Talk:Francis Crick

Conceptualization of Double-helix shape of DNA

From a calendar published by the Multidisciplanary Association of Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) under the section titled , This month in psychedelic history - Febuary 28, 1953: "Francis Crick first conceived of the double-helix shape of DNA while under the influence of LSD, later winning the Nobel Prize for his discovery."

2007 Calendar Multidisciplanary Association for Psychedelic Studies; Ben Lomond, CA;

Its not that I doubt MAPS, but does anyone else have a collaborating source; I haven't looked yet, but I thought I'de post first. Buekerc1 22:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting indeed, MAPS is usually a reliable source of information, anyone know of any sources for this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.190.229 (talk) 19:10, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Please guys, research again and either accept as a fact or claim or tell it's a myth, about the LSD thing. I know it's a controversial and atention drawing subject, i admit that myself wouldn't be here now if i wasn't fascinated by that data, but it's not a little thing at all.

Many serious and intelligent truth-seekers, galileos, in their time thought of LSD as a revelation or enlightment drug. If the double helix structure, the "secret of life" was in fact discovered under it's influence, it should be noted. If it's a myth or something subject to discussion, too.

A guy before published a refutation to this according to a biography, i don't think i'm yet capable of dealing with this things but please those who can, research further. 201.212.109.6 (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all discussed extensively, below on this page. There is no reliable evidence that LSD had any significant impact on Crick's work and in particular, there is no reliable evidence that Crick had experimented with LSD before the discovery of the double helix. There are drug use advocates who attempt to link famous people and events to drug use and they can say anything they want without supporting their claims with evidence. Wikipedia is very careful to only repeat what has been previously published by reliable sources such a biographies published by reputable publishing companies. I do not see how the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies can be viewed as a reliable source for information about Crick's use of LSD. Have they published their evidence in a peer-reviewed journal or something? --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

LSD Use

Why isn't the fact that he was high on LSD when he discovered the double-helix model mentioned in the article? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] Wikipediarules2221 03:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a neat idea, and I would like to think it was true just because of the novelty of it. However, all evidence for its truth appears to be anecdotal and promulgated almost exclusively after his death. 71.156.103.213 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Say it's anecdotal, then. Surely it is significant to a biography? beefman (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IT should be added, as I find it is very important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.119.110 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right... except it isn't true. Just another romantic story for the pro-drug movement. I mean arent there enough of those already? One point that seems to have gotten lost in the debate over minutiae above is that the burn-out lobby WANTS this material included SPECIFICALLY because of this "double helix discovery" urban legend. As is correctly pointed out above, there is NO "moment of discovery" on that point, so the whole thing becomes moot. The double-helix was the product of thousands of hours of collaborative work. So sorry potheads and acid trippers, even if Crick was stoned out of his mind 24x7, the "discovery of the double helix" is something that simply doesn't exist. It just demonstrates a tremendous ignorance of the scientific process to think that the fundamental structure of DNA just magically popped into one mans head. But I guess for most who *need* legends like that to be true, there isn't a lot of interest in the real scientific process (which is usually long and drawn out and boring and doesn't involve lava lamps, The Dead, and pounds of mood altering substances)

Just because pro-drug people have a poor understanding of the history of the discovery of DNA chemistry doesn't mean Crick didn't take acid. The use of LSD at Cambridge during this period is well-documented. From where I'm sitting, you also need it to not be true. beefman (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

LSD

Didn't he get the idea of the DNA structure while on LSD? Unless I missed it, no mention of this seems to be here. Why is there no mention? Zachorious 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This matter was discussed by Crick biographer Matt Ridley in Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code published by HarperCollins Publishers; ISBN 0-06-082333-X. The available evidence indicates that Crick tried LSD many years after the DNA double helix discovery. One "newspaper" published a headline saying that LSD played a role in the discovery, but there is no evidence to support that claim. --JWSchmidt 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

John, no much doubt about the newspaper, it was The Mail on Sunday, dated: 8 August 2004; not sure exactly what you imply by saying "newspaper" by the way - is it meant to be a quote? mp

91.110.182.41 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the quotes around "newspaper" were because the Daily Mail isn't exactly known for accuracy in reporting. thx1138 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Crick's drug use (although probably not at the time of the double helix discovery) is verified, encyclopaedic, and should be put in to the article, probably as a one or two sentence aside somewhere. However, one editor obstinately and rather rudely refuses to compromise on this - and I'm not getting in to that again. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We could include something about Crick's use of LSD in this article. If we do, I would like to first see some coherent discussion of why the topic is important enough to be mentioned. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the Ridley book right now, and I think his use of LSD is relevant for a few reasons. First, he joined a drug advocacy group (Soma), so this was one of his "other interests". Second, it provides some social context for his life, as he was introduced to LSD by a major LSD distributor (Henry Barclay Todd) in 1967. Finally, and most importantly, Ridley writes that Crick was an adamant anti-vitalist, and wanted to demonstrate that all aspects of life emerged from regular physical/chemical reactions. He was particularly interested in consciousness, and according to this interview [8], he seemed to view the psychoactive drugs as a key for investigating the chemical nature of consciousness. AdamRetchless (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See also the above section called "LSD Use". beefman (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Crick to Alexander Rich Letter

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/X/W/_/scbbxw.pdf clearly does not give the entire story. Is this letter referenced anywhere else? Doug youvan (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion categories

He is listed under both the English atheists and English agnostics categories. Did he change his position from one to the other at some point? CopaceticThought (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In his autobiography, Crick described himself as agnostic. It would nice to have additional data points. --JWSchmidt (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious stance: This is an example of one of the past attempts to characterize Crick's position with respect to religion. More commonly, Crick is labeled as an atheist (example). The article (in a footnote) quotes what Crick wrote in his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit (see Chapter 1): after having told his mother that he no longer wished to attend church services: "...from then on I was a skeptic, an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism." In my view, this statement by Crick indicates that he leaned towards atheism, but did not adopt atheism as his stance. Wikipedia lists multiple types of agnosticism, but I'm not sure that Crick would have adopted any of them. I have the tendency to object to the use of a template that has a field for "religion", so I have been filling that field with the word none (etc). What is the best thing to do here? --JWSurf (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Agnostic atheism is the best descriptor: "An agnostic atheist […] does not believe any deities exist, and […] does not claim to know that they don't". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making me take another look at that. When I read, "do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods" I could not understand what agnostic atheism meant. I'll change it to religious stance = agnostic, the label he applied to himself. --JWSurf (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On his religion

Why are his religious views being discussed by someone who is politically motivated? Why not use something which is politically neutral or better yet, find a quote or source directly from Crick that points out his views on religion. The subject of Crick's reviews on religion ought to simple observations, not commentary. I'm removing the current "Religion" section until I can find a better source because having his views be presented from a politically biased view point is not exactly academic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.123.112 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin 91.108.21.160 (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)