The discovery of DNA was a
revolutionary discovery that has forever altered the way we look at science.
For those who do not know the history, here’s a quick summary of how it was
discovered, and the controversy behind it.
During the first half of the 20th century,
scientists thought that heredity molecule was proteins. However, after numerous
important experimentations, they proved that the heredity molecule was not
proteins, but actually DNA. After that, the race for the structure of DNA
began. There were a number of forerunners in the competitive race. Jim Watson
and Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, Linus Pauling and a few
others were among some of them. Watson had just finished his undergraduate
education at Cambridge, and Francis Crick was a graduate student at Cambridge
as well. Maurice Wilkins was a scientist who was part of the Manhattan Project
in developing the atomic bomb, although he was opposed against its use. Seeing
how much destruction he indirectly created, he later decided to go into biology
at King’s College in London, where he could hopefully give life. Rosalind
Franklin was an X-ray crystallographer expert who was brought in to
assist/takeover Maurice the study of DNA at King’s College. Linus Pauling was a
scientist at the California Institute of Technology who had already won 2 Nobel
Prizes.
Watson and Crick got a lot of their information from others, never really doing
any studies of their own on this subject. They got information from Chargaff,
who told them that the number of base pairs of proteins on any living thing
were always similar. The proteins adenine and thymine were base pairs of each
other, while the proteins guanine and cytosine were also base pairs of one
another. This meant that the number of adenine and thymine would always be the
same, and that the number of guanine and cytosine would always be the same.
This information would later be crucial in the discovery of the structure of
DNA.
More importantly, they also got information without consent as well. This is
where it starts to get controversial. As an X-ray crystallographer, Franklin
had managed to take pictures of DNA that indicated that DNA was probably a
helical structure, but she didn’t publish or announce it as she wanted to do
more tests before doing so. However, Maurice Wilkins had passed this
information on to Watson and Crick without her consent. This photograph was so
instrumental in helping Watson and Crick figure out the structure of DNA. When
they finally figured out the whole structure of DNA, they quickly published
their findings on the Nature scientific journal without crediting Franklin,
only hinting at her contribution to their successes.
Watson and Crick, along with Maurice Wilkins were later awarded Nobel
Prizes for this feat (Franklin was not awarded the Nobel Prize because she had
already died, and Nobel Prizes are only awarded to those who are alive). Their
revolutionary discovery catapulted them to fame instantly, and engraved their names
in the history books forever. So the question comes down to this: Was it
ethical for Watson and Crick to have used Franklin’s information without her
consent? Also, was it ethical for them to not even credit her in their papers?
And just for fun, do you think Franklin would have been awarded the Nobel Prize
were she alive?
I found your argument very interesting. I previously did not have any knowledge of the discovery of DNA; I found the history fascinating. It would have helped me to know what the year span and when in history all of this was occurring. You mentioned it was the first half of the 20th century, but it would still help to have more specific dates in order for readers to have an understanding of the specific timeline you are discussing. Was this still during a time when women were persecuted in most fields like science? If so that could be an indicator as to why Franklin was not respected by Watson and Crick and therefore had her photograph stolen. It also could be a reason why Franklin was not recognized for her work and did not win a Nobel Prize. However because I don’t know the dates my observations could be wrong. In general your blog was informational and enjoyable. One last note would be that I’m not sure how you argued, meaning what your opinion is on the subject. It didn’t seem like you were arguing for any particular side, therefore your argument could have been bit stronger.
ReplyDeleteOk, now to answer your questions. Scientists finally figured out that the heredity molecule was DNA and not proteins in 1952. Watson and Crick figured out the structure of DNA in 1953. I would say that persecuted would be a strong word; I think a more appropriate word would be discouraged. But yes, I do believe that the sudden emergence of Rosalind Franklin as Wilkin's authority was not an idea he particularly liked, and that it probably did play a role in his act of giving Watson and Crick information without her consent. Yes, I would also say that her being a female may have played a minor role in them not crediting her. In the summary, I failed to mention (as I thought it wasn’t that important) that Watson and Crick actually thought they had figured out the structure of DNA earlier. But they actually did not, and when Franklin and other faculty from King’s College came over and saw the model, she pointed out their mistakes and probably made them look like fools. I am guessing that this humiliation probably played a bigger role in them not acknowledging her. However, I cannot say for sure whether women during this time were persecuted/ discouraged from the science field. That is something that is pretty subjective, and if I had to guess, I would still say that in science today, women still don’t quite hold the same position as men do in this field. Also Franklin was not awarded the Nobel Prize because she had already passed away before they were awarded. Nobel Prizes are not awarded to the dead, and are awarded to no more than three people in a group. In this case, it was Watson, Crick and Wilkins; which is why I wonder whether Franklin would have been awarded the Nobel Prize were she alive. I probably should have mentioned the rules for the Nobel Prize in my actual blog, my bad. Thanks for your questions though, I realized that it does help clear things up a bit.
DeleteFirst, I wanted to say that I meant this blog to be more of an informative blog than an argumentative one. I figured that most people would have little clue behind the discovery of DNA so I thought I would give a quick summary about it. Regarding my opinion, I did not feel a need to put my views on this issue in words as I thought it would be pretty straightforward for most. I think that what Watson and Crick did was pretty unethical. Imagine if we did what they did on a school level, what would that be translated to, and what would be the consequences? It is plagiarism, and we would get an F for the assignment, or even the class. Now when we actually realize that this discovery would pretty much immortalize their names in the science history books, I think the fact that they not only got away with it, but that they also became ridiculously famous after is unfair. Regarding Maurice Wilkin’s act of giving information without Rosalind Franklin’s consent, I think what that act would be similar to in real life would be theft. I think theft is unethical as well. So those are my two cents on the subject.
ReplyDelete