The dangerous man is the one who has only one idea, because then he'll fight and die for it.

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.

Finally one should add that in spite of the great complexity of protein synthesis and in spite of the considerable technical difficulties in synthesizing polynucleotides with defined sequences it is not unreasonable to hope that all these points will be clarified in the near future, and that the genetic code will be completely established on a sound experimental basis within a few years.

A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much.

For simplicity one can think of the + class as having one extra base at some point or other in the genetic message and the - class as having one too few.

My own prejudices are exactly the opposite of the functionalists': "If you want to understand function, study structure".

I think she [Rosalind Franklin] was a good experimentalist but certainly not of the first rank. She was simply not in the same class as Eigen or Bragg or Pauling, nor was she as good as Dorothy Hodgkin. She did not even select DNA to study. It was given to her. Her theoretical crystallography was very average.