He has garnered multiple national and international honors and written a string of popular books, from the best-selling "Double Helix" in 1962 to "Avoid Boring People: Lessons From a Life in Science" (Knopf, $27), a just-released chronicle of lessons learned in science.
This week, Watson was in San Diego promoting the book. Naturally, we had questions:
Q: What's the best thing about being James Watson?
A: Being able to live among unboring people. I know interesting people. I'm stimulated. They enrich my life. It has helped me stay alive.
Q: What's the worst thing?
A: Being photographed and then having to look at the pictures. At public occasions, people are always asking if they can take a picture. Saying no seems cruel, so I always say yes, but I don't like it.
Q: What's the most common misperception about you?
A: That I'm not interested in people, that I don't like them. What I do like is to be honest. That means I sometimes say things people don't want to hear. I don't say things to get social approval. My father used to say you should avoid people if you had nothing nice to say, that wisdom meant sometimes keeping your mouth shut. That's why he avoided Republicans.
But I think it's always better to deal in realities, to speak your mind.
Q: So which is it: nature or nurture?
A: You can learn a lot of things, but emotions come from your genes. Your personality is your genes. And your personality is key.
Q: You and Craig Venter (the maverick biologist) are the first two people to have their entire genomes sequenced. There's talk that someday everyone might be able to do so - the so-called $1,000 genome. Is this a good idea?
A: Some people think genetic knowledge will lead to discrimination, but I think it's just knowledge. I think people will actually be more compassionate if they realize that somebody who's socially awkward may, in fact, just be slightly autistic.
I'll be happy when we get to the point of a Chevrolet genome. I don't think people should be sequenced routinely. I don't think anybody wants their future predicted. But if we know more about what's genetic and what's not, we can make better choices. If you know somebody's behavior is linked to their genes, you're less likely to get angry and more likely to help.
Q: Is there such a thing as a science celebrity? Are you stopped on the street? Can you get a good table in restaurants?
A: I guess I'm a science celebrity. Certainly, DNA is. Since Francis died (in 2004), you could say my fame has doubled, but I'm not recognized on the street. And I think I have only once gone into a restaurant in New York City and somebody knew who I was.
Q: You've said Charles Darwin was the most important scientist ever. Why?
A: I think he's the most important person to have lived on the Earth. He described relationships that have made our understanding of life clearer. He's had an enormous impact, from Victorian England until now. Fundamentalists don't mind Watson and Crick, but Darwin drives them crazy.
A: Roger Federer.
Q: If you hadn't pursued a life in science, what would you have liked to do?
A: I think I could have been an art dealer. I have pretty good taste. I've always like portraits. For me, faces dominate my life. It's not about big boobs. It's about the face. Always.
Q: You once were quoted saying stupidity was a disease. What did you mean?
A: If your heart doesn't work well, people say it's genetic. If your brain doesn't work well, that, in a sense, is a brain disease. The big thing is deciding what's normal and abnormal. A disease is something that keeps you from having a productive life. Sometimes it's ignorance, but sometimes it's more. I think I said what I said to make people think. We are placing more and more demands on people, and not everybody is up to it. Most scientists avoid being controversial, especially outside of their chosen field.
Q: Should scientists play a role in shaping public opinion beyond their particular expertise?
A: Well, I think our job means telling people what we know. We should always make clear the scientific facts, even if people don't want to hear them. Too many scientists feel responsibility only to themselves and their next grant. But we're part of society, too, and we have a duty to explain our science and act as a kind of lobbyist for it. Maybe we can't tell people how to use knowledge, but we can make sure they have all of the information.
Q: Are people listening?
A: No, they pay more attention to baseball.
Q: Can a scientist believe in God?
A: I don't know. I have no religious component. I don't want to speak for others, but I don't have a single colleague who is religious. I know one person who is, and I don't understand him at all. We have different brains.
Q: Is science today better or worse than it was when you were coming up through the ranks?
A: It's worse. We're trying to solve harder problems, but there doesn't seem to be any interest by either political party. Our standing has declined. Funding is down. Working scientists don't get paid enough. A baseball umpire makes more than I do.
Science isn't as important in this country as it should be. People talk about science as a global pursuit, but the real unit of power is the nation. If America wants to help the world, it should strive to be a scientific leader. The only thing that's going to keep us ahead is knowledge.
