Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNA, Fifty Years To the Day

Posted by Hemos on from the changing-the-world dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Today being the fiftieth anniversary (April 2, 1953) of the Watson-Crick double-helical, DNA discovery [to quote, 'We wish to put forward a radically different structure...'], there is an interesting tally of completed gene sequences here, and ones still being worked, including the Ames strain of the anthrax bacteria. It also appears that the only lifeforms not using DNA for code storage are a few viruses like the common cold."

5 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. acknowledgements.... by urbazewski · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the acknowledgements section of their letter to Nature:
    We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King's College, London.
    Not included in their acknowledgements section: the fact the "general information" about Dr. R. E. Franklin's work was in fact a very specific look at her crystallography data which was removed from her lab without her knowledge or consent by Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins.

    Here's a brief NPR review of a recent biography of Rosalind Franklin and a more extensive review in Scientific American which details the theft of data by Watson/Crick/Wilkins.

    --
    foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
  2. Re:As always, by radiashun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Watson and Crick wouldn't have accomplished much without Chargoff's data either. Chargoff recognized that A and T and G and C were in rougly a 1:1 ratio (# purines = # pyrimidines). Watson and Crick would've been screwed without alot of outside help. For example, they couldn't figure out why their model wasn't coming together. A chemist happened to be walking by one day and pointed out that oxygen is found in the keto, rather than enol form and nitrogen was found in the amino rather than the imino form (in living systems). Crick was a physicist and Watson was more of a general biologist.

  3. Re:As always, by urbazewski · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I really enjoyed The Double Helix the first I read it, shortly after high school. The second time I read it, just after grad school, I was appalled. Watson & Crick's (& conspirator Wilkins') deliberate theft of Rosalind Franklin's work violated any reasonable standard of academic or professional conduct, as well as being highly unethical. The fact that Watson went on to trash her in his book only adds insult to tremendous injury.

    If you are interested in learning about the abusive mistreatment of women researchers look no further than The Double Helix.

    --
    foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
  4. DNA and turing machines by v_1_r_u_5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One could construct a two-tape turing machine that simulates the four combinations; if you're interested in mixing computer science with DNA, check out this paper.

  5. "In other news..." by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Find obvious article to whore in.
    2. Skim the summary.
    3. Reply and title your post "In other news..."
    4. Take premise of article and twist it into something obviously absurd. Make sure it is not clever, original, or funny in any way.
    5. Wait for dull, crackhead moderators with itchy mouse fingers to click it up into the various realms of Funny That Is Not.

    I will either be modded down, someone will post another "step" to my list that references responses like mine, or some Anonymous Coward will copy my style as they usually do.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."