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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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
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)
My understanding is that they didn't use any of their own raw data, but the data from Rosalind Franklin. More info.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
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
Sort of. I squirted 70% ethanol on the lab floor.
Well this is DNA, so there's no optical microscope involved.
Rosalind Franklin used X-rays to clarify DNA's structure. Her research was then shown to Crick and Watson without her knowledge, and the two men were then able to decypher the structure of DNA.
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.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
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.
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]
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."
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.
What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
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.
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.