The article goes into plenty of detail about large numbers of people who knew him being unwilling or unable to tolerate him. The use of the word makes sense here. As well as the negatives, the article also celebrates his successes, rather than attempting to cancel.
People are complex. When you throw out everyone for the worst thing they ever said or did, you don't have anyone left -- other than the people who haven't disappointed you yet.
> The article doesn't attempt to throw him out or cancel him for the worst things he said and did
The last line of the article is:
"Maybe the best way to remember Mullis and his invention of PCR is to make some space for the others who made it a reality."
Petty. This is in addition to aspersions like this one:
"Despite knowing little about molecular biology, Mullis was hired to work in the company’s DNA synthesis lab"
Also, there's a direct comparison to Trump for some unfathomable reason (well...unfathomable except that, again, to the readers of a magazine from Berkeley, that means that Mullis is a bad man).
Is this "cancellation"? I don't know. But it's pretty darned immature, and a blatant attempt to tear down the guy in relation to his one objective accomplishment.
As for word choice: pretty much every famous person has a large contingency who cannot stand them, so I guess it's fair game now to just call them all "intolerable". C'est la vie.
