Slashdot Mirror
DNA Pioneer Francis Crick Passes Away
Neil Halelamien writes "Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of DNA with James Watson, Rosalind Franklin, and Maurice Wilkins, passed away Wednesday in San Diego. His co-discovery of 'the secret of life' made him one of the most influential scientists of all time. In more recent years, he shifted his research efforts from molecular biology to neuroscience, with a particular interest in the question of the neural basis of consciousness."
or could you only patent the technology used to make the discovery?
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
Don't worry, he'll be back.
In clone form.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did he use his own, or watson's, DNA under the microscope to make the discovery?
Moo.
...that is, life arriving at earth via DNA sent out from aliens.
More on that theory in Wikipedia. Interesting stuff!
The Army reading list
Semantics should have stayed on the reservation making blankets and beads.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Currently he probably doesn't.
Take a look at this link for some of what the parent is talking about:
n a.html
http://www.ba-education.demon.co.uk/for/science/d
http://nyamenation.org/
With one half of Watson & Crick gone, I'm pretty sure that we have to turn in one of our DNA helices. It's single helix time now...
It was Crick's. Indeed, Watson didn't even know what Crick was up to in the next room. Suddenly a voice from nowhere rang out: "Watson! Come here! I want you!" After that, there was no looking back. A new era of technology was ushered in.
Didn't you learn this story in elementary school?
GMD
watch this
Would you care to provide links to information on this? Or are you just flamebaiting?
The parent poster may have written childishly but the meat of what he is saying is not wrong
I would like to take this moment to recommend Francis Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis to anyone interested in cognitive science. Although the theory of consciousness he espouses is somewhat uninteresting, the book does provide a good overview of the mechanisms by which the human brain functions, and it also describes the field of Cog Sci to some depth.
Whatever it is I'm complaining about, I'm sure the Republicans did it. This is
who do i turn to now when my dna breaks?
I rebooted a work machine that was named crick, after I heard. I figure that's like pouring a forty out on the pavement, right?
(also it needed a kernel update)
Shee-it even in death Crick gets credit for someone else's work. Goddamn.
No. My elementary school wasn't big on science, its a miracle I'm the science nerd that I am today!
I bring it up because in the thread about the Genome guy, he was being criticized for using his own DNA.
Moo.
Directed Panspermia?
This sounds like a low budget Japanese film.
It would be the only fitting tribute.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Perhaps this discovery is the discovery of "smallpox vaccine" or the "Laws of Motion" of genetic engineering . . . each of these discoveries, profound and novel as a standalone discovery, enabled and launched an entirely new series of scientific research and discoveries over a period of hundreds of years.
300 years from now, we might say the same about Watson and Crick's discovery as we do about the discoveries of Copernicus, Newton, or Galileo.
I know that this article is about the passing of Crick, but it's nice to hear Rosalind Franklin recognized for her significant role in the discovery of the structure of DNA. Certinaly, Watson and Crick did a lot of work ... but they get a lot of credit too, including a nobel prize. Franklin didn't even get credit at the time of discovery because her photographs had been shown to Watson without her knowledge and they (Watson, Crick, and Wilkins) rushed their article to publication.
Later on, more people learned of her contributions, but, sadly, she passed away in 1958 and was therefore ineligible for the 1962 Nobel prize that Watson, Crick, and Wilkonson shared. Without her name on the landmark publication or a Nobel prize, she has been largely forgotten.
To read more about her story, you should check out the book The Dark Lady of DNA.
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable con
Um, isn't that the story of Alexander Graham Bell and the invention of the telephone?
Watson and Crick didn't use a microscope. Watson and Crick were (iirc) chemists who built models of molecules and tried to create a model that represented a chemical which had the properties of observed dna. When they did their work microscopes capable of looking at molecules up close and personal did not exist. X-ray crystalography was as close as it got. There was some lady in Britain who was working on the DNA problem at the same time, who (in some people's opinion, including mine, no disrespect to the honored dead) did most of the important work. Watson and Crick were close, but they put it all together after meeting with the a researcher in the same university department who shared the contents of her work. All of which makes me wish I could remember her name.
It was on PBS a couple months ago. Good documentary. Crick was reclusive but was interviewed for the occasion; he seemed very genuine and very very smart. Let's all think good thoughts about him or, failing that, drink a beer to his name.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Sort of. I squirted 70% ethanol on the lab floor.
Crick didn't even know what Watson was doing the night that he made the mock-up. As an interesting note there was a bit of slack in the way the wooden "lego" was made that allowed the correct answer to emerge despite a slight flaw in the idea.
Lastly I think your joke was refering to Craig Venter that used his own DNA at Celera, Right?. I have a lot of respect for Venter despite his slight Megalomaniac tendencies.
Help fight continental drift.
He did help advance science even if for no other reason then they would listen to him and his partner more. On another note does anyone here have a teacher the should tell this? I might have gotten some extra credit points in Bio if this happened over the course of the school year. Oh dear I think I am trying to profit from a dead man. >_
A ruler wears a crown while the rest of us wear hats. But which would you rather have when it's raining?
"...In more recent years, he shifted his research efforts from molecular biology to neuroscience, with a particular interest in the question of the neural basis of consciousness."
= /n m/journal/v7/n2/full/nm0201_137b.htmli on required)
Meanwhile Watson's concluded fat bald dark people have great sex. Oh how the mighty have fallen...
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file
(registrat
I always kinda assumed they were using a cheek swab to get the samples. Guess I was wrong.
In either case, its pretty funny that the parent is marked Informative when its either a troll (more likely) or just plain wrong.
It seems to me, and this is totally a gut feeling, that the basic 'units of consciousness' will be in nueral superstructers. I'm actually a supporter of a top down approach -- trying to tear apart things that are apparent to us in our consciousness --Woah! How about getting a definition of consciousness first -- and then trying to find what neurons are responsible for them. We're had more success this way -- finding which parts of the brain light up when we use language, recognize faces, solve math problems, etc.
Furthermore, all the models of nuerons thinking use them as logic gates. That seems to imply to me that some consciousness researchers think the brain is a huge Turing machine -- again, this doesn't seem right to me, because Goedel's Theorem, as I understand, shows there are things a Turing machine can't compute. And if humans can understand Goedel's theorem, we must have something qualitatively different than a Turing machine up there.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Have we heard at least one, RIP Francis> , or He was a good contributer to science and the greater good or at least something that represents what a fufilling life he lived, or the goals he set that, at the time were seemingly impossible, achieved? You people are cold and heartless. Oh, and to keep myself from hipocracy, It's implied that I have said the aforementioned comments in a kind and sympathetic matter. =D
Sleep, she is for the weak..
Would a good definition of life be anything that has cells (having the ability to reproduce themselves)?
Apparently Nerds don't mind their "News" a day late.
They got the Nobel Prize for their discovery. She wasn't included in the prize, even though she was critical in the discovery of the molecule's structure.
Only living people can get the Nobel, and by the time of the prize, Rosie had died of cancer. There's no conspiracy.
No, it's a joke. Google the quote and all will be revealed. (Just didn't want you to go on believing that quote had anything to do with DNA research...) Google, you truly are too good for this world.
Science is a competitive field
The person that publishes first wins
Perhaps Watson and Crick's citation list was rather lite
I don't understand what the big deal is . . . this is science . . . Scientists at the top of their field are egotistical and competitive just like the people in most other careers.
Just because someone else sat in the lab and ran the experiments doesn't mean that conclusions drawn by others based on the same dataset should be credited to the original person that ran the experiments. I think that credit should be given to Watson and Crick for putting together lots of other pieces of knowledge and drawing a conclusion that fits all the data from all the sources in question. That's not stealing, that's not cheating . . . that's just good science.
Amen to that, buddy, amen!
Franklin's crystal revealed the ultimate helical nature of DNA. But the double stranded bit was based on the Chargaff rules.
Umm, what were the first words (supposedly) uttered over the telephone? "Watson, I want you."??
Oh. The grandparent was funny. You are dumb.
I will in honer have a pint in the eagle
and thank you to all the people that worked on the Xray labs that made this discovery possible
regards
John Jones
I'm rubber, you're glue. BITCH!
His co-discovery of 'the secret of life' made him one of the most influential scientists of all time. In more recent years, he shifted his research efforts from molecular biology to neuroscience, with a particular interest in the question of the neural basis of consciousness.
In the middle of the 20th century:
Crick: We've done it! We've figured out how life's essence can be boiled down to simple chemical reactions!
God: Aw, crap. Didn't mean for them to figure that out.
Fast forward to the present day:
Crick: That's it! It's so simple, how could I have missed it before! I've figured out how the soul's essence can be boiled down to simple neural combinations!
God: Alright, boy, you've gone far enough. [Flips switch]
Crick: Aaaah! [Hits floor]
Why would the choice of DNA matter?
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
I squirted some of my own DNA..., ah, nevermind.
(it was a tear!! It's not what you're thinking!!)
It's not a given that he favored the project in the way in which it was carried out.. Does anybody know what his actual position was?
Truly an American Icon
Yep, a theory you can extract out of organic tissue in a school lab.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
*prays not to be smited by the karma god*
Sleep, she is for the weak..
Attached is the famous Watson and Crick paper.
Also note - Obituary Here: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040726/full/040726 -12.html
Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids
WATSON, J. D. & CRICK, F. H. C.
Medical Research Council Unit for the Study of Molecular Structure of Biological Systems, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge.
A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid
We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest.
A structure for nucleic acid has already been proposed by Pauling and Corey1. They kindly made their manuscript available to us in advance of publication. Their model consists of three intertwined chains, with the phosphates near the fibre axis, and the bases on the outside. In our opinion, this structure is unsatisfactory for two reasons:
(1) We believe that the material which gives the X-ray diagrams is the salt, not the free acid. Without the acidic hydrogen atoms it is not clear what forces would hold the structure together, especially as the negatively charged phosphates near the axis will repel each other.
(2) Some of the van der Waals distances appear to be too small.
Another three-chain structure has also been suggested by Fraser (in the press). In his model the phosphates are on the outside and the bases on the inside, linked together by hydrogen bonds. This structure as described is rather ill-defined, and for this reason we shall not comment on it.
We wish to put forward a radically different structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid. This structure has two helical chains each coiled round the same axis (see diagram). We have made the usual chemical assumptions, namely, that each chain consists of phosphate diester groups joining ß-D-deoxyribofuranose residues with 3',5' linkages. The two chains (but not their bases) are related by a dyad perpendicular to the fibre axis. Both chains follow right- handed helices, but owing to the dyad the sequences of the atoms in the two chains run in opposite directions. Each chain loosely resembles Furberg's2 model No. 1; that is, the bases are on the inside of the helix and the phosphates on the outside. The configuration of the sugar and the atoms near it is close to Furberg's 'standard configuration', the sugar being roughly perpendicular to the attached base. There is a residue on each every 3.4 A. in the z-direction. We have assumed an angle of 36 between adjacent residues in the same chain, so that the structure repeats after 10 residues on each chain, that is, after 34 A. The distance of a phosphorus atom from the fibre axis is 10 A. As the phosphates are on the outside, cations have easy access to them.
Figure 1
This figure is purely diagrammatic. The two ribbons symbolize the two phophate-sugar chains, and the horizonal rods the pairs of bases holding the chains together. The vertical line marks the fibre axis.
The structure is an open one, and its water content is rather high. At lower water contents we would expect the bases to tilt so that the structure could become more compact.
The novel feature of the structure is the manner in which the two chains are held together by the purine and pyrimidine bases. The planes of the bases are perpendicular to the fibre axis. They are joined together in pairs, a single base from one chain being hydrogen-bonded to a single base from the other chain, so that the two lie side by side with identical z-co-ordinates. One of the pair must be a purine and the other a pyrimidine for bonding to occur. The hydrogen bonds are made as follows : purine position 1 to pyrimidine position 1 ; purine position 6 to pyrimidine position 6.
If it is assumed that the bases only occur in the structure in the most plausible tautomeric forms (that is, with the keto rather than the enol configurations) it is found that only specific pairs of bases can bond together. These pairs a
I find it incredible that such a brilliant scientist would delve into the realm of "what makes conciousness". On the other hand, after you discover something as significant as DNA, I guess you're obligated to work on something at least as important for your next assignment.
What makes it incredible for me to believe he would try to explain conciousness is the fact that there are philisophical issues. What if Christians are right and man has an imperishable soul? If it exists it would be the seat of conciousness. Otherwise you wouldn't be you after you're dead. This means that the brain is nothing but a "soul interface" which contains nothing of eternal value. This would make for some very frustrating research!!!
"Meaningless!, Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless!"
crick was by far the smarter one...
Those monsters! They killed her before she could get the prize!
I think that the famous double helix result should not be taught as fact and so readily accepted by everyone. I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm just saying we ought to maintain a healthy scientific skepticism toward things that don't have an irrefutably strong case based on empirical evidence backing them, and this one doesn't.
When you try reverse an x-ray diffraction pattern back into the 3D structure of the thing that caused it, at some point you have to solve a Bessel function. There are many solutions to that Bessel function, each of which could have produced that pattern. The best solution is the one that dictates a 3D structure that fits other observations outside of the diffraction pattern. For this particular experiment (if you read the paper they published), the first solution to the Bessel function they used implies two strands wound around each other. The second solution implies four, the third implies six strands, etc.
Watson and Crick, in that paper, assumed the first solution was the best one, even though the second one is possible too. (The third and higher solutions are not possible because in the 3D space-filling model there's physically no room for 6 or more strands within that volume of space.) As it happens, the second solution, which suggests a four-stranded helical model, seems to fit the rest of the data in that paper and its references better than the two-stranded one.
There's other evidence out there to suggest the double-stranded model is not necessarily correct, too...above I'm only talking about what's in the original paper itself. I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, I'm only saying that I think that biologists have accepted this model as fact too readily, based on mathematics that most biologists can't follow (how many bio Ph.D.s can solve Bessel functions?). I'm suggesting there's not enough empirical evidence to characterize this double-stranded helical model as fact, though. We all ought to be more skeptical...there is no good explanation I know of for why they picked the first solution over the second, and until it's addressed the question should remain open. That's just good science.
I wonder how much this matters anyway, though. Ok, so DNA coils up into a helix in a crystal under certain experimental conditions. Does that mean it maintains the same structure in other situations, such as in vivo? Anyone who's studied molecular bio knows that molecular biological structures adopt lots of different forms that are highly dependent on the environment in which they find themselves.
Still, this is more a comment on the scientific community's shortcomings than Watson or Crick specifically. Does anyone out there know of any significant discoveries based on Watson and Crick's famous advance? What technologies/medicines/whatever has been developed as a result? This seems like a good way to honor their contribution.
sev
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Crick was amazing, and a true genius, and acknowledged as such by just about anyone in the field of molecular biology. He and Watson basically invented the science of molecular biology, and it was really Crick who envisioned it whole and pushed the field in the direction that it still moves today. He was The Theorist, and one of the few who can claim the title of theoretical biologist with any sort of legitimacy (the other early molecular biology theorist was Jaques Monod) and his numerous papers pushed the field forward in many ways. The central dogma of molecular biology was his. He was one of the few people present who came up with the idea of how DNA sends a messenger (RNA) to ribosomes, which act as dumb machines to translate the message to a functional protein. This seems obvious now, but for a long time it wasn't, and we owe Crick, in no small part, for coming up with this. The man was a true genius and visionary, and he's long been one of my personal heroes. He deserves to be mourned the world over for all he helped build and give to it.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Just because someone else sat in the lab and ran the experiments doesn't mean that conclusions drawn by others based on the same dataset should be credited to the original person that ran the experiments. I think that credit should be given to Watson and Crick for putting together lots of other pieces of knowledge and drawing a conclusion that fits all the data from all the sources in question. That's not stealing, that's not cheating . . . that's just good science.
"If it is that I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants"
-Albert Einstein
As is alluded to by the above quite, most science is based on the work of others before you. Good science is crediting others for their contributions, not using another data without giving credit or acknowledgement. This is exactly what watson and crick did. Rosalind's Crystallography data was essential for determining the structure of DNA, irregardless of what an article says. Do the research and you'll see.
Furthermore, a quick comment on Francis Crick. About a year back I saw him speak at Cal Tech and my impression of him was that he was an extremely arrogant individual. In fact, someone actually asked him about Franklin contributions and he simply dismissed her and her contributions without hesitation. One thing to know is that great scientists are not always great people.
Imouthes
I like the childish comments and no I wasn't flambaiting. It is not acceptable to steal another's work. I perform DNA analysis primarily cDNA and exploratory research in the field of Microarrays. I don't contend my handling of such a person's indiscretion is necessary but it is certainly accurate. I also must voice my disagreement with anyone's contention that utilizing another's findings and building upon them without giving credit by itself - is a matter of unethical thievery. I perhaps will find arguments with this from many on this bored who believe this is an open forum for building blocks to greater things. I agree - but winning the Nobel prize and going down in history as the discoverer of such is neither correct nor moral \ ethical.
I was honored to meet Dr. Cricks and find his rootimentary ideas outstanding. And yet I cannot help but be disgusted with the ease of which he credited himself with the dishonesty of being the DNA discoverer.
Education and respect to those who do or do not agree. Mind you I did not include links for if you have any clue what you are talking about or molecular biology you do not need them - everyone else is blowing smoke and 'flambaiting'.
Ahem....
The New York Times has an especially good write up at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/science/29CND-CR ICK.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091149523-HKLChJ0/j SjultBM63EKHA as well as a special section at http://www.nytimes.com/pages/health/healthspecial/ index.html.
it's a joke. dumbass.
awesome man show reference!
We can accuse Crick and Watson of not being generous in giving Rosalind Franklin the credit she deserved but the credit for the discovery belongs to them alone. Either Franlin did not make the deductions they did or she did but was slow to publish them (which in the world of science is basically the same thing). That said, Franklin would have probably gotten the Nobel prize had she lived long enough. The Nobel prize is never awarded posthumously - and she died four years before the prize was awarded. The real injustice in all of this is that Maurice Wilkins shared Nobel prize for his x-ray crystallography work. Most of the x-ray crystallography work that Crick and Watson had based their deductions on had been done by Rosalind Franklin. Wilkins was neither responsible for the data used to make the deductions nor for the deductions themselves. - HCE
Can you provide any evidence of Crick trying to prevent Franklin from getting due credit? Crick and Franklin remained friends up until her death and were frequent correspondents. Watson and Crick acknowledged Franklin in their original paper, which was published along with papers by Franklin and Wilkins in the same issue of Nature. A few weeks before Watson and Crick put the pieces together, Franklin went around her university hanging up signs declaring the "death of the double helix".
Let's be clear here, there were strong biases against women scientists at the time (and many still exist today). But she did not make the conceptual leap that Watson and Crick made. She never seemed to bear any ill will towards them, and was just happy that the truth was known. People in science get scooped all the time.
Sure, Watson made sexist and derogatory comments about Franklin in "The Double Helix", although one could argue that he made rude comments about nearly everyone involved. If you're angry at anyone, you should be angry at the Nobel committee who chose to wait until after Franklin's death to award the prize (which can't be awarded posthumously).
Unfortunately, a bulk of the research used to deduce the structure of DNA (that of Rosalind Franklin) was unpublished. If in fact she had no knowledge of this sharing of data, it would seem to me at least unethical, if not theft. If they were using data published or data resulting from experiments done within their lab or a collaborators lab with their knowledge, then no harm no foul.
in a recent ./ story the celera genomics guy was being criticized for being such an egomaniac that he used his own DNA to decode the human genome. I took some flak for saying it wasn't a big deal, but i guess a lot of people disagree with me.
Moo.
This has been a particularly rough month for biologists as we also lost the great Ed Lewis, Nobel prize winner and father of the homeobox.
...are an IDIOT. You might as well say that spheres don't have the characteristic of "roundness", that they can look square if looked at from alternate points of view! Clearly only a moron would think like that. Please crawl back into your bat infested cave from whence you came and drivel on about shadows on the walls made by figures outside the cave. Modern man has no need for backward thinkers such as yourself.
Please.
This is nothing less than an Historical Figure who just died.
Refrain from making bad joke. You owe lots to this guy (& Watson).
And on the credits 'issue'. It was not sexism. It was not theft. Getting scooped happens all the time in science... only this time it was on a MAJOR subject, hence all the ruckus. If I expose my results in public, there's always the risk that my ideas will serve another. Most journals won't even publish something you exposed once in an international conference.
Think about this : Do you believe the Nobel is awared to every single person who amassed results leading to the discovery? No. It is awarded to people who can make sense of the data who is currently available.
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
"How do you think we got here and were made."
Without a god.
I think I saw that one ... I believe the subtitle was "Ejaculating at Escape Velocity".
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
Perhaps all of us /.ers who are Molecular biologists should do a genomic DNA extraction tomorrow. Phenol/Chloroform.... keep it old school. Then resuspend in 40 uL TE then toss our Eppendorf tubes on the curb.
And then, nearly 100 years later, Ma Crick was found to be a monopoly, and was broken up into baby Cricks.
"A second prominent proponent of panspermia is Nobel prize winner Francis Crick, along with Leslie Orgel who proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. This suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilisation. Crick argues that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, fired randomly in all directions is the best, most cost effective strategy for seeding life on a compatible planet at some time in the future. The strategy might have been pursued by a civilisation facing catastrophic annihilation, or hoping to terraform planets for later colonisation."
But he got to see that there are still a lot of unkonwns and intrinsic meanings undiscovered in the decoded genome even though people now do know they are there.
Bullshit to the damned 'intelligent design'
We're had more success this way -- finding which parts of the brain light up when we use language, recognize faces, solve math problems, etc.
Which success are you talking about? I haven't known of any success in explaining consciousness based on which parts of the brain use more energy when we do certain tasks.
And if humans can understand Goedel's theorem, we must have something qualitatively different than a Turing machine up there.
As Doug Lenat's program Eurisko proved, Turing machines are pretty good in understanding theorems. Google it.
There'll be no end to the Sunday religious TV.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thereof thou shall surely die."
This hypothesis (it is not really a theory) reminds me of the Raelians, and their religion that is based on "aliens started life on Earth" thing.
Whether it is Francis Crick's panspermia or Rael's aliens, this hypothesis does not solve anything:
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Read "The Astonishing Hypothesis" to see how Crick could truly make sense of what data is available...
Crick ripped off Rosalind Franklin.
This was on PBS a few months back.
Or see http://www.undelete.org/WHM/WHM13.html
On the topic of the neural basis of consciousness, there's a very interesting demo on this page. In the video, try looking in the middle of the three yellow dots, surrounded by the swirling cloud of blue dots.
After doing this for a bit, the yellow dots start blinking in and out of consciousness -- it's really quite a startling effect. Incidentally, the demo is on the site for a book titled The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach, by Christof Koch, a close collaborator of the late Francis Crick.
A post on iPods elicits 500+ comments.
A post on a pioneer of DNA research: under 200.
Let's hope the next generation of iPod can cure cancer, or we're all fucked.
On this date (of Crick's death in 2004) in "1953: Scientists tell of 'secret of life' Crick and Watson unveil DNA". Crick was a really helical frood.
--
make install -not war
Crick talked the DNA talk, and he walked the walk: "Crick leaves his wife, artist Odile Speed, their two daughters, and a son by a previous marriage."
--
make install -not war
Goodbye to a truly great man. I met Dr. Crick twice. He was the only scientist I ever met who awed me so completely that I could never call him by his given name. Dr. Crick was involved in essentially every major breakthrough in molecular genetics between about 1955 and the end of the '60s. The structure of DNA, the "Central Dogma," triplet coding, as a very few high points among the accomplishments where his work was central. If you read "The Eighth Day of Creation," the breathtaking history of molecular genetics, you find that for those years it is largely a history of the work of Francis Crick. Following that, he nearly invented the new field of the analysis of the biological correlates fo consciousness. Truly a giant of intellectual achievement, I consider him one of the 5 greatest scientists to have ever lived. He was also a truly generous spirit. Both times I talked with him, he took a genuine interest in my work, discussed in detail my problem, and my experiments, and made serious and thoughtful comments on what I was doing. He didnt have to; I was a graduate student grinding away at what at that time looked like an obscure backwater project. He will be missed. I for one will be hoisting a couple in his honor over the next few days.
Thanks Dr. Crick
..........FULL STOP.
To be fair, the San Diego Union Tribune posted the story first, and rightfully so since Crick died in San Diego.
Word to the respective mothers of Union-Tribune staff writers Scott LaFee and Bruce Lieberman for a very good article.
Knowing his ego, his position was probably that they should have used his DNA, and name the entire project after him...
Sorry for the snide comment, but as a biochemist it has always annoyed and saddened me that one of the greatest discoveries in my field was based on the misappropriation of someone else's work (Rosalind Franklin's x-ray structure). I know her supervisor Maurice Wilkins was the one to give her work away, but he did it without her knowledge or approval. A sad day for science in general.
Heck, seeing how insultingly Watson described her in his autobiography, it's quite clear neither they nor Wilkins ever suffered any pangs of conscience about their behaviour.
In my view, goodbye and good riddance to Crick. He did some good science, but his ethics were lousy - and that is something a scientist cannot be without.
"If it is that I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" Einstein
2 b.shtml
Let's give credit where credit is due. Newton said this not Einstein. see http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q016
Thank you. I was was just about to post on this very issue when I saw this post, although I'll think I'll pass on the profanity.
He was a good man in a modest unassuming way. He also happened to be one of the great scientists of the twentieth century and now he is dead. From the anecdotes by people who have met him and knew him, this would be the simple matter-of-fact way he may have liked it. Can we dispense with the euphemisms, please?
Secondly, whoever said that the Nobel Prize gave people the credit they deserved? A cursory check for instance, of the Nobel (http://www.nobel.se) archives shows that Einstein won only one prize: in 1921 for the photoelectric effect (admittedly a key part of the beginning of the quantum theory), but he won nothing for either general or special relativity at all. An the Peace prizes are make fairly interesting reading too - particularly 1973, which reminds me of a Tom Lehrer quote, to paraphrase:
It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
I'm sorry, I'm speaking fluent bollocks there, aren't I?
It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/
11*43+456^2
I don't see how this post got remarked remotely informative. I'm an Athiest, but last I checked there's no 100% conclusiveness for anything about our creation.
Of course, this is the geek crowd were science rules all, so I guess that's why this got marked informative, eh?
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Intelligent Design Rocks!!
BOOOO to the Dice Rollers!!!
you're not an atheist, you're an agnostic.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
No, no, you're thinking of the invention of Inward Singing.
Crick understood that the consciousness has neural basis. In the ideal world that should have pushed him towards cryonics and we wouldn't lose a great scientist. :( Why can't people think rationally about matters that concern them so much.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Besides you can not replace one Neuron with anything. Each is unique not only in it's "logic" but it's biology as well.
Help fight continental drift.
So why not mark it Funny (which it is if in regards to the parent comment) or even Interesting.. not Informative...
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
I used to work (back in high school) as an intern at the Cold Spring Harbor teaching lab. They also had small museum upstairs. On display was their nobel prize. I would go upstairs from time to time to stare and it.
Dr. Watson was, and may still be, working at the labs. I didn't get to speak to him other than "hello" but he was leaving the lab just as I was arriving for work one day.
For all the hero worship we give to athletics and celebrities, he is still the coolest person I've ever met. And the nobel beats the Lombardi trophy in awe as far as I am concerned (and I've had a chance to see both).
> you're not an atheist, you're an agnostic.
And you're a pompous ass. Seriously, who do you think you are, telling him what he believes? An Atheist beieves there is no God. Admitting there isn't 100% proof for his stance does not mean his stance changed any, it just means he can't prove it.
> I'm rubber, you're glue.
:)
That was funnier than the other posting
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Shortly afterwards, the computer we use to run the DNA sequencing program (WebSeq) died as well.
coincidence? i think not...
--A witty sig proves nothing.--
This book is an excellent read for anyone who has any interest in consciousness (be you geek, scientist or both). Francis wrote the forward and remarked to me that I should try reading the last chapter first. It was a great idea. The last chapter is written as an interview, allowing the author, Christof Koch, to speculate and create a framework for this 'big' question.
...
Francis always brought excitement to discussing and thinking scientifically about the essence of being alive, be it our blueprints or our brains.
I miss him very much