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."

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Were They Right, Though?

[LardBrattish]

Yes, I think they were right. In the 50 years since the first published postulate of the double helical structure a lot of work has been done (to say the least) that supports it.

I am by training a molecular biologist and I'm pretty sure that the 4 strand helix model does not support the techniques used during genetic engineering in which proteins are used to cut DNA leaving single stranded "sticky" ends that then reattatch to the inserted genes. The structure & function of at least some of these proteins is very well characterised.

Nor does 4 stranded DNA map as readily to tRNA which is single stranded.

Nor does 4 stranded map particularly well to the macro structure of DNA with the extra folding around histone proteins.

Yes DNA does not retain it's classical double helix all of the time. Often it is being repaired or replicated & is unfolded or it is stored in a highly dense packed format but the one to one corrolation between A-T & G-C plus the strong natural binding between the bases means that they probably did get it right.

All my knowledge is out of date by nigh on 20 years but I know enough to be confident that Rosie's results were interpreted correctly by Watson & Crick.

How does a 4 stranded helix give better corrolation to the results? You can't just say these things without giving evidence.

Re:no microscope

[Fnkmaster]

I would venture to say that your claim is beyond ludicrous. Yes, I knew Dr. Crick personally and the rest of his family as well. Anybody who knew him personally will tell you that though he did have quite an intellect and was not shy about it (especially in his younger days, apparently), he was beyond uninterested in credit. Watson is, was and always has been the guy running around, giving speeches, getting in front of journalists and so on. Not saying Watson's a bad guy, but he loves basking in the glory of his scientific work. Francis Crick was a consummate scientist's scientist. He was genuine in his desire to have his privacy, hated giving interviews, and basically just loved talking to anybody who shared his intellectual interests.

We had some fabulous conversations about the nature of consciousness last summer in La Jolla, and he went on for hours and hours about the work his friend Christoff Koch was doing at Caltech - but the conversation was never about taking credit for ideas or who did what.

Wilkins went behind Rosalind Franklin's back and gave copies of her image data to James Watson. I don't believe that Crick even knew that he was looking at data without her permission. Regardless, he isn't the type of person to deny the credit she was due, nor to be shy about the fact that it was mostly he who deciphered the X-ray diffraction images. He was beyond uninterested in the politics side of science.

Like Dr. Crick, I studied physics and once thought I wanted to be a physicist. We discussed this, and I explained my reasons for not pursuing graduate studies these days, due to the excessive politics involved and the nature of funding, being beholden to a professor's interests and so on. And he agreed that if he were graduating from college today, he might feel the same way.

As for the "right bastard" part, like many scientists, and lots of people on Slashdot too, Dr. Crick was no social genius. He liked socializing with academics and people who would talk about ideas with him. But he always seemed to be a very decent person to me.