Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 148 posts

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#21

Post by bowwoden »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #2

> She supposedly sat on the image for months without realizing its significance, only for Watson to understand it at a glance. That's not the lore as I learned it. The lore is that Franklin sat on the data for months before analyzing it (she wanted to collect more data). Then W+C visited her lab and saw the data, but did not instantly understand it. Instead, the lore is that they figured out the structure of the DNA…

Schrodinger predicted the double helix structure of DNA decades before it was observed to be fair.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#22

Post by boringuser2 »

underlipton wrote: post #19

I'll be the one to sacrifice my Internet Points by bringing up the notion that the question of who discovered DNA's structure is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant. It is, of course, primarily and famously the specter of the erasure of women from scientifically and socially significant developments, the thematic subject that this article add…

[flagged]

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#23

Post by khazhoux »

bowwoden wrote: post #21
pazimzadeh wrote: post #2

> She supposedly sat on the image for months without realizing its significance, only for Watson to understand it at a glance. That's not the lore as I learned it. The lore is that Franklin sat on the data for months before analyzing it (she wanted to collect more data). Then W+C visited her lab and saw the data, but did not instantly understand it. Instead, the lore is that they figured out the structure of the DNA…

Schrodinger predicted the double helix structure of DNA decades before it was observed to be fair.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but what's the value of a completely speculative prediction?

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#24

Post by californiadreem »

tpoacher wrote: post #20
underlipton wrote: post #19

I'll be the one to sacrifice my Internet Points by bringing up the notion that the question of who discovered DNA's structure is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant. It is, of course, primarily and famously the specter of the erasure of women from scientifically and socially significant developments, the thematic subject that this article add…

Quite. It is likely true that deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined what's commonly referred to as Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics. Revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility, and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, reve…

To be fair, if you want to go drown in the cosmic ocean of unbeing, I don't think anyone, hegemon or no, is stopping you but your own self-imposed linguistic and social structures.

It is ultimately an irony that the epistemological position--that Civilization is fundamentally about domination and cannot stand marginalized or dissident narratives--has only and could only flourish under civilizations in their least-connected-to-quotidian-life institutions. It requires being sheltered to recognize that ultimately everything is a social and linguistic construct. Everyone else doesn't have the luxury and are just trying to survive.

Even further, the idea that everything reduces to social and linguistic games isn't new. It is one of the oldest ideas in history found in both Buddhism (through depedent coarising) and in Graeco-Roman philosophy culminating in Christianity (the Logos). Both institutions developed monasticism for precisely the same reasons.

This world isn't real. You have to be out of this world to see the illusion behind it and to be free from it.

Everyone does not have to stop pretending it's real for you to stop pretending it's real.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#25

Post by jyscao »

underlipton wrote: post #19

I'll be the one to sacrifice my Internet Points by bringing up the notion that the question of who discovered DNA's structure is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant. It is, of course, primarily and famously the specter of the erasure of women from scientifically and socially significant developments, the thematic subject that this article add…

>how can the father of genetic science be wrong about the influence of genetics on society? - while the truth dashes that credibility

That's your own biased judgment. Others may perceive what happened as Watson speaking truth to power, and paying the price for it.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#26

Post by khazhoux »

underlipton wrote: post #19

I'll be the one to sacrifice my Internet Points by bringing up the notion that the question of who discovered DNA's structure is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant. It is, of course, primarily and famously the specter of the erasure of women from scientifically and socially significant developments, the thematic subject that this article add…

> erasure of women

Is there any reason to believe that they would have been more generous in giving credit had the work been from a man? And are there not dozens of other researchers who Watson and Crick drew inspiration and results from, who are not listed on the Nobel Prize?

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#27

Post by selimthegrim »

maire wrote: post #18

Here is a 2003 documentary on the same subject. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/rosalind-franklin-lega... My take away was that Rosalind Franklin did support the Watson Crick paper but that there was some conflict leading up to the paper. She did not seem to think her ideas were stolen. It did not help that after Franklin died - Watson wrote a hit piece on Franklin. I think that is what caused people to questio…

My recollection is there were also some ethnically prejudiced remarks about Jews not being able to visualize in 3D or something along those lines

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#28

Post by phs318u »

jyscao wrote: post #25
underlipton wrote: post #19

I'll be the one to sacrifice my Internet Points by bringing up the notion that the question of who discovered DNA's structure is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant. It is, of course, primarily and famously the specter of the erasure of women from scientifically and socially significant developments, the thematic subject that this article add…

>how can the father of genetic science be wrong about the influence of genetics on society? - while the truth dashes that credibility That's your own biased judgment. Others may perceive what happened as Watson speaking truth to power, and paying the price for it.

If you’re referring to Watson’s 2007 claim that Africa is unlikely to succeed n part because of the inhabitants’ inferior intelligence, as the “truth” he is speaking to “power” perhaps it is you who are biased.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#29

Post by phs318u »

boringuser2 wrote: post #22
underlipton wrote: post #19

I'll be the one to sacrifice my Internet Points by bringing up the notion that the question of who discovered DNA's structure is not nearly as important as is the question of why the question of who discovered DNA's structure is significant. It is, of course, primarily and famously the specter of the erasure of women from scientifically and socially significant developments, the thematic subject that this article add…

[flagged]

Don’t wait long. Please educate yourself. His claim that “Africans” have inferior intelligence due to their genetics has precisely zero basis in scientific evidence.

Re: What Rosalind Franklin contributed to the discovery of DNA’s structure

#30

Post by [deleted] »

bowwoden wrote: post #21
pazimzadeh wrote: post #2

> She supposedly sat on the image for months without realizing its significance, only for Watson to understand it at a glance. That's not the lore as I learned it. The lore is that Franklin sat on the data for months before analyzing it (she wanted to collect more data). Then W+C visited her lab and saw the data, but did not instantly understand it. Instead, the lore is that they figured out the structure of the DNA…

Schrodinger predicted the double helix structure of DNA decades before it was observed to be fair.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN