> [an example of prejudices in] science, which
> is just the practice of scientists, . . . [include]
> specific dogmas of various sciences, such as
> Watson's felicitously and honestly named
> Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. * * *
There is not _any_ scientist familiar with Watson and his work or, for that matter, any of his students who thought about what he said when he lectured in his undergraduate courses Harvard/Radcliffe in the late 1950s and 1960s when he spoke_ironically_ (and with his usually present "twinkle" in his eyes and funny looking smile and related tick) -- but only in that sense "felicitously" -- of the "Central Dogma" who does or even could reasonably understand him to have used that term as if (actual) "dogma".
To the contrary, "Central Dogma" when used by Watson (and his colleagues) has always been understood to indicate just a semi-humorous (even if if also comparatively emphatic because important component element of his and his colleagues' discoveries) synonym for "working hypothesis" (i.e, part of a "theory").
That the "Central Dogma" reflects "prejudice" is (simplistically) true, but relatedly only in the sense that "prejudice" can mean, in substance if not in these exact words, "what one presumes will probably be so if the available evidence is fairly evalutated and/but subject to change if later discovered evidence warrants so concluding."