James D. Watson is not only the co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, but has also emerged as a leading advocate of the new biotechnology based on increased understanding and control of genetic processes. His lavishly illustrated book is linked to the recently broadcast television series. It is partly a history of the new science and technology and partly a passionate advocacy of their potential for improving the human situation. In this latter capacity, it has already attracted a good deal of criticism from those who are suspicious of Watson’s involvement with the big business interests which need to convince us that genetics really does hold the key to curing disease, ending famine, and generally moving us into a brave new world. A viciously hostile review by historian M. Susan Lindee in the 18 April issue of Science accused Watson of promoting a synthesis of naiveté and arrogance in which every potential benefit is highlighted, however distant the prospect of its actual implementation, and every danger dismissed as a product of misunderstanding or blind prejudice.

There is no doubt that Watson writes as an enthusiast, and some of the criticisms raise questions which go beyond the application of science to confront the deepest concerns that might be raised against the corporate world in which we increasingly live. Watson wants us all to welcome the prospect of genetically modified crops, arguing that they can help to feed the starving throughout the world. He is probably right to argue that much of the European suspicion of GM food is based on an ill-defined sense that it is ‘unnatural’ which will not be stilled by any amount of scientific testing. But the critics have a point too when they show that there is already more than enough food to feed the starving, if only economic interests would allow it to be distributed. Whether the latter situation will remain true indefinitely as the population expands is doubtful, however, although the anti-GM lobby is rightly suspicious of the agricultural business interests which manipulate the science to ensure that farmers have to buy their seeds. There is suspicion too over the prospect of curing many diseases through the application of genetics. Yes, we can now identify the genes responsible for many debilitating or even fatal conditions, but we are often a long way from being able to use this information to work out a cure, and in the meantime we have opened up the prospect of a renewal of eugenics on a free-market basis as Watson and others encourage parents to consider the prospect of aborting foetuses which carry the harmful genes. Many suspect, in any case, that the diseases that will get most attention are those which affect people in the wealthy nations, not those of the third world. It would be wrong to say that Watson is completely oblivious to the problems that may arise, but there is little doubt that he prefers to minimise the risks and concentrate on talking-up the benefits.

In other words, this is not a book to read uncritically. It starts with several chapters outlining the history of genetics and of molecular biology. The first chapter, on the origin of genetics, is remarkably open about the links between the first generation of geneticists and the eugenics movement. The second chapter, on how the structure of DNA was worked out, is still very negative about the contributions of Rosalind Franklin, though it avoids the outright sexism of Watson’s earlier account, The Double Helix. There are several more chapters outlining key steps on the road to the creation of molecular biology, and these increasingly move toward the emerging prospects of commercial exploitation via the new biotechnology. Here we move decisively into the realm of the controversial issues discussed above. To be fair, Watson does also highlight the role of DNA studies in throwing light on the history of the human species as it migrated around the world. He ends with a discussion of the ethical issues as seen from his own (openly atheistic) perspective, in which he insists that if we accept a significant role for genetics in the production of human diversity, then we have a duty to make use of that knowledge to minimise suffering. If any application of that principle counts as eugenics, then Watson is prepared to accept the label of being a eugenicist (p. 401). That, perhaps, is why the critics find this book so objectionable, but at least Watson nails his colours very firmly to the mast.

Peter J. Bowler
Queen’s University, Belfast