3 ms·

A new history of the race to decipher DNA

29 points by dnetesn 5y ago

0xbadc0de5 5y ago
To be fair, there's nothing "new" here. This story has been well documented in previous works over the past few decades.
- dnautics 5y ago
  This is worth a read: https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data/ https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/did-watson-an... "In the middle of March 1953, Wilkins and Franklin were invited to Cambridge to see the model, and they immediately agreed it must be right. It was agreed that the model would be published solely as the work of Watson and Crick, while the supporting data would be published by Wilkins and Franklin"
  - timthorn 5y ago
    The model is still on display in the Cavendish Laboratory, along with several other seminal artefacts from the history of Physics.
AlbertCory 5y ago
"Markel acknowledges the Rashomon effect of the incident" Marge: But Homer, you loved Rashomon! Homer: That's not how I remember it! In the vain hope of saying something everyone can agree with :) She was treated very unfairly. To get her due, she would have had to share information with, keep working with, and pretend to get along with people whom she disliked, who disliked and disrespected her, and who were determined to take the credit for her work. That would be a very tough assignment for anyone. Since she didn't, Watson was able to paint it as "she found some interesting stuff but didn't know how to interpret it." OK, that's one way to put it.
dash2 5y ago
I wish I could trust any of the historians writing about this stuff, but I just don't feel I can. Here's a simple example why: > In The Secret of Life, Markel shows Watson’s racism was always part of his character. When Watson was in Naples in 1951, he wrote to his parents, “The entire city can be described as a slum and the people are wretchedly poor, living in slums which make the Negro section of Chicago look almost pleasant in comparison.” Really? He was racist because he said Naples in 1951 was poor? Or that black Chicago in 1951 was poor? Or because, in 1951, he used the word Negro? I think there is a large demand for stories that Rosamund Franklin as the Feminist Heroine and James Watson as the Evil Racist. And maybe those stories are true! But there's a large demand for them, and I just don't trust historians not to be servicing that demand.
- dnautics 5y ago
  Watson's racism was also heavily self-applied; he frequently commented (and I witnessed him give a lecture where he did it) that scots-irish american immigrants were dumb (he is one himself).
- epistasis 5y ago
  I don't understand how any of these comments make you trust the history less. Can you be more explicit? Is it really as simple as you don't think those things were racist therefore everything else must be wrong?
  - emilfihlman 5y ago
    Because there's a clear agenda of rewriting history that puts the weight of social justice over facts.
  - dash2 5y ago
    Well, firstly my priors start off low: https://davidhughjones.blogspot.com/2020/07/can-we-trust-historians.html https://davidhughjones.blogspot.com/2020/07/can-we-trust-his... Secondly, the quote I gave seems obviously disingenuous or misguided, so that makes me trust the historian less. It's hard to see how a knowledgeable person could honestly interpret that remark as evidence of racism.
leemailll 5y ago
It's nothing new to me rather than the affair between Kalckar and Wright, which might also be known for a long time but nobody deemed it's related. Watson looked down on women is also kind of well-known.
jhbadger 5y ago
One of the things which always annoyed me about this story as it is traditionally told is the claim that Photograph 51 was "Franklin's data" -- some stories even claim that she literally made this photo. She didn't. It was made by a student, Raymond Gosling, who worked with both Franklin and Wilkins. Ultimately it was his data from his project. Was he okay with Wilkins providing it to Watson and Crick? That's a question that is generally ignored.

29 points by dnetesn 5y ago

To be fair, there's nothing "new" here. This story has been well documented in previous works over the past few decades.

dnautics 5y ago
This is worth a read: https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data/ https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/did-watson-an... "In the middle of March 1953, Wilkins and Franklin were invited to Cambridge to see the model, and they immediately agreed it must be right. It was agreed that the model would be published solely as the work of Watson and Crick, while the supporting data would be published by Wilkins and Franklin"
- timthorn 5y ago
  The model is still on display in the Cavendish Laboratory, along with several other seminal artefacts from the history of Physics.

AlbertCory 5y ago

"Markel acknowledges the Rashomon effect of the incident" Marge: But Homer, you loved Rashomon! Homer: That's not how I remember it! In the vain hope of saying something everyone can agree with :) She was treated very unfairly. To get her due, she would have had to share information with, keep working with, and pretend to get along with people whom she disliked, who disliked and disrespected her, and who were determined to take the credit for her work. That would be a very tough assignment for anyone. Since she didn't, Watson was able to paint it as "she found some interesting stuff but didn't know how to interpret it." OK, that's one way to put it.

dash2 5y ago

I wish I could trust any of the historians writing about this stuff, but I just don't feel I can. Here's a simple example why: > In The Secret of Life, Markel shows Watson’s racism was always part of his character. When Watson was in Naples in 1951, he wrote to his parents, “The entire city can be described as a slum and the people are wretchedly poor, living in slums which make the Negro section of Chicago look almost pleasant in comparison.” Really? He was racist because he said Naples in 1951 was poor? Or that black Chicago in 1951 was poor? Or because, in 1951, he used the word Negro? I think there is a large demand for stories that Rosamund Franklin as the Feminist Heroine and James Watson as the Evil Racist. And maybe those stories are true! But there's a large demand for them, and I just don't trust historians not to be servicing that demand.

dnautics 5y ago
Watson's racism was also heavily self-applied; he frequently commented (and I witnessed him give a lecture where he did it) that scots-irish american immigrants were dumb (he is one himself).
epistasis 5y ago
I don't understand how any of these comments make you trust the history less. Can you be more explicit? Is it really as simple as you don't think those things were racist therefore everything else must be wrong?
- emilfihlman 5y ago
  Because there's a clear agenda of rewriting history that puts the weight of social justice over facts.
- dash2 5y ago
  Well, firstly my priors start off low: https://davidhughjones.blogspot.com/2020/07/can-we-trust-historians.html https://davidhughjones.blogspot.com/2020/07/can-we-trust-his... Secondly, the quote I gave seems obviously disingenuous or misguided, so that makes me trust the historian less. It's hard to see how a knowledgeable person could honestly interpret that remark as evidence of racism.

leemailll 5y ago

It's nothing new to me rather than the affair between Kalckar and Wright, which might also be known for a long time but nobody deemed it's related. Watson looked down on women is also kind of well-known.

jhbadger 5y ago

One of the things which always annoyed me about this story as it is traditionally told is the claim that Photograph 51 was "Franklin's data" -- some stories even claim that she literally made this photo. She didn't. It was made by a student, Raymond Gosling, who worked with both Franklin and Wilkins. Ultimately it was his data from his project. Was he okay with Wilkins providing it to Watson and Crick? That's a question that is generally ignored.