70 years ago, 3 papers appeared in @Nature under the title ‘Molecular structure of nucleic acids’. In an article appearing today (link at end) @matthewcobb and I shed new light on ‘what Watson and Crick really took from Rosalind Franklin’. This thread summarizes our findings.1/23 Many ppl believe that Watson and Crick stole Franklin’s data when Watson glimpsed Photograph 51. Told in Watson’s The Double Helix (1968) this is not true (NC, forthcoming, shows the book is semi-fictional). But Photograph 51 is widespread in culture, eg on a UK 50p piece. 2/23

So @sapinker is talking trash about me re: my piece in #Nature150 (nature.com/articles/d4158…). <cracks knuckles>
The scrumptious irony is how well Pinker’s tweet makes the central argument in my @Nature article. Here’s the tweet in question.
1/ I write satire from time to time, and I’d be hard-put to parody Pinker’s language. So let’s break down his own words:
“Unlike past anti-scientism rants in lit/cult/pol mags, this [my piece] is in Nature.”
nature.com/articles/d4158…
2/