Slashdot Mirror
50th Anniversary of DNA's Discovery
nxg125 writes "The New York Times has a section on the 50th anniversary of Watson & Crick's discovery of DNA. Lots of good articles about the discovery, Watson & Crick themselves, and where this information will take us from here."
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.
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
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.
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
... 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!
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.
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_Fr
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."