Francis Crick
British molecular biologist, biophysicist, neuroscientist; co-discoverer of the structure of DNA
The numbers
3 + 1 = 4
Lo Shu grid
Missing: 2, 5, 7. Present digits repeat to show how many times they occur.
Life path 4 — The Builder
Four is the square, the table, the four walls. The tradition gives it method, endurance and an appetite for the unglamorous middle of a project where everyone else has lost interest. It is read as the most trustworthy number and the least celebrated one. Its tension is rigidity — a system built carefully enough becomes hard to change, and 4 is described as defending the structure after the structure has stopped serving the purpose.
Complete lines
Line of Action
The 8-1-6 row complete. Read as follow-through — the traditional marker of someone whose plans reliably become events.
Responsibility
A complete line in the grid.
Organisation
A complete line in the grid.
Repeated numbers
1 appears 3 times
Concentrated self-direction. Read as conviction that does not need external agreement — and does not always seek it.
What is missing
Missing 2
Read as bluntness: reaching the conclusion without the intermediate handling. The tradition frames this as a timing gap rather than a lack of feeling.
Missing 5
The centre of the grid, so its absence is weighted heavily. Read as difficulty adapting mid-course — a preference for the plan already chosen over the plan now indicated.
Missing 7
Read as reluctance to sit with an unresolved question. Associated with wanting the working answer rather than the true one.
Vedic — Ank Jyotish
Moolank 8 comes from the day of the month alone; Bhagyank 4 from the whole date. They differ, which is the ordinary case — the two numbers answer different questions.
Shani
Saturn. Labour, delay, consequence. Feared in popular practice more than any other, and read as the graha that makes people earn things.
Bhagyank uses the same arithmetic as the Western life path, so the two will always agree. That is not two traditions confirming each other — it is one calculation under two names.
In their words
If for example I had some idea, which as it turned out would be quite wrong, was going off of the tangent, Watson would tell me in no uncertain terms this was nonsense, and vice-versa. If he would have some idea I didn't like, and I would say so, this would shake his thinking about, and draw him back again. And in fact it is one of the requirements for collaborations of this sort, is you must be perfectly candid, one might almost say rude, to the person you're working with. It's useless working with somebody who is either much too junior than yourself or much too senior because then politeness creeps in. And this is the end of all real collaboration in science (giggles).
The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry.
And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.
Unlike you and your colleagues I have formed the opinion that there is much substance to Jensen's arguments. In brief I think it likely that more than half the difference between the average I.Q. of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment. Moreover I think the social consequences of this are likely to be rather serious unless steps are taken to recognize the situation.
I wasn't aware of Chargaff's rules when he said them, but the effect on me was quite electric because I realized immediately that if you had this sort of scheme that John Griffith was proposing, of adenine being paired with thymine, and guanine being paired with cytosine, then you should get Chargaff's rules. I was very excited, but I didn't actually tell Chargaff because it was something I was doing with John Griffith. ... This was very exciting, and we thought "ah ha!" and we realized - I mean what anyone who is familiar with the history of science ought to realize - that when you have one-to-one ratios, it means things go to together. And how on Earth no one pointed out this simple fact in those years, I don't know.
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.
Sourced from Wikiquote, restricted to the subject’s own sourced sections.