot history of the field, with some anecdotes that humanise the big figures of the era, and hints about general approaches to scientific research. Crick is relatable and drily amusing, which helps smooth over the difficult portions.
November 29, 2020
# A more subdued and less glamorous portrayal of discovery of DNA then more quintessential' Double Helix' by Watson; this narrative nuance shows more maturity and humility in Crick as against those by Watson. His candidness to accept his follies and sheer luck (for Watson) to see the Beta crystallographic plate by Rosalind Franklin, courtesy Maurice Wilkins; made them present the double helix model ahead of Franklin. However, nothing can belittle Watson/ Crick as they had read exhaustively to shape their minds to grasp the clue behind fussy crystallographic plates; just in time to get immortalized as the discoverers of the Genetic code, the DNA model.
August 6, 2021
So... Crick was amazing in many ways. This written account isn't really, although worth reading for bits and pieces. I came to it from Life's greatest secret by Cobb, so the main parts were already covered, but some small gems remained to be discovered.
---
The bad:
I wish the "life from outer space" bit hadn't been there - even if finally judged true, the total lack of any experimental evidence goes against Crick's own credo it seems to me.
The final chapter on his later work on the brain is a somewhat interesting look at things from when the book was written (how little things change!) but of course gives no insights of any kind to those who've studied the subject closely today.
---
The bad:
I wish the "life from outer space" bit hadn't been there - even if finally judged true, the total lack of any experimental evidence goes against Crick's own credo it seems to me.
The final chapter on his later work on the brain is a somewhat interesting look at things from when the book was written (how little things change!) but of course gives no insights of any kind to those who've studied the subject closely today.
November 5, 2025
Francis Crick is best known for his discovery of the DNA double helix (along with James Watson, Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins) but his scientific interests ran deeper and wider than that. He hopped from physics to protein crystallography to the nascent field of molecular biology, ultimately finishing his career (and life) as a neuroscientist. You would think then that this would be an engrossing and illuminating memoir. You would be wrong. Crick is a dry writer (surprising, because he is so good at explaining his scientific insights) and the story of his life jumps around a fair bit. There are some interesting anecdotes here, for sure, but far too many end in non sequiturs. That being said, his prescient assessment of computational/theoretical biology (no such thing, he basically says), his warning to physicists and other scientists hoping to jump into biology and "s0lve" it (quite in vogue in this age of AI), and his approach to scientific inquiry are all very instructive to someone like me (just starting out as an independent investigator). For that alone, this book is worth reading
December 29, 2025
Francis Crick described his lessons learned from mistakes made during his career as a scientist, using stories from his own experiences to teach the lessons. Despite the complexity of the subject matter, Crick told his story in an approachable way, with simple words, and in short enough form that you can read it in a weekend without feeling that something was left out. For any aspiring scientist in any field, but especially in fields where complexity can undermine the most logical theories, the lessons that Crick shared are invaluable.
December 29, 2017
I’m sure this book makes sense to scientists and people who are not as dumb as me. But - it even made some sense to me and I enjoyed it immensely. Who knows why. But I wanted to learn about what make me this living thing and now I have some ideas and I feel better for it. Warning - it’s slow if you don’t have a science background (and I don’t) and the concepts are difficult to grasp so don’t be fooled by it being ‘only’ 170 pages.
June 24, 2020
The epilogue alone warrants at least four stars for this book. However, as Crick mentions, his mother had perhaps the most salient advice for anyone (like myself) with only a remote understanding of science who wants to read this book or an interest in Crick's ideas in general. When Crock questioned his mother about a review he had written, she responded, "I understand it all, except for those hieroglyphics."
September 14, 2021
Interesting autobiography by Crick. His walkthrough of his career is admirable in that how he is unsatisfied with certain answers to questions lead him to discovering more and more in science. He also shows how unremarkable a discovery can be during the time it happens and only in retrospect how world-shattering it can be. It is incredible to see his thought processes throughout his career. At times, can be more scientific and dry to read.
December 12, 2021
Francis Crick tells the story of the discovery of DNA. It is a very interesting blend of his personal life and hard science. I could see this book being assigned for a college or advanced high school biology course. He uses a fair amount of analogies to describe many of the concepts. The only thing I did not like was most of the biology went over my head. Still, there are good practical lessons on critical thinking and the importance of testing your theories in life.
October 9, 2022
Puede que Crick fuese la parte buena de la dupla Watson-Crick, pero aún así sigue siendo un prepotente insoportable con el cerebro gordísimo. Todo lo que hizo en biología molecular, chulísimo, pero entre lo de la panspermia y la migración a la neuro...out. Aparte de los comentarios horribles de todo tipo y del sexismo rampante
May 4, 2019
What a thing to be a theoretical biologist in the mid twentieth century. This book reflects on the scientific adventures of Crick, especially the wrong turns and dead ends. Full of aphorisms to live by.
August 23, 2018
The best book I have read in years. I wish I had a mentor like him.
July 22, 2019
ترجمه فارسی خوندم، قصه جالبی از حیات علمی یک آدم محسوب میشه.
January 18, 2021
Great, poignant, it really makes you think.
April 27, 2021
Should be read with “The Double Helix” which gives you insight into the synergy of two great minds reaching great heights early in their careers
July 12, 2022
So much better than Watson's. Crick is clever, funny, a better writer, and a better person.
April 10, 2023
Many interesting comments on the functions of theory and theorist in biology.
March 17, 2025
Mockery big log would never. E the same
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews