James Watson's Exclusive Interview

Yulia Polevaya, Post-science 

Interview with James Watson, the Nobel Prize winner who discovered the structure of the DNA molecule together with Francis Crick, during a visit to Moscow in June 2015. The editors of the publishing house "PostNauka", Sputnik agency and the magazine "In the World of Science" took part in the conversation.

– In your opinion, what is important yet to be found in the human genome?

– The genome is an instruction for life. For the last 40 years we have been trying to find the instructions for cancer. And it was very useful in terms of understanding how cancer occurs. However, in most cases, this does not tell us anything about how to cure it, and this is the most important task. So I've devoted most of my life to this. And I think we may be getting closer to being able to cure many cancers that have been considered incurable until now. I hope that the triumph of science will come soon.

– How would you assess the current state of science? How soon can we find a cure for cancer?

– I keep my fingers crossed for that. Two drugs are currently being tested that could provide real ways to treat some cancers that we don't know how to treat yet. So if we're lucky, they'll be available in 2 years. We won't have to wait 50 or even 10 years. I want to live to see the moment when the cancer is cured. Some cancers are already curable, but it's about understanding what a cancer cell is and how it works. And this is rather not knowledge about DNA, but biochemistry – how a cancer cell grows and multiplies. It's all about chemical reactions, and it's very complicated. Some people think that all cancers are different and we will need hundreds of different treatments. But there are reasons to believe that most cancers have a lot in common – they have a biochemistry that is not present in a normal cell. And if we stop this abnormal metabolism, then we will stop cancer.

In general, I have always been optimistic, but not about a real victory over cancer. However, I have now changed my mind. I just think we finally know what's going on. Most people will say, "Well, I won't believe you until you cure someone," and I understand that. We have to treat people and free them from cancer. We should take, for example, the so-called basal form of breast cancer, which was incurable, and cure it. We know what strengths basal cancer has, and we have a medication that compensates for them. So I think we have to come to something eventually. Today I am much more optimistic.

There are many other aspects of life, such as, for example, the work of the brain and its diseases. You know, my son has a schizophrenic condition, and there is no medicine that would help him, because we don't know how to treat it. The brain is very complex. To understand cancer is to understand one cell. In schizophrenia, a significant part of the entire brain is abnormal.

– 7 years ago, in a conversation with Sergey Kapitsa, you said that the time has come to change our understanding of human behavior and determine what depends on genes and what depends on human experience. Has there been any progress in this area since then? And the same question about mental illness.

– Many people did not want gene research to be important for society. I'm pretty old-fashioned and I think genes matter a lot. Some people think that's not the case, and I can't argue with them, because we really don't know what, for example, the brain is and how it works. I think it's a big mistake to say, "We are the same, even though we have different genes." We have different genes!

Since the DNA helix was discovered, there has been tremendous progress in science. He's going much faster than I thought. Before we learned how to work with human genes, many of us hoped that the number of genes would not be very large. But now we have evidence that there are hundreds of genes and, if they don't function properly, they can lead to mental illness. So this is really a very difficult task.

The reason that mental illnesses are so common is that there are many different ways to get sick with them. Most people consider some genetic diseases to be something like swearing. Individual genes are rare, but what if you have thousands of genes, each of which, if it doesn't work, gives you a mental illness?

In addition, there are about 5% of people who are born with a non-functioning brain. We are talking about healthy parents, so these are not hereditary diseases, but natural mutations. This is a very big problem, and I hope that we will have medicines and we will solve it someday. But if I'm alive and see how cancer has been cured, I'll say, "Well, I'm a pretty lucky person."

– Do you think we can expect the emergence of so-called personalized medicine based on the structure of the human genome?

– Information about which gene is wrong does not cure the disease. So we need medicines. You may get the impression that all you need to do is look at DNA, which will be a big step forward. Only a medicine that will make a person healthy will be a big step forward, and this is chemistry. So I think the most important people right now are chemists, not those who specialize in DNA. DNA specialists can do their job well, and we know it was a great triumph, but this alone will not cure cancer. To do this, we need to do chemistry.

The big project I participated in, the Human Genome Project, is very important for studying this chemistry. It was something we had to do, we did it, and now we're doing it very seriously. So it's not that the work on DNA is unimportant. But that's not all, more needs to be done.

Today there are discussions about whether to change a person. Personally, I believe that yes. Because some of us have bad genes, and if we could make sure that our bad genes don't continue to live in our children, that would be wonderful. Therefore, I think that limiting DNA research, as it was in the USA, is a big mistake.

I was among the activists who opposed the control of DNA research in the 1970s. We have won this fight with the exception of agriculture. Someone thinks: if you change genes, then there may be something dangerous for heredity. I think there is no reason that this should be controlled, but in New York, many sympathize with what is called the precautionary principle: do nothing until you know that it is safe. You know, human civilization cannot develop in this way. Someone has to take the risk. Otherwise, Columbus would never have been allowed to cross the Atlantic, and Gagarin would never have been allowed to go into space. And thank God that he still went into space.

If someone wants to risk their life, then this is their choice. The astronauts who went into space knew that it was dangerous. But, on the other hand, there was a very well-developed program, so for the most part, space flight is safe. So I think that the precautionary principle will destroy modern society – everything will remain unchanged, it will be impossible to move forward. So I wouldn't want to be born with the precautionary principle dominating in me.

I was asked: "Why do you want to know the structure of DNA?" The US government stopped research at various levels. If you're figuring out what DNA is, then you might want to change it, so we won't let you do that.

It is necessary to move science forward – provided that it does not harm anyone. I wouldn't want religion to tell me how to behave, because it looks very oppressive. I think it would make the world terribly boring. And if some kind of disease appears, we will not have the right to fight it. For me, this is a fight with the wrong enemy, and life will never be possible without risk.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru

29.06.2015