DNA: Epoch of Good Science

In James D. Watson's The Double Helix we are presented with a seemingly well written story about his discovery of DNA. While the book just presents us with a look into a period of Dr. Watson's life, there is something that should be established to an even high degree than mentioned in the book. This work, from the mind of Watson, starts with a problem and leads to a solution through various mechanical steps and it did seem like they happened to get lucky. The discovery of DNA has opened up so many possibilities in the areas of science and allows us to understand the way the body works not only for humans for but for all species of organisms. Where do you draw the line between good science and bad science? Once this line is defined, where exactly does DNA and The Double Helix get categorized? The line that separates the two, is not clearly defined and is open to interpretation. What I am going to prove in this essay is that DNA is a good science. It is the epoch of good science. The Double Helix however is bad science which will be contrasted to DNA in my definition of the line. How I plan to go about this is to define what I categorize to be good and bad science then to differentiate between DNA and The Double Helix.
To barrow a quote from Albert Einstein, “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.” With this at the basis of my categorization, to differentiate between good and bad science cannot be done due to final outcomes. If this were the case, then science would be completely bad because just about anything could be used for negative intentions. An example of this is the nuclear bomb. The process that was taken to get to this creation was no doubt a difficult task that was accomplished through careful observations with tools that extended the power of our human senses. The point of a good science is to attempt to explain something that is considered a complex phenomena in terms of composition, is honest, and is achieved through selfless means. Bad science is on the opposite side of the spectrum. To barrow a term from Richard Feynman, bad science is a “cargo cult science,” which he defines as pseudo of being scientific but is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty.” (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman) I like this definition of bad science because it makes complete sense to me. A scientist who is in it for the fame only has the means to only promote himself, cannot be objective, or honest.
The separation between good science and bad science makes categorizing DNA and The Double Helix simple. DNA was not not discovered by one person, but by multiple people the first being Friedrich Miescher. It didn't stop with him but was developed upon by many other people, and later became conceptualized. The Double Helix is bad science. It's inception was only for the purpose of one creating fame from jealousy and not because it is one's duty. James Watson had no integrity, was not honest, and was a fame seeker. When I say that DNA is the epoch of good science, it was the greatest theorization whose possibilities to this day are still being tested. The branch that is The Double Helix off DNA is bad science. They have two different orientations, they have two different births, and they have two different meanings. DNA came from careful observations and experiments and is objective. The Double Helix goes off in its own direction, arrived from a different commonplace, and is the direct categorization of bad science. The remaining question is what exactly do we do with bad science? The best part about science is that the good always outweighs the bad.