Talk:Francis Crick/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dubious passage

I have removed the following: 'Crick's views changed later on, after careful observation of the statistical improbability of spontaneous life when he stated, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."'

This puts a crypto-creationist spin on an attempt by a scientist to express awe at the apparent improbability of life. It's fairly obvious that Crick would not have intended this statement to be interpreted in the way it has been here. Jamrifis 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Skeptic is not a religion. Removed the entire thing until more facts are clear.

In memorium Odile Crick

Odile Crick died 5 July 2007.

See: http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/333/fall/watson.html

Also: http://www.crick.com/odile.html

81.77.179.193

Involvement with psychedelic drugs

I think the section "Involvement with psychedelic drugs" should be removed. Wikipedia is not a place to publish unverifiable rumors about people. --JWSchmidt 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What is unverifiable? The Mail on Sunday presents a convincing case. In addition, The Guardian mentions it in their review of Crick's biography, in which Crick's biographer mentions it and apparently covers it at great length. He said it helped him elucidate the double helix.--Gloriamarie 07:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the rumors are unverifiable, but Wikipedia does not need to publish rumors. --JWSchmidt 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What specifically is the problem? Looks reasonably well-sourced to me, and the topic is certainly worth mentioning in the context of Crick's life and work. I might not give it quite the space that it now has, and I might rephrase things slightly, but I don't see any reason to excise the issue completely.... Badgerpatrol 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

reasonably well-sourced

"Looks reasonably well-sourced to me" <-- I find it hard to believe that we are reading the same section of the article.

"Crick was a founding member of a group called Soma, one of many organizations that has tried to legalize cannabis."

First, the cited source looks like the personal ramblings of a blogger. According to policy, "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". I am unable to satisfy myself of this. "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."

Second, upon reading what Steve Abrams wrote, I find that he does not say that "Crick was a founding member" of Soma. He talks about "my organization Soma" in 1967 and says, "The formation of Soma was announced in.....1967". Then he talks about a "1969 Prospectus of the Soma Research Association, Ltd." Abrams says that after Soma Research Association was incorporated Francis Crick was on the Board of Directors.

The second cited source is a tabloid known for publishing gossip. This is not a reliable source for anything, even if the person citing the source uses the "cite news" template.

"He was well-known as a marijuana user and LSD was a 'drug of choice'".

The third cited source is a book review by Robin McKie that does not even include the word "marijuana". Robin McKie wrote that LSD was "one of Crick's drugs of choice", but there is no indication of how he knows this. A throw-away line in an opinion piece is not a reliable source.

"the topic is certainly worth mentioning in the context of Crick's life and work" <-- Why? How are unverifiable rumors worthy of being included in an encyclopedia article, rumors that the rumor pushers did not dare put into print while Crick was alive?
--JWSchmidt 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the Soma reference- if a good source can be found that Crick was a director then that can be re-added. You're being slightly harsh on the ol' Völkischer Beobachter I think- it's a crap newspaper, but it's not a Daily Star-esque rag. The Guardian review I would say most definitely is a reliable source, but I haven't read the Ridley biography that it is based on. However, Crick's alleged drug-taking in fact is substantially mentioned in the McKie piece- more than a throw way line, certainly. It should definitely stay- although we can debate the point over at WP:RS/N if you feel strongly about it. As for your last point- clearly these statements are not inherently unverifiable (as you correctly state above, albeit in a somewhat confusing way), nor are they even unverified, for that matter. I can think of many, many potentially embarrassing stories about various historical figures that have only emerged from the aether after the death of the subject, for obvious reasons. Given Crick's a) sheer fame; b) the nature of his research; c) intrinsic interest, any experimentation with mind-altering drugs is quite encyclopaedic, although even now I do think the material could be trimmed and it may not necessitate its own section. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some famous scientists who described in print their use of drugs and discussed the idea that drug use contributed to their work. Crick is not one of these. In the case of Crick, all you have is unverifiable speculation by others about a possible relationship between drug use and his work. It is not the job of Wikipedia to try to create a story here because we know embarrassing stories are often hidden. Wikipedia summarizes what has previously been documented in reliable sources. Crick has been the subject of a huge number of biographical works published by professional biographers (or close acquaintances) in books and journals that have editorial oversight and fact checking. It is against Wikipedia policy to use unreliable sources like those cited in the "Involvement with psychedelic drugs" section. "Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD when he discovered the secret of life" <-- "clearly these statements are not inherently unverifiable". The main statement of the article (given in the title) is an absurdity that was designed only to sell a scandal sheet. There is no way you could verify this statement without a direct confirmation from Crick. Rather than a direct quote from Crick, the only person who could know when he was "high", we have a case of, "he said that he said that he said that Crick said something about using LSD". "Crick told him he had perceived the double-helix shape while on LSD." <-- This statement makes no sense. A group of scientists spent years discussing and modeling single, double and triple helical patterns for the structure of DNA. There was no magical moment, drug-induced or otherwise, when Crick suddenly had a vision of the double helix. It is clear that there are POV pushers who like to invent stories about drugs being the source of great insights, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to provide a platform for such POV pushing. This section of the article will be removed unless reliable sources are cited. --JWSchmidt 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No-one is trying to create a story and I at least certainly have no POV agenda to push. I think you are being slightly unfair dismissing newspapers as unreliable sources- although it could be more clearly stated, it seems to me that per intuition and per WP:RS newspapers are not unreliable in themselves. The Mail does not have the very strong reputation of the Indy or Guardian, but neither is it a pure tabloid rag or "scandal sheet". All three have both clear editorial oversight and fact-checking. So far, I've yet to come across either any libel action or retraction, although I'm no lawyer and the legal status of articles about deceased persons is not something with which I am familiar. I hope that your personal respect for Crick is not clouding your judgement here? I believe that all these sources are valid under WP:RS, although I agree that the MOS is the most dubious. Even excluding this however, the other sources are fairly quite substantial. Nonetheless, I've left a note at WP:RS/N asking for comment and clarification. To reiterate, I would be content to see the amount of content on this issue cut back, improved, and the text reintegrated into the main flow rather than remaining as a separate subsection, provided the information (which I believe is well-sourced, encyclopaedic and relevant to Crick's life and work) is retained. Thanks for your comment. Badgerpatrol 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I commented on this at WP:RS: MOS is not acceptable for controversial politics, and for other subjects a little dubious. I'd be leery of anything certified by it alone, For the particular story used, the material cited is about as weak as I've seen--a reporter (Rees) writes that another person (un-named) tells him that he heard a story years before from yet a third person (Kemp--a known illegal producer of LSD) that Kemp had spoken at one point with Crick about Crick's use of LSD. A story indeed in the traditions of British journalism. Appropriate weight for this one would be a link alone, not 3 paragraphs in the article on Crick. DGG (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I agree that the current amount of text is excessive- two or three lines would suffice. I'll have a go at paring it down tomorrow. Badgerpatrol 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

John, perhaps we should let FHCC have the last word on LSD from beyond the grave, as it were:

http://www.intuition.org/txt/crick2.htm

"MISHLOVE: Do you have a sense of the process by which hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, or psychedelic drugs, actually affect the brain? What is going on there?

CRICK: Well, I don't have a detailed knowledge, no, I don't, and I'm not sure that anybody else really knows. They have a rough idea.

MISHLOVE: We know that obviously there's a chemical influence.

CRICK: Well, typically, different ones act in different ways. But a common thing is to see colors more vividly, for example, and often to see things move in a way when they're not actually moving, and things of that sort. So they boost up in some way the activities of what you might call the color parts of the brain and the moving parts of the brain and so on. But the government isn't very keen on giving money for research on that sort of thing.

MISHLOVE: Not at all. Well, I suppose many neuroscientists would feel that the study of the chemical interactions at the synapses of the brain is a very fruitful area for research.

CRICK: Absolutely, but most of it's done in the context of mental illness or conditions like depression and things of that sort."

Martin

ps

"Crick has been the subject of a huge number of biographical works published by professional biographers (or close acquaintances) in books and journals that have editorial oversight and fact checking." Can I have a list of them all please as soon as possible? Preferably here!

91.108.19.133

Not sure what you mean by that, Martin. It is certainly true that much remains to be discovered about the biochemistry of hallucinogens, but that is (whilst related) tangential to Crick's work. I don't think we should go into it in too much depth. As for your other point, I recommend Google Scholar [1]) as a resource for finding the information you want. Badgerpatrol 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Badgerpatrol", I am not sure exactly what alternative universe John Schmidt is living in these days but there has only been just the ONE 'biographical work' published about Francis Crick to date, and that is of course Matt Ridley's little book - about which the last time John 'spoke' to me: he said he had given up reading it about a third of the way through. As for "editorial oversight and fact checking", do try Horace Freeland Judson's review of said book in "Nature" last October, which itself contains substantive errors. Unfortunately there is - apart from John's flight of fantasy - no guarentee that appearing in print is a hallmark of quality! As for Dr. Crick and LSD, my best guess is Harvard in 1959 and 1960 when he was a visiting Professor, but Cambridge itself was apparently a hot spot for LSD usage in the early 1960s by the way*; I discovered Google Book Search sometime ago and debated it in "The Times".

Martin

• In Willis's account, a Stanford University chemistry researcher had fetched up in Cambridge c.1963 with the formula for LSD, and 'until it was outlawed in 1965, acid consumption was more widespread in this small Fenland town than in all but the most exclusive circles in the capital.' http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n01/hard01_.html

91.108.21.79

Good for you Martin! Although Google Scholar is a completely separate thing from Google Book Search. (Maybe for your next cyber adventure, you could learn how to write your username and password and log in to Wikipedia to use one consistent account for your edits?). Congratulations on your contribution to the debate in The Times - perhaps they were impressed by your insight here - one comment as part of a message board on The Times' website- and invited you to contribute to the paper itself? Appearing in print is certainly no badge of quality. But these sources are reliable per WP:RS. Verifiability, not subjective "truth". Badgerpatrol 14:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, sir - at least I don't hide behind a rather stupid nom-de-plume! I was referring to my letter which was published overnight in "The Times" newspaper, not on their web site! I suspect it is a lot easier to contribute to their message board, but getting a letter into PRINT is far more of a challenge - but then again I have lost count of the number I have had printed! Yes, I suspect they were impressed with my "insight", otherwise it wouldn't have been printed, so (except in your fantasy) you don't get 'invited' to contribute to the paper itself.

My main point still stands in that there is only ONE substantive biography of Francis Crick to date, and everything else - especially on the internet - is endlessly recycled again and again; there is little or no original information on Francis Crick and his alleged use of L.S.D.: QED!

Martin 91.108.43.254 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt Ridley and Crick's --JWSchmidt 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)--JWSchmidt 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)involvement with drugs

The current version of the page section Involvement with psychedelic drugs is against Wikipedia policy: it uses unreliable sources in an attempt to elevate rumors and absurd speculation to a topic worthy of being in a biographical encyclopedia article. Further, the current wording introduces new mis-interpretations of what these unreliable sources actually say. "Psychedelic drugs" have nothing to do with Crick's fame and there is no reason for Wikpedia to have a page section called, "Involvement with psychedelic drugs".

One of Crick's biographers has addressed the rumors and speculation (about the influence of LSD on Crick's DNA work) in his book, Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code by Matt Ridley (2006) published by HarperCollins Publishers; 192 pp, ISBN 0-06-082333-X. According to Ridley's biography of Crick, Crick, "was introduced to LSD about 1967 by Henry Barclay Todd," and, "Todd’s main supplier, Dick Kemp, later claimed (to a friend who spoke to a journalist who published an article in a British newspaper after Crick’s death) that Crick had once said he had been taking LSD when he discovered the double helix. This cannot be true, and not just because of the thirdhand source—the drug had been barely available in 1953; Todd is certain that he was the first person to give it to Crick; and neither Todd nor Odile recalls Crick’s meeting Kemp." --JWSchmidt 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

John, can you explain yourself a bit more clearly; your above comment reads to me thus: Matt Ridley's biography (surely you accept that this is a reliable source per WP:RS?) states that Crick took LSD and was introduced to it in 1967. The second half of your statement seems to be your WP:OR personal explanation as to how the Mail on Sunday article is wrong. Does Ridley say the article is wrong, or are you saying it is wrong? In fact, LSD has been available since 1938, and wasn't even illegal (I think) in the US and UK until the 1960s. It's perfectly possible that Crick - essentially a biochemist - could have got hold of it. But that is irrelevant. What is important is this- is the debunking of the MOS scenario your reading of the facts (i.e. your personal interpretation) or is this what Ridley says in his reliable source? If Ridley states as an unalloyed fact that Crick took LSD, then add it as a source. If he says as an unalloyed fact that he didn't, then add it anyway as an alternative viewpoint. It sounds to me like what you're saying is that the former is true however- you may not like it, you may not agree with it, but I'm afraid there's no place for your own original research - or your personal feelings- in Wikipedia. It seems to me that the evidence is mounting that Crick was involved with drugs, and it seems to me that this is encyclopaedic. If you don't like the current wording, then change it and we can discuss a compromise solution here. The current wording is based on the sources that I have to hand (which do not currently include the Ridley biog). You claim that newspapers aren't reliable sources- please explain why. I don't agree with you, and nor (so far) does anyone on WP:RS/N. The emphasis on the MOS article, and the length of the section generally, was excessive in the original version. I have taken steps to address both issues. I agree (see edit summaries and above comments ad nauseum) that it would probably be better as it stands to integrate the material into the main text, and as my edit summary explains, I am having stylistic difficulties figuring out how to do it. If you also want it done, then do it yourself if you can. If you have access to the Ridley biography that seemingly confirms Crick's drug use, then use it as a corroboratory reference. I must say, I'm confused by your somewhat contradictory comments on this issue so far. This issue is supported by reliable sources and is encyclopaedic. End of story. Thank you for the ongoing discussion however, I genuinely appreciate your commitment to dialogue rather than resorting to the internecine revert warring that is sometimes seen here on WP. Badgerpatrol 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Aha! I have only just now noticed that you're quoting directly from Ridley. I therefore suggest that you include it as a rebuttal source to the MoS article. (My other comments stand). Badgerpatrol 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are confused, but not surprised. In my view, you should take the time to read the published biographical literature about Crick. Crick may have advocated the idea that possession of Cannabis not be criminalized, but it has never been explained why this is relevant to an encyclopedia article about Crick. Crick may have experimented with LSD, but there are no reliable sources linking that experimentation to Crick's work or any aspect of Crick's fame. If someone wants to include these topics in the article then they must first explain why it is relevant to the article. There seems to be a serious dispute here about what constitutes a reliable source. If you want to elevate "he said that he said that he said..." to the level of a reliable source, then put this matter up for comment before the Wikipedia community of biographical article editors. See if you can get others to agree that such rumors are reliable sources. For now, I've provided the refutation of the rumor by a published biographer of Crick. That settles the matter until other reliable sources can be found. --JWSchmidt 15:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't attempt to patronise me, John. I will list this with the mediation cabal later this evening. They may come down for you or for me, either way another independent assessment is needed- although note I already have posted the issue at [{WP:RS/N]], where the only contributor largely agreed with my assessment. I implemented the changes he suggested. Sadly, you chose not to participate in that discussion. Badgerpatrol 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, given your latest revert I have now listed the dispute at WP:THIRD as a prelude to further steps in the dispute resolution process should that not be productive in bridging the gap between our positions. There's certainly nothing to be gained by revert warring. It's a real shame you have chosen not to comment on WP:RS/N John, I think that would have been helpful and an appropriate place to continue the discussion. Badgerpatrol 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To User:Badgerpatrol: if you want to mention Crick's use of drugs, why not use direct quotes from a published biographer of Crick? You are clearly unable to correctly paraphrase the sources you cite and the sources you prefer to cite are not reliable sources. Until you address these deficiencies in your editing, I will continue to remove the disputed section of the article. If you want to edit the Francis Crick article, you should read the published biographical works about Crick and cite them rather than gossip sheets and opinion pieces. In my view, if you cannot distinguish between reliable sources and sensationalized opinion pieces then you should stop editing Wikipedia. I'd be happy to let the Arbitration Committee decide if you are suited for editing this article. --JWSchmidt 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh John, what a shame. I had thought that we were both mature enough to maintain civility and a sense of proportion. Please, please, please do refer this to the arbitration committee. I can already hear the howls of derisive laughter that I suspect such an action would provoke. This is obviously not a matter for the ArbCom. Are you familiar with this page? I am trying to be very fair and civil here, but I just do not think that the likes of The Guardian, The Independent, The Times can be described as scandal sheets. The Mail on Sunday is not a great paper, as I freely admit above, but that story is out there and did generate a great deal of publicity. I think is contribution to the the page is now proportionate to the nature of the source, after the discussion on WP:RS/N. I'm having a bit of trouble following your chain of argument above, but you do seem to concede that Ridley's biography (which you seem to have read avidly) posits that Crick was indeed involved in the LSD scene and took the drug. Can I ask you to outline clearly what particularly you object to therefore? Badgerpatrol 16:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Well, a couple of things here. First, the article is already overly long, so the focus right now should probably be on a bit of cutting. The drug use seems tangentially relevant at best to his life, and is probably a good one to go. Remember, this isn't a full-length biography that goes into every last detail, it's an encyclopedia article that just touches on the highlights. While it's alright to go somewhat into his personal life, discovering DNA tends to overshadow dropping acid. It also doesn't look like the sources used are even sure themselves that he used drugs, but simply speculate that he did. This isn't a place to post rumors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree, but I'll certainly take your comments on board. As for the sources...I'm perplexed that you consider them to be ambiguous....from The Guardian: [Crick] came perilously close to being investigated by the police when an acquaintance was jailed for manufacturing LSD (one of Crick's drugs of choice); from Matt Ridley's book (courtesy of John) [Crick] was introduced to LSD about 1967 by Henry Barclay Todd; the MoS reference obviously speaks for itself, as do the other contextual sources. By the same token- the article is admittedly overlong; it could stand to lose about 25-30% of its current material. As stated ad nauseum, I would like to work with John (and anyone else who cares to participate) to trim the material down to perhaps one or two sentences and integrate it into the main text. If space was the stated issue, then this discussion would be long over. But I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with John that a) newspapers are somehow not reliable sources (????); b) this information is inherently unencyclopaedic. I think he is motivated by a POV desire to massage the facts so as to expunge this material from Crick's biography (a figure he obviously has considerable admiration for, and understandably so) in order to "protect" the subject's reputation. I hope that doesn't sound harsh, it is my genuine reading of the situation, I don't mean that as a personal attack. If that is the motivation, then it is wrong. Wikipedia is not censored. Nobody "owns" a given article- the project is collaborative. This material is encyclopaedic biographical information, and the sources are reasonable as per WP:RS and the discussion on WP:RS/N. Those are the facts. Badgerpatrol 10:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The information is out there in the public domain, and is well cited in the article by reliable sources. I'd like to see quotes from the biography, but even without that I am content with four notable newspapers carrying the story. The question is not should the information be included, it's how it should appear. I disagree with giving the information a section on its own, as that draws attention to it, and gives it undue weight. It is a part of his life, and readers should be aware of it, and be aware of any speculation (inferred or stated from sources) that drug use may have had an influence on his work, but it should not be hammered home.

These sentences

Crick was a signatory to a noted Times statement advocating legalisation of cannabis and the immediate release of all prisoners convicted of drug possession, published in July 1967. The Cricks associated with figures from the drug scene and LSD was allegedly "drug of choice" for Francis. Allegations persist that Crick was a user of illegal hallucinogenic drugs, which may have had some influence on his work. Crick did not comment on these allegations, which were suppressed until after his death. The Guardian reported that Crick came "perilously" close to being investigated by the police after his associate Richard Kemp, a drug dealer and biochemist, was arrested.

would fit in quite well after the "Ashley Montagu Resolution" sentences in the "Neuroscience, other interests, Crick's death" section.

An encyclopedia should be impartial and carry information about a person, including well documented speculation. It is for the reader to decide what they will make of the information. Our job here is to present that information in as neutral and factual manner as possible. We not highlight it, but nor do we suppress it. SilkTork 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article on Legality of cannabis makes no mention of Crick because Crick played no significant role in the issue of the legality of cannabis. This topic (drugs) is unimportant aspect of Crick's life that in no way contributed to his scientific work and his fame. There is no good reason to include the topic in the Francis Crick article. Including the topic of drugs is not impartial. To include this topic in the article would be to bias the article towards a subject that is not relevant to Crick's scientific work and the fame that arose from that work. If you want to include this topic in the article, please cite some reliable sources that explain how drugs significantly contributed to Crick's scientific work and fame. Yes, there are hundreds of publications that make $$$$ by publishing "stories" that mention drugs and someone famous. Let's not lower Wikipedia to the level of those journalistic bottom feeders. There are few biologists with more published biographical information about them than exists for Crick. Let's not get into cherry-picking sensationalized trivia when there is a wealth of information about Crick's scientific work. If your mission in life is to add trivia to Wikipedia, at least follow Wikipedia policy and cite reliable sources to support your belief that the trivia should be included. --JWSchmidt 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

John, I am so sorry to have to publicly pick on you again on this point: "There are few biologists with more published biographical information about them than exists for Crick." but there simply is NOT! There is only Matt Ridley's short biography from last year, so where is the rest? And to be brutally honest, there are a lot of useful references from "Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code" which could be added to 'your' (I know it's not really your's) article, which for whatever reason you have chosen not to. This debate reminds me of Alun/Wobble and 'his' article on Rosalind Franklin - from which he has now retired as it were. Incidentally I do know the almost authoritative answer on the LSD question, but it is not for publication here. The whole LSD issue is grossly overrated in my opinion and debate should cease! Far better to spend your time re-reading Matt Ridley's recent biography of Francis Crick please and improving the article? Martin

Nitramrekcap —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:05, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

This is a biography of Crick's life, including, but not restricted to, his scientific work. His drug use is mentioned (according to you yourself) in Ridley's book, was picked out as of particular interest in The Guardian's review of that book, as well in your hated Mail on Sunday piece (seems bizarre that I'm almost sticking up for the Daily Hate Mail, but such is life). He was indeed a signatory to the Times letter, which was a significant moment in the history of drugs in Britain. No one disputes that is verifiable and indeed "true". The fact that you don't like it does not make it unencylopaedic. Although opinion is not clear cut, it does seem to me that most other editors don't agree with you here. You do not own this article. Badgerpatrol 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to whoever reinstated the original Discoverers of the Structure of DNA earlier as it looks a lot better with a more comprehensive list from William Astbury to Maurice Wilkins!

Nitramrekcap —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:48, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Can I point out that a google for "Francis Crick" LSD turns up these results [2] including this interview [3] in which Crick talks about LSD - here's an extract:

MISHLOVE: Because every neuron is connected to perhaps thousands of other neurons. It's constantly sending and receiving signals to thousands of other neurons.

CRICK: That's right. And of course because it's like that, that explains why very tiny amounts of chemicals can alter people's behavior, because they go and sit on some of these molecules, different types of them, and that alters -- for example, you can have one the signal which is to calm down the neuron. And if you therefore put a chemical which increases that, that will calm you down or send you to sleep, if that's what sleeping pills are. And we've seen that, of course, recently in things like Prozac. So that's why tiny amounts of chemicals will do that. In the case of LSD, for example, you only need 150 micrograms to have all these funny experiences, you see. It's minute. And that's because they fit into special places, these little molecules, these drugs which you take. They fit into special places in these other molecules. They've been tailored to do that.

MISHLOVE: Do you have a sense of the process by which hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, or psychedelic drugs, actually affect the brain? What is going on there?

CRICK: Well, I don't have a detailed knowledge, no, I don't, and I'm not sure that anybody else really knows. They have a rough idea.

MISHLOVE: We know that obviously there's a chemical influence.

CRICK: Well, typically, different ones act in different ways. But a common thing is to see colors more vividly, for example, and often to see things move in a way when they're not actually moving, and things of that sort. So they boost up in some way the activities of what you might call the color parts of the brain and the moving parts of the brain and so on. But the government isn't very keen on giving money for research on that sort of thing.

A google for Crick and cannabis returns this [4] which gives us this letter by Noel Annan, Baron Annan to Crick , which is held in the National Library of medicine: [5], and this scholarly profile by the University of California [6] which includes this line: In the 1960s, Crick, along with Paul McCartney, Graham Greene and others collaborated to urge cannabis legal reform.

There is so much material, including sources as legitimate as universities, which make reference to Crick in relation to LSD and cannabis that I am starting to think that perhaps it should be in a highlighted section. It appears to be a notable part of his life. Certainly I cannot see how JWSchmidt can continue to seriously protest the inclusion of drug references in the article given the body of evidence and the degree of support from experienced and respected Wiki editors. SilkTork 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"It appears to be a notable part of his life" <-- Since we are sharing personal views, I'll say that my guess is that Crick's experimentation with street drugs might possibly be constructively viewed as an integral part of his willingness to explore life and the world in many different ways even if they were not popular or socially sanctioned. I think he cared about truth and where the truth leads people, not trying to appear to be "normal" or "proper" or conventional. Yes, Crick publicly supported decriminalization of Cannabis possession, and since he was a Nobel Prize winner some people seem to think that there is some special importance to Crick's support. It gets a single sentence in Ridley's book-length biography of Crick. Cite some sources to support the idea that Crick's support for decriminalization of cannabis possession played a significant role in the debate and maybe we can justify a sentence in Wikipedia. In my view, performing some personal experiments on the cognitive effects of THC and LSD fits comfortably into Crick's long-standing interest in the brain and the physical basis of consciousness. Exploring the effects of chemical substances on the brain is one of the most important tools available for studying brain function. I doubt if he viewed his "experiments" with LSD as a significant part of his life but I also doubt that he was at all embarrassed by his experiments with THC and LSD. I think the proper criteria for including mention of his drug use in Wikipedia is being able to cite reliable sources that say drug use was in some way important to his life. There are just so many other more important things to say about Crick that I do not see a way justify a discussion of his experimentation with drugs. Ridley's biography of Crick is about 200 pages and his coverage of Crick's drug use is two paragraphs. One of those paragraphs refutes the absurd claim that LSD influenced his work on the structure of DNA. In my view, his drug use can only appear to be "a notable part of his life" if you are unaware of most of his life. Its notable enough to get two paragraphs from Ridley, is it notable enough to get two sentences in Wikipedia? You can read Ridley's book and find dozens of other topics that receive more coverage there and yet are not mentioned at all in Wikipedia. On what basis can we as editors decide to include mention of the drug use while ignoring so many other topics? --JWSchmidt 04:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

John, you are of course quite right! The lengthy discussion of this non-issue is a sad reflection on Wikipedia in my opinion; if you think there are "dozens of other topics that receive more coverage there" (in Ridley's pocketbook) just wait until you see Bob Olby's biography!! Having said that, I do thank "Silktork" for a timely reminder of the Annan letter.

Martin Nitramrekcap —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:47, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

• Just to add my twopenneth. It seems to me that there is certainly an issue worth mentioning here. If four major newspapers have carried a story about Crick and drug use (as claimed above), then it is obviously a notable fact about Crick's life, therefore it is worth mentioning. Indeed the fact that there is so much discussion here shows just how notable this facet of Crick's life is from the point of view of societies perception of major scientific figures. It does not need to be a particularly important part of the article, but to suppress information that is clearly cited from reliable sources really does smack of censorship. Indeed I might go so far as to say that certain editors may want to suppress this information because they think it somehow reflects badly on Crick. But this is about how we see these people, they are people, with the same humanity as the rest of us, do we want articles to be accurate? Or do we want them to be written as eulogies that airbrush out all of the inconvenient facts that show the humanity of these people? I do not think it is the purpose of wikipedia articles to lionise or to demonise people. Personally I don't think that mention of having the occasional trip or spliff does discredit Crick, it just shows that he is human and prone to the same temptations and frailties as all humans are. Whereas mainstream media cannot be considered reliable sources for science, I think they are perfectly acceptable sources for reporting on things of this nature. Indeed it seems to be well known that Crick did like a bit of a toke, so what? What's the problem with mentioning it? Indeed it is an extremely weak argument to claim that it should not be mentioned just because it is such a "small part of his life". How can any editor know this? He might have been puffing away at a joint at ever opportunity that presented itself for all we know. Alun 05:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alun,

Interesting opinion! Just to remind you that the debate is over LSD, and not "the occasional trip or spliff" or "a bit of a toke" or "puffing away at a joint"...all will be revealed in the new biography in February 2008! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)

Irrespective of whether it's about LSD or cannabis use (and someone above did mention simething about Crick's support for cannabis legalisation) or the frequency with which he used any recreational drugs, my point still stands. It does not do any discredit to Crick or his accomplishments to mention this. For example Samuel Taylor Coleridge's use of opium is mentioned in his biographical article, but it doesn't make a big deal about it. Crick was not a politician and was not a hypocrite, and I think that is an important aspect of this, he was not involved in promoting prohibition of drug use, as far as I am aware, so any mention of drug use cannot reflect badly on him. If some people choose to judge Crick harshly because it is noted that he used drugs, then that is their prerogative, but their judgement reflects their own personal belief system and not that of Crick himself. Alun 09:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alun, apart from the odd spelling error - you are obviously back on good form after your recent Wikibreak! My previous comment (below) stands, but this is really John S.'s issue and not mine..

"My main point still stands in that there is only ONE substantive biography of Francis Crick to date, and everything else - especially on the internet - is endlessly recycled again and again; there is little or no original information on Francis Crick and his alleged use of L.S.D.: QED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)

Well Martin you should know by now that we cannot use original research on Wikipedia, so even if there were "original information" it's use would be prohibited. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. If there are reliable sources that make the claim that Crick took LSD, then this is good enough for the information to be included. In compliance with Wikipedia's neutrality polocy, if there is a reliable published source that contradicts te claim that Crick used LSD, then this should also be included. Information on the Internet is perfectly acceptable as long as it derives from a reliable source, one cannot claim that all content on the Internet is equally unreliable, just as one cannot claim that all content on the internet is reliable. The only thing you appear to have demonstrated is your continuing lack of understanding of the most basic of Wikipedia policies, something very odd as I have directed you to these policies time and again. I can only conclude that you have absolutelly no interest in producing reliably sourced and neutral articles, and have gone out of your way to ignore Wikipedia rules regarding content and eding. If you were a newbie this would of course be forgivable, as it is it seems more like wanton POV-pushing. Alun 10:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

ditto Why did you copy this template [7] on to John Schmidt's talk page? Badgerpatrol 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not "BADGERPATROL", I was trying to moderate this overheated debate over FHCC and LSD, which to me seems pretty pointless. The heated discussion says more about Wikipedia and the poor relationship between you (whoever you are) and John Schmidt, than FHCC/LSD by the way.

Although I naturally support John's views as I think he has done more than anyone to create the Francis Crick article - in the same way as Alun and REF - what must non-Wikipedians think of this argument? I hate to think! I hope John can be allowed to respond to your last response and then go to Arbitration over the whole issue rather than dragging Wikipedia's name and FHCC's reputation through the mud. I have had arguments over REF with Alun but respect his commitment to the REF article, unfortunately I cannot say the same of yourself in the same way as for FHCC.

As a distinguished, old friend of mine says to me "ENOUGH!"; alternatively 'get a life'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)

Ah Marty, or whatever your IP [[WP:SOCK)) of choice is at the moment. Learn Wiki rules. Alun 22:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Problems to fix for GA

I'm not committing to a full review just yet, but some things to fix before this will be Good Article quality:

• Overlinking. Generally, only the first use of a term should be wikilinked. In some cases, it's good to link the reappearance of an important name or term if it has not appeared for a a considerable length of text, but in general, one link per item. Also, years should not be linked unless they are paired with a specific date. So "1953", but "January 1, 1953".
• Lead should be about three paragraphs. The vague sentence about post-1953 work at the MRC should be replaced with an actual description of what he was doing.
• Fix all the places marked "citation needed".

Cheers--ragesoss 02:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Luckily Crick's work in biology can be divided into three parts, so the article now has three introductory paragraphs that summarize the Double Helix discovery, Crick's work on the genetic coding problem and his work on the neurobiology of consciousness. I removed a large number of "extra" links. There are probably more that could be removed, however, for many of the technical terms I do not think it hurts to leave a significant number of linked ocurrences in the text. Today there was one outstanding "citation needed" that I addressed. The article now has 63 numbered reference. --JWSchmidt 21:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article does not currently meet the GA criteria, and will not be listed. It still needs a good deal of work prior to GA status, and is probably, IMHO, still at a good, solid B-class article. First, I agree with the above-mentioned issues raised by ragesoss, although the lead is not quite as bad as he suggests. While there is no "three paragraph" minimum, the lead should provide an accurate summary of the article, and this lead does not do that. For starters, the last two sentences provide new info that's not even mentioned in the article itself! And it's rather trivial, so I'm not sure it really needs to go into the lead at all.

The major problems with the article are prose and organization. The prose can get really long-winded at times, and isn't really concise. Several sections really drag on, such as info in 'biology research' (the last two subsections, mainly). Consider going over this and paraphrasing much of the information. I'm also not sure why the myoglobin x-ray image is in the article at all, especially where it is. I don't see context for it mentioned in the text near it, and there's only a vague reference to it later down in the article, of which the sentence mentions that it was really Watson's work and not Crick's. So this just doesn't make much sense here.

Many of the major sections can be combined into other sections and areas, and the header titles are also not in compliance with WP:MSH. They could also be shortened, as some of them are rather long, making it more difficult to read the table of contents. I would recommend starting with a section called 'personal life', and then a section called 'education', then 'research career' (or maybe 'academic career'. The 'career' section should have some notable subsections, one of which should obviously be 'discovery of DNA'. I also don't think that it's necessary to include the years in the section header specifically, as this can make the TOC look somewhat awkward.

The 'views on religion' section can largely be shortened and probably combined with the 'personal life' section.

Some of the controversy and reactions sections is really getting into POV, and much of this material should be merged with other sections, specifically, it should be discussed in areas close to where the research in question is mentioned, so that all the information is in one place.

The 'Neuroscience, other interests, Crick's death' should go into other sections; most of it can go into the section on his career. His death should go into the 'personal life' section, at the very end.

'Recognition' is poorly organized, and it's getting quite listy near the end, with the lists taking several different formats, which just looks bad.

The two books sections should be combined into one section called 'further reading'. It still might be helpful to separate books he wrote from books about him, but the name 'Francis Crick' should not be in the subsection headers, per WP:MSH.

The 'external links' section is quite long; consider pruning it. Links that are used as inline citations should appear only in the 'references' section as sources, and not in the 'external links' section. It might help to review WP:EL for guidelines on this section.

I think this covers the major issues. The list may not be complete, but this should give editors a good start at improving the article. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I tried to make clear why the myoglobin image is the article by expanding the caption for the image. It provides an example of the kind of data Crick analyzed for his thesis research. It is also the kind of data that was important for the double helix discovery. --JWSchmidt 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• "Several sections really drag on" (from the GA review, above). <-- A possible path to improvement would be to move most of the details about the discovery of the DNA double helix model to Double helix. As things stand now, there are multiple accounts of the same material related to the discovery spread out in the Crick, Watson, Wilkins, Franklin and Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWSchmidt (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

satanist

In his biography it says he attended a satanist church as a boy this isn't true is it?

76.102.119.62 (talk)

Until this can be confirmed I am going to remove it because it looks like vandalism to me.

68.247.213.186 (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bob Olby's new biography of Francis Crick now due in June 2009

Francis Crick: A Biography by Robert Olby; Hardback - ISBN 9780879697983; June 2009; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; Price: $TBA

"This engrossing biography by one of molecular biology' s foremost scholars reveals the remarkable evolution of Francis Crick' s scientific career and the shaping of his personality. From unpromising beginnings, he became a vital contributor to a remarkably creative period in science. Olby chronicles Crick' s life from his early studies in biophysics, to the discovery of the structure of DNA, to his later work in neuroscience and the nature of consciousness. This account is woven together with insights into his personal life gained through access to Crick' s papers, family, and friends. Robert Olby's book is a richly detailed portrait of one of the great scientists of our time." (from Scion)

Contents Time Line Introduction 1. ' You're a Dog If You Haven't Got A Nobel Prize' 2. A Difficult Act to Follow 3. From the Provinces to the Big City 4. War Work for the Royal Navy 5. Biology at the Strangeways 6. Helical Molecules at the Cavendish Laboratory 7. The DNA Fiasco 8. Two Pitchmen in Search of A Helix 9. A Most Important Discovery 10. Publishing the Model 11. Employed by the John Wayne of Crystallography 12. The Genetic Code 13. Preaching the Central Dogma 14. Crick as Experimentalist 15. Speaking out on Controversial Subjects 16. Biological Complexity 17. Leaving the 'Old Country' 18. Taking the Plunge: Neuroscience 19. From the Searchlight to the Soul 20. Eighty-eight Years Biographical Index Subject Index

No doubt whatever Professor Olby has to say about Francis Crick can be used to improve this article; very little of Matt Ridley's 'potted' biography has been interpolated into this article, but Olby's full length (450 pages) scientific biography contains references and an index, both of which were missing from the Matt Ridley biography for reasons of space. Bob Olby's biography of Crick has been many years in writing as Crick insisted that it NOT be published during his lifetime. Four years after his death, a full biography is being published by CSHL Press.

91.110.217.162 (talk)

Edit by Anon.

"His later work, until 1977, at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, has not received as much formal recognition."

Rather than just deleting the above, can 'Anon.' suggest an alternative form of words please?