Crick: A Mind in Motion by Matthew Cobb review – the charismatic philanderer who changed science

Francis Crick: A Brilliant Philanderer Who Remade Science

Francis Crick, the 23-year-old genius who burst onto the scientific scene in the 1950s with his iconic discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, was not just a child prodigy or a lone wolf. In Matthew Cobb's riveting new biography, we see a man who defied conventions and blazed trails, leaving an indelible mark on two groundbreaking fields: neuroscience and molecular biology.

Born in 1916 to a middle-class family, Crick began his academic journey as an "average" student at Mill Hill School. Despite his lackluster performance in Latin, he went on to study physics and mathematics at University College London, graduating with a respectable 2.1 degree. However, it was the tumultuous years of World War II that would shape his scientific destiny. Conscripted into developing mines to evade German mine sweepers, Crick's wartime experience sparked an insatiable curiosity about the molecular basis of life.

Inspired by Erwin Schrödinger's 1944 book "What Is Life?", Crick became determined to unlock the secrets of DNA. After receiving a studentship through the Medical Research Council, he joined Strangeways Laboratory near Cambridge, where he began studying the structure of cytoplasm. His collaboration with James Watson at Cambridge University's Cavendish Lab in 1949 proved pivotal in cracking the code of DNA.

But Crick was more than just a brilliant scientist; he was also a charismatic free spirit. A self-proclaimed "philanderer" and poetry lover, he threw risqué parties that brought together researchers from diverse disciplines. His approach to science was bold, arrogant, and unafraid to challenge the status quo. As Lawrence Bragg, head of the Cavendish lab, noted, Crick had a knack for doing crosswords - and stepping on toes in the process.

Crick's legacy has been marred by controversy, particularly surrounding his relationship with Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray diffraction images supported their double helix model. Cobb sets the record straight, revealing that Crick and Watson did not steal data from Franklin, as popularly claimed. Instead, they should have asked for permission to use her work and acknowledged her contributions in their academic papers.

Despite these oversights, Cobb's biography is a testament to Crick's trailblazing spirit and his unwavering commitment to scientific inquiry. As he once said, "when times are tough, true novelty is needed... chance is the only source of true novelty". These profound words capture the essence of Crick's work - a relentless pursuit of knowledge that continues to inspire scientists today.

Crick's remarkable story is both fascinating and cautionary. His unorthodox approach to science has inspired generations of researchers, but it also highlights the challenges faced by women in male-dominated fields. Cobb's biography offers a nuanced portrait of this complex figure, one who embodied both brilliance and arrogance, leaving behind an indelible mark on our understanding of life itself.

I'm not impressed with these so-called "biographies" that come out every now and then . They just glorify the past without looking at the present problems in science. I mean, Francis Crick's legacy is cool and all, but what about the struggles he faced as a woman? And by the way, his partying ways are more like a distraction than something to be celebrated . Also, the fact that he didn't acknowledge Rosalind Franklin's work properly is just wrong . Science shouldn't be about who gets to step on whose toes, it should be about finding answers and moving forward . I wish we could learn from Crick's mistakes instead of just romanticizing him as a genius .

Crick's DNA discovery is cool but his personal life is wild . A genius with a bad rep .

I'm so sorry to hear you're struggling with feelings of frustration about people who don't deserve praise . It's like when someone takes credit for work that wasn't theirs or doesn't even know the first thing about it . But, hey, we can learn from Francis Crick's story - he was a true trailblazer ! He broke all the rules and pushed boundaries just to get closer to unlocking the secrets of life . And, you know what? His mistakes are still an important part of his story .

It's like we say in life: "when times are tough, true novelty is needed... chance is the only source of true novelty" . Yeah, that sounds familiar to me because it's exactly how I feel when someone's being unfair or dismissive ! But instead of letting that frustration get us down, we can use Crick's story as a reminder that even with all our flaws and imperfections, we can still make a difference .

It's not always easy to navigate complex situations like this, but I'm here for you, and we'll figure it out together . Let's focus on the things that inspire us and motivate us to be better versions of ourselves !

lololol he was literally a rebel scientist lol i mean who else tries to crash parties with scientists from other disciplines but for real though his approach to science is wild he was like the ultimate nonconformist and that's part of why we love him so much

i also gotta give props to Rosalind Franklin she got shafted by Crick and Watson but at least Cobb set the record straight it's crazy how much controversy surrounded those guys but at the end of the day they changed our understanding of life forever

and can we talk about his poetry skills for a sec? i mean who knew science dudes could be so poetic lololol anyway seriously though Cobb's biography is like the ultimate tribute to Crick's legacy

Crick was like a double-edged sword - his groundbreaking work on DNA is undeniable, but the controversy surrounding him is also pretty significant . I mean, he was a true trailblazer and innovator in his field, no doubt about it . His legacy should be celebrated, but we can't ignore the fact that he had some major blind spots when it came to women's contributions in science .

It's wild to think about how much of his work was influenced by Rosalind Franklin, yet she was often erased from the narrative . The fact that Crick and Watson didn't ask for permission to use her data and didn't give her proper credit is pretty shameful . It's a reminder that there's still so much work to be done in terms of representation and inclusivity in STEM fields.

Despite all this, I do think Cobb's biography does an amazing job of capturing Crick's complexity and nuance . He was definitely a product of his time, but he also pushed the boundaries of what was possible in science . His legacy will continue to inspire scientists for generations to come .

just read about francis crick and i gotta say he was like a true original his approach to science was so ahead of its time - the man was literally blazing trails wherever he went but at the same time, you can't help but feel for rosie franklin who got kinda shafted in all this DNA drama anyway, i think crick's legacy is still totally worth celebrating, even if it comes with some major caveats his words on innovation and taking risks are still super relevant today, imo

You know when you're trying to solve a puzzle or figure out a mystery? Like Crick did with DNA, but he didn't just stop at figuring it out, he kept pushing boundaries and challenging the norms. That's what I love about him - his willingness to take risks and step on some toes in the process. It's like he knew that if you want to change something or create something new, you have to be willing to make waves and not play by the rules.

It's also interesting how his personal life reflected this same energy. I mean, who throws parties at their lab? But it's also a reminder that our work is not just about us, but about how we interact with others and contribute to the bigger picture.

And yeah, Crick's legacy has its flaws, especially when it comes to Rosalind Franklin. It's a tough lesson to learn, but it shows that even in science, where we're trying to figure out some of life's biggest mysteries, we need to be mindful of how our actions affect others and make sure we're giving credit where credit is due.

I'm so sick of these bios that just regurgitate every last detail from the person's Wikipedia page . Can't we get some real analysis or critique here? I mean, I know Francis Crick was a genius and all, but let's not forget he also had some major flaws . Like, have you seen his treatment of Rosalind Franklin? That's some messed up stuff right there. And don't even get me started on the sexism . I'm all for celebrating science heroes, but we need to be honest about their complexities too . Can't we get a more nuanced discussion going here?

I'm not buying the whole "bad boy genius" hype about Francis Crick . I mean, don't get me wrong, he was a genius and all that, but his partying ways and flirtations with Rosalind Franklin's data? That's just shady . And what's up with him thinking it's okay to steal credit from others? Not cool, Francis .

And another thing, Cobb's biography seems to be glossing over some pretty major flaws in Crick's character. Like, yeah, he was a trailblazer and all, but that doesn't mean we have to celebrate his sexist behavior . I'd like to see a more nuanced look at the complex issues of scientific ethics and how they intersect with personal relationships.

I'm also not convinced by this whole "genius = originality" narrative . Crick was working on DNA with James Watson, for crying out loud! That's not exactly breaking new ground . I need to see more critical analysis of his work and its impact on the field before I start singing his praises.

But hey, at least Cobb is trying to set the record straight about Rosalind Franklin . That's a start, right?

I just read this bio about Francis Crick & I gotta say he sounds like a real Renaissance man - not only was he super smart but also a party animal . It's crazy how his personal life kinda got tangled up with his science, especially that Rosalind Franklin thing it's like, yeah sure let's give him credit for the discovery but also what about the lady who actually helped make it happen?

And can we talk about his attitude towards women in STEM? I mean, he was basically a trailblazer and yet he still had some major issues with feminism . It's like, great job breaking barriers but also how did you treat the people who helped break those barriers?

Anyway, overall I think this bio is fascinating & it's crazy to see how far ahead of his time Crick was he really embodied that "when times are tough, true novelty is needed" vibe . But yeah, there's definitely some stuff here that makes you wanna shake your head in frustration .

I mean, I gotta disagree even with myself on this one... Francis Crick was definitely a genius, no doubt about it. But the whole "philanderer" thing? I'm not so sure... he might have had his parties and all that, but I think we're glossing over some serious issues here.

And don't even get me started on Rosalind Franklin... I know Crick and Watson didn't steal her data, but still, it's messed up how women were treated in those days. And Cobb's saying that they should have asked for permission? That sounds like a cop-out to me...

But at the same time, Crick was really ahead of his time... he did challenge some serious conventional wisdom and helped us understand DNA better than anyone else. So I guess you could say he was both brilliant and arrogant, which is kinda true...

I'm loving this new bio on Francis Crick ! The guy was literally a genius but also a bit of a wild card . I mean, throwing parties for researchers and doing crosswords while stepping on toes? That's some next level stuff . But what really gets me is the whole Rosalind Franklin thing. I've always thought that Crick and Watson were way too secretive about using her data, but it sounds like they didn't do anything wrong... or at least, Cobb doesn't say so . Still, it's wild to think about how much of a trailblazer Crick was in terms of challenging the status quo and pushing boundaries in science . And let's be real, his quotes are straight fire ! "Chance is the only source of true novelty"... I mean, that's some profound stuff right there .

Crick was defo a genius, like he basically figured out DNA on his own but at the same time, I'm not buying the whole "he wasn't that great" thing from people who were jealous of him...I mean, have you seen those parties he threw?! he seemed like the ultimate rebel and nonconformist. And yeah, he had some problems with Franklin but it's not all his fault...Crick was definitely a product of his time. Also, it's wild to think about how much science has come since then. We're still figuring out so many things!

so i just read this bio on francis crick and i gotta say, the guy sounds like a total genius, but also kinda problematic crick's philandering ways are pretty wild, especially considering his relationship with rosie franklin apparently he wasn't as innocent as people thought, and the whole "they stole her data" thing is a real controversy

i do love that cobb's bio sets the record straight and gives franklin the recognition she deserved but at the same time, crick's ego is pretty legendary it's like, dude was brilliant, no doubt about it, but come on with the charm and the parties

anyway, i'm just curious: how much of this bio was actually based on primary sources? were there any other biographies or accounts that influenced cobb's take?

Francis Crick's story is like a wild rollercoaster ride of science, love, and controversy . I mean, the guy was basically a genius from a young age, but what really sets him apart is how he didn't play by the rules . Like, his academic performance wasn't exactly stellar, but who cares when you're about to change the game? And let's be real, his wartime experience was like a spark that ignited his passion for science .

But what I find really fascinating is how Crick's personality and approach to science affected those around him . He was like this charismatic free spirit who threw these epic parties that brought together researchers from all over . And yeah, he was also a bit of a philanderer, but hey, who isn't, right? But seriously, his willingness to challenge the status quo and push boundaries is something we can all learn from.

And then there's the controversy surrounding Rosalind Franklin . I mean, it's crazy how much drama went down between Crick, Watson, and Franklin, but Cobb's biography sets the record straight . It's not that they stole data from her or anything (although, yeah, that would've been pretty shady ). It's just that they didn't ask permission to use her work, which is totally understandable.

What I love about Crick's story is that it's both inspiring and cautionary . He's a reminder that science is all about taking risks and pushing boundaries, but also that we need to be mindful of the impact our actions have on others . And let's not forget that his legacy has helped pave the way for future generations of researchers, especially women in STEM fields .

Anyway, if you're a fan of science history or just want to learn more about one of the most fascinating scientists of the 20th century, I'd totally recommend checking out Matthew Cobb's biography . Trust me, it's a wild ride !

Crick's philandering ways are like the politics of his time - all about power plays and shifting allegiances. He uses his charisma to get ahead in science, but at what cost? The way he treats Franklin is like the sexism that pervades many male-dominated fields, where women's contributions are often downplayed or erased

And let's not forget his infamous parties - a manifestation of the Wild West mentality that prevails in some scientific circles. Crick's willingness to challenge the status quo and push boundaries is admirable, but it also raises questions about accountability and respect for others' work

The fact that Cobb sets the record straight on Franklin's contributions is like the importance of transparency in science - we need to acknowledge and appreciate the work of all contributors, not just the ones who get the most credit

I'm not sure how much you'd want to know about Crick's party history , but seriously, his philandering ways might be seen as a distraction from his actual work. I mean, who needs that kind of drama when you're on the verge of discovering something life-changing? His ego was clearly a major asset in getting him to challenge the status quo and make bold discoveries, but at what cost to those around him? The way he took credit for Franklin's work is still super shady, no matter how much Cobb tries to spin it. Can't help but wonder if Crick's legacy would be more respected if he had been a little less full of himself .