Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saluting the discoverers of DNA
Boston Globe ^ | 4/24/03 | Kevin Davies

Posted on 04/24/2003 4:23:13 AM PDT by RJCogburn

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:40 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

FIFTY YEARS AGO tomorrow, the British science magazine Nature published one of the most astounding scientific reports in history. James Watson and Francis Crick impudently informed the world that they had cracked the molecular structure of the salt of deoxyribosenucleic acid -- better known as DNA. The report included one simple black and white illustration, sketched by Crick's wife, of what has since become universally known as the double helix. The architecture of DNA resembles a twisted ladder that contains some 3 billion rungs labeled in a simple four-letter alphabet -- A, C, G and T -- that spells out the language of life.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: godsgravesglyphs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: astounded
You should read up on this since the issue is: the mathematics of Bragg diffaction crystallography
which Franklin understood and W&C did not. THAT is why they relied on modeling.

Furthermore, Wilkins did no work on the key scatter-photograph which was from Franklin
and of a DNA strand WHICH SHE had previously separated
in its form from its A form.

BTW, it is hydrogen bonding which is important and not what you claim.

More importantly, theft, false statements, etc. have no impact on you.
Wilkins took it from her laboratory file and handed it to W&C.

Have a good day.

21 posted on 04/24/2003 7:40:40 AM PDT by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Two points. First, I don't purport to be an expert on X-ray diffraction or its mathematical analysis. If the key to the structure was only the Bragg diffraction data, then why did Dr. Franklin not posit the structure herself? She didn't have the big picture - she couldn't see the forest for the trees. Second, I did mention that one of the most important elements put into context by W&C was the H-bonding between the purines and pyrimidines; Chargaff's findings provided a unifying piece of the puzzle for them to do this. W&C put all the available information into context, "modeling" it as you say. How else could they have done it? To come up with what has proven experimentally to be the true DNA structure was a monumental achievement in the pre-computer days.

I have "read up" on this - starting back in undergraduate school in microbiolgy and biochemistry in the late 70s, culminating with a PhD in 1985 in pharmacology. What are your credentials???
22 posted on 04/24/2003 7:54:09 AM PDT by astounded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"You believe in DNA?"

(Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)

23 posted on 04/24/2003 8:31:33 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
It's my understanding that Franklin at one point specifically dissavowed the route that Crick & Watson were taking with her x-ray photographs. Salk was also going down the same route as C&W. Was she a brilliant scientist? Unquestionably. Was she responsible for the "AHA" moment which enabled other scientists to use the unlocking of the secret of DNA and vastly expand on the model. I don't think so.

Although her parents were Jewish she had no time for organised religion of any sort.

Had she lived would she have been one of those awarded the Nobel for her work on DNA? Maybe not, but she might have got it for her later work on viruses.

24 posted on 04/24/2003 8:39:52 AM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: astounded
First, she had a right to acquire more data before she published her derived information based upon that data.

Second, she also had a right to not have it stolen by Wilkins,
and/or thereafter by W&C, who egregiously did not even cite appropriately their source.

Not that it matters,did xray diffraction before you were at college and
much other ionizing irradiation work since, as well. Take care.

25 posted on 04/24/2003 10:50:31 AM PDT by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
I'm reading an interesting book by Anne Sayre called Rosalind Franklin and DNA. There is one particularly good chapter where in the space of a few paragraphs she juxtaposes the text of RF's 1951 presentation of her research on the structure of DNA attended by Watson, RF's handwritten notes from that talk, Wilkins's comments, and Watson's comments on this from The Double Helix. It's clearly evident that she knew exactly what she was about, that Watson has expended a great deal of effort in The Double Helix to minimize her contribution, to downplay her ability as a scientist, and to impugn her character by describing her as a flightly, emotionally overwrought and dangerous woman.

At this point I'll say with respect to Wilkins and Watson's role in all this that I'm leaning toward "scum-sucking rat bastards". Later, I'll post these excerpts.
26 posted on 04/28/2003 3:58:50 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: blam; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1ofmanyfree; 21twelve; 240B; 24Karet; ...

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

Note: this topic is from April 24, 2003 or nearly seven years ago. Thanks RJCogburn.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · LiveScience · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

27 posted on 04/22/2010 7:05:01 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

I did not realize that Rosalind Franklin was Jewish.

She was definitely mistreated by the historical record for the omission of her contributions to the DNA double helix recognition.

I read about it years ago, but in what I read there was no mention of her Jewish heritage.

28 posted on 04/22/2010 7:11:04 PM PDT by Radix (What happened in Massachusetts, is going to be times 10 in a few months.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Radix

In Watsons book The Double Helix he reveals Franklin’s contributions,then people started to research who Franklin was..
This is all revisionist history,males stole females idea,it is a mans world..
I have never read any place that she was Jewish,i guess you can throw that in as well Jewish and a Female,beaten down by the men sceintists...

29 posted on 04/22/2010 7:32:18 PM PDT by GSP.FAN (Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson