> profoundly misleading. > Watson’s reductive and erroneous presentation. These descriptions are silly, and a huge exaggeration. The traditional succinct form

> profoundly misleading. > Watson’s reductive and erroneous presentation. These descriptions are silly, and a huge exaggeration. The traditional succinct formulation (from Watson) DNA => RNA => Protein is used in an educational context (whether of the general public or students). As such it does a great job! If students can get and retain that idea, then the educator is winning. And if the student goes further into molecular biology they may discover that reverse transcription exists. Great. But simple-to-understand formulations that capture the key idea are pedagogically essential, and the attacks in this article are completely unnecessary. It's easy to wonder whether they are irrational, i.e. sociopolitically motivated by (perfectly reasonable) distaste for Watson's (deeply unpleasant) comments made later in life, and they lessen the attraction of the author's forthcoming biography of Crick.