tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post5744309148438585897..comments2024-01-27T00:27:45.851+00:00Comments on race/history/evolution notes: Another dent in the Rosalind Franklin mythn/ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-37301979136322717662013-06-01T20:08:54.898+01:002013-06-01T20:08:54.898+01:00True, Franklin demonstrated plenty of cluelessness...True, Franklin demonstrated plenty of cluelessness at times but let's not get carried away: her experimental contribution was critical. <br /><br /><i>"I was the one who took that particular diffraction pattern"</i><br /><br />Ir really does not matter that much who put an X-ray film past the sample, waited a bit and then developed it. What matters is who made the samples to diffract well. Everyone agrees it was Franklin. <br /><br /><i>"Wilkins ... had obtained the actual DNA samples Franklin went on to take x-ray pictures of."</i><br /><br />"Had obtained" means actually this: he was given the high molecular weight DNA samples by Rudolf Singer, a Swiss researcher whose lab developed methods of making very intact calf thymus DNA. Wilkins himself had absolutely no idea how to purify high quality DNA.<br /><br />Wilkins said, as quoted by Horas Judson in comprehensive "The Eights Day of Creation": "I faced the fact that we would have to go very much further into x-ray-diffraction techniques, in which I was not really qualified. That's why we hired Rosalind Franklin." (p.79 of the expanded edition, 1996 CSH Press). <br /><br />There is much more in that book. Basically, Wilkins was totally clueless ("Rosalind Franklin put me on the wrong track. She said the structure couldn't be helical." Well, hello, you have seen every piece of experimental data of any importance - why couldn't you draw your own conclusions if you are so smart? ("Basically, I don't think the problem of DNA was so difficult" - ibid. LOL!) <br /><br />Gosling deserved the Nobel infinitely more than Wilkins ever did. Even though every indication is that "Rosy" was an evil nightmare in the lab, her experimental work was top notch. And if she only were as smart as Crick (she most definitely wasn't), she would have figured the structure all by herself. <br /><br />Nanonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-48865813538463458482013-05-22T02:21:20.672+01:002013-05-22T02:21:20.672+01:00In general I am prepared to discount female scient...In general I am prepared to discount female scientists, except in the case of full blooded Ashkenazi Jewesses like Franklin, in the event of an academic dispute I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. A non-trivial fraction of the female members of the tribe have proven intellectually competent, for example <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether" rel="nofollow">her</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner" rel="nofollow">her</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Rubin" rel="nofollow">her</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi_Goldwasser" rel="nofollow">her</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Chudnovsky" rel="nofollow">her</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-227780861638767023.post-78530400979319523942013-05-21T02:45:23.204+01:002013-05-21T02:45:23.204+01:00Point of reference: the unhinged feminist cartoon ...Point of reference: the <a href="http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=240" rel="nofollow">unhinged feminist cartoon fantasy version</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com