We knew that DNA was important. knew it was an important molecule. we knew that its shape was to be important. But we didn’t I think just how important it be. Put in other words, we ’t realise that the shape would give a clue to the replication mechanism. this turned out to be really unexpected dividend from finding out what shape was. Watson was trained at University of Chicago and got a in biology and done research in , and I at the time was crystallography. But it would be quite to describe our collaboration really in terms. In point of fact, Watson a lot of crystallography, about diffraction , about the shapes of molecules and on and I by that time acquired a considerable background in biological . And when we first met, it clear that, to a large extent, had the same preconceived ideas, the ideas of what was important and sort of way things were likely go. Where the collaboration was important , I think, came out of the of the problem. This problem of -ray diffraction, especially this one, there’s a premium on being able to guess model, being able to devise from knowledge of the shapes of the units, certain bits of diffraction data other things of this sort to able to guess what the structure because once you’ve guessed it it’s easier the to prove it from data. Now this really, a guess, we said before, is really constructing theory and if you’re constructing a with a number of steps, if ’s one of you, it’s very easy go wrong. The advantage of two that if, for example, I had idea, which, as it turned out, , say, be quite wrong, was going at a tangent, Watson would tell in no uncertain terms this was and vice versa. If he had idea I didn’t like and I say so and this would shake thinking about it and draw him again. And in fact it’s one the requirements for collaboration of this that you must be perfectly candid, might almost say rude, to the you’re working with. It’s useless, working somebody who’s either much too junior yourself or much too senior because politeness creeps in. And this is end of all real collaboration, in . As far as the time when and I were actively working on thing, that is to say when asked Wilkins if we could have go at solving it by model and so forth and had actually the models in front of us, was only a matter of something six or seven weeks. There isn’t, can’t do model building for hours end. You do it for a , and then you go off and a drink, or play a game tennis or whatever it is, and it isn’t a thing which you do day in day out very . On the other hand, for the year or two years, Watson and had been often discussing the problem, ways you could go wrong solving of this sort, the techniques you to use, and in particular, such curious things as you mustn’t pay much attention to the all the evidence, some of it may be , for example. You should state your clearly and you should be prepared change them from time to time case you got the wrong one. sort of general point, as well a fair knowledge of the actual in detail. I think one can predict that within the next twenty, , fifty years, there will be an increase of knowledge about the high system and about ourselves and I one can predict that this will new knowledge, it’ll have the character you usually find with new knowledge being surprising and I think myself a personal belief, it will radically the way that we think about as persons and also eventually people society. And I think this is scientific revolution that is coming. And don’t notice this is, I don’t this is widely appreciated, this fact, although there have been a revolution physics, say in 1925, and there’s revolution in molecular biology in the ten years, there’s a much worse coming which is going to affect much more deeply, as deeply as, , the Newtonian one did in its and the Darwinian one did a or so years ago.