Conversations with Laureates
James Watson talks with Richard M. Cohen, former CBS News Senior Producer, about life's triumphs and tribulations.
Cohen: Did you always want to be a scientist?
Watson: Yes.
Cohen: Tell me about that.
Watson: Well I got my first book; the first book—we still have it—is on bird migration, when I was seven. And in a sense I wanted to be a scientist, I wanted to know how birds migrated and people didn't know, so I wanted to be part of the search. And then I learned about the gene and I thought that was a better search.
Cohen: You come from the world of empirical or objective truth. That is what science is all about.
Watson: Yes, you hope it is.
Cohen: But we live in this "communications age" where perception sometimes speaks louder than truth, and it has to fight everything you stand for, in terms of science.
Watson: Yes. It's always going to be the case. I don't think scientists will ever find it easy to coexist with people who don't know science, which is why we want more people to know science. And because you sound arrogant, you sound... It is an area where you can actually prove something and in most areas of human life, you can't. So, you know, you can't say, "Well, what is better, a Big Mac or a Whopper?" Well, I think the Big Mac.
Cohen: But scientists once worked in almost a vacuum, whereas today everybody knows everything instantly because of this technology. I mean, Bruce Alberts called communication technology the greatest advancement for science.
Watson: It is, and you know, the Web will be. It is going to be very hard for people to hide the truth. I mean, you can just look it up some place. Whether you look it up is another matter. You know, how communist government exists with wide deployment of the Web in China. Well, with time...total cynicism. You can't run it the way Mao ran it.
Cohen: But in the context of science, does this technology help scientists build on each other's work?
Watson: When I was young, at least in what I did, there were a relatively small number of people. You knew them...you knew what people were doing. And now there are just so many you don't even know their names, and you want to know what's out there. So you may not meet them, but through the Web you will have a better place...where you will have a better chance...knowledge that they exist. We don't quite have the technology, but you know, you could take our meetings in person.
Cohen: Did you know Mary Lasker?
Watson: Just slightly. I am not sure if she approved of me.
Cohen: Did she see you as controversial?
Watson: I've always been controversial. Maybe in the 70s I was somewhat skeptical about the war on cancer...I think that is probably the interval...when I came out and said we have a lot of hoopla, but I don't think we know enough to cure much cancer. Mary was very enthusiastic about the interferons, which have proved only marginally effective....So I kept saying that the war on cancer would be a 30- or 40-year war, and Mary was too old to want that. I know it myself now. I don't want someone telling me we have 20 more years. I want 10. She wanted to cure cancer in her lifetime. And she had a long time trying to do it, so it wasn't as if she just tried to do it when she was young.
Cohen: You think it can be cured in your lifetime?
Watson: Depends how long I live. I think we have...sure I would say there are more facts, but I think we have the general way if we cut off the blood supply. I think we will be able to control a lot of cancers. It is a disease, which you live with instead of...you know, you manage by knowing...well, what the cancer cell needs. But back in the 70s, everyone was just for more copies of Sloan-Kettering and the Dana Farber Center in Boston, and they would all be cured. As if we just knew enough so that we could create a lot of centers to make a difference to the statistics.
Cohen: Cutting out the blood supply, is that...
Watson: That's Judah Folkman
Cohen: Judah Folkman, right, but do you see that as the future?
Watson: Yes. If that doesn't work, I don't know what will.
Cohen: But you say that everything you touch is controversial.
Watson: What I am trying to say is that if you rock the boat, people get annoyed.
Cohen: Isn't rocking the boat what science is about?
Watson: Of course. But, you know, when you're in the public arena, even rocking the boat within a discipline, you get penalized in study sections and so on. Science just doesn't reward totally on merit, I mean the way money goes on friendships, that sort of thing counts. You know, what's in vogue.
Cohen: So how have you rocked the boat?
Watson: Occasionally you say, "It's not going to work." That's all. My friend, Francis Crick. The head of the lab, Lawrence Bragg, said he was a boat-rocker, saying, "They are not getting anywhere."
Cohen: You should have said thank you.
Watson: No, no that is not human. Everyone's annoyed when you tell them they're wrong. You know, say, "Great, I am wrong!" No, sometimes you go away and...you know, Francis Crick was really good for me. If I was wrong he wouldn't waste any time, and after a while you give up arguing. So it pays to have the people tell you you're wrong—people you respect. Because when people you respect tell you you're wrong, then you'd better take it seriously. Yes, other people tell you, "Wrong," because they don't want you to succeed, because they are jealous, and all that sort of stuff.
Cohen: Is the battleground the genetic link?
Watson: Genetics is how we've understood it. And that is what I believed when I came here in 1968. Find the genetic changes underlying the cancer cell and we will be able to cure it. I think we had no idea of the complexity of the genetic changes—and the complexity of the signal transduction pathways. The Lasker Prize has begun to reward people for getting these sorts of prizes. But I think you want to stop the cancer early by something that doesn't generate more diversity. And there is a lot of good science still to be done. I think when I came on the National Cancer Board in 1972 they were going to have a plan on how to cure cancer.
Cohen: Were you a serious kid?
Watson: Very serious. It wasn't that I didn't like to goof off...or something like that. But generally, people that lived around me found me too serious. I wasn't interested in being a kid. I wanted to be an adult. Kids bored me. I wanted to grow up as fast as possible—get where people were doing something.
Cohen: Any kid who was interested in ornithology must be a fairly serious kid.
Watson: No, no. Bird watching is slightly...I went from wanting to see rare birds to wanting to know behavior and so on, but I was just a little precocious. But, you know, my family believed in ideas. Writing a new book in which I said I was brought up in a family which believed in books, birds and the Democratic Party...that was it...that was me.
Cohen: Did you listen to music?
Watson: Oh, sure.
Cohen: What kind of music did you listen to?
Watson: My parents took me to the Chicago Symphony, so I liked classical music. I wasn't one of those who, you know, wanted to listen to big bands or that sort of music...Frank Sinatra...all that sort of stuff. Until the Beatles came along, or the Rolling Stones, I found popular music pretty awful.
Cohen: You said that you fought insecurity a lot as a kid?
Watson: Well...fought insecurity...I had parents who supported me and I had a couple of teachers who did. But you know, I didn't grow up anxious or something. I wasn't a depressed kid. I always looked forward to reading the newspapers. I liked school except for the worry that I might not get top grades. You know, grades were a symbol that you were bright, and if you were bright you might get into a world where you could live by ideas.
Cohen: You have an interest in brain science, don't you?
Watson: Well, you have to be stupid not to. It is a big problem. Since our brain exists, we are going to someday learn how it works. It's just inevitable we'll find out how it works. Whereas finding out what happened to the Big Bang since you weren't there, you won't have that absolute certainty. But I doubt it...you know, you say, "How did life arise?" Well, we'll never have the certainty, as you can say, "DNA is the genetic molecule." That is absolutely certain. No one is ever going to show that's wrong.
Cohen: Do you think brain science has kept pace with other areas of research?
Watson: Well, it has moved ahead very fast and there are some wonderful tools...all these imaging tools. It is a marvelous time to be in it. You don't get heavier equivalent with the double helix. The double helix was that 10-year interval we found out information is stored in a molecule. We don't know how information is stored in the brain. So, you say, "Well, there is no Watson, Crick, Benzer" for the brain.
Cohen: Science is inherently political, isn't it?
Watson: Everything is political. Yes, in the sense that to do something you have to have resources and a position...you know, not just money, but money that can be used in the right place and everything like that...which means there is a scientific establishment and you hope it is on your side.
Cohen: But that's a game you have to play?
Watson: Of course. Sure. So you know when the Human Genome Project [became a] possibility...I figured I would rather run it than let someone else. You know, that is politics.
Cohen: Are you an insider or outsider?
Watson: Both.
Cohen: Because you seem to have the characteristics of both.
Watson: I am only given jobs when you are in shit.
Cohen: So tell me about that.
Watson: No, I mean the Human Genome Project was...so many people opposed it and so it wasn't something that was...where we had a lot of people saying, "Great! You are taking it on!" or anything like that. When I took on this lab, it was about to fail. Harvard never thought of making me its president.
Cohen: But you were the first director of the Genome Project.
Watson: Yes, I mean, sure. What I meant is that when times are good you stay away from unpleasant people. You know, General Patton was no good except during war...and there, you know, he slapped one person too many.
Narrator: 35 miles from Manhattan on the north shore of Long Island stands Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. This seaside biological field station was founded in 1890 and has expanded to 100 acres, now dedicated to the molecular nature of cancer and the brain. In 1968, James Watson became director of this village of science, a signpost along the road toward taking on The Human Genome Project as its first director.
Cohen: What was your attraction to the Genome Project?
Watson: You had to do it if you wanted to understand the human being, then you understand the human disease. So it was simple—absolute no-brainer.
Cohen: Weren't the stated objectives of the project to identify the life of diseases and to promote understanding of the body itself and the functioning of the body?
Watson: There were probably two objectives. You wanted to understand life, and you will understand disease. And we would say, until you understand life you can't understand disease. They go together. Like in cancer, you couldn't understand the cancer cell until you knew the normal cell. But people would give you a lot more money to study the cancer cell than the normal cell. You know, they would give you more money to study the Alzheimer's cell than the other. It was younger people who didn't think in terms of disease. They were thinking, "Well, can I do interesting science without the Human Genome Project for the next five years?" Yes. Now, the need to cure Alzheimer's gets greater and greater because people are living longer. So why live long if you forget where you left your car?
Cohen: But weren't their objections from within the science community?
Watson: Yes, from the good guys.
Cohen: From the good guys, like the molecular biologists?
Watson: Yes, you know, that is something you sort of learned...that most people are against anything new.
Cohen: Tell us about the people who objected in terms of ethical consideration.
Watson: There was no one really, in the beginning, who did. That wasn't the objection. At the time recombinant DNA came, the science for the people who were sort of left wing...people centered themselves around Harvard and MIT, Harvard Medical School...they said that if you can do genetic manipulation, that you will eventually manipulate humans genetically, and that will lead to eugenics, and it is bad. So they didn't want recombinant DNA because of the political agenda. The initial fight over recombinant DNA was basically within the scientific community. When we were able to cut and paste DNA molecules, you could say you were a genetic manipulator. You could manipulate life.
Cohen: But you really created hybrids, right?
Watson: Yes. We made what we called recombinant DNA, with two sorts. Maybe half the molecule is from human DNA and half from bacteria. So you have a mixture. And because of the way you arrange it, you can do useful things. Now, that would just be a curiosity unless you could put it back into cells and have it function. Could you make bacteria more pathogenic? And that was one of the things we worried [about]...And then at the time, we said we can't answer that question very easily, because for the most part we don't understand pathogenicity. But you really can't move ahead in this world if you are dominated by people's ability to be bad. You have got to assume most humans are aiming for good things. The only bad things are the diseases. They are immensely evil.
Cohen: Enumerate the good and give us an example of what the bad might be.
Watson: The good would be—we will find the genes which underlie Alzheimer's...we will understand the process. Now, just say Ronald Reagan's father died not having any memory. Ronald Reagan will die having no memory. That was hereditary and so we will find, you know, we've found most of the genes. So the good will be, we will have no Alzheimer's. The bad will be-someone could take a test and say, "I am probably going to likely have Alzheimer's when I am 50...if it is one of the rare ones, by 80. I am going to 'get fuzzy' up there." And someone might look at your DNA and say, "Gee, he is going to get fuzzy at 50. I don't want to hire him." But the real evil is that disease, which just runs through families and causes unbelievable hell when suddenly your mother is 50 and doesn't know who she is. And then you wonder, "Is it going to hit me?" and, yes, you've got a 50 percent chance.
Cohen: Do you track the work even though you're gone off the project?
Watson: Oh sure, within limits. Yes, it is going much better than I would have ever anticipated.
Cohen: Do you have any sense of timetable?
Watson: Well, it has gone fast... because...we counted that there would be new technology. There are marvelous techniques, you know, for sequencing DNA faster and cheaper. You don't use human beings, you use machines. And then much sooner than I anticipated, the bankers said, "Genes are golden, and if you find them you can patent them." Private money came in, and there is a lot more money. It went faster, both because of technology and money. We are where I thought we might be five years from now. We are about five years ahead.
Cohen: There are certainly those who sort of raised the specter of all of this being misused, you know, and whether it is eugenics or...
Watson: But I don't think the danger is eugenics. The danger is because of questions like yours, which is that people think there is something evil about human genetics.
Cohen: But there is that perception, isn't there?
Watson: Oh sure, and that I think is wrong. The real danger is in women who have children that will make them cry the moment they realize how sick they are, and no one has tried to help them not have that child. That's the real danger. That will cause immense suffering.
Cohen: Do you think to some extent this has been politicized, for example, by those who object to using fetal tissue?
Watson: I think more harm has come from what I call liberals, than has come from the right wing. You know, the newspaper people...two men will vote for Gore but will confuse people about genes. Sure, we know the other side but I think...the side that I came out of...you know, they keep saying, "Eugenics" and they keep saying, "super babies." Just twaddle! They have never faced a genetic disease really deep down in the family. I want all genetic decisions to be done by women.
Cohen: Why?
Watson: Because they raise babies. They love them. They will take care of them if they are sick.
Cohen: Do you worry at all about some of this being in the hands of the private sector, who answer to stockholders more than to public interest...to the public good?
Watson: Not over the long term. I mean, the patents will come and go. They'll last 20 years. I try to see the big picture. The private money is part of a lot of money, and it has gotten the Genome Project done sooner. There is the general perception that money will always be used in a nasty fashion. You know, "Monsanto was evil because of private money." But it's a damn good company. Producing very good products and, you know, they botched public relations.
Cohen: Not everybody is a firm believer in corporate responsibility.
Watson: No. I've seen a lot of shitty private responsibility. So you know, the corporate is just a reflection of human beings. I don't think...I am not going to bed at night worrying about corporate irresponsibility.
Cohen: What do you see down the road coming out of the Genome Project? I mean in the foreseeable future.
Watson: I want less disease, and I think there will be less disease. You could say, "Well, how are people finally going to die?" And, I don't know...I want to die on a tennis court...push myself so Bing! Pop! Boom! Dead! That's fine...cheap, permanent. No pain. We don't have that option yet. But we are living longer, and as far as I can see, my friends in their 70s are for the most part, living pretty well. And that wouldn't have been true 50 years ago. People can say, "Well, we are still dying." But it's better. Would you rather have been living in 1900 or now? I would rather live now. And the basis for life getting better, you know, is not spiritual values or anything—it is knowledge.
Cohen: That is the bottom line?
Watson: Bottom line is knowledge.
Cohen: Thank you.