The world of molecular biology lost one of its most influential—and controversial—figures this November with the passing of James D. Watson at the age of 97. Watson, whose name is inextricably linked to the discovery of DNA’s double helix, leaves behind a legacy that continues to shape not only the scientific landscape but also the ethics and culture of research. As the field he helped ignite surges forward with new breakthroughs, scientists and historians alike are taking a closer look at the tangled strands of Watson’s life, his contributions, and the lessons his story imparts in the era of genomics, CRISPR, and synthetic biology.
Back in 1953, a 25-year-old Watson, working alongside Francis Crick, unraveled the structure of DNA—a revelation that would redefine biology. The model they proposed, famously dubbed the double helix, offered a simple yet profound explanation for the storage, copying, and inheritance of genetic information. According to The Indian Express, this “twisting ladder” model laid the foundation for entire fields: genetics, biotechnology, gene therapy, forensics, and evolutionary biology. It was a scientific awakening that made the abstract concept of heredity tangible and molecular, sparking inspiration in generations of biologists.
Yet, as The Indian Express notes, Watson’s insight didn’t emerge in a vacuum. The discovery was shaped in the competitive corridors of Cambridge and King’s College, where Maurice Wilkins played a key—if complicated—role. But perhaps the most glaring omission in the original narrative was Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray crystallography work, particularly the now-famous “Photo 51,” provided crucial evidence for the double helix. Watson’s depiction of Franklin in his 1968 memoir, The Double Helix, was, to put it mildly, dismissive and sexist. “Watson’s depictions of Franklin were sexist and dismissive, reducing a brilliant scientist to a stereotype,” The Indian Express reports. This wasn’t just a personal slight; it distorted the historical record, minimizing Franklin’s indispensable contributions and scientific clarity.
Watson’s later career extended far beyond Cambridge. At Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, he became a mentor to a new generation of molecular biologists and played a role in the early phases of the Human Genome Project, helping to propel DNA science into new realms. But admiration for Watson’s scientific achievements has never meant overlooking his failings. As he grew older, Watson made public statements on race and intelligence that were widely condemned as deeply misguided and offensive. The backlash was swift and decisive: Cold Spring Harbor stripped him of his honorary titles, and he ultimately auctioned his Nobel medal—a rare public reckoning for a scientist of his stature.
These episodes serve as a stark reminder that scientific brilliance cannot excuse ethical lapses. “These episodes highlight that scientific brilliance cannot excuse ethical responsibility, and that legacy must account for the full spectrum of a life’s impact,” writes The Indian Express. The story of DNA’s discovery, then, is not just about intellectual triumphs but also about the blind spots and biases that can echo for generations. It’s a lesson that resonates as countries like India rapidly expand their scientific capabilities, investing in genome programs and building new research institutions. India’s recent BioE3 policy, for example, is aimed at strengthening national capacity in biomanufacturing and biotechnology, with a clear emphasis on fairness, transparency, and shared credit in scientific research. The policy underscores the need for a culture where ambition is matched by integrity and collaboration—values that the Watson saga shows are all too easy to neglect.
While Watson’s legacy is being debated, the science he helped set in motion is racing ahead. On December 8, 2025, Seoul National University announced a breakthrough in the field of directed evolution—a technique that induces mutations in genetic material to create new, useful biological functions. According to Donga Science, Professor Seokhee Kim and his team at the Department of Chemistry have developed a method for targeted DNA mutation induction by mimicking how antibodies diversify in our bodies. Their findings, published in Nature Communications on November 25, 2025, represent a leap forward for protein engineering and synthetic biology.
How did they do it? The team employed the Cascade system, a type of CRISPR-Cas “gene scissors,” to achieve unprecedented flexibility in targeting DNA sequences for mutation. Unlike the conventional CRISPR-Cas9 system, which is limited to recognizing a fixed 20-base sequence, the Cascade system can target sequences up to 200 bases in length. This means researchers can precisely control where mutations start and end within a DNA sequence—and even induce mutations in multiple DNA targets at once. “This achievement can be utilized as a core technology in protein engineering and synthetic biology, where directed evolution is applied, such as in the development of antibody-based drugs and eco-friendly enzymes,” the research team told Donga Science. The method also allows for selective mutation of specific domains within a protein or only those parts involved in interactions with particular molecules—a game-changer for designing new drugs and enzymes.
Directed evolution, as Donga Science explains, is central to modern protein engineering. By inducing mutations and selecting for desired traits, scientists can create proteins with novel functions, opening doors to everything from new medicines to sustainable industrial catalysts. The new technique from Seoul National University could accelerate these developments, making it easier to fine-tune biomolecules for very specific tasks. It’s a striking example of how the foundational discoveries of the 20th century are being reimagined and repurposed for 21st-century challenges.
The juxtaposition of Watson’s legacy with these new advances is instructive. The double helix remains one of science’s most influential ideas, but the story behind it is no longer told as a tale of solitary genius. Instead, it’s a reminder that progress depends on collaboration, fairness, and the honest telling of history. As India’s BioE3 policy and Korea’s latest research show, the future of biology will be shaped not just by technical breakthroughs, but by the systems and cultures that support discovery. The helix, it seems, will keep twisting forward—its shape unchanged, but its meaning ever evolving.
In the end, the task for today’s scientists and policymakers is clear: to ensure that the stories we tell about discovery are as accurate and inclusive as the science itself. Only then can the promise of the double helix—and all that has followed—be fully realized.
