Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: billorites
Yes. She not only got the diffraction pictures which diciphered the problem
but she also separated the wet from the dry DNA [which
superimposed two different images],
and she developed the mechanism to keep the irradiated DNA from being volatilized
even while being examined and getting very hot.

Her role was key. The Boston Globe was contacted by many people
after their last lying column on this matter.

But you KNOW the Boston Globe and how poor a barometer it is for accuracy.

9 posted on 04/24/2003 5:01:48 AM PDT by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Diogenesis
You can say W&C "stole" the structure from Rosalind Franklin until you're blue in the face, but that would be untrue. That is revisionist history and smacks of some sort of jealousy or vested interest on your part. It is true that Franklin had diffraction data that W&C did not have. However, she failed, like Pauling and Corey, Frasier, and Furberg to make the huge intellectual jump to interpreting the data to fit the hydrogen-bonding between the proper tautomeric forms of the purine and pyrimidine bases, and the conformation of the phosphates, as the fundamental basis for the structure. W&C did that before anyone else did, using Franklin and Bragg's diffraction data.

Guess what, kids? That's how science works, building upon other's observations and data, to draw final conclusions, so take your prejudices and preconceptions elsewhere - that one's over and had been for more than 50 years. Grow up.
10 posted on 04/24/2003 5:21:40 AM PDT by astounded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Diogenesis; astounded
Yes. She not only got the diffraction pictures which diciphered the problem

Pictures don't decipher problems. She had the picture but didn't decipher the problem. Someone else deciphered the problem using a picture which, according to astounded, she took but failed to understand. If I generate data which gives someone else a piece of crucial information to discover something that--though it was staring me in the face--I did not, then I am not a codiscoverer even though I was instrumental in someone else's being able to make the connection.
16 posted on 04/24/2003 6:09:09 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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