50th Anniversary of DNA's Discovery

Aren't we forgetting someone? by PhysicsGenius · 2003-02-25 02:25 · Score: 0, Insightful

Rosalind Franklin, the co-discoverer who was shut-out by her chauvinist pig "colleagues". Please, Slashdot, don't perpetuate the evil.

Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 02:32 · Score: 0

true, but I fail to see how the "chauvinist pig" part is helpful. Elitists abound for numerous (and their own) reasons regardless of whether they are acting against others for reasons of race, gender, religious belief or any other reason including ethical standing. Just call them what they are, "Unsrupulous Charlatans"
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by nanojath · 2003-02-25 02:33 · Score: 1

Obligatory science geek addition to this - yes, Rosalind Franklin's contribution to the discover of the structure of DNA, through her important contributions to both the theoretical basis and experimental evidence (through x-ray diffraction photography) of the double helix structure of DNA should not be underestimated.

Furthermore, what Watson and Crick published was, as I say, the discovery of the STRUCTURE of DNA, not of DNA itself. The chemical consituents of DNA and the fact that it was the agent of heredity was already established when the double helix structure was deduced.

--
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Speed+Racer · 2003-02-25 02:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

She was the X-Ray crystallographer, not the co-discoverer. She dismissed the critical DNA type B X-Ray that she took as being unimportant. Unfortunately, nobody ever told her of the critical role her image played. Nevertheless, she was NOT a co-discoverer.

--
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by taliver · 2003-02-25 02:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

chauvinist pig "colleagues"

Now, while I am not goin to say for certain it was or was not a sexist act to use her work and not give her credit, the link you point to does not really indicate more than simply despicable inter-academic rivalries-- I think they would have screwed over a guy in much the same way.

Remember, just because it happens to a woman doesn't mean the motive is at all sexist, much like if it happens to a black its racist or if it happens to a white guy it's justice.

--

I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Fluffy+the+Cat · 2003-02-25 02:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Rosalind Franklin performed some important work that was ultimately built upon by Crick, Watson and Wilkins. Given more time she'd probably have reached the same conclusions, but the others got there first.

In science, the people who make the final discovery get more credit than the people who did the work that made this discovery possible. Chauvinism has nothing to do with it.

(On the other hand, Watson is one of the less pleasant people that I've had the poor fortune to meet)
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by server_wench · 2003-02-25 02:40 · Score: 1

And don't forget Linus Pauling's son who on a visit spilled the beans that the California group which had already discovered that proteins were an alpha helix was on the wrong track.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by richie2000 · 2003-02-25 02:42 · Score: 5, Informative

From the NYTimes page:
50 Years Later, Rosalind Franklin's X-Ray Fuels Debate
By DENISE GRADY
For some, over the years, Dr. Rosalind Franklin has come to symbolize the plight of women in science, as men close ranks against them.
Fifty years ago, a casual gesture at a laboratory in London became a defining moment in the history of science. James D. Watson was visiting King's College late one afternoon near the end of January 1953, when a researcher named Maurice Wilkins showed him an X-ray photograph of a molecule of DNA.
Describing the encounter years later in "The Double Helix," Dr. Watson wrote, "The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race."
The image was one of many by various researchers that hinted at a helix, but its singular clarity helped lead Dr. Watson and his colleague Francis Crick to the structure of DNA.
The scientist who took the picture was Dr. Rosalind Franklin, and though they cited other work she had done, Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick did not acknowledge the photograph itself, or additional work by her they had used, in their paper.

--
Money for nothing, pix for free
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Speed+Racer · 2003-02-25 02:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Didn't Pauling postulate a triple helix? IIRC, Watson and Crick found out about his soon-to-be-published paper and set about to prove or disprove his model. The built it and something didn't seem right but they couldn't put their finger on it. Finally, they realized that it was neutral. Chemical genius Linus Pauling forgot to make his DNA model an acid!

--
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by spotted_dolphin · 2003-02-25 02:46 · Score: 1

I beg to differ. Recall that Wilkins was awarded the Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick. Unfortunately, Nobel Laureates may not be declared posthumously and Franklin had passed away due to cancer by 1962.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by server_wench · 2003-02-25 02:47 · Score: 1

Pauling's group had the bases on the outside and the chain on the inside - essentially a "decorated" rope instead of a ladder. They probably would have gotten it right eventually, but sure bought some time for Watson and Crick.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by panurge · 2003-02-25 02:51 · Score: 0, Offtopic

We are and we aren't. Rosalind Franklin did some very good X-ray analysis, but did not make the theoretical leap of Watson and Crick and did not share the Nobel prize. You can put forward a number of reasons for this including the MCPiggery of the scientists of the time (and, skirting around the laws of libel, in my own completely idiotic and prejudiced opinion neither Watson nor Crick had the personality traits of the Dalai Lama.) However, many scientists have combined great talents with difficult personalities (Newton being a prize example) and we shouldn't allow this to predudice us against recognising their actual achievements.
Any great discovery tends to be associated with a number of important but lesser discoveries, whether of theory or technique, and it would be nice if we could recognise those appropriately rather than have to try and link them directly with the main advance.
In two other cases of the last century, I have heard Mrs. Einstein got the money from the prize in exchange for allowing Albert all the credit, and Scientific American and other journals continue to link Jocelyn Bell Burnell's name with Geoffrey Hewish's. The mills of God grind slowly, but they tend to get there eventually.

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Re: Aren't we forgetting someone? by Black+Parrot · 2003-02-25 02:51 · Score: 1

> In science, the people who make the final discovery get more credit than the people who did the work that made this discovery possible.

Yeah, the Nobel Prize propagates a sort of mythological science where heroes make heroic discoveries. In this case, the discovery of the structure clearly depended on knowledge of the molecule's helicity, which in turn depended on knowing which molecule to look at, which in turn depended on lots of other important work in biochemistry. IMO, the thousands of no-names are every bit as important to the progress of science as the Nobel winners are.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2003-02-25 02:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember, just because it happens to a woman doesn't mean the motive is at all sexist, much like if it happens to a black its racist or if it happens to a white guy it's justice.
But when it happens to a woman in a highly sexist environment which is very nearly the definition of the "old boys' network," that's the way to bet. This is particularly true since Watson, at least, was a vicious sexist even by the standards of the time. To extend your analogy, it's like looking at the lynching of a black man by the KKK in 1950's Mississippi and saying, "Well, we don't know it was racist ..."

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by ScriptGuru · 2003-02-25 02:55 · Score: 1

From what I saw in "Search for the Double Helix" (I assume its fairly accurate), Watson and Crick actually beat Franklin to the discovery, if I remember correctly, they did it a bit dishonestly. But, yeah, Franklin should have recieved some mention, seeing as she did get a nobel prize for it.

--
Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by spotted_dolphin · 2003-02-25 02:57 · Score: 1

Although the triple helix is not the physiological form of the molecule, triple helices of DNA may still be found in specific situations. This is thought to be a form of gene expression regulation.
http://www.molbio.su.se/restriple.html
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by taj · 2003-02-25 03:00 · Score: 1

Many people are forgotten.

http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/ ch emach/ppb/cwwf.html

I imagine Gates will be remembered as the person that invented computers in 50 years.

But she would have recieved the Nobel prize had she not died of cancer at an early age. As I recall she was off track thinking that DNA was three strands. When Watson and Creek got all the information, without her knowlage, they put the pieces together.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by matzim · 2003-02-25 03:04 · Score: 1

s/proteins were an alpha helix/proteins contain alpha helices/
(Please pardon the pedantry. Pet peeve.)
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by cosmic_whiner · 2003-02-25 03:05 · Score: 1

Franklen DID NOT get the nobel prize - Crick, Watson and Wilkins got it. Unfortunately, she died before the prize was announced. It would have been interesting to see who would have been the reciepients of the prize if she had been alive, because the Nobel Committee allows the award to be shared by a miximum of three people
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by PancakeMan · 2003-02-25 04:51 · Score: 1

Here's a New Yorker book review with more information on Rosalind Franklin.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Alomex · 2003-02-25 05:46 · Score: 1

Someone mod up the parent. That link explains in great detail the role of Raslin Franklin... Read it over and make your own conclusions....
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by qbed · 2003-02-25 13:03 · Score: 1

I can see that you have been reading Mr Watsons book, and watching too much television. Despite much replay and drama on television, even Watson admits that its quite the way it happened.

--
imagination is more important than knowledge --Albert Einstein-
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by blackbeaktux · 2003-02-25 13:40 · Score: 1

Very much so. Last week's Time magazine feature had a fascinating story describing the events that transpired up to that Eureka moment by Watson. Crick and Watson were scared that other scientific titans like Linus Pauling, Wilkins, and Franklin would have easily come to the same conclusion earlier, if not for unexpected circumstances and conflicting egos.

It's a shame that Franklin is hardly acknowledged for her contribution by the masses. If only she didn't die so young... (she liked to fiddle with radioactivity with her hands or something...)
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by ahfoo · 2003-02-25 16:37 · Score: 1

And have you read any of his philosophy? I mean either he is unaware of earlier work in the field or he's intentionally repackaging old theories under new names. Sure does seem to lead credence to the theory that the DNA "discovery" might have been less than pure inspiration.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Lythic · 2003-02-25 21:52 · Score: 1

From Watson's own comments in the book The Double Helix, I disagree. Everyone involved showed pronounced disrespect for Franklin purely because she was a woman, their criticisms of her amount to just that. It's quite a trip to read, as some of the things he writes just seems so unbelievable. Their main criticism seems to be again and again that she's ugly, W and C were pretty damn ugly too...
They wouldn't have screwed her over at all if her boss hadn't been so antagonistic to her, and that seemed based purely on sex, as all his comments seemed to bemoan her as a feminist. Although I agree with your main preposition, this case seems pretty clear-cut.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by server_wench · 2003-02-26 04:15 · Score: 1

How about "tertiary structure of proteins is an alpha helix" instead? Sorry, bad word day.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by server_wench · 2003-02-26 04:20 · Score: 1

Ouch, secondary structure. Better quit while I am ahead, too late to start over. 8^)

Watson and Crick, or ? by brianjcain · 2003-02-25 02:25 · Score: 0, Redundant

I always remember hearing that Watson & Crick were not _really_ first...Anyone know for sure? Maybe that's just a bunch of baloney. (Maybe I should RTFA)

Re:Watson and Crick, or ? by holy+zarquon's+singi · 2003-02-25 08:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Rosalind Franklin was responsible for the X-Ray Crystallography. Her work was under attributed and some say plagiarised by Watson and Crick. She certainly did not get the credit for her work, and some beleive she should have shared in the nobel prize. To be fair, her boss/supervisor was implicit in this, and not just Watson/Crick, although Watson should not have bad-mouthed her the way he did.

--
"...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
Re:Watson and Crick, or ? by Lythic · 2003-02-25 18:25 · Score: 1

Franklin was responsible for collecting the data that the discovery came from (which was used without her knowledge and consent) but it was Watson and Crick who first had the idea of the double spiral, rather than any other combination. However, with so many strong research groups working on the same problem, intermediate steps were discovered by other researchers. W & C get all the credit because they found the final piece(s).
Franklin's data was given to W & C by her boss, the Institution that she worked for owned it, not her. Since she died before the Nobel prize was awarded for this research, and the prize is not awarded posthumously, no one knows if she would have received equal credit or not.

Rather, by Black+Parrot · 2003-02-25 02:25 · Score: 5, Informative

50 years since the discovery of its structure.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Rather, by tbmaddux · 2003-02-25 02:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

50 years since the discovery of its structure.
Specifically the double-helical structure. Linus Pauling had done earlier theoretical work predicting the formation of helices, but wound up on the wrong track trying to make a triple-helix work for DNA.

--
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
Re:Rather, by Milo+Fungus · 2003-02-25 08:01 · Score: 3, Informative

And to nitpick even further, Watson and Crick didn't discover the structure. They formulated a model for the structure which was the first to accurately describe all of the scientific observations made up to that time. X-ray crystallography couldn't get high enough resolution to unambiguously prove the model for another few decades. At the time they proposed the model, there was not sufficient data to be absolutely certain about its accuracy. In other words, they did some masterful guesswork. The remarkable thing about W&C's original model was how accurate it was.

Dr. Crick later postulated the central dogma of molecular biology, which states that DNA is replicated for inheritance, is transcribed to RNA, and that RNA is translated to protein. The central dogma is now well-established, but was certainly not when Crick proposed it. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was rather foggy at the time. Crick was a remarkable scientist who certainly deserved the Nobel Prize. The field of molecular biology has benefitted immeasureably from his contributions.

The same goes for Linus Pauling. W&C beat him to the DNA structure, but he made some great contributions to the field nonetheless. Pauling's DNA structure was based upon the protonated form of DNA - where the phosphodiester backbone is electrically neutral. There is actually a -1 charge on phosphates in DNA, which is one of the reasons why the backbone wraps around the outside of the molecule. In his triple helix model the backbone was on the inside of the molecule, with the bases pointing out. This would made sense if the phophates were neutral, because they wouldn't repel each other. Having the bases on the outside also made sense because if the information was contained in the bases, then they ought to be accessible. He also had the wrong tautomeric forms of the bases, so the base pairing with hydrogen bonds wouldn't work properly. His was a good model. He was doing some good work. Just barking up the wrong tree.

Pauling's greatest contributions were in protein structure. He proposed the alpha helix secondary structural element, which is found everywhere in proteins. If folding@home makes any progress whatsoever, they are building on the work of Linus Pauling.
end nitpick;

DNA Decode by ibjhb · 2003-02-25 02:28 · Score: 0

Does anybody have a URL or information about the project when they decoded the DNA? I remember seeing it a while back but can't remember where.

Thanks!

Re:DNA Decode by CuOsc · 2003-02-25 02:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Nature (where the Watson and Crick paper was published) is running something on this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/

The page has links to all the original 1953 articles.
Re:DNA Decode by sam_handelman · 2003-02-25 02:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Watson and Crick discovered the double helical structure of DNA; this reveals the method of genetic replication.

The genetic code, which is used to convert genetic information into actual proteins which do the physical work of life, was not discovered until quite a few years later. Crick made a number of important contributions to the discovery of the genetic code, but he isn't credited with it.

Here's a writeup on the history of efforts to decipher the genetic code.

--
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Re:DNA Decode by ibjhb · 2003-02-25 02:49 · Score: 1

Wasn't there a place to download all 600+ megs of the code??
Re:DNA Decode by jweatherley · 2003-02-25 03:28 · Score: 1

Interesting to read this form the original paper:

We have also been stimulated by a knowlege of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr R. E. Franklin [snip]

Looks like a credit...

--

--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
Re:DNA Decode by pgolik · 2003-02-25 04:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Start there The NCBI site also has a FTP repository, where you can download the raw files. And here you can get a nice open software suite to work on it.

Discovery of DNA prevented by co-ed universities? by girl_geek_antinomy · 2003-02-25 02:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

I remember hearing a wonderful interview with Watson a few years ago - he was saying that if Cambridge had been more co-ed at the time (there were only three Womens' olleges, everywhere else was male) he'd have been too busy trying to get a girlfriend to spend all that time elucidating the structure of DNA.

50th anniversary rememberance.. by cosmic_whiner · 2003-02-25 02:31 · Score: 5, Informative

How come it's always only Watson and Crick - why dont people remember Maurice Wilkins (who shared the nobel prize with them) and Rosalind Franklin (who's pathbreaking Xray work led to the double helix)

Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by tbmaddux · 2003-02-25 02:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

... why don't people remember ... Rosalind Franklin ...
People remember "Watson and Crick" because those were the names on their paper. Wilkins declined to have his name included (d'oh!). And Franklin, she certainly does get remembered, but more for being "ripped off" (as many others have told me -- the full story is of course more complex) because she was just a post-doc, or a woman.

--
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by Uart · 2003-02-25 03:39 · Score: 3, Informative

because franklin was wrong. her x-ray diffraction worked, but she concluded that the nitrogenous bases were on the outside of the molecule..

Watson and Crick built a worable model, including complementary base-pairing, and they went on to describe the semiconservative method of DNA synthesis (which of course was shown to be valid).

Rosalind certainly derserves credit for her work with x-ray diffraction (and she gets it), but she didn't give the world a model of what DNA looks like

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 04:27 · Score: 0

Watson and Crick are diminished in my eyes since
I learned how they ripped off Rosalind.

Must be something about Canadian Women of that
era , because HG Wells did the same thing for
his History of the World.
Makes you wonder how many accomplishments by
males were coopted from then apparently doormat
sex.
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by EccentricAnomaly · 2003-02-25 04:33 · Score: 1

If someone makes 90% of a discovery why does someone who fills in the last 10% get all of the credit?

--
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by admiralh · 2003-02-25 04:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's certainly true that Franklin hadn't determined the structure correctly, but remember that she was virtually isolated in Oxford (thanks mostly to her personality conflicts with Maurice Wilkins.)

Also, remember that Wilkins gave (without her knowledge or permission) Franklin's pictures to Watson. Without those pictures, it might have taken Watson longer to put the pieces together, and he wouldn't have had Franklin's high-quality (far better than Watson could do himself) pictures to verify the correctness of the structure. In that time period Franklin may have been able to deduce the structure herself, or perhaps Pauling would have gotten it right.

The real tragedy is the way Watson treated Franklin, both in his scientific work and in his writings. Watson has become the poster boy for "the end justifies the means." I can't recall ever being more disappointed in a book than I was in The Double Helix.

--
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by admiralh · 2003-02-25 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't blame Crick for how Franklin was treated. IIRC, he didn't know where the X-Ray pictures came from. And when Watson was publishing The Double Helix, he made Watson add a little postscript at the end, supposedly apologizing for the caracature "Rosie", which is how Watson described her in the main part of the book. But if you read his "re-appraisal", it sounds insincere at best.

And what is even more galling about the book is that Franklin had died (ovarian cancer) a few years earlier, and so could not defend herself. It wasn't until the 1970's, when some feminist researchers started digging, did the details start to emerge.

--
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by aluminum+boy · 2003-02-25 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Wrong" grossly understates the complexity of Franklin's interaction with Watson/Crick. She was neither wrong nor right. She was doggedly neutral in assessing the structure of DNA. Franklin was wrapped up in the notion that the structure of DNA could only be discovered through X-Ray diffraction, and not through using the modelling approach that Watson and Crick ascribed to. Was was very, very, correct, however, when she discovered that DNA has two states: "zipped" and "unzipped". That served as a direct catalyst to Watson and Crick's break through. That would have gotten her the Nobel Prize, also, if she had survived long enough (it cannot be awarded posthumously).
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by Uart · 2003-02-25 06:40 · Score: 1

I would have to say you are right, except I think that the x-ray diffraction wasn't 90% of the discovery. Franklin's discovery was that 10% that made the last 90% possible.

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by Uart · 2003-02-25 06:46 · Score: 1

If I had some mod points (and if I hadn't posted to this thread) I would toss you a +1 insightful.

But yeah, you are right. The point I was trying to make was that Franklin DIDN'T determine thee structure of DNA. So although her work was important, she can't be given credit for what Watson and Crick did.

I also agree that it was a shame that the times held her back. When someone can contribute, and they are willing to, then we should allow them too. All advances in science are for the benefit of humanity, regardless of the gender of those individuals behind them.

--

Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 07:22 · Score: 0

It's the other way around Wilkins with the X-Ray crystallography work performed at KCL (King's College London) and Franklin a collaborator at Cambridge unviersity...
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 07:39 · Score: 0

Because we're culturally obsessed with finish-line celebrations? Really, why should any one (or few) people get the credit? Everything of any real consequence is a collaboration with your peers and forebears.

If Franklin's x-ray had been published in that issue of Nature without the Crick and Watson paper, hundreds of people around the world would have conceived of the model within a day. Things happen because they're primed to happen by the events before them. In fact the whole concept of an "event" is just a mental convenience. As soon as you learn one thing, your mind's already working on the further ramifications - unless you get all caught up in the glory and never do anything much worthwhile again.

So let Watson have his glory. Anyone who's read his book with a halfway educated modern eye knows the truth about him.
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by the+gnat · 2003-02-25 08:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

The NY Times article about this mentions that Watson asked Wilkins if he and Franklin should share co-authorship on the famous article, but that Wilkins declined (for both of them!). From what I've read, I always thought Wilkins was the real dickhead; he just assumed that Franklin was a subordinate, and treated her as such. It would not be the last time that a junior scientist has had his or her research stolen by their faculty advisor (though Franklin was not even working under Wilkins). I've heard of worse.

The real tragedy is the way Watson treated Franklin

No, the real tragedy is that she died of ovarian cancer in 1958. For her to have done as well as she did in that era, she clearly must have been absolutely brilliant. And she did great work after DNA too- Aaron Klug won the Nobel for a project that Franklin was working on when she died. Birkbeck College (where she ended up) has a page about her which says she should have won two Nobels, if not for her untimely death.
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by EccentricAnomaly · 2003-02-25 10:11 · Score: 1

If the Watson-Crick model was pure theory... i.e. if they never saw Franklin's work, her X-Ray diffraction results would have been hailed as confirming the theory, etc, etc... the irony is that in this scenario, Franklin would have gotten a lot more respect than she has gotten.

However, she did her work before Watson-Crick and she was sold out by her advisor who gave her experimental data to Watson without telling her. So what if she didn't think up the model based on her data, Watson did... and he didn't even acknowledge it!

Her experimental results lead to Watson and Crick's theory... and they didn't acknowledge it. That is a severe breach of scientific ethics. Just like Pete Rose isn't allowed in the Hall of Fame for his ethics breaches, Watson and Crick should have never gotten the Nobel prize.

--
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by aluminum+boy · 2003-02-26 02:37 · Score: 1

Very well said, I totally agree.

ages... by Gamasta · 2003-02-25 02:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, this's been a long long time. There was that whole revolution in cell physiology in the 70s. Now we're on the computational part.

The human genome is read, but still we need to figure out: given a sequence of letters (out of the four), what protein (3-D structure, function, reactive parts etc) is associated with it? How is it cut into introns and exons? What sequence of letters can act as regulators? (without such answers I find the human genome project pretty useless)

Still, a Nobel well awarded to Watson and Crick, I'd say.

--
reason defies logic

Re:ages... by the+gnat · 2003-02-25 08:25 · Score: 1

given a sequence of letters (out of the four), what protein (3-D structure, function, reactive parts etc) is associated with it? How is it cut into introns and exons? What sequence of letters can act as regulators?

Virtually all of this requires significant experimental work, to varying degrees- I wouldn't call this the "computational part" under any circumstances. Some things can be done at least partway through bioinformatics; introns and exons, for example. For protein structure and function the best we can do is use homology to proteins of known structure and/or function. To get the high-resolution structure, it still needs to be crystallized. . . which can be a colossal pain in the ass. Computational studies will not be a substitute for this until after all the protein structures have been solved experimentally anyway.

50 years! by WPIDalamar · 2003-02-25 02:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Man, that just blows my mind, only 50 years of DNA. So what did they use before DNA? My grandma is older than 50... I wonder what she's made out of!

Maybe thats where that "Sugar and spice and everything nice" thing came from?

Re:50 years! by sporty · 2003-02-25 02:57 · Score: 1

Sugar, spice.. nevermind. Too easy :)

--
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

Re:Discovery of DNA prevented by co-ed universitie by spotted_dolphin · 2003-02-25 02:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, his book "The Double Helix" has some fairly amusing accounts of his thoughts of Rosalind Franklin--whose X-ray crystallographic pictures determined that DNA was double helical in nature.

More about Rosalind Franklin by Aces+and+Eights · 2003-02-25 02:37 · Score: 5, Informative

According to this review of her biography she was the woman who produced the x-ray data that most strongly supported the DNA structure but was not properly acknowledged for her contributions.

That reveiw further goes on to say that... According to Watson's best-selling 1968 account of the great race, The Double Helix, Franklin was not even a contender, much less a major contributor. He painted her as a mere assistant to Wilkins who "had to go or be put in her place" because she had the audacity to think she might be able to work on DNA on her own. Worse yet, she "did not emphasize her feminine qualities," lamented Watson, who refers to her only as "Rosy." "The thought could not be avoided," he concluded, "that the best home for a feminist was in another person's lab."

Sounds like Watson was *quite* the ladies man =)

Now it's time to work out the folding... by MarvinMouse · 2003-02-25 02:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Personally, I think everyone should join folding@home

http://folding.stanford.edu

now this is a distributed project that's producing results.

DNA is useful, and was an excellent discovery, but it's kinda like discovering the motherboard, and not understanding how any of the information is transmitted. Folding at home allows anyone with spare computer cycles to help out and understand how the proteins fold to their lowest/near lowest energy state and how they interact in the body.

Already some medical advances have been made, but there's still a long way to go.

--
~ kjrose

Re:Now it's time to work out the folding... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 02:43 · Score: 0

The best team to join is #12005 , they have a really nice stats page at http://folding.cubicproductions.com .

It's one of the nicest graphic stats pages I have seen out of all the folding at home pages.
Re:Now it's time to work out the folding... by Zathrus · 2003-02-25 02:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Or, alternately, UD Cancer Research -- pretty much the same as Folding@Home, but with an emphasis on cancer cures.

Not that Folding@Home isn't after equally noble goals. Just giving options.

One major downside of UD is that they don't have non-Windows clients, so if that's an issue go with Folding.

Grid appears to be running a few other... interesting... projects as well. There's the Smallpox Project, designed to find a Smallpox counteragent, and the PatriotGrid, which is hopes to find counteragents/vaccines/whatever against a wide variety of bioterrorist agents.

I think I'll stick with Cancer research.
Re:Now it's time to work out the folding... by the+gnat · 2003-02-25 08:29 · Score: 1

It's very nice to know how proteins fold. Good, solid, theoretical work. However, most people confuse this with what proteins look like when they're folded. Computational simulation will never be a substitute for experimental work in this field. Too many of the people talking about "protein folding" do not seem to understand this.

To take your absurd motherboard example, understanding protein folding is more akin to understanding the principles of electromagnetism. It still won't tell you how the thing works.

I haven't seen anyone doing interaction studies via biophysical simulation - it's all been done by other means. It's hard enough to simulate the folding of a small peptide chain; we're certainly not ready to study interactions of entire subunits.
Re:Now it's time to work out the folding... by the+gnat · 2003-02-25 08:34 · Score: 1

The two projects are actually very different.

Folding@Home does molecular dynamics simulations to investigate the pathway of protein folding. It does not predict the final structure, at least not to useful resolution. It is simply a biophysical simulation. Pretty cool at that, but people misunderstand it.

The UD Cancer Research project is doing "virtual library screening" - essentially, docking many small molecules to proteins of known structure, sampling many conformations to determine which candidate compounds bind with the greatest affinity. The idea is that it will screen out the worst candidates, leaving many fewer to be verified experimentally.

Many people are doing the latter; it's the basis of computational drug design. I think the other projects you mentioned are doing exactly the same sort of simulation. *If*, and only if, it works, it will actually be medically useful (though it still requires a lot of grunt work to verify the predictions).
Re:Now it's time to work out the folding... by MarvinMouse · 2003-02-25 08:37 · Score: 1

To take your absurd motherboard example, understanding protein folding is more akin to understanding the principles of electromagnetism. It still won't tell you how the thing works.

Yeah, I was pretty tired when I came up with taht metaphor. Sorry for the painfulness of it.

I'll try to come up with a better one. It's pretty hard when it comes to proteins, dna and all.

--
~ kjrose
Re:Now it's time to work out the folding... by geekoid · 2003-02-25 10:43 · Score: 1

Folding! hell I can barely match my socks! what next, you want me to Iron?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Now it's time to work out the folding... by sql*kitten · 2003-02-26 00:52 · Score: 1

One major downside of UD is that they don't have non-Windows clients, so if that's an issue go with Folding.

One majr downside of Folding is that they only support Windows, Mac OSX and Linux (x86 only). Where's the IRIX, Solaris, BSD? How hard can it be to recompile, you would assume it was cleanly written from the fact that it already builds on two variants of Unix. Or why couldn't they have written their computation core to run within distributed.net's client and not only saved themselves some work, but benefitted from greater participation?

Folding's cool, and I run it on my Dell, but given that I'm simply not interested in the clients that are available, I have MIPS (etc) hardware with plenty of spare cycles.

Re:Discovery of DNA prevented by co-ed universitie by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 02:37 · Score: 0

I heard a lecture by Watson at MIT a couple of years ago -- it was open to the general public and the auditorium was packed. Unfortunately, the man was anything but a public speaker. It was painful to listen to him.

Music to Commemorate the 50th Anniversary by objekt · 2003-02-25 02:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

from http://www.strangemusic.com/genome_press.htm

In commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the discovery of DNA and the double helix, sTRANGEmUSIC presents the world premiere of GENOME: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Movements for Music & Video. Composed and directed by Patrick Grant, it is based on the book by award winning science author Matt Ridley. The work will be given two performances on February 27 and 28 (the latter date being the actual anniversary of the discovery) at 8:00 PM on each night at the ANNINA NOSEI GALLERY located at 530 West 22nd Street, New York City (10th & 11th Aves.) on the 2nd floor.

--
-- Boycott Shell

They had a little help by DickMayhem · 2003-02-25 02:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

Don't forget that Rosalind Franklin's work provided the vital clues that allowed DNA's structure to be determined.

Mind you I've never trusted Jeff Goldblum, first he "steals" the discovery of DNA then it all goes wrong...

No Password by SkreamNet · 2003-02-25 02:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Google Link

More on Rosalind Franklin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 02:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I know a med school student who very recently studied the discovery of DNA structure in great detail. When this student described the story to me it seemed less like Watson&Crick and Rosalind Franklin were equal contributors to the current perception of DNA structure, and more that they pretty much stole all of her work.
Supposedly the only reason this misconception has never been officially corrected was because the Nobel Prize cannot be awarded posthumously.

Re:More on Rosalind Franklin by asobala · 2003-02-25 03:59 · Score: 1

Watson and Crick got the answer. A lot of people didn't like the way they did very few experiments (they relied on the KCL results quite a bit) and spent the entire time *thinking* about what DNA must look like.

The thing is, they knew what they were looking for. They stumbled across gold, but they were looking for gold. And they knew it when they found it.

And they were lucky, too :-)

Rosalind Franklin was well on the way to getting the structure, but Watson and Crick were valid contenders. And a lot of her work was in the public domain.
Re:More on Rosalind Franklin by Otter · 2003-02-25 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Supposedly the only reason this misconception has never been officially corrected was because the Nobel Prize cannot be awarded posthumously.
On the contrary, if anything there's speculation that the Nobel committee waited for her to die so it was uncontroversial to award the prize to Watson, Crick and Wilkins. (There being a limit of three recipients.)
Basically, however much Franklin was overlooked at the time, overcompensation and political correctness have led to her contributions being overestimated now. She had data, so did a lot of people. She might have worked out the structure on her own; Pauling certainly would have. Fundamentally, Watson and Crick made the breakthrough others didn't and they deserve credit for it.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:More on Rosalind Franklin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 09:11 · Score: 0

Watson and Crick were privy to Franklin's X-ray diffraction data via her supervisor without her permission or knowledge. They proposed the model for the right-handed, anti-parallel helix without her assistance, so they were NOT equal contributors. She had the data and didn't know what to make of it. Watson and Crick beat her to the punch. Tough Shit. Everyone in biology knows this. While their methods may have been slightly unethical, much, much worse things have been done to gain credit for lesser discoveries.
Re:More on Rosalind Franklin by Lythic · 2003-02-25 19:07 · Score: 1

I'm sure that Franklin realized this, that although she was close, as were others, she was not the first, and this is why she didn't hold a grudge. However, she has, for many reasons, evolved into a main-stream horror story for current female scientists. I think that we see what happened to her, stick up for her, and overestimate her contributions because we want to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to us.
Although they deserve credit for their breakthrough, they're still sexist, racist, pompous jackasses.... maybe that's part of the Rosalin myth as well.
Re:More on Rosalind Franklin by Otter · 2003-02-26 10:09 · Score: 1

(In case you're still reading.)
However, she has, for many reasons, evolved into a main-stream horror story for current female scientists. I think that we see what happened to her, stick up for her, and overestimate her contributions because we want to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to us.
Just a comment -- as a male Ph.D married to a female Ph.D, I wonder if you're focusing on the wrong dimension, in her case and in general. Not that there isn't discrimination against women as such, but the overwhelming gap is between junior researchers (grad students and postdocs) and PI's. Universities are less happy to have that topic broached, but the vast majority of the injustice I've seen had to do with the treatment of subordinates as serfs, not sexism.
Although they deserve credit for their breakthrough, they're still sexist, racist, pompous jackasses.... maybe that's part of the Rosalin myth as well.
Definitely, that's also because Watson decided to spin his memoir to make himself (and Crick, who was furious about it) as an even bigger jackass than he really was.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...

Life Story by stroudie · 2003-02-25 02:47 · Score: 5, Informative

A while back (~1987) the bbc produced a drama-documentary called "Life Story: a double helix", about the discovery of DNA (starring Tim Piggot-Smith & Jeff Goldblum).

If you get the opportunity (it has been shown a number of times on US and UK TV), it is worth seeing as a very fair-minded and interesting history of the discovery. Unfortunately, I don't believe it is available on video, unless anyone knows different.

Re:Life Story by reptilicus · 2003-02-25 03:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Available from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. It is not cheap, but comes with a license for public showing. http://www.cshlpress.com

and software makes the bioworld go round by johnjones · 2003-02-25 02:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

nice that DNA was discovered while stareing at Xrays now software does a good job

info: sanger center Cambridge was one of the centers that they helped sequence human DNA

why ? Because of the ability to patent squences of DNA
(that drug companies get rich off) they had to do it before evil companies did like Celera Genomics who used a more inactuate method (shotgun) but evily patented it

welcome trust is a huge Charity that funds research in this area

ptenting DNA is silly these are naturally occuring things (squences) they where not created just discovered its all very silly

Cuba and alot of africa are starting not to recognise these patents as they would like to build the drugs that help AIDS and HIV

its sad that AIDS and HIV has to come along just to show the world that patents are stupid on DNA

anyway

here is lots of software related to DNA

regards

John Jones

Re:and software makes the bioworld go round by Fluffy+the+Cat · 2003-02-25 03:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Because of the ability to patent squences of DNA

No. You can't patent sequences of DNA. You can only patent potential uses of that DNA. So, the use of BRCA2 in a diagnostic test for predisposition to breast cancer is patented in much the same way that a test for the protein it produces being used for a diagnostic test for predisposition to breast cancer could be patented (and probably is).

Biotechnology companies do, however, take the piss here. Upon finding a gene and gaining some idea about its function, they have a tendancy to file several hundred patents covering every possible uesful application of that gene.
Re:and software makes the bioworld go round by lovebyte · 2003-02-25 04:38 · Score: 1

Because of the ability to patent squences of DNA
(that drug companies get rich off) ...

Please, to make your point stronger, name ONE company that got rich with patents on DNA.

No, not even one?

--
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Re:and software makes the bioworld go round by the+gnat · 2003-02-25 08:38 · Score: 1

Please, to make your point stronger, name ONE company that got rich with patents on DNA.

Well, many have tried. Myriad Genetics, for one. Most of the companies who hoped to make it rich this way (Incyte, HGS, Millennium) are aparently having problems - this was a Slashdot article about a month ago.
Re:and software makes the bioworld go round by sql*kitten · 2003-02-26 01:03 · Score: 1

ptenting DNA is silly these are naturally occuring things (squences) they where not created just discovered its all very silly

You're right, but then again your observation is pointless because no-one is patenting DNA sequences. They are however patenting drugs and therapies that are discovered as a result of studying the sequence. That's no different from patenting any other drug.

Now, you may not think that companies are justified in getting a return from their investments of hundreds of millions of dollars in research, but that's irrelevant here, because you have demonstrated that you simply do not understand the issue. Also note that without that investment of private money, the medicines would simply not exist.

Cuba and alot of africa are starting not to recognise these patents as they would like to build the drugs that help AIDS and HIV

Really? Please post an example of a modern medicine developed by Cuba or an African nation. Please also post, in USD or the currency of your choice, the amounts invested by Cuba and African nations in biotech research, and the numbers of researchers working in each of those countries. For further credit, you may compare and contrast those numbers with the West.

I forgot about "The Fly" by DickMayhem · 2003-02-25 02:48 · Score: 1

The fly (remake)
The man is a DNA disaster area!

Celibrate with a drink by danormsby · 2003-02-25 02:48 · Score: 3, Funny

I'll be asking my local bartender to "Make mine a double Felix".

--
Omnis amans amens

Re:Celibrate with a drink by blackbeaktux · 2003-02-25 13:56 · Score: 1

... and make mine a clone of his

cheers!

Not really correct by reptilicus · 2003-02-25 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

The original Watson/Crick paper specifically thanks Dr. R. E. Franklin. What more would you have them do? Franklin reportedly felt no slight, and remained friendly and corresponded with Watson and Crick through her remaining years. And yes, had she been alive, she would have been given the Nobel along with them, but the awards are not given posthumously.

Re:Not really correct by RafeDawg · 2003-02-25 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

The original Watson/Crick paper specifically thanks Dr. R. E. Franklin. What more would you have them do?

Co-authorship on the the paper. A standard practice for someone who gives you the crucial bit of data.

--
------- Was it just a coincidence I got moderator points the first time I logged on to /. from linux?
Re:Not really correct by reptilicus · 2003-02-25 04:32 · Score: 2, Informative

---Co-authorship on the the paper. A standard practice for someone who gives you the crucial bit of data--- Clearly you're not a scientist if you think things really work this way. Go to any meeting and you'll see people furiously taking notes, then running out to use their cel phones to call their labs... Regardless, Franklin's data was published in her own paper in the very same issue of Nature. (see http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/archive.html to view the originals). Do you think she would have been better served as a junior author on Watson and Crick's paper describing model building that she had no part of, or publishing as the first author on a paper showing her own work?
Re:Not really correct by blackbeaktux · 2003-02-25 13:54 · Score: 1

Hm. It's said that a month earlier when Watson went to London to confer with Franklin (actually to confer with Wilkins, but he wasn't in so James dropped in on Rosalind instead), they got into an argument and Rosalind lost her temper. Watson claimed he grabbed a Pauling manuscript because he felt he may have needed to defend himself from her wrath.

They were not exactly on good terms - and thus probably not the best candidates for co-authorship.

Re:Discovery of DNA prevented by co-ed universitie by panurge · 2003-02-25 02:56 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh dear.

Given the number of gay men at Cambridge and the number who had been to British public (=private) schools and did not know the connection between women and the equipment below the waist, anybody heterosexual would have to be totally socially unacceptable or alternatively single by choice.

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.

Other points of interest by reptilicus · 2003-02-25 03:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Nature has a whole section on the 50th Anniversary: http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/index.html Also, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (which is run by Watson) is holding a meeting starting Wednesday night to celebrate the anniversary. The whole thing is supposed to be streamed live over the web for free. Not sure of the exact link for this, but the general site is: http://www.cshl.org/ And their 50th Anniversary site is: http://www.dna50.org/main.htm

Re:Other points of interest by alext · 2003-02-25 06:24 · Score: 1

Yes, the Nature coverage is excellent - and free, unlike the usual content.

(I was struck how one of the DNA repair mechanism was like that bizarre DLL restoration mechanism in WinXP... not so daft after all?)

Are they issuing a supplement or book? I couldn't make this from the site.

I find it interesting... by keyslammer · 2003-02-25 03:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

... that /. now has on the same page a report of the 50 year anniversary of the discovery of DNA and another report of
the construction of a super-computer from DNA.

50 years from discovery to super-computer technology. Can you say "accelerating returns"? Can ya? Sure you can!

DNA's structure was discovered by many people by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 03:03 · Score: 0

over a long period of time including women and non-Americans. And I wouldn't bring this up except Watson's later efforts at philosophy with a total disregard for the earlier philosophers that had already presented the heart of his rants in a more scholarly context pissed me off.

The Energizer Bunny of Genetics by mshultz · 2003-02-25 03:08 · Score: 2, Informative

I like this part (from NYT- my school, Rice University, gives us the NYT at breakfast every morning!)...

Dr. Crick published an article on the nature of consciousness just this month.

Dude, what a beast this guy is! Still going! Has anybody found this article new article of his? It would be neat to read...

Re:The Energizer Bunny of Genetics by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 09:14 · Score: 0

Look it up on Pubmed dumbass.
www.ncbi.nih.gov

patents and DNA by laughing_badger · 2003-02-25 03:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hmm...

So a drug company come along and patent a sequence of DNA. "We own this, " they say. "It's ours."

Does this not imply that they accept responsibility for any disease causing properties of the sequence?

It would be sweet if those same companies that patented interesting sequences of cancer causing genes, so that they could exclude the competition, were then liable to anyone sick because they possesed that particular mutation.

Just dreaming...

--
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk

Re:patents and DNA by opello · 2003-02-25 03:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

hehe, and instead of percieving introns as useless, they could stick little (C) and (TM)'s in there! It could be called, DNA2.0

Progress by Cappy+Red · 2003-02-25 03:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Fifty years after the structure is discovered, we're making plans to play Doom 3 on it.

--
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things

You sound like my high school history textbook by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 03:38 · Score: 0

Maybe two sentences total devoted to John Adams and an entire page (with multiple color pictures) devoted to Jefferson's mulatto slave mistress.

Re:Discovery of DNA prevented by co-ed universitie by Ardias · 2003-02-25 03:54 · Score: 1

Yeah, but considering how poorly Watson treated Rosalind Franklin, would any woman be interested in dating him?

Re:Discovery of DNA prevented by co-ed universitie by asobala · 2003-02-25 03:55 · Score: 1

If you read his autobiography, he was very busy trying to get a girlfriend anyway :)

From the Double Helix (warning not for feminists!) by Raindeer · 2003-02-25 03:58 · Score: 2, Funny

Watson recounts the following story. One night dr. Crick was going to a party with his wife. He had hoped some nice female exchange students would be there, but it turned out only Cambridge dons with their wifes turned up. Bored out of his skull he sat down and thought about the things he was working on and got a luminous idea. As Watson sais: This was one time in history, where an absense of women was a benifit to the advancement of science.

--
Use Adsense for Charity

Limited edition print by henben · 2003-02-25 03:59 · Score: 1

You can buy a limited edition print of Crick and Watson with the original DNA model here.

The Pursuit of Happiness by scotay · 2003-02-25 04:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

When I was living close to Independence Hall in Philly, I had the pleasure of seeing Watson and Crick receive the Liberty Medal on July 4th. Watson actually showed and Crick had a speech on tape.

The only thing worse than the oppressive heat, was the abortion protestors who surrounded the perimeter of award ceremony with their stupid yelling. I had never seen protests like this at another liberty award. The abortion protestors and their wall-sized dead fetus posters were nowhere to be found when Colin Powell got his medal. As if the discovery of the structure of DNA was somehow responsible for abortion.

Watson made a great speech that touched on their discovery, politics in a time of war, God and science, happiness and endorphins. Reads even better in 2003 than it did in 2000.

Or as the Brits say by sielwolf · 2003-02-25 04:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Crick and Watson (can't let the Americans get first bill on everything).

--
What is music when you despise all sound?

Re:Or as the Brits say by reptilicus · 2003-02-25 04:49 · Score: 1

Interestingly, Crick is supposed to have been offered a knighthood but turned it down, while Watson accepted his. Crick has pretty much lived in the US since the double helix days, but Watson is much more of an Anglophile.
Re:Or as the Brits say by havokk · 2003-02-25 05:18 · Score: 1

Yeah... And where is Rosalind Franklin? Without her there would be no DNA's model - so nor B's nor A's are right, right?

--
People are DNA's way to make more DNA.
Re:Or as the Brits say by alext · 2003-02-25 06:29 · Score: 1

In case you didn't know, there's a good version of your sig in the opening stanzas of The Selfish Gene, quoted here.

so, watson is a twit. by chloroquine · 2003-02-25 04:45 · Score: 1

But we all knew that. If people are interested in reading a well written account of the years surrounding the elucidation of DNA's structure, I'd strongly recommend Horace Freeland Judson's book, The Eighth Day of Creation. Judson does a good job of discussing Franklin's contributions to the structure of DNA as well as dealing nicely with Watson's interesting personality. The book is probably one of the best books written about scientific discovery and the people involved.

On Watson and his reputation as a "ladies man". Um. Let's just say that my mother was in college in the mid to late 1960's and she remembers him well. But not fondly.

If any of you have the chance to see Watson speak, you will realize that the man is pretty nuts. I heard him speak at NIH a few years ago and spent most of the seminar with my jaw dropped. He insulted women, of course, big people, Asians (he referred to them as "little yellow people") and then went on to insult every prominent scientist in the audience. Now, while the third group of people deserve some insults occasionally, the rest of it was just stupid. I remember coming out of the auditorium thinking that Watson is a colossal jacka**. A year or two later he lectured at UC Berkeley and several faculty walked out on his lecture because it was so offensive.

Anyway, he did some good science, but he isn't a Great Man in any way shape or form.

Re:so, watson is a twit. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 07:52 · Score: 0

I think you meant the fourth group. ;)

The original model by RDW · 2003-02-25 04:51 · Score: 4, Informative

If you're in London you can see the original structural model of DNA (retort clamps and all), models of several other significant molecules, some early computers, and the Apollo 10 command module (!) all in one gallery at the Science Museum:

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/

DNA structure

Re:The original model by jtcampbell · 2003-02-25 06:24 · Score: 1

Actually I was there last week and distinctly remember that the label on the model of DNA states that it is a replica. The apollo 10 command module is the real thing though.
Re:The original model by RDW · 2003-02-25 22:24 · Score: 1

The text in the second link claims that the 'actual metal plates used by [Crick & Watson]' (i.e. the crucial pieces representing the heterocyclic bases, which would have been specially machined) are included in the model. So perhaps it has been re-assembled from their unique components and standard lab stuff like the retort clamps (which wouldn't have been thought to have any particular historical significance, especially in the 50s).

Correct by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 05:02 · Score: 0

DNA was, I believe, discovered by a German scientist
in the late 19th century (I forget who). He speculated that it may "hold the secret to life" or somesuch thing. A bit like Wegener and his "continental drift" hypothesis - not enough data to tie everything down.

Rosalind Franklin by Listen+Up · 2003-02-25 06:00 · Score: 0, Interesting

Years ago I did a research paper on this subject, with the intent to discover who really did discover the helical structure of DNA. Watson and Crick did NOT discover the helical structure of DNA. The person who did discover the structure was Rosalind Franklin. All scientists knew of her discovery (using X-ray chromotography I believe), although he mentor disallowed her to publish the work under her own name (great reason for equal rights). Rosalind Franklin decided to give a lecture on her discovery to a group of scientists of the time before trying to publish her discoveries under her own name. Watson and Crick attended the lecture and quite simply, stole Rosalind's data. Rosalind Franklin fought to have her work published, but Watson and Crick, being male scientists, got their work published first, under their name, and under the pretenses that it was their own work.
The title should read "50 years since the blatant stealing by Watson and Crick of the work from Rosalind Franklin, who discovered the helical structure of DNA." Knowing this kind of information makes me f*cking sick to my stomach. The rest of the world goes on believes the lies of the past, when noone works to change the lies to truths for the future. Watson and Crick should have their Nobel Prize stripped from them.

Re:Rosalind Franklin by Listen+Up · 2003-02-25 07:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why was I marked as a Troll and as Flamebait? Doesn't anyone have a clue what happened in the past? Do the research yourself if you don't believe me. Watson and Crick did not discover the helical structure of DNA, Rosalind Franklin did. Is Slashdot full of people who either have a HS education only and/or have never learned about past scientific achievements and who actually makes the discoveries as opposed to who actually gets the credit? The facts about the history of who discovered DNA stand, whether I am marked as a troll or flamebait or not.
Go to http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Rosalind_Fra nklin.html and read about what happened yourself (as 1 source among many).
Quote "After Randall presented Franklin's data and her unpublished conclusions at a routine seminar, her work was provided - without Randall's knowledge - to her competitors at Cambridge University, Watson and Crick. The scientists used her data and that of other scientists to build their ultimately correct and detailed description of DNA's structure in 1953...it is a tremendous shame that Franklin did not receive due credit for her essential role in this discovery, either during her lifetime or after her untimely death at age 37 due to cancer."
Re:Rosalind Franklin by smoondog · 2003-02-25 09:07 · Score: 1

Why was I marked as a Troll and as Flamebait?

Maybe it is because you are spouting off rather zealously and aren't totally correct. First, it is X-Ray Crystallography (not, chromatography). This helped solve the structure of DNA, not discover DNA itself (as you correctly point out). That traces back to Haeckel in the 1860's or Altman in the 1880's. Secondly, Franklin likely got screwed. She did not, however, solve the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick did that. She provided the one piece of data that helped them build their model. She may have even suggested that the phosphate backbone was on the outside of a double helix. Watson and Crick built a model with atomic resolution, and they were correct. Although what they did may have been unethical, they still did a lot of work. It isn't as if Dr. Franklin had a molecular model of DNA in her office, and they crept in and stole it. This is just another story of the crappy stuff that goes on in academic science. It just happened that this was a big finding. Hopefully, Franklin's contributions will be remembered appropriately.

-Sean
Re:Rosalind Franklin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 09:32 · Score: 0

You were marked troll or flamebait because you don't have all of the facts strait. Maybe you should go back and take some high school science courses. Watson and Crick did propose the correct model for the structure of DNA. Rosalind Franklin merely provided the data (unknowingly) upon which the model was based. She had all of the facts, but got beat to the punch when it came to interpreting them. Besides, Watson and Crick did not discover DNA, they elucidated the Structure. Ribonucleic Acids were discovered in the 19th century and DNA was demonstrated to be the genetic material by Al Hershey and Martha Chase in the famous Hershey Blender experiment in 1952. Learn your scientifc history son.
Re:Rosalind Franklin by geekoid · 2003-02-25 10:53 · Score: 1

"Doesn't anyone have a clue what happened in the past? "
yes, you were marked as a troll and Flamebait.

"The scientists used her data and that of other scientists to build their ultimately correct and detailed description of DNA's structure in 1953"

she did not make the discovery. Her method brought forth the data that lead to the doscovery of the double helix.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Rosalind Franklin by qbed · 2003-02-25 13:10 · Score: 1

here, here

--
imagination is more important than knowledge --Albert Einstein-
Re:Rosalind Franklin by Lythic · 2003-02-25 21:37 · Score: 1

Because the moders are oversensitive wuses? Although your language is slightly inflammatory, exactly what Franklin knew is widely debated, and you are totally correct in pointing this out. No one knows exactly how much of the structure she had elucidated, and how much of her suppositions were given to her competitors. You were marked as a troll because the moders didn't agree with your point of view. Hopefully some metamoders will see their comments.....
It might be helpful in the future to write in a calmer voice, however, then they have no excuse.
Re:Rosalind Franklin by hether · 2003-03-01 15:42 · Score: 1

Nobody has forgotten about her. In almost everything I've seen mentioned they've addressed her contributions. On the NPR interview, they even said she'd probably have figured it out herself within a short time after they did. It's just that the awards can't be given posthumously, as I'm sure everyone on here has already stated.

--

Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.

But Franklin had already released pictures by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 06:27 · Score: 0

of her diffraction pattern, in a public seminar which Watson attended, some months before Wilkins showed Watson the picture for a second time.
At the seminar, Watson didnt grasp the significance of what he was seeing (perhaps because he was a misogynist semi-idiot... and yeah, I'm a bit overboard, but not much). When **Wilkins** showed him the diffraction pattern, Watson immediately understood the importance.

The point is, it was perfectly legitimate for Watson and Crick to use Franklin's data; it was reasonably public. It was NOT legitimate for Watson to denigrate Franklin the way he did; she was a technically brilliant experimentalist who made the critical experimental breakthroughs on the way to the DNA structure, and for Watson to express anything except high regard for her science and contributions makes Watson look bad, not Franklin.

Crick studied the neural basis of consciousness by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 06:37 · Score: 0

since the 70s, if I remember correctly.

He specifically chose it as the most difficult and interesting problem he could find. A good part of his work has addressed 'visual consciousness' by studyign teh visual system of teh fruit fly, but he moves way, **waaaay** beyond just that sphere.

I personally consider Crick to be one of the 2-3 most brilliant people in all of scientific history. Read Judson's Eighth Day of Creation, and notice that at almost every significant breakthrough in the discovery of DNA, and the subsequent elucidation of the genetic code, Crick is involved as a central player. Triplet code, experimental confirmation of the triplet code, necessity of a messenger,and on and on.

Direct from the source by alext · 2003-02-25 06:38 · Score: 1

Or you can read a review piece by her biographer in Nature.

rosalind by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 06:40 · Score: 0

carter. idiots.

dranklin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-25 06:48 · Score: 0

dumbass. not carter.

watson is a twit. and i can't count. by chloroquine · 2003-02-25 07:56 · Score: 1

yup, I only remembered his comment on big people as I was editing this.

Folding at home allows anyone WHAT? by jabber01 · 2003-02-25 08:11 · Score: 1

Folding at home allows anyone with spare computer cycles to help out and understand how the proteins fold to their lowest/near lowest energy state and how they interact in the body.

Right. And running Linux allows anyone doing to to understand the finer points of C programming, multitsking OS design, memory management, file systems, video drivers and so forth and so on. [/sarcasm]

It's only a program. Running it, in the background as designed, has as much impact on one's understanding of what it does, as the program has on the apparent performance of the computer running it. Specifically, no appreciable impact what so ever.

--

The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life

Re:Folding at home allows anyone WHAT? by MarvinMouse · 2003-02-25 08:58 · Score: 1

well.. sorry...

more correctly.

Folding at home allows anyone with spare computer cycles to help out and further mankind's understanding of how the proteins fold to their lowest/near lowest energy state and how they interact in the body.

Is that better?

--
~ kjrose
Re:Folding at home allows anyone WHAT? by jabber01 · 2003-02-27 07:29 · Score: 1

Quite. Thank you for catering to my pedantic streak.

--
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life

Ah, but which paper? by Bowling+Moses · 2003-02-25 08:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

There were three back to back papers published in Nature (1953, No. 4356 pages 737-741): "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acids" by J. D. Watson and F. H. C. Crick, "Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids" by M.H.F Wilkins, A.R. Stokes and H.R. Wilson, and lastly "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate" by Rosalind Franklin. Also available on Nature's website for free, as someone else has already linked in. At least Watson and Crick did put Rosalind Franklin (and Maurice Wilkins) in their acknowledgements, but then that was probably the most they could get away with and even then in their article they poo-poo the fibre diffraction patterns obtained by Franklin (and others) despite the wealth of information that was obtained. In her article she independently states "The structure is probably helical. The phosphate groups lie on the outside of the structural unit, on a helix of diameter about 20 angstroms. The structural unit probably consists of two co-axial molecules which are not equally spaced along the fibere axis..." Her view on DNA structure is based on data she collected. Watson and Crick's structure is largely based on the same data (which they obtained without her permission, ie they stole it) and they come to similar conclusions.

Re:ages... or maybe not by nikolag · 2003-02-25 09:25 · Score: 1

A long time? Maybe for one man, but in all this time small progress was made.

First, W.C. model was under influence of other scientists, and if one reads maybe most available articles, published in Am.Sc., actually three of them, it becomes obvious that they (Watson & Crick & others) were not shure about it how the DNA really looks, when turned in crystals.

How can I say that? Well in two articles one can see only two Hydrogen bonds between chains, but in the last, most quoted, and used, we find 2 (A=T) and 3 (C=-G) hydrogen bonds, introduced without explanation, what was actually just an effect of other articles, who have argued about inconsistancies between double-helix-model, and real world data.
The fact is that other scientists complained (then and later), and proved that DNA can, and does exist as single, double and triple helix, and none of them is EVER simetrical, and any of them CAN duplicate itself in any of those forms.

And don't forget, they were doing crystalography. That means, they destroyed the cells, extracted the DNA from it's native environment, then made it crystalize, and then photographed it with X-rays.

Do we really think that DNA looks like that in our cells?
To make long story short, NOBODY really knows how the hell DNA really looks like, when it is in live, functioning cell.
And as far as "decoding" and finding more about how the protein is made, well things got wound up in pretty silly directions. But that's another story.
Maybe that's why You find Human genome project useless.
So, a Nobell awarded to W.C. is maybe, given a bit too early. No wonder that they give it years after discovery was made.

--
Doing a good job is like spilling coffee on a dark suit, you feel warm all over, but nobody notices.

World Congress on in July by Tenaka+Kahn · 2003-02-25 10:40 · Score: 1

There is also a world genetics congress about to happen in Melbourne, Australia.

Covering many topics (Program -> Symposium).

Genetics Congress - XIX International Congress of Genetics - Melbourne, Australia, July 6-12, 2003

Rosalind Franklin by qbed · 2003-02-25 12:19 · Score: 1

As usual you, and almost everyone else, seem to have forgotten Rosalind Franklin... her name is on the Nobel Prize too. What is about guys overlooking a girl?

--
imagination is more important than knowledge --Albert Einstein-

even worse, folding often requires chaperones... by drjzzz · 2003-02-25 14:22 · Score: 1

Chaperones are mature (folded) proteins that help newly-synthesized proteins fold and thereby acquire their proper shape. Many proteins require chaperones to fold correctly, although careful manipulation of the folding conditions can provide some of the chaperone functions. Even sophisticated folding algorithms have not incorporated the chaperone function.

--
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...

Slashdot Mirror

50th Anniversary of DNA's Discovery

161 comments