Comment by bondarchuk

19 hours ago

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)

17 comments

bondarchuk

Reply
scythe  18 hours ago

It's hard to say because the helix existed as a theory before it could be verified. From Wikipedia:

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.

  • bonsai_spool  17 hours ago

    > 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?

  • majkinetor  9 hours ago

    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.

  • Lumich  8 hours ago

    « the helix existed as a theory before it could be verified »

    This is an important point. And the X-ray diffraction patterns are not direct evidence. They had to be interpreted. How do we call that "verification"?

    Crick and Watson only suggested the structure was a double helix. They made a cardboard model to illustrate their idea. Crick's wife made a drawing. Still, their idea, at first, didn't make much of an impact.

    Over time, more theory was added, in analogy to information theory. DNA as a kind of biological "magnetic tape". It eventually became consensus.

    If you think about it, it boggles the mind. Two meters of DNA in every cell of the human being, containing the entire blueprint of the organism.

    How do you fit two meters in such a tiny space, and then without a reel, as nature doesn't do "hub and wheel"? The suggested structure is also extremely awkward for "splitting", as it involves rotationary mechanics. Yes, it "looks nice" (two snakes entwined, a very old symbol), but it doesn't make any practical sense.

    And why would every cell contain the entire blueprint? There is no need. In fact, it is counter-productive. The cell needs to know only the tiny bit that concerns its own place in the whole. How does it retrieve that bit in the millions of base pairs? Why would it have to in the first place? What would be the processing speed? This kind of organization seems absurd.

    And then if we look at the practical results of genetics, there are none that are conclusive or imnpressive. Think about all the dog races and crops that predate genetics. Did genetics manage to create anything like the Chihuahua? No, it didn't.

    It seems what works is – horribile dictu – the Lyssenko methods. Refined, certainly, but it's his approach. Life adapts. If you expose plants to toxic environments, they'll adapt over time (survival of the fittest). They call it epigenetics. But it's nature's doing, where man provides the toxic environment and systematic selection.

    Here's an audio in German (you can find similar articles in English if you search Lyssenko epigenetics):

    https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/lyssenkos-geist-pflanzen-zuec...

gumby  18 hours ago

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”)

  • dang  17 hours ago

    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.

    Edit: Since https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49969073 was posted earlier and the comments there were more substantive, I've merged the thread thither and re-upped that one.

    I have also re-upped 2 other excellent submissions you made - thank you!

    • Lumich  6 hours ago

      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.

kraken_cult  18 hours ago

[flagged]

  • ajross  18 hours ago

    Is genuine curiosity about scientific history inherently "retconning"? Would you have said that if the dispute was between Watson and some other dude?

    I mean, yes, there are people who push this attribution because of identity reasons. Rejecting it for the same reasons is at least as bad, no?

    • kraken_cult  18 hours ago

      Sure, and I'm sure there are countless people through history, lab techs, post docs, the scribe of Machiavelli, the person who washed da Vinci's shirts who made contributions - maybe major. Hell, stuff I bring up at work now will somehow make it in to our staff meeting as coming from the CEO when it was a conversation him and I had.

      The questions is, why, there's clearly an obsession around it. And I honestly doubt if Rosalind Franklin we wouldn't be having the conversation, can you see any indicator to the contrary?

      1 reply →