Franlin's work on viruses was not a postscript. She published 21 papers on the subject and codiscovered the structure of the TMV virus. She was the first scientist to show RNA was a single strand. Her coworkers, Finch and Klug, got the Nobel (again, after her death).
If you read the original paper by Watson & Crick, Franklin is credited and referenced on nearly every single page. I'm not sure how one can make an analysis of the facts whilst overlooking this. Franklin came close to making conclusions, but did not cover all the ground necessary. Photo 51 is a landmark discovery, and certainly accelerated the discovery, but it was not the lynchpin on which the discovery of the a-helix rested. 'Lies and thieves' is an assertion which does not do credit to Franklin.
Not correct that Wilkins "got the photo from her (Franklin's) desk". Franklin gave Wilkins the photo (much to his surprise) along with a lot of other data a few months before she was due to leave and start work elsewhere. As far as she was concerned by then she was finished with DNA. The contribution the photo made to solving the structure of DNA was enormous, but the fantasy constructed around her being "cheated" and having her work "stolen" is just that, a fantasy.
Not only that but Wilkins acknowledged Franklin in his Nobel acceptance speech. Watson also acknowledged Franklin's contribution (however dubiously) in The Double Helix.
Simply nt true!..if that wS the case she would hv got atleast sme recognition 4 her photo discovery which she didn't.. also if she was so done wi th dna research y did she complete her research on it later on then nd then submitted it ?
What seems to have happened is that Ray Gosling, who was originally Wilkins grad student then Franklin's, needed to return to him once Franklin left Kings College. Gosling was required to show Wilkins his work which included photo 51 when Wilkins again became his advisor. Watson came to visit Wilkins and Wilkins, in a fit of anger, showed Watson the photo while complaining about the quality of the DNA samples he had to work with relative to Franklin. While it is true that this lead to the final part of the puzzle coming together for Watson and Crick, they did not steal Franklin's work in a break in or other illegal way. Watson and Crick also had seen Franklin's work in a medical publication and got assistance on how the chemical bonds of the bases would look from an acquaintance. This is a very complex story with many personalities involved. It is true that Watson trashed Franklin in his book "The Double Helix" to the point that the original publisher refused to print the book after objections from both Crick and Wilkins over Fraklin's portrayal.
How did ya get that info? That’s facinatng! I personally believe she was rubbed out. So, if what you say is the case, it could’ve been presented as a bioweapon. Whether I’m wrong or not, something doesn’t pass the smell test with her disappearing after Watson & Crick took credit but before any prizes were passed around.
She didn't released or publish those images, yet Watson and Crick received them (somehow...) BEFORE all three articles came out in Nature on 25 April, 1953. HOW W&C got the photos is debated, but Wilkins was the likely source. What truly happened we will never know, but science can be very political, like everything else.
Right. Franklin had diffraction images, one of which was shown to Watson by Wilkins, but she did not solve the DNA structure. Only Watson and Crick solved the structure, helped by data from Franklin and others. Watson and Crick credited Franklin and others in their Nature paper of April 25, 1953.
I really enjoyed this! The basics you provide, and especially the lead-up history is exactly the type of context missing in most science posts. The context makes the story fascinating and memorable. I certainly wish more information was presented this way. Thank you very much.
I am studying Rosalind franklin for science, it is very sad to know that Rosalind died from cancer.I will forever more,celebrate her and honor her for what she have done......:)💙💚💛💜💓💔💕💖💗💘💝💞💟
Small corrections; on the fateful day, Watson and Crick went to King's College and came across Wilkins. Wilkins did not, in fact, specifically seek them out to show them the photo (photo 51). Also, Franklin did not take the photo; Raymond Gosling did (a PhD student of Wilkins, who had been re-assigned somewhat unclearly to Wilkins, to Franklin). Finally, she was an Ashkenazi Jew who died of ovarian cancer, which is not linked to her type of radiation exposure. Her genetics, sadly, likely predisposed her.
Yes, I have also read more recently about how the photo was shown to Watson and Crick and the details of course we will never know for sure. As for Franklin, many are assuming that she had the BRCA1 mutation, which could have caused the ovarian cancer on it's own - but most certainly it's effects would have been exacerbated by radiation exposure. We'll never know that for sure either. Thank you for your insightful comments!
In the field of research, it's the reader or PhD guide that directs the activities of a research student, so anytimes it's Rosalind credit, also she was a chemist crystallography expert, imagining Gosling to be the main thing is injustice. Gosling herself has clarified that in her interview in 2007.
@@rajghatage7151 I don't think the language "whoever knows research" is helpful. I do wish there could be more online civility sometimes. In any event, of course the PhD supervisor gets credit. But it does feel essential to also acknowledge the multitude of people who are involved in discoveries, as hard-working students often do amazing work and historically often have been over-looked in the credit or acknowledgment department.
To say Rosalind "didnt get on with just about anyone" is untrue. She got on very well with her colleagues in France and at Birkbeck after Kings. She also was good friends with Crick. She did nor get on with Wilkins and Watson for sure but they were not nice people and her judgement was excellent when it came to them.
James Watson came up with the base pairing with the help of Jerry Donahue. Everything fell together soon after. And those base pairing explained why DNA can replicate. That it is a double helix is rather mundane.
Corrected - thank you for letting me know. I work unbelievably hard on these videos (it takes about 2 weeks to produce each one) but alas, I am not perfect.
Frankly ….. I think you are perfect. Love your research and the succinct presentation language. Thank you for your efforts and for making this information accessible. ❤
Great video, especially including the historical context. I have one critique. Avery, MacLeod and McCarty did not use mice in their experiment. It was an in-vitro experiment. They developed a method to check for transformation using anti-R antibodies that they isolated from rabbits. If the test tube was clear, no transformation. If the test tube was cloudy, transformation occurred.
Watson has always been honest and candid (maybe too candid) about the information that led to the DNA model. They gave credit to Wilkins and Franklin (and Jerry Donohue) in their initial paper, and cited Franklin's article in their followup. It's a myth that Franklin was cheated somehow, except by the cancer that killed her at an early age. If not for Watson, Franklin would be very much a forgotten figure.
@@lorrainesmith.4995 No, he didn't take Gosling's data. He had it because he was the responsible PhD supervisor. Franklin was just a senior post-doc who built the machine Gosling was using.
Good video but you are minimizing Watson and Crick's work. You make it sound like it was so easy to find the right structure even though Franklin had the same info as others she wasnt even on the good path.
I feel the same way. It may be true that a disservice was done to Franklin and maybe she should be sharing the honor with them more...but actually indexing the pattern is a hell of a lot of work. Taking the measurement is the easy part; I take XRD patterns all the time but if you asked me to index one I would probably tell you to stick it. Plus, I think this story gets a lot of response because she was a female scientist in a time when it was dominated by males. It looks like sexism, but in reality its just academia. This could've happened to whoever took the measurements. Stuff like this has happened before and unfortunately will continue to happen as long as "publish or parish" is goal in research. That, or maybe it was just sexism...idk
All scientists advance the work of others. One of the main problems with Rosalind Franklin and DNA was that she died too soon. Most people don't realize that Watson and Crick's article did not receive all that much fanfare when it first came out. In one lecture, Watson stated his paper was quoted about 5 times in the first five years following their 1953 paper in Nature. They did not receive the Nobel Price until 1962, nine years after their first publication, and four years after Franklin died. He didn't write The Double Helix until 1968, 10 years after Franklin died. Had she lived, her contribution would have been more well known. In fact, many people believe that it would have been Watson and Crick sharing the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, with Watkins and Franklin sharing the Nobel Prize in Chemistry had Rosalind not succumbed to ovarian cancer at such an early age.
Penguin Professor, I love your videos! They gave me a lot of confidence going into the beginning of A & P 1 and Chemistry. I am having so much trouble with Electron Energy levels and now I wish you had a video on this because you do such a great job of explaining everything!
I don't know if you've read the original paper, it clearly credits Rosalind. Also, her discovery was just a part in the whole, apart from the overall structure, the components, how it worked and how it replicated was done by the dudes.
@@Penguinprof Don't take this the wrong way I don't mean to sound disrespectful if I come off that way...but have you spent much time in the academia and research community? This is less a one off, discriminatory disservice and more of just the norm in research. Right now I'm working in a chem lab that just published a paper this week, and like half of the authors on it I have never even seen around the lab or office...they have their name on it because their name is on the grant. All of the measurements and data were taken by graduate and undergraduate students. I think one graduate student made it on to the authors, but the others and undergrad students aren't mentioned anywhere, including the acknowledgments let alone a nobel acceptance speech. I'm not saying that like its a good thing, I think research groups could be more open when acknowledging people who did the "busy work" because in reality a lot of little stuff goes into publishing results...but its really not that crazy of a concept and is still regularly happening today. Now we just take it on the chest hoping one day we get to be the grant holder lol. Research is generally just a toxic community and always has been. Nice video regardless!
Minute 10:30 shows Francis Crick as an American Geneticist, it is WRONG. He was BRITISH Biophysicist from Northampton, Northamptonshire, England. The video is very good. Congrats!
Directly below the video please see this: CORRECTION: Francis Crick was NOT an American as shown in the caption beneath his photo. He was born in Northamptonshire, England. I made the correction using the RUclips annotations feature, but not all devices show annotations.
"Somehow" - Wilkins had photo 51 because he was the supervisor of Gosling. Franklin had binned all her DNA work on receiving a lectureship at Birkbeck, and handed over all the data Gosling had acquired (Franklin being a senior post-doc, not an academic) whilst working on the machine she built. Watson and Crick first saw photo 51 on 14th April, 1953, in a draft of Gosling and Franklin's manuscript sent to them for pre-review before submission. The only data of Gosling and Franklin's they utilised was the unit cell of the A form found in the MRC report, and already made public at a conference talk.
@@johnkoay8097 Nope, they were at different levels. Franklin was a postdoctoral research assistant (PDRA). She had failed to secure her desired lectureship (assistant professorship) at Birkbeck, and had been taken on at King's essentially in a holding pattern whilst a lectureship was sorted out. Wilkins was the deputy director of the unit, and a senior lecturer (i.e. associate professor in US terms). Franklin was recruited on Wilkins' advice to be a PDRA in Wilkins' lab. The UK still used a promoter type system for PhD students, and Gosling was technically under Prof. Randall, the head of the unit. Wilkins was has co-promoter. Let me correct myself from above - Watson and Crick used NO data that Franklin was responsible for. The determination of the unit cell of the A form was done by Wilkins and Gosling before Franklin arrived. What is interesting is that in the major conflicts that developed between Franklin and Wilkins, it was Wilkins who turned out to be correct, and Franklin was wrong. Wilkins contended that DNA was a helix, and Franklin denied it. Wilkins contended Franklin's idea of bubbling the hydrogen through salt solutions would cause splatter and contaminate the experiments (which it did), and Franklin denied it. In fact, it was this very salt splatter that Franklin denied could happen that caused Gosling's experiment 51D to produce such a clear image. Gosling started experiment 51D on the Friday evening of the May Day bank holiday weekend. However, that evening there was a power cut, and hence there was no exposure, but the hydrogen bubbler kept going. On Tuesday morning, Gosling discovered that the X-Ray camera had been off all weekend, and turned it back on. This produced "photo 51". During the weekend, splatter from the bubbler had contaminated the sample, increasing the salt content and causing the DNA to crystallise. Franklin dismissed Gosling's observation as an irreproducable rogue result, probably because it disproved her theory that DNA was not a helix. She filled it away until it was handed to Wilkins. Unlike Franklin, Wilkins was willing to accept the result, and work out what happened. Within a month of starting to work with that particular DNA sample again, he had reproduced Gosling's results and surpassed them. As scientists, Wilkins and Franklin were clearly not equals. Wilkins was a far more thorough and true scientist than Franklin.
@@liverpoolirish208 This is quite interesting to me, would you mind sharing some source for me to read up on this. In particular related to the details of Goslings experiments that resulted in photo 51. Thanks!
@@johnkoay8097That is simply not true. A PDRA is junior position, I've been one and lived that life. Just because they both had PhDs does not make them of equal rank or stature in the research group.
i definitly respect their thirst and hardwork for the discovery but their attitude was really unethical.....they not only didnt acknowledge her also they porttrayed her badly ......
peaceand love they did acknowledged her hell Watson names one of the science buildings at the local university after her... Watson and crick did give credit its these 3rd wave feminists and degenerate professors who are trying to project this claim to slander their predecessors so they don’t have to work as hard to achieve further than them... they discovered the dna helix but the pictures were taken by the female scientist but she claimed something very different! Besides the material was under another professors directions which was a male btw which after she left the university the information was considered the universities research not her research!
I have a question when both strains where injected in to the mouse did there not have to be some form of reproduction for the rough to acquire the smooths properties or some way of the passing of DNA if and how did this happen if the bacteria was "dead" should i look more in to the reproduction of bacterium ?
"Science isn't pretty - there's a lot at stake and things can get ugly." Anytime money is at stake things will get ugly often to the point of insanity as hate powers greed. What's scary is the blindness of highly educated people to see simple foundations and basic time related principles that are often obvious to a layman. The two major events of Sept 2011 in science exposed that well. Google v-c/c=2.48e-5 and you'll see what I mean.
Beautiful, pleasant and concise. What accounts for the disparity within the pairs of nucleobases in Chargaff's measurements? Were these just miscalculations or are there really some bases in the sequence that for some reason do not pair off?
Watson & Crick did not steal the photo 51 ! Franklin, died, she among others before her, contributed to this outstanding discovery, our two scholars are not "model builders" your thinking is biased about Franklin as she was the person who made the discovery, in this case, what to say about Chargaff ?? I think you have no excuses either for such insinuations - The facts are stubborn - Mark Twain.
There should be a blending step in the Hershey-Chase experiment after lysis of bacterial cells in order for ghost phases to detach from cell wall and move to the supernatant.
in my high school days I remember this Watson n crick model, but also a teacher of our told in passing they just copy it from someone's work in print or photos by then my teacher done research rather than parroting to us about science, thanks to her
I was looking for the 1951 Watson and Crick paper you mentioned and couldn't find it. Even went through Cricks full list of publications, he has none from 1951 and none of the 1950 or 1952 papers have to do with DNA. Could you please give me a reference to that article?
Thank you so much your videos mean so much to me. :) I am in nursing school and you seem to make the puzzle of the human body seem so simple. I hope you know you are doing the Lords work.
It was Linus's blunder in not accounting for pH values for the ionic bonds to survive that gave Watson the clue, research sucks at times, like game of chess, the one observing it has on many a times euphorian solutions. Rosalind was a stickler to details and she paid the price. Life sucks.
+Bob Bobby i think it depends on the no: of AT and CG pairs present in the dinucleotide ..... so... if one strand has 3 A it will be bonded with 3 T of other.... if 1 C in the first strand , then there is only 1G in the complimentary strand.
+peaceand love I think it's mutations. Sometimes a C doesn't get paired with a G and instead with a T or an A, or it doesn't get paired at all. Maybe it's the other way around; an A gets paired with a G or doesn't get paired at all, etc. DNA isn't completely perfect. That's why things like cancer happen.
May i respectfully suggest that you to read a book called The Epigenetic Revolution by Nessa Carey. The answer ( and more) is in that book. Also RUclips her name.
Interesting... the Mayan's calendar said something heavy was going to happen late 2012 that would change mankind and this video referencing "Science is not pretty" was posted right after SLAC added to exposing either the worlds greatest coincidence... or the negative side of the politics of Science on Nov 19, 2012 by exposing the positive side by acting in good faith in support of science when SLAC announced one of the greatest discoveries in the history of Science by confirming Time has Asymmetry. It's important because it added a 4th oscillation phase or "part" to the atom and a second reverse arrow to time needed to support the asymmetry in time detected in SLAC's older BaBar experiment data. SLAC stated it had been there all along and they just needed to go back and look at the data "differently". To keep it simple the asymmetry in time is what a layman knows as gravity, the most obvious of the four forces in Nature but left out of the Standard Model in physics as a mystery that just just didn't fit in. With a little shuffling showing the neutrino is the photons force carrier space separating the weak force from the strong force the missing graviton now fits in opposite the electron in the location they had put the neutrino now surrounding the Higgs mass. The missing graviton had been there all along too shown opposite the electron misnamed the "electron hole" in every modern book on basic electricity. But history can repeat itself and it's not pretty because SLAC's Nov 2012 announcement followed SLAC's E158 weak force asymmetry ratio matching CERN/OPERA's Sept 2011 worldwide announcement that put physics into shock. OPERA's brilliant team of scientists announced they had been measuring the neutrino travel 453.6 miles and consistently gain 2.48e-5 sec past the speed of light for years... but after it was shown on Nature's Forum next to CERN's scientists that SLAC's E158 ratio adds 2.48e-5 sec to the speed of light traveling 453.6 miles too and matched OPERA's years of neutrino measurements by creating an asymmetry in time of 0.20e-5 sec a few scientists at CERN announced it was all a big mistake caused by a loose cable and other technical details. Because no one knew gravity was detected using the neutrino and SLAC's E158 WF Asy ratio, and gravity moves a tiny amount faster than light because it is caused by the subtrahend of the EM wave that creates light, it was easy to say everyone except OPERA's scientists were right and OPERA's data was all a big mistake. But that didn't stop SLAC from putting the writing on the wall where it belongs to show time tells all when you connect it to space properly: Vincit Omnia Veritas BTW The Mayans only contributed to the development of the "Mayan" calendar. History shows they did not actually invent it as the same system was in use by most cultures in pre-Columbian Central America predating the Mayans. As for it being the end of the world... looks like we got lucky this time around. Technology got us into this and only technology can get us out in one piece using the knowledge of time connected to the force of gravity bending space. Deep stuff.... (e{a})/t=E
Ask yourself this question would Crick and Watson have arrived at the solution to the structure of DNA without having seen Rosalind's photograph. The answer: probably not, at least not until Rosalind did it first. It's clearly theft of someone else's work. I am so annoyed that Rosalind did not get the recognition she so rightly deserved. Why is not the scientific community seeking to reverse this and send a message that such behaviour will not be tolerated.
Franklin worked on shape of the sugar phosphate helix but Watson got the base pair match ups. Crick put them together. Took years of work to prove after that how they bases conveyed how DNA stored and duplicated information and why it was Nobel worthy.
If I follow u and ansewr in my exam as u said I will be fucked . I have exam ms but thanks as we know most science come from muslims in the golden age for us dark ages for u .
Franlin's work on viruses was not a postscript. She published 21 papers on the subject and codiscovered the structure of the TMV virus. She was the first scientist to show RNA was a single strand. Her coworkers, Finch and Klug, got the Nobel (again, after her death).
If you read the original paper by Watson & Crick, Franklin is credited and referenced on nearly every single page. I'm not sure how one can make an analysis of the facts whilst overlooking this. Franklin came close to making conclusions, but did not cover all the ground necessary. Photo 51 is a landmark discovery, and certainly accelerated the discovery, but it was not the lynchpin on which the discovery of the a-helix rested. 'Lies and thieves' is an assertion which does not do credit to Franklin.
Thank you for the kind words; I am so happy you are finding these videos helpful.
Not correct that Wilkins "got the photo from her (Franklin's) desk". Franklin gave Wilkins the photo (much to his surprise) along with a lot of other data a few months before she was due to leave and start work elsewhere. As far as she was concerned by then she was finished with DNA. The contribution the photo made to solving the structure of DNA was enormous, but the fantasy constructed around her being "cheated" and having her work "stolen" is just that, a fantasy.
Not only that but Wilkins acknowledged Franklin in his Nobel acceptance speech. Watson also acknowledged Franklin's contribution (however dubiously) in The Double Helix.
@@TedsAssassin Rosalind ridiculed Watson and crick for their suggestion of dna being helixular
Simply nt true!..if that wS the case she would hv got atleast sme recognition 4 her photo discovery which she didn't.. also if she was so done wi th dna research y did she complete her research on it later on then nd then submitted it ?
What seems to have happened is that Ray Gosling, who was originally Wilkins grad student then Franklin's, needed to return to him once Franklin left Kings College. Gosling was required to show Wilkins his work which included photo 51 when Wilkins again became his advisor. Watson came to visit Wilkins and Wilkins, in a fit of anger, showed Watson the photo while complaining about the quality of the DNA samples he had to work with relative to Franklin. While it is true that this lead to the final part of the puzzle coming together for Watson and Crick, they did not steal Franklin's work in a break in or other illegal way. Watson and Crick also had seen Franklin's work in a medical publication and got assistance on how the chemical bonds of the bases would look from an acquaintance. This is a very complex story with many personalities involved. It is true that Watson trashed Franklin in his book "The Double Helix" to the point that the original publisher refused to print the book after objections from both Crick and Wilkins over Fraklin's portrayal.
Rosalind did not die of ovarian cancer from X-rays. She had inherited some combination of the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations.
How did ya get that info? That’s facinatng! I personally believe she was rubbed out. So, if what you say is the case, it could’ve been presented as a bioweapon. Whether I’m wrong or not, something doesn’t pass the smell test with her disappearing after Watson & Crick took credit but before any prizes were passed around.
Actually, nobody stole anything they built on her work. She didn’t know the structure of DNA either.
She didn't released or publish those images, yet Watson and Crick received them (somehow...) BEFORE all three articles came out in Nature on 25 April, 1953. HOW W&C got the photos is debated, but Wilkins was the likely source. What truly happened we will never know, but science can be very political, like everything else.
Right. Franklin had diffraction images, one of which was shown to Watson by Wilkins, but she did not solve the DNA structure. Only Watson and Crick solved the structure, helped by data from Franklin and others. Watson and Crick credited Franklin and others in their Nature paper of April 25, 1953.
I really enjoyed this! The basics you provide, and especially the lead-up history is exactly the type of context missing in most science posts. The context makes the story fascinating and memorable. I certainly wish more information was presented this way. Thank you very much.
I am studying Rosalind franklin for science,
it is very sad to know that Rosalind died from
cancer.I will forever more,celebrate her and
honor her for what she have done......:)💙💚💛💜💓💔💕💖💗💘💝💞💟
palepa faatoaga she was smart but was also a scum bag as well... no offense...
Small corrections; on the fateful day, Watson and Crick went to King's College and came across Wilkins. Wilkins did not, in fact, specifically seek them out to show them the photo (photo 51). Also, Franklin did not take the photo; Raymond Gosling did (a PhD student of Wilkins, who had been re-assigned somewhat unclearly to Wilkins, to Franklin). Finally, she was an Ashkenazi Jew who died of ovarian cancer, which is not linked to her type of radiation exposure. Her genetics, sadly, likely predisposed her.
Yes, I have also read more recently about how the photo was shown to Watson and Crick and the details of course we will never know for sure. As for Franklin, many are assuming that she had the BRCA1 mutation, which could have caused the ovarian cancer on it's own - but most certainly it's effects would have been exacerbated by radiation exposure. We'll never know that for sure either. Thank you for your insightful comments!
In the field of research, it's the reader or PhD guide that directs the activities of a research student, so anytimes it's Rosalind credit, also she was a chemist crystallography expert, imagining Gosling to be the main thing is injustice. Gosling herself has clarified that in her interview in 2007.
@@rajghatage7151 I don't think the language "whoever knows research" is helpful. I do wish there could be more online civility sometimes. In any event, of course the PhD supervisor gets credit. But it does feel essential to also acknowledge the multitude of people who are involved in discoveries, as hard-working students often do amazing work and historically often have been over-looked in the credit or acknowledgment department.
@@ja9305 Sure, but isn't research a specialist field, if I have offended you, amends, I have modified my comments.
To say Rosalind "didnt get on with just about anyone" is untrue. She got on very well with her colleagues in France and at Birkbeck after Kings. She also was good friends with Crick.
She did nor get on with Wilkins and Watson for sure but they were not nice people and her judgement was excellent when it came to them.
James Watson came up with the base pairing with the help of Jerry Donahue. Everything fell together soon after. And those base pairing explained why DNA can replicate. That it is a double helix is rather mundane.
Corrected - thank you for letting me know. I work unbelievably hard on these videos (it takes about 2 weeks to produce each one) but alas, I am not perfect.
Frankly ….. I think you are perfect. Love your research and the succinct presentation language. Thank you for your efforts and for making this information accessible. ❤
Great video, especially including the historical context. I have one critique. Avery, MacLeod and McCarty did not use mice in their experiment. It was an in-vitro experiment. They developed a method to check for transformation using anti-R antibodies that they isolated from rabbits. If the test tube was clear, no transformation. If the test tube was cloudy, transformation occurred.
Watson has always been honest and candid (maybe too candid) about the information that led to the DNA model. They gave credit to Wilkins and Franklin (and Jerry Donohue) in their initial paper, and cited Franklin's article in their followup. It's a myth that Franklin was cheated somehow, except by the cancer that killed her at an early age. If not for Watson, Franklin would be very much a forgotten figure.
@@lorrainesmith.4995 No, he didn't take Gosling's data. He had it because he was the responsible PhD supervisor. Franklin was just a senior post-doc who built the machine Gosling was using.
@@lorrainesmith.4995 You have no idea how scientists work.
Oh really 😂😂😂
Good video but you are minimizing Watson and Crick's work. You make it sound like it was so easy to find the right structure even though Franklin had the same info as others she wasnt even on the good path.
I feel the same way. It may be true that a disservice was done to Franklin and maybe she should be sharing the honor with them more...but actually indexing the pattern is a hell of a lot of work. Taking the measurement is the easy part; I take XRD patterns all the time but if you asked me to index one I would probably tell you to stick it. Plus, I think this story gets a lot of response because she was a female scientist in a time when it was dominated by males. It looks like sexism, but in reality its just academia. This could've happened to whoever took the measurements. Stuff like this has happened before and unfortunately will continue to happen as long as "publish or parish" is goal in research. That, or maybe it was just sexism...idk
All scientists advance the work of others. One of the main problems with Rosalind Franklin and DNA was that she died too soon. Most people don't realize that Watson and Crick's article did not receive all that much fanfare when it first came out. In one lecture, Watson stated his paper was quoted about 5 times in the first five years following their 1953 paper in Nature. They did not receive the Nobel Price until 1962, nine years after their first publication, and four years after Franklin died. He didn't write The Double Helix until 1968, 10 years after Franklin died. Had she lived, her contribution would have been more well known. In fact, many people believe that it would have been Watson and Crick sharing the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, with Watkins and Franklin sharing the Nobel Prize in Chemistry had Rosalind not succumbed to ovarian cancer at such an early age.
Penguin Professor, I love your videos! They gave me a lot of confidence going into the beginning of A & P 1 and Chemistry. I am having so much trouble with Electron Energy levels and now I wish you had a video on this because you do such a great job of explaining everything!
I don't know if you've read the original paper, it clearly credits Rosalind. Also, her discovery was just a part in the whole, apart from the overall structure, the components, how it worked and how it replicated was done by the dudes.
I said they didn't credit her in the Nobel acceptance speech.
@@Penguinprof Don't take this the wrong way I don't mean to sound disrespectful if I come off that way...but have you spent much time in the academia and research community? This is less a one off, discriminatory disservice and more of just the norm in research. Right now I'm working in a chem lab that just published a paper this week, and like half of the authors on it I have never even seen around the lab or office...they have their name on it because their name is on the grant. All of the measurements and data were taken by graduate and undergraduate students. I think one graduate student made it on to the authors, but the others and undergrad students aren't mentioned anywhere, including the acknowledgments let alone a nobel acceptance speech. I'm not saying that like its a good thing, I think research groups could be more open when acknowledging people who did the "busy work" because in reality a lot of little stuff goes into publishing results...but its really not that crazy of a concept and is still regularly happening today. Now we just take it on the chest hoping one day we get to be the grant holder lol. Research is generally just a toxic community and always has been. Nice video regardless!
@@Penguinprof Wilkins credited Franklin in the Nobel acceptance speech, TWICE. Drawing RF as a victim is anachronistic and very feministic attitude.
@@dr.zarrouguiabdelhak6340 ok but what does feminism have to do with it? feminism isn't even a part of this?
@@PenguinprofWell they did
Minute 10:30 shows Francis Crick as an American Geneticist, it is WRONG. He was BRITISH Biophysicist from Northampton, Northamptonshire, England. The video is very good. Congrats!
Directly below the video please see this:
CORRECTION: Francis Crick was NOT an American as shown in the caption beneath his photo. He was born in Northamptonshire, England. I made the correction using the RUclips annotations feature, but not all devices show annotations.
He did work in America for long time. I saw him growing up at Salk Institute in La Jolla, California.
Have a test on this tomorrow thank you so much.
What was the the test results?🙂
"Somehow" - Wilkins had photo 51 because he was the supervisor of Gosling. Franklin had binned all her DNA work on receiving a lectureship at Birkbeck, and handed over all the data Gosling had acquired (Franklin being a senior post-doc, not an academic) whilst working on the machine she built.
Watson and Crick first saw photo 51 on 14th April, 1953, in a draft of Gosling and Franklin's manuscript sent to them for pre-review before submission. The only data of Gosling and Franklin's they utilised was the unit cell of the A form found in the MRC report, and already made public at a conference talk.
correction, Wilkins and Rosalind are equal in the laboratory. In terms of integrity, he has nothing to compare to her.
@@johnkoay8097 Nope, they were at different levels.
Franklin was a postdoctoral research assistant (PDRA). She had failed to secure her desired lectureship (assistant professorship) at Birkbeck, and had been taken on at King's essentially in a holding pattern whilst a lectureship was sorted out. Wilkins was the deputy director of the unit, and a senior lecturer (i.e. associate professor in US terms). Franklin was recruited on Wilkins' advice to be a PDRA in Wilkins' lab. The UK still used a promoter type system for PhD students, and Gosling was technically under Prof. Randall, the head of the unit. Wilkins was has co-promoter.
Let me correct myself from above - Watson and Crick used NO data that Franklin was responsible for. The determination of the unit cell of the A form was done by Wilkins and Gosling before Franklin arrived.
What is interesting is that in the major conflicts that developed between Franklin and Wilkins, it was Wilkins who turned out to be correct, and Franklin was wrong. Wilkins contended that DNA was a helix, and Franklin denied it. Wilkins contended Franklin's idea of bubbling the hydrogen through salt solutions would cause splatter and contaminate the experiments (which it did), and Franklin denied it. In fact, it was this very salt splatter that Franklin denied could happen that caused Gosling's experiment 51D to produce such a clear image.
Gosling started experiment 51D on the Friday evening of the May Day bank holiday weekend. However, that evening there was a power cut, and hence there was no exposure, but the hydrogen bubbler kept going. On Tuesday morning, Gosling discovered that the X-Ray camera had been off all weekend, and turned it back on. This produced "photo 51". During the weekend, splatter from the bubbler had contaminated the sample, increasing the salt content and causing the DNA to crystallise. Franklin dismissed Gosling's observation as an irreproducable rogue result, probably because it disproved her theory that DNA was not a helix. She filled it away until it was handed to Wilkins.
Unlike Franklin, Wilkins was willing to accept the result, and work out what happened. Within a month of starting to work with that particular DNA sample again, he had reproduced Gosling's results and surpassed them.
As scientists, Wilkins and Franklin were clearly not equals. Wilkins was a far more thorough and true scientist than Franklin.
@@liverpoolirish208 This is quite interesting to me, would you mind sharing some source for me to read up on this. In particular related to the details of Goslings experiments that resulted in photo 51. Thanks!
@@johnkoay8097That is simply not true. A PDRA is junior position, I've been one and lived that life. Just because they both had PhDs does not make them of equal rank or stature in the research group.
Watson and Crick are awesome!
i definitly respect their thirst and hardwork for the discovery but their attitude was really unethical.....they not only didnt acknowledge her also they porttrayed her badly ......
peaceand love they did acknowledged her hell Watson names one of the science buildings at the local university after her... Watson and crick did give credit its these 3rd wave feminists and degenerate professors who are trying to project this claim to slander their predecessors so they don’t have to work as hard to achieve further than them... they discovered the dna helix but the pictures were taken by the female scientist but she claimed something very different! Besides the material was under another professors directions which was a male btw which after she left the university the information was considered the universities research not her research!
no
I have a question when both strains where injected in to the mouse did there not have to be some form of reproduction for the rough to acquire the smooths properties or some way of the passing of DNA if and how did this happen if the bacteria was "dead" should i look more in to the reproduction of bacterium ?
Look up Transformation (genetics). Simply put, the DNA of the dead bacteria is "adsorbed" by the living bacteria.
This is THE best video on this subject.
Glad you enjoyed it. I think a historical perspective is REALLY helpful!!!
"Science isn't pretty - there's a lot at stake and things can get ugly." Anytime money is at stake things will get ugly often to the point of insanity as hate powers greed. What's scary is the blindness of highly educated people to see simple foundations and basic time related principles that are often obvious to a layman. The two major events of Sept 2011 in science exposed that well. Google v-c/c=2.48e-5 and you'll see what I mean.
Wish you had warned me about that buzz-kill. This is a tragedy. But thanks for the information. You truly deliver
Thanks so much!
Beautiful, pleasant and concise. What accounts for the disparity within the pairs of nucleobases in Chargaff's measurements? Were these just miscalculations or are there really some bases in the sequence that for some reason do not pair off?
Avery Macleod and McCarty did not use mice in their experiment. Only the R & S pneumococci.
That was super helpful, thankyou.
You are most welcome! Thanks for watching!
Watson & Crick did not steal the photo 51 ! Franklin, died, she among others before her, contributed to this outstanding discovery, our two scholars are not "model builders" your thinking is biased about Franklin as she was the person who made the discovery, in this case, what to say about Chargaff ?? I think you have no excuses either for such insinuations - The facts are stubborn - Mark Twain.
There should be a blending step in the Hershey-Chase experiment after lysis of bacterial cells in order for ghost phases to detach from cell wall and move to the supernatant.
Thank you very much ma'am!
Really love your explanation in this regard!
So glad it was helpful!
This is the world of science, no big difference from the rest of the mundane world. Human in pursuit of knowledge just keeps working. It don’t bother.
Wow! ❤ learnt a lot ,especially the history
Thank you so much 😀
Who came here after sir aafaq recommendation
Hi
Shout out to Mrs. Brennan's 9th grade biology class
+Christopher Osborne Hi class! Thanks for watching!
4 years later.
Great video👍🏻
Your videos are so helpful and SO interesting to watch! and that is coming from someone who hate(ed) chemistry haha
in my high school days I remember this Watson n crick model, but also a teacher of our told in passing they just copy it from someone's work in print or photos by then my teacher done research rather than parroting to us about science, thanks to her
'DID research'. Smh.
I was looking for the 1951 Watson and Crick paper you mentioned and couldn't find it. Even went through Cricks full list of publications, he has none from 1951 and none of the 1950 or 1952 papers have to do with DNA.
Could you please give me a reference to that article?
Did you get it???😂🙂
Someone stole my phone and I found him and attacked him too
Thanks for the video and all the others with genetics, I'm in high school biology and they really help.
Hello Setcavage's Students!
Thank you so much your videos mean so much to me. :) I am in nursing school and you seem to make the puzzle of the human body seem so simple. I hope you know you are doing the Lords work.
Your videos are wonderful
was an exciting history story! thanks I have learned from it :)
very nice
hi dhs
*SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE IMAGE CORRESPONDED TO HOWEVER*
*IS THAT NOT CORRECT??*
It was Linus's blunder in not accounting for pH values for the ionic bonds to survive that gave Watson the clue, research sucks at times, like game of chess, the one observing it has on many a times euphorian solutions.
Rosalind was a stickler to details and she paid the price. Life sucks.
Tell me then!
Thank you
Why is AT an CG not exactly equal?
+Bob Bobby i think it depends on the no: of AT and CG pairs present in the dinucleotide ..... so... if one strand has 3 A it will be bonded with 3 T of other.... if 1 C in the first strand , then there is only 1G in the complimentary strand.
+peaceand love I think it's mutations. Sometimes a C doesn't get paired with a G and instead with a T or an A, or it doesn't get paired at all. Maybe it's the other way around; an A gets paired with a G or doesn't get paired at all, etc. DNA isn't completely perfect. That's why things like cancer happen.
May i respectfully suggest that you to read a book called The Epigenetic Revolution by Nessa Carey. The answer ( and more) is in that book. Also RUclips her name.
My teacher used this video as part of a lesson !
Thank you!
You're welcome!
It is sad to know that Rosalind Franklin never received the Nobel Prize.
Interesting... the Mayan's calendar said something heavy was going to happen late 2012 that would change mankind and this video referencing "Science is not pretty" was posted right after SLAC added to exposing either the worlds greatest coincidence... or the negative side of the politics of Science on Nov 19, 2012 by exposing the positive side by acting in good faith in support of science when SLAC announced one of the greatest discoveries in the history of Science by confirming Time has Asymmetry.
It's important because it added a 4th oscillation phase or "part" to the atom and a second reverse arrow to time needed to support the asymmetry in time detected in SLAC's older BaBar experiment data. SLAC stated it had been there all along and they just needed to go back and look at the data "differently".
To keep it simple the asymmetry in time is what a layman knows as gravity, the most obvious of the four forces in Nature but left out of the Standard Model in physics as a mystery that just just didn't fit in. With a little shuffling showing the neutrino is the photons force carrier space separating the weak force from the strong force the missing graviton now fits in opposite the electron in the location they had put the neutrino now surrounding the Higgs mass. The missing graviton had been there all along too shown opposite the electron misnamed the "electron hole" in every modern book on basic electricity.
But history can repeat itself and it's not pretty because SLAC's Nov 2012 announcement followed SLAC's E158 weak force asymmetry ratio matching CERN/OPERA's Sept 2011 worldwide announcement that put physics into shock. OPERA's brilliant team of scientists announced they had been measuring the neutrino travel 453.6 miles and consistently gain 2.48e-5 sec past the speed of light for years... but after it was shown on Nature's Forum next to CERN's scientists that SLAC's E158 ratio adds 2.48e-5 sec to the speed of light traveling 453.6 miles too and matched OPERA's years of neutrino measurements by creating an asymmetry in time of 0.20e-5 sec a few scientists at CERN announced it was all a big mistake caused by a loose cable and other technical details.
Because no one knew gravity was detected using the neutrino and SLAC's E158 WF Asy ratio, and gravity moves a tiny amount faster than light because it is caused by the subtrahend of the EM wave that creates light, it was easy to say everyone except OPERA's scientists were right and OPERA's data was all a big mistake.
But that didn't stop SLAC from putting the writing on the wall where it belongs to show time tells all when you connect it to space properly: Vincit Omnia Veritas
BTW The Mayans only contributed to the development of the "Mayan" calendar. History shows they did not actually invent it as the same system was in use by most cultures in pre-Columbian Central America predating the Mayans. As for it being the end of the world... looks like we got lucky this time around. Technology got us into this and only technology can get us out in one piece using the knowledge of time connected to the force of gravity bending space. Deep stuff.... (e{a})/t=E
I feel bad for rosalind
But now you know who she is (if you didn't before...) and that's a really good thing. :)
I wish you were my teacher
Me too!
You feel so much for Rosalind Franklin! :)
I do. She was an amazing human being. :)
Ask yourself this question would Crick and Watson have arrived at the solution to the structure of DNA without having seen Rosalind's photograph. The answer: probably not, at least not until Rosalind did it first. It's clearly theft of someone else's work. I am so annoyed that Rosalind did not get the recognition she so rightly deserved. Why is not the scientific community seeking to reverse this and send a message that such behaviour will not be tolerated.
It's cgi virtual lies.
❤❤
🐧❤️🐧
@@Penguinprof love you penguin
pathetic how Watson and crick feted on stolen inf. nobel prize should be rescinded.
stupid comment
Franklin worked on shape of the sugar phosphate helix but Watson got the base pair match ups. Crick put them together. Took years of work to prove after that how they bases conveyed how DNA stored and duplicated information and why it was Nobel worthy.
Mice killers!
Do you want some cheese with your whining??
If I follow u and ansewr in my exam as u said I will be fucked .
I have exam ms but thanks as we know most science come from muslims in the golden age for us dark ages for u .
It's time to recind the award from the theives.
Sad how we honor the people who discover the Creator's handiwork, and then insult the Creator by teaching that his handiwork created itself.
Thank you
You are most welcome!