Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered
> Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered
Yup. We all know the microscope, telescope, train, plane, internal combustion engine, antibiotics, vaccines, etc. were all developed in Africa. Let the truth come out!
No-one should take Watson seriously. He exploited institutional sexism, systemic minimization, and unequal credit distribution to aggrandize his own contribution. It's a good example of why efforts like "DEI" are important - because if you leave things to people in a position of privilege, you get a completely distorted picture.
You also get Jason Arday with DEI so not sure that's the answer. I'm sure Watson wasn't the first person of either gender to take credit for more than their rightful amount. DEI is just another example of institutional isms - putting people in positions that they have no rightful claim to just because they belong to one of the protected classes is a terrible answer.
It only takes a short look at, say, the current US Secretary of "War" or of Health and Human Services to realize that the meritocracy you're trying to defend is a delusion.
So did Franklin provably realize the double-helix structure of DNA first or not? A lot of beating about the bush here but the article stops just short of actually explicitly making the claim it's working so hard to imply, AFAICT...
(edit: should note the HN submission title (at present "Despite what Watson said, Rosalind Franklin understood structure of DNA first") does not actually occur in TFA)
Why not just retcon the whole thing, who cares? All discoveries in history are made by some combination of gay, black, and/or disabled women. There, can we move on?
The original title was too long and then when I considered how to edit it I realized that the original title was too obscure for anyone not steeped in that particular literature (“photo 51”)
I appreciate that the original didn't fit, so an edit was necessary, but it's better to use the article's own words if possible. I've done that above by cutting a phrase.
I don't think the submitted title () was too misleading because the article does say things like "We write here to contend that Photograph 51 shouted “helix” so clearly because Rosalind Franklin intended it to do so".
Could you take a look at 50003450 ? It shows as dead after one hour. I cannot see whether this is because someone disliked and killed it, or whether "software" is out on a run again. We talked about this before (49841897).
At any rate, suppression of such comments is to be expected for CJ style groups but not for open-minded discussions.
Same applies to my dead comments 49953689, 49954141, as well as 49938615 and 49941900, on the subject of Hiroshima. If you cannot even quote top experts and administrators with first-hand knowledge (such as A. de Seversky and general C. Sams) just because they contradict the prevailing narrative, then what kind of discussion is that? And the flavour of "curiosity" involved must be very peculiar.
Frankly, my impression is that some people are using or abusing the "flag" feature and perhaps other features they may have at their disposal to remove opinions and facts they don't like or don't even want to see published.
>In 1948, [Linus] Pauling discovered that many proteins included helical (see alpha helix) shapes. Pauling had deduced this structure from X-ray patterns and from attempts to physically model the structures. (Pauling was also later to suggest an incorrect three chain helical DNA structure based on Astbury's data.) Even in the initial diffraction data from DNA by Maurice Wilkins, it was evident that the structure involved helices.
>Franklin told Crick and Watson that the [phosphate] backbones had to be on the outside. Before then, Linus Pauling, and Watson and Crick, had erroneous models with the chains inside and the bases pointing outwards.
The mere idea of a helix is not especially complex and could have existed in the minds of many theorists at the time. Franklin's discovery provided the final piece of the puzzle, but the desire to attribute major scientific discoveries to a single author or team is based on an incorrect interpretation of the scientific process. The real reason that Franklin didn't win the Nobel Prize is because she died:
>In 1962, after Franklin's death, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins jointly received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.[210] Nobel Prizes are awarded only to living recipients. A debate continues about who should receive credit for the discovery.
A student of Franklin, Raymond Gosling, actually took Photo 51. He was not awarded the Prize.
Pauling would certainly figure out that too before Watson and Crick but his passport was taken by USA gov so he couldn't attend the conference where X-Ray picture was shown. That would almost certainly win him third Nobel Prize.
>but the desire to attribute major scientific discoveries to a single author or team is based on an incorrect interpretation of the scientific process.
I mean yeah, in a sense, sure.. But would people be writing articles arguing that point now if some dude with wrong opinions on race and genetics had taken the picture and a woman had first realized the double helix structure?
Anyway, yeah I also read that about Pauling and helices, seems someone would've figured it out eventually and it's somewhat a matter of luck who got there first.
It seems like there are several different parts to the discovery of the "structure of DNA" and different people contributed.
1. DNA is helical
2. DNA is a double helix
3. The ACGT copying mechanism
Part 1 was Franklin and Wilkins. Part 3 was Watson and Crick. Part 2 is the part under debate, to what degree was the double helix clear from just Franklin's imaging?
But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot. The Nobel prize only went to the other three, in large part because Franklin died before it was given out.
Why does attributing any bit of mankind's progress to a specific individual matter? It matters because history is really boring if it's just about groups: we humans love individual human stories.
But, when some male jerk tries to claim they invented X or discovered X, but really a woman did so (something that is not unique to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_effect) it's good for people to correct the mistake and properly attribute the person who really made the discovery/invention.
Watson used his credibility to advance unscientific eugenics theories for years. The impropriety suggested by the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the structure of DNA serves to undermine the arguments of people who are liable to think, "Well, he was smart enough to make one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time, how could he get race theory wrong?".
Watson's shadow would not extend so far if Franklin's role were known - not just because it would have diminished his, but also because her presence would have undermined attitudes that marginalized non-white-men, in the field of science and beyond. It matters a great deal, unfortunately. And it's a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people who have their pride wrapped up in what he represents.
> But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot. The Nobel prize only went to the other three, in large part because Franklin died before it was given out.
A Nobel can only be split among 3. Agree with the rest of your post.
A Nobel Prize has never been awarded posthumously. The 1974 change was explicitly codifying a practice that had already been in-place — not awarding dead people.
Specifically the antiparallel base matching was the important bit, agreed, but minor nitpick. The first alpha helix wasn't solved until 1951, so one year earlier. Their ubiquity was very novel.
Other comments suggest that Franklin would have eventually gotten there on her own. Her work was key to the discovery as we know it, which wouldn't have happened without it. To me, that's the whole story.
> But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot.
In today's standards, or at least what I am used to, Franklin and Wilkins should be co-authors of the "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" Watson & Crick paper. But they only got this note at the end: "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", not even talking about the image but giving the impression that they had an unimportant talk while having an informal tea.
44 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 13.3 ms ] threadYup. We all know the microscope, telescope, train, plane, internal combustion engine, antibiotics, vaccines, etc. were all developed in Africa. Let the truth come out!
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
It only takes a short look at, say, the current US Secretary of "War" or of Health and Human Services to realize that the meritocracy you're trying to defend is a delusion.
(edit: should note the HN submission title (at present "Despite what Watson said, Rosalind Franklin understood structure of DNA first") does not actually occur in TFA)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't think the submitted title () was too misleading because the article does say things like "We write here to contend that Photograph 51 shouted “helix” so clearly because Rosalind Franklin intended it to do so".
At any rate, suppression of such comments is to be expected for CJ style groups but not for open-minded discussions.
Same applies to my dead comments 49953689, 49954141, as well as 49938615 and 49941900, on the subject of Hiroshima. If you cannot even quote top experts and administrators with first-hand knowledge (such as A. de Seversky and general C. Sams) just because they contradict the prevailing narrative, then what kind of discussion is that? And the flavour of "curiosity" involved must be very peculiar.
Frankly, my impression is that some people are using or abusing the "flag" feature and perhaps other features they may have at their disposal to remove opinions and facts they don't like or don't even want to see published.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_molecular_biology#D...
>In 1948, [Linus] Pauling discovered that many proteins included helical (see alpha helix) shapes. Pauling had deduced this structure from X-ray patterns and from attempts to physically model the structures. (Pauling was also later to suggest an incorrect three chain helical DNA structure based on Astbury's data.) Even in the initial diffraction data from DNA by Maurice Wilkins, it was evident that the structure involved helices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History
>Franklin told Crick and Watson that the [phosphate] backbones had to be on the outside. Before then, Linus Pauling, and Watson and Crick, had erroneous models with the chains inside and the bases pointing outwards.
The mere idea of a helix is not especially complex and could have existed in the minds of many theorists at the time. Franklin's discovery provided the final piece of the puzzle, but the desire to attribute major scientific discoveries to a single author or team is based on an incorrect interpretation of the scientific process. The real reason that Franklin didn't win the Nobel Prize is because she died:
>In 1962, after Franklin's death, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins jointly received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.[210] Nobel Prizes are awarded only to living recipients. A debate continues about who should receive credit for the discovery.
A student of Franklin, Raymond Gosling, actually took Photo 51. He was not awarded the Prize.
Yes, how many students get Nobel prizes for the work of their graduate advisor that they didn’t go on to examine independently?
I mean yeah, in a sense, sure.. But would people be writing articles arguing that point now if some dude with wrong opinions on race and genetics had taken the picture and a woman had first realized the double helix structure?
Anyway, yeah I also read that about Pauling and helices, seems someone would've figured it out eventually and it's somewhat a matter of luck who got there first.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5
It seems like there are several different parts to the discovery of the "structure of DNA" and different people contributed.
1. DNA is helical
2. DNA is a double helix
3. The ACGT copying mechanism
Part 1 was Franklin and Wilkins. Part 3 was Watson and Crick. Part 2 is the part under debate, to what degree was the double helix clear from just Franklin's imaging?
But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot. The Nobel prize only went to the other three, in large part because Franklin died before it was given out.
But, when some male jerk tries to claim they invented X or discovered X, but really a woman did so (something that is not unique to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_effect) it's good for people to correct the mistake and properly attribute the person who really made the discovery/invention.
Watson's shadow would not extend so far if Franklin's role were known - not just because it would have diminished his, but also because her presence would have undermined attitudes that marginalized non-white-men, in the field of science and beyond. It matters a great deal, unfortunately. And it's a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people who have their pride wrapped up in what he represents.
Oh FFS. You’re making the same argument that you are accusing others of making.
A Nobel can only be split among 3. Agree with the rest of your post.
Seems to me that #3 is the whole story. That was the key insight, the thing that was never known before. The secret to how life replicates.
In today's standards, or at least what I am used to, Franklin and Wilkins should be co-authors of the "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" Watson & Crick paper. But they only got this note at the end: "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", not even talking about the image but giving the impression that they had an unimportant talk while having an informal tea.
Because it represents that 1950's science circles were still misogynist. Not as surprise, but it's worth remembering it.