The Post Whatever Thread

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by serenesam, Jul 8, 2018.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    32,183
    Hmm. Well here's what he wrote about Rosalind Franklin. Judge for yourself.

    "By choice she did not emphasize her feminine qualities. . . . There was never lipstick to contrast with her straight black hair, while at the age of thirty-one her dresses showed all the imagination of English blue-stocking adolescents. So it was quite easy to imagine her the product of an unsatisfied mother who unduly stressed the desirability of professional careers that could save bright girls from marriages to dull men. . . . Clearly Rosy had to go or be put in her place. The former was obviously preferable because, given her belligerent moods, it would be very difficult for Maurice [Wilkins] to maintain a dominant position that would allow him to think unhindered about DNA. . . . The thought could not be avoided that the best home for a feminist was in another person's lab."
    Watson was incredibly lucky (and not entirely ethical) in getting a glimpse of Franklin's x-ray data on DNA. Without that, it seems likely that Franklin herself might have discovered the structure of DNA on her own in the next few weeks.

    She was poorly treated by both Watson and Crick, in terms of giving credit where it was due.

    I am no expert on Watson, but my own impression is that he was not the main driver of the DNA research; Crick was far more significant. And Watson was no match for Franklin in terms of dotting I's and crossing T's (i.e. doing careful, methodical research).

    For more on Franklin's contributions, and the whole DNA discovery story, here's a reasonable place to start:

    https://www.strangescience.net/rfranklin.htm
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    32,183
    From the link in the post above:

    Reflecting on the DNA research of the early 1950s, science historian Philip Ball criticizes Franklin's risk aversion while completely understanding it.

    "Watson, Crick and Pauling felt confident enough to foul up. All three committed howlers in trying to get the prize — Pauling's triple helix, published in early 1953, contained elementary errors. . . . For a scientist to thrive, there must be the freedom to fail. In Franklin's time, it is not surprising that a female scientist would think that she could ill afford that luxury. I am not at all sure that even a young Watson and Crick today could so freely take the risks they did."​
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,760
    How very unpleasant, even for 1968. One senses the presence of a rather Trump-like ego.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. serenesam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    284
  8. serenesam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    284


    Could Obama actually be a Dominant Fe in terms of MBTI?
     
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,201
  10. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,418
    I have a vegetarian propaganda sign to hang in the kitchen, sez "RATATOUILLE MON AMOUR"
    And a flock of wild turkeys shitting all over my driveway.
    In the rain.
    A plastic cup won't fill up, but a china one will.
     
  11. serenesam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    284
  12. serenesam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    284
  13. serenesam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    284
  14. serenesam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    284
    Yes, in terms of Spiritualism or New Age, I'm most certainly an INFP.
     

Share This Page