I'm nowhere near a Nobel laureate, but I have had someone steal my ideas at a conference after attending my presentation and asking me questions on my preliminary data. She is an older and well-established scientist, who was able to do a quick summer-long project on the topic and beat me to the first publication on the subject, because I was required to collect data for 4 years for my PhD dissertation. It is very disheartening, and I completely understand why Chargraff left the field!
Sorry, but your ideas were not stolen. You chose to present them at a public forum. Having done this you should have gone all out to complete the study, which you said your competitor did on a quick project over the summer. You do not have to complete your dissertation before publication. My thesis was largely based on 6 papers I had published on different aspects of the overall study. It would however have been very bad form had not your competitor acknowledged your conference presentation.
@@pshehan1 Well, ideas were not stolen - they were received. What was stolen was the credit for discovery. An honest scientist would give the credit in the indrodution of her publication. Or perhaps included the name as co-author.
I don't like honours, honours bother me. That's what my papa taught me. *_"I don’t see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize. I’ve already got the prize. The prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it. Those are the real things."_* ~ Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Prize winner for his contribution to Quantum Electrodynamics, 1965.
Hi Eddie, obviously I tend to agree with you, but this was me typing what the great man said. To be in his presence as he spoke those words would have been a sheer pleasure. Although, tibees says some nice things as well. Have a great day.
This is why the paper publishing the discovery of the Higgs Boson has over 5000 authors. The last 24 pages of the paper are just a list of authors. They didn't want a repeat of the nonsense that happened with DNA and so decided the fairest way was to include literally everybody working on the project as an author of the paper.
It goes to show that science is a social endeavor. The lone genius, making a discovery all by themselves, is the exception to the rule. It so happens that the first one to put it all together, gets all the credit.
It's interesting to compare this with The Great Debate in Astronomy three decade earlier, where Henrietta Swan Leavitt's work on cepheid variables allowed Shapely to determine the size of the Milky Way and the sun's position in it, and for Edwin Dyson to determine the true size of the universe. Like Franklin, Leavitt died shortly afterward. Unlike Franklin her work had been published and was knowingly used by Hubble, who not only acknowledged her work, but stated that she deserved the Nobel prize for the discovery of the universe's relative size, because it would have been impossible to prove it without her.
I seem to recall that the case of Leavitt's stolen work is particularly bad because her PhD advisor told her that she should not publish her discovery because it might hurt her. He then took her idea and stole it to receive a Nobel I believe. I am an amateur astronomer. Now that sensors are superb parallax is being used to determine the range and location of stars. With my current gear I can look at Hubble's Cepheid variable in Andromeda from my back yard. I have also seen nebulosity in another galaxy (although it is the largest know nebula). Sensors are so good now that I am part of the Gaia project that is checking the probe's position data. Many amateur astronomers are a part of this. It is fun but tedious. I was also part of an amateur astronomer project that took data of Jupiter and ran it through a provided computer program to determine if there were possible asteroid strikes (there are only about 4.5 strikes annually I believe).
Partly your description matches the work done by Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin... she did work on a PhD thesis, and Russell did discourage her from publishing her main result (that the sun mainly consists of hydrogen), and later Russell himself published that. But Russell also never got a Nobel prize.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I looked up the BBC video that I was thinking about and it was Payne-Gaposchkin's betrayal that I was thinking about. Thanks. Another unrecognized woman whose brilliance should be a household name is Emmy Noether.
Thank you! This is the first time I see the story in public media where it is actually mentioned that the Nobel prize was awarded after she had died. You say, they could have given her a prize still, however it was never common practice. I was not aware of the stories of the PhD students. Actually, I had the false memory that Franklin was Wilkins' PhD student. Great video!
I received the Nobel Peace prize in 1988 and share it with about half a million others (a soldier from my squadron got to go and receive it for the UN). Just a funny aside. What I wanted to say is that It is my understanding that the Nobel can not be awarded posthumously.
Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously, but if a person is awarded a prize and dies before receiving it, the prize is presented. Nobel Prize winners are routinely leaders of research groups with a lot of the hands on work being done by graduate students and post-docs. Usually their contribution is not sufficient for a Nobel, but Jocelyn Bell is a PhD student who was perhaps unjustly overlooked.
No they couldn't give her the prize posthumously. The conditions for the Nobel prize are based on Nobel's LAST WILL and that has to be respected. If you don't like it, create another prize with other conditions. People talk about lack of respect to Franklin but they don't want to respect a dead man's will. That says it all.
Thank you so much for this background information on Franklin! I had published notes on this in 2005 but was not aware of the subterfuge, although I knew there was some, to include the grandstanding Watson's badmouthing of her after her death in 1957.
I wonder if RUclips has awards for social influencers like Tibees for bringing this information that would otherwise just be stored away in the archives to the layman like myself. Thank you🤔
RUclips doesn't care about awards. It wants to bring in money thru ads and in other ways. Awards don't bring in money. We all *need* income (including you and me). Otherwise we'd all be farming.
Watson and Crick got credit for their DNA explanation, not because of the picture, but because they actually explained DNA. They were shown the picture by someone else (as you describe), and they DID fail to give her credit for the picture (except in the acknowledgements). But the picture itself didn't create the explanation, even the idea that it was a helix didn't come from the picture itself, but from Watson and Crick's model attempting to explain what they saw in the picture. Rosalind never developed a correct explanation of what she saw in the picture. Watson is rude and treated Franklin unfairly. But he really did create the actual model. Incidentally, my grandfather, Dean Fletcher, analyzed DNA in the late 1940s, and largely explained it, but couldn't prove it, because he lacked the picture.
Well, they did give her credit, as you say, in the acknowledgements. That was the proper way to do it, and they did it. They didn't show the X-ray picture, they didn't use its information (intensity values), so why should they give more credit to it, than they did?
@@scepticalchymistIf they hadn't lied about it some paragraphs earlier it wouldn't be as big of a deal. That paragraph was exactly where they could've been honest about the fact that they absolutely had been aware of the details of her work, and they chose to pretend this wasn't the case to come across better. Had they not contradicted the acknowledgement or even better written about it in the text there wouldn't be all that many fingers to point at them (aside from Watson trying to smear her legacy, anyway).
@@yfrit_gg You just don't understand it. Franklin's work was about collecting X-ray data and doing a structure refinement, Watson and Crick were model builders. Neither did Franklin at any time engage in the model building (in fact, she disapproved of it and made her opinion well known), nor did Watson and Crick at any time doing numerical calculations on the X-ray data. These are two totally different approaches to research, each with its merits and disadvantages, complementary of course, and if both teams would have worked together a great way of cooperation, but in the same way Watson and Crick did not work with Franklin, Franklin did not work with them, because they couldn't get along well at this time. But it takes two to tango, or not to tango as well. Watson and Crick FULLY deserve their Nobel prize even when they would have not acknowledged anyone else, because THEY build the model, THEY, and no one else, and before their success THEY were ridiculed for it, and THEY took all the risk of failure, and potential end of their careers in science if it had turned out wrong. THEY did it, not Franklin, although she could have done it, but it was her decision, NOT to build a model.
The 1987 BBC Horizon special drama documentary about these dramatic events called "Life Story" ( or "The Race for the Double Helix" ) is highly recommended - it's like you were a fly on the wall, back when they took place - so brilliantly written, insightful and captivating, 😊
I'm a physicist (specifically an AMO physicist, a subfield where we have small labs using lasers, not the LHC or large fusion reactors or neutron detectors of some other subfields with huge collaborations), and as you get to the end of the video and talk about all the people involved, and about the fact that there was no data in the famous paper from Watson and Crick, there's several things about the way things work in my field that stand out: -Yes, there's a lot of people building on one another. You can't do a lot of the basic quantum physics research of modern neutral atom labs without first making a Bose-Einstein condensate, and you can't make a Bose-Einstein condensate without first doing laser cooling, and you can't do laser cooling without first doing a lot of spectroscopy and building lasers. -There are cases where one team stands out as putting things together in groundbreaking ways, but that is the exception, it's usually incremental steps -Graduate students and postdocs do most of the day-to-day work, and the role of a Principal Investigator (PI for short, in a university setting that's the professor in charge) varies, with some cases where the graduate student really deserves the credit and the PI contributed little more than funding, others where the PI was really critical in the insights needed to make the experiment happen, and occasionally the PI will really be in the lab quite a bit, though the way academic research works and funding models and all that makes that exceptionally difficult. The standard practice in our field is that the first author will be the graduate student or postdoc who took the lead in the experiment, with the PI (or PIs if it's a collaboration of multiple research group) as the final authors on the paper, so both the leaders in running the experiment and the PI are implicitly acknowledged (and occasionally there will even be a footnote stating that the first two authors, typically both graduate students or postdocs, contributed equally). Of course, because credit is how you get funding and get jobs and all of that, there are a lot of incentives to warp things, and sometimes the wrong person will be first author, though every lab that I've worked in has been healthy enough that I don't think this has happened, and you'll even have contributors who each need to get their big paper agreeing ahead of time, "I'm taking the lead on this experiment, you take the lead on that experiment, we'll each be first author, and we'll each be second author." But credit is where money and personal stakes really get involved, so it is the most fraught part of the process. -In physics, the field is really divided up into experimentalists and theorists. Thus, a paper with no experimental data isn't uncommon, a large proportion of physicists' jobs don't directly involved experiment, just understanding and synthesizing the data that's out there to develop theories and proposals, much like the Watson and Crick paper. The best experimentalists respond to and understand theory, looking to see how their apparatus could run experiments that actually differentiate between different theories or provide data that could really help theorists formulate theories, and the best theorists respond to and understand experiments on some level, looking to understand the data that is out there and to make proposals for tests of theories that are achievable by the technology that's out there. Of course, experimentalists make jokes at theorists' expense and vice versa, but we rely on one another to move scientific research forward in the most effective way possible. I am personally an experimentalist. -Looking at credit and the experimentalist/theorist divide, Nobel prizes have acknowledged a mix of experiment and theory over the years, though of course there are those who will argue that the balance is off one way or the other (personally I don't know whether it's off, I guess I haven't paid enough attention to that).
Great video! You're right that many celebrated discoveries took many people to come through, although just a few receive their due recognition. The so called Higgs boson in physics is just one of them. 16:02 I learnt about DNA and RNA at high school back in 1967, and again you're right: I didn't appreciate the effort it had taken to discover them.
As commented earlier, the actual photograph was taken by Franklin's PhD student, Raymond Gosling who seems to be almost forgotten and ignored instead of receiving much of the credit. Both Franklin and Gosling were opposed to the idea of DNA being a double helix when Watson & Crick first suggested it, but eventually came round to that view. When Franklin left the laboratory, Gosling carried on with his DNA work for his PHD with Wilkins as his supervisor - this is why Wilkins had a copy of the photo.
I introduce my grad students to the fact that Raymond Gosling actually took photo 51, it quite often leads to interesting discussions about scientific credit. Typically grad students a very keen to think that Gosling was under appreciated.
Corrections: 🔸the X-ray diffraction was done from wet drawn out fibers of DNA not 3D crystals. 🔸You missed the important paper where Crick (+ Klug, Wyckoff) developed the diffraction theory for helical objects (Diffraction by Helical structures). So it wasn't guess work from Crick, he was the only person in the world who could correctly interpret photograph 51. Source: 2 of my supervisors worked under Klug in the MRC.
Crick was a much more experiment-oriented and had a much longer history of work in the field than Watson and he provided a gravitas to the 1953 paper ----- but even given his insights I am not sure why you say a sort of cleaning-up paper published 5 years after the fact showed it -- Crick, Klug, and Wyckoff published "Diffraction by Helical Structures" in 1958, Acta Crystallographica.
@@kevinkanter2537 Well they published later, because it had no relevance till after the DNA model come out and they wanted to keep their cards close to their chest. This paper best illustrated what they knew. Of course science moved quite slowly back then so publication are spread far apart.
In Jocelyn Bell's case, she was outright robbed by her thesis supervisor and his friend. Fortunately the history books recognize that she alone discovered pulsars and the scumbags who won the Nobel Prize deserve to be remembered for being scumbags.
Routine hard work done well deserves recognition even if it doesn't directly produce dramatic results. Synthesizing fragments of known data into a new coherent theory is a different matter.
Excellent presentation and it shows what a deeply collaborative process Science is despite all the competition. It doesn't show the competition of Wilkins's lab with Linus Pauling's lab and the contributions Pauling made with explicating the structure of proteins.
Really interesting video - I'd only heard the story as Franklin getting screwed over by colleagues and missing the Nobel; I had no idea that she didn't take the photo, and that actually there were a whole series of steps and discoveries prior to that. If big discoveries these days are more like long chains of events, makes you wonder if the nobel needs a new way to honour large groups of people (ie if we're not in the age of lone geniuses anymore). Great video!
Nice presentation. It's interesting that people have actually amplified your main point that more people should have gotten credit for the result by bringing up others that you missed.
Great summary! Just to say there is a classic and balanced book on the discovery of DNA: "The Eighth Day of Creation" By Horace Freeland Judson. In the second part he goes on to discuss the role others such as Jacob & Monod made later, which are equally fascinating. Maybe a bit hard to obtain now, though.
A wonderfully complete and objective perspective - thank you for this informative presentation. It demonstrates the multifaceted nuances influencing scientific research, and that this field suffers from the same potential personal conflicts as any other field of research - including competition and ego. We like to think of scientific research as the thankless work of dedicated individuals making great sacrifices to help improve the human condition, but the reality is that everything in life is competitive and this can sometimes become too personal.
Many thanks, Tibees. It is very interesting, well for those who were involved in these scandal " they'll live with The Nobel Prize's frame, but they died as the theft "
Amazing how cutthroat academia is, even at my small little out of the way uni in Florida. I was just glad there were still more than enough honourable professors and grad students to displace the distasteful types.
This shows again how a final theory is only but the consecration of scientific hypothesis constructed on top of each other into at some point a more general cohesive theory 12:07 , like the part on Franklin and the forerunners of the "discovery"🤌🏾🤌🏾🤌🏾
It's a good point well made that the big scientific leaps usually happen when certain, seemingly random, elements get put together by someone. Very reminiscent of James Burke and his Connection series. (I consider that a pretty sizeable compliment, btw.)
Correct, it is "Meesher". It is a mystery to me why highly educated English speakers with lots of knowledge never care to find out the pronunciation in other languages.
@@svergurd3873 Even really smart English monolinguals seem to just assume everything about foreign languages is just too hard. Just a guess though. As a language nerd I can't help noticing stuff like this all the time everywhere.
As a language nerd, you might want to look into the actual meaning of, "all the time" and "everywhere". There are approx 7,000 languages in the world of which English is the most widely spoken, consequently even if I start a conversation in German, chances are it will be switched to English by the other party. Given that within languages pronunciation varies by region ......Glass, Castle, Scone etc, I can only advise .......get a life and study something useful ! 🤷♀️
Undoubtedly, the socially individualistic and egocentric reward systems, where the success of one or a few results in the loss or neglect of others, have been creating significant unfairness. By recognising the value of all participants and the overall benefits to the greater collective, we can honour everyone involved. Thank you for this quite interesting and contemplative thought provoking topic. 🙏🏻🔆
James Burkes outstanding series "Connections" explores how one persons observations or experiments produces a break through in knowledge, sometimes without intent. As Issac Newton is reputed to have said “If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants.”
An excellent movie on this topic is The Race for the Double Helix, a BBC production, depicting Watson's, Crick's and Franklin's efforts. Jeff Goldblum plays Watson, Tim Pigott-Smith plays Crick, and Juliet Stevenson plays Franklin. Curiously James Watson was a co-writer on the project, which pulls no punches on the role played by Franklin.
I teased an old bloke once that he sounded like Watson and crick, his accent and the way he spoke... he was like oh yeah, my first job out of uni was working in their lab.
There is no scandal here. Watson and Crick did get the Nobel prize for building the structure model of DNA. They did not really use any data in their work apart from commonly known bond distances and angles. In particular, they did not refine X-ray diffraction data. Franklin did this, and it is another occupation, and she got all the credit for that. Insinuating a scandal here just shows huge disrespect for the creativity of model builders, which could be thought of theoretical scientists, in comparison to experimentalist. I find it hugely dishonest and embarrassing to not pay respect to this kind of scientific task. I would be similar to blame Kepler for using Brahe's data and say that he stole it. Or to say Newton disrespected Galileo. These people just did very different things, and those things were not equally worthy a prize. Crystallographic data (much like data in general) in and of itself is worthless without the proper structure model, so devising the model is the ultimate task, not just measuring the data.
There are those who are opportunistic when the occasion arises, and they are worthy of credit, but all party's involved should be fully acknowledged, and it is good we have the whole story.
Some scientists are mainly experimenters and some are mainly theorists. If a single experiment is groundbreaking a Nobel prize may result. The Nobel for DNA structure was awarded for a theoretical synthesis that made sense of earlier lab experiments. I don't see a problem with that.
I was once interviewed for an podcast about my own theories regarding a literary mystery. The interview lasted for about an hour or so. When the podcast came out, the pod caster related, among his own research, many of the original research findings and even opinions of my own. They made up a bulk of his broadcast, but he never once cited me. He made it seem as though the work was all his own: His discoveries, his research, his findings, his opinions.
It's nice that you have dispelled the myth that Franklin "took the picture" that first described DNA, and that this discovery was a complex and cooperative venture.
Toby this was a fantastic video, I really appreciate your work and calm thoughtfulness. TLDR - Below is my plea for someone to take a look at the work of another brilliant woman who's scientific accomplishment may be even more overlooked. By attributing particle diffraction patterns to physical wave interference, we may be inadvertently bypassing the work of another incredible woman, Carolyne (Karolyne) Van Vliet, whose work on understanding the quantum nature of diffraction pattern formation lies in obscurity. In 1967, Van Vliet took William Duane's 1923 quantum model of crystal diffraction, (roundly dismissed by Bohr and other theorists,) as being grounded in standard quantum theory, by showing how the collective reaction of the quantum structure in a lattice yeilds the correct elastic scattering behaviour. In 2010 at the age of 80 she then published a second paper that showed how Duane's model could work for aperiodic lattices and gratings, removing the need to consider wave interference across multiple apertures as the source of the scattering effect. Well before the Schrodinger/Heisenberg formulation, Duane had essentially treated a crystal lattice as an array of cavities and showed that applying Bohr's own quantum rule to the cavity dimensions and form predicts an allowed set of momentum transfers that can occur during specular reflection of a particle or photon. The Bohr rule not anly gave the discrete energy levels of the atom, it also gave a discrete explanation the Laue/Bragg diffraction patterns. In momentum space, the discrete set of possible momentum exchanges from Duane's quantum rule predicts the peaks in the reciprocal lattice. Duane and others then deduced that the reciprocal lattice is the Fourier transform of the electron distribution in lattice (squared) multiplied by Planck's constant, and deduced that the crystal structure is the inverse transform of the pattern of momentum exchanges that form a diffraction pattern. By treating the quantized exchange of momentum as the result of the collective reaction of the matter in the scatterer, and not the incident particle acting in a non-localized manner gives the same result, Karolyne's 1967 contribution shows that Duane's model would have a sound foundation in quantum theory, but would contradict the interpretation that quantum effects could be universally explained by the principle of wave interference. Duane's model was acknowledged at the 1927 Solvay conference as being superior to the Bragg model - by William Bragg! It is stunning that prior to de Broglie, Duane had a viable scientific model of discrete particle scattering by crystals, the Davisson Germer result also fit his work, and yet particle "diffraction" is written into every textbook as if it confirms de Broglie's hypothesis alone. One key to Bohr's dismissal was that prior to 1924 and the failure of the BKS model, Bohr had staunchly denied the photoelectric effect was evidence of the photon, and Duane's model, even though it brilliantly incorporated Bohr's work, because it would have meant Bohr's "correspondence principle" was a bust. A reading of "Rejection of the Light Quantum: The Dark Side of Niels Bohr" might give insight to Bohr's fanaticism on this point. After living through WWII in Nazi occupied Netherlands, Karolyne emigrated to the US where she became a physics professor, specializing in quantum noise, and published 200+ scientific papers. If you jot down the Bragg condition sin(theta) = n*lambda/d, then solve for the momentum exchanged with some slits using p=h/lambda you get a simple momentum condition (delta)p= nh/d, completely independent of the incident momentum or type of particle - you can't unsee that. Thank you
Science is a collective effort of humanity. It would be something like no one should use a laptop or a computer to do research because you did not first invent a computer of your own
pretty much describes the situation in my opinion. the story with insulin is similar but different. though often regarded that it was by banting/best, it was macleod who received the recognition, and james collip was also left out. in the end, their discovery was so impure that it only got mixed results; and their treatment of dogs....
Well rosalind stole the best equipment and sample from wilkins and refused to work with him even though he hired her and bought the equipment. Watson and crick and wilkins would have discovered the helix farbquicker if she never came to kings
@@kenshikenji perhaps in a similar vein is the story of henrietta swan leavitt having discovered a relationship between period and luminosity of cepheid stars; but it was ejnar hertzsprung who discovered a mathematical relationship that showed those stars could be used to measure distances...
The selection process of the winners may be questionable, but millions of lives were saved by Nobel prize winners, insulin, penicillin, cure for pernicious anemia, cardiac catheterization, better treatment for malaria, CT scan, PCR, LDL, monoclonal antibodies, mRNA, and who remembers today gastric ulcer?
Thanks for your channel! (1) I feel we should construct a small, 1-2 room monument for all the people like Rosalinda Franklin & Gosling & others, that got ignored. It could be somewhere near the Nobel Institute in Oslo, Norway and consist of audio visual, virtual etc medium. In fact, this RUclips post works as a memorial & is in the same direction :) (2) It seems Rosalinda died of ovarian cancer. My (conjecture) question is did the considerable exposure to the x-rays in her lab was anyway responsible? I do not know what was level of awareness for the need for protection in 1952 and also what was available for the protection at the King's College, London.
(1) Why in Oslo?? The Norwegian institute only works with the peace prize. The prizes in science and medicine are awarded by committees in Sweden (Stockholm). (2) I have always thought that her cancer was caused by x-ray exposure, but I think the question is not settled. That is what Wikipedia says.
@@svergurd3873 Right. Also, maybe it happens for many categories. In that case, we can have more than one location or just one at a central location, if they have something like a head-office :) Or they may already have a section in their library, called something like 'controversies' :)
Note that in the Franklin and Gosling paper, based on Gosling's PhD project, Franklin put herself forward as the senior author. Quite common practise at the time - not tolerated at all these days. Wilkins was one of Gosling' supervisors and Gosling never disputed his sharing of Gosling's data. The creator of data has the moral rights to that data, but the legal rights lay with the employer - university or government department - particularly in the immediate post-WWII days. The three laboratories co-ordinated the publication of their papers in the same issue of Nature.
If I understand well, Franklin thought about a helix, not a double helix. Watson and Crick were the ones that conceived the right structure, a double helix.
The Nobel Prize has its own rules on limits of Prize recipients. But that wouldn't prevent them from adding a second-honors category to capture and credit other contributors.
Thankyou that was brilliant. I had always understood up till now that Rosalind Franklin did not recieve a Nobel prize because she had died. Science always relies on the discoveries of those who went before, Franklin's results would not have been possible if not for the development of X ray crystalography by Laurence Bragg who in turn based his ideas on a discovery by Max Laue that X rays defracted when passed through certain crystals.
It's a horrible thought isn't it but you can protect yourself from this by sending the paper off for pre-publication to effectively be able to claim attribution.
@@pshehan1I have been in both positions and know first hand that referees are not necessarily full of abnegation doing it for the good of the research community and of humanity. There are often favouritism and power games to favour oneself or colleagues.
It's a pity that a gift of nature passed away at only 37. I wonder if she could live a bit longer than what much more she could contribute! I also feel bad that mischief happened to her 😔
When you work in the hard sciences you know that the ones getting the accolades are not necessarily the ones who did the dirty work. You work with repurposed equipment and chemicals that are not the safest. You work long hours and the boredom is interrupted by moments of fight when something goes wrong/right. It's not a prescription for a long life but for certain people it is their life.
Crick did almost all the work on DNA, Watson was the only guy who understood what he did and helped, some woman happened to get a photo of it and the clown world is giving its best to plug that she did everything.
Another lost Nobel that bothers me is John Stewart Bell. He probably wrote the most important paper in all of quantum physics and died the year he was presumably nominated.
I'm nowhere near a Nobel laureate, but I have had someone steal my ideas at a conference after attending my presentation and asking me questions on my preliminary data. She is an older and well-established scientist, who was able to do a quick summer-long project on the topic and beat me to the first publication on the subject, because I was required to collect data for 4 years for my PhD dissertation. It is very disheartening, and I completely understand why Chargraff left the field!
Sorry, but your ideas were not stolen. You chose to present them at a public forum. Having done this you should have gone all out to complete the study, which you said your competitor did on a quick project over the summer. You do not have to complete your dissertation before publication. My thesis was largely based on 6 papers I had published on different aspects of the overall study.
It would however have been very bad form had not your competitor acknowledged your conference presentation.
@@pshehan1
Well, ideas were not stolen - they were received. What was stolen was the credit for discovery. An honest scientist would give the credit in the indrodution of her publication. Or perhaps included the name as co-author.
Idea stealing is a big thing because creativity is rare.
@@pshehan1 That's idiotic and detrimental to science.
@@Ilamarea Please explain.
I don't like honours, honours bother me. That's what my papa taught me.
*_"I don’t see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize. I’ve already got the prize. The prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it. Those are the real things."_*
~ Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Prize winner for his contribution to Quantum Electrodynamics, 1965.
Giving Obama a peace prize before he took power - and then pursued war and extrajudicial killing.
He was a great genius. Such a joy to hear him speak.
Hi Eddie, obviously I tend to agree with you, but this was me typing what the great man said. To be in his presence as he spoke those words would have been a sheer pleasure. Although, tibees says some nice things as well. Have a great day.
Why it does make a difference is who gets the grants to further the research.
This is why the paper publishing the discovery of the Higgs Boson has over 5000 authors. The last 24 pages of the paper are just a list of authors. They didn't want a repeat of the nonsense that happened with DNA and so decided the fairest way was to include literally everybody working on the project as an author of the paper.
Cool! Scientific "discoveries" are no longer the work of lone recluses who communicate with no one.
That's basically like a movie credit scroll lol.
I'm not sure this in an improvement.
The lab’s genitor and his dog probably ended up as co-authors too just in case.😂
That too had more to do with politics/marketing than with science!
It goes to show that science is a social endeavor. The lone genius, making a discovery all by themselves, is the exception to the rule. It so happens that the first one to put it all together, gets all the credit.
if you were presented with that photo, knowing what they knew back in the day, how would you interpret it.
@@carlosgaspar8447 So of course those that do should get ALL the credit, right?
@@EricAwful313 i don't know but it's obvious these days that the prize can be very political, especially when it comes to the nobel peace prize.
@@carlosgaspar8447... Please. Define what it means to be "political" in this context.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease like any human endeavour...
It's interesting to compare this with The Great Debate in Astronomy three decade earlier, where Henrietta Swan Leavitt's work on cepheid variables allowed Shapely to determine the size of the Milky Way and the sun's position in it, and for Edwin Dyson to determine the true size of the universe. Like Franklin, Leavitt died shortly afterward. Unlike Franklin her work had been published and was knowingly used by Hubble, who not only acknowledged her work, but stated that she deserved the Nobel prize for the discovery of the universe's relative size, because it would have been impossible to prove it without her.
I seem to recall that the case of Leavitt's stolen work is particularly bad because her PhD advisor told her that she should not publish her discovery because it might hurt her. He then took her idea and stole it to receive a Nobel I believe.
I am an amateur astronomer. Now that sensors are superb parallax is being used to determine the range and location of stars. With my current gear I can look at Hubble's Cepheid variable in Andromeda from my back yard. I have also seen nebulosity in another galaxy (although it is the largest know nebula). Sensors are so good now that I am part of the Gaia project that is checking the probe's position data. Many amateur astronomers are a part of this. It is fun but tedious. I was also part of an amateur astronomer project that took data of Jupiter and ran it through a provided computer program to determine if there were possible asteroid strikes (there are only about 4.5 strikes annually I believe).
Partly your description matches the work done by Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin... she did work on a PhD thesis, and Russell did discourage her from publishing her main result (that the sun mainly consists of hydrogen), and later Russell himself published that. But Russell also never got a Nobel prize.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I looked up the BBC video that I was thinking about and it was Payne-Gaposchkin's betrayal that I was thinking about.
Thanks. Another unrecognized woman whose brilliance should be a household name is Emmy Noether.
@@guarmiron5557 At least among students of physics, Noether's name is known.
The true size of the universe?
This is how science goes off the rails.
Excellent video - well done!
Lisa Meitner and many other women were also "overlooked" for Nobel Prizes.
This is the best video on this topic I have seen.
I had planned to say pretty much that exact same thing. This was such a great video!
Thank you! This is the first time I see the story in public media where it is actually mentioned that the Nobel prize was awarded after she had died. You say, they could have given her a prize still, however it was never common practice. I was not aware of the stories of the PhD students. Actually, I had the false memory that Franklin was Wilkins' PhD student. Great video!
I think a lot of us have that false memory. So ironic that Franklin herself had an undercredited assistant working under her, lol.
I received the Nobel Peace prize in 1988 and share it with about half a million others (a soldier from my squadron got to go and receive it for the UN). Just a funny aside.
What I wanted to say is that It is my understanding that the Nobel can not be awarded posthumously.
Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously, but if a person is awarded a prize and dies before receiving it, the prize is presented.
Nobel Prize winners are routinely leaders of research groups with a lot of the hands on work being done by graduate students and post-docs. Usually their contribution is not sufficient for a Nobel, but Jocelyn Bell is a PhD student who was perhaps unjustly overlooked.
No they couldn't give her the prize posthumously. The conditions for the Nobel prize are based on Nobel's LAST WILL and that has to be respected. If you don't like it, create another prize with other conditions. People talk about lack of respect to Franklin but they don't want to respect a dead man's will. That says it all.
Excellent to see such a balanced telling of this story. Kudos.
Thank you so much for this background information on Franklin! I had published notes on this in 2005 but was not aware of the subterfuge, although I knew there was some, to include the grandstanding Watson's badmouthing of her after her death in 1957.
Awesome podcast❣️❣️ Best presentation on this topic I have ever seen🤓❗️
I wonder if RUclips has awards for social influencers like Tibees for bringing this information that would otherwise just be stored away in the archives to the layman like myself.
Thank you🤔
They don't :)
They do. It's called the algorithm.
RUclips doesn't care about awards. It wants to bring in money thru ads and in other ways. Awards don't bring in money.
We all *need* income (including you and me). Otherwise we'd all be farming.
It's not stored away in the archives,it's a well known story and is outlined in the Wikipedia DNA entry .
@@GrahamMNewton you just taught this layman something new, thank you too.
Thanks for posting your video.
Always wait for your content!
Watson and Crick got credit for their DNA explanation, not because of the picture, but because they actually explained DNA. They were shown the picture by someone else (as you describe), and they DID fail to give her credit for the picture (except in the acknowledgements). But the picture itself didn't create the explanation, even the idea that it was a helix didn't come from the picture itself, but from Watson and Crick's model attempting to explain what they saw in the picture. Rosalind never developed a correct explanation of what she saw in the picture.
Watson is rude and treated Franklin unfairly. But he really did create the actual model.
Incidentally, my grandfather, Dean Fletcher, analyzed DNA in the late 1940s, and largely explained it, but couldn't prove it, because he lacked the picture.
It was the EXPLANATION they created. Nobody else put this all together.
Karma hits back watson had to sell his noble prize for surviving
Well, they did give her credit, as you say, in the acknowledgements. That was the proper way to do it, and they did it. They didn't show the X-ray picture, they didn't use its information (intensity values), so why should they give more credit to it, than they did?
@@scepticalchymistIf they hadn't lied about it some paragraphs earlier it wouldn't be as big of a deal. That paragraph was exactly where they could've been honest about the fact that they absolutely had been aware of the details of her work, and they chose to pretend this wasn't the case to come across better. Had they not contradicted the acknowledgement or even better written about it in the text there wouldn't be all that many fingers to point at them (aside from Watson trying to smear her legacy, anyway).
@@yfrit_gg You just don't understand it. Franklin's work was about collecting X-ray data and doing a structure refinement, Watson and Crick were model builders. Neither did Franklin at any time engage in the model building (in fact, she disapproved of it and made her opinion well known), nor did Watson and Crick at any time doing numerical calculations on the X-ray data. These are two totally different approaches to research, each with its merits and disadvantages, complementary of course, and if both teams would have worked together a great way of cooperation, but in the same way Watson and Crick did not work with Franklin, Franklin did not work with them, because they couldn't get along well at this time. But it takes two to tango, or not to tango as well. Watson and Crick FULLY deserve their Nobel prize even when they would have not acknowledged anyone else, because THEY build the model, THEY, and no one else, and before their success THEY were ridiculed for it, and THEY took all the risk of failure, and potential end of their careers in science if it had turned out wrong. THEY did it, not Franklin, although she could have done it, but it was her decision, NOT to build a model.
The amount of effort you put in your videos is amazing ❤❤
This was no scandal at all. Crick's account in his memoir is the one to read, not Watson's, or those of people trying to spin it into a scandal.
The 1987 BBC Horizon special drama documentary about these dramatic events called "Life Story" ( or "The Race for the Double Helix" ) is highly recommended - it's like you were a fly on the wall, back when they took place - so brilliantly written, insightful and captivating, 😊
None of us are standing on our own, we all stand on the shoulders of those who figured it first.
But who actually figured it first?
@@jonadam5505 It's shoulders all the way down.
@@cleonanderson1722who’s at the bottom?
@@caseinnitrate2004 according to official quackademia media LSD, crick said he was tripping balls when 'figuring out' the dna structure...
@@caseinnitrate2004I’m at the bottom😏
A beautifully told story.
I'm a physicist (specifically an AMO physicist, a subfield where we have small labs using lasers, not the LHC or large fusion reactors or neutron detectors of some other subfields with huge collaborations), and as you get to the end of the video and talk about all the people involved, and about the fact that there was no data in the famous paper from Watson and Crick, there's several things about the way things work in my field that stand out:
-Yes, there's a lot of people building on one another. You can't do a lot of the basic quantum physics research of modern neutral atom labs without first making a Bose-Einstein condensate, and you can't make a Bose-Einstein condensate without first doing laser cooling, and you can't do laser cooling without first doing a lot of spectroscopy and building lasers.
-There are cases where one team stands out as putting things together in groundbreaking ways, but that is the exception, it's usually incremental steps
-Graduate students and postdocs do most of the day-to-day work, and the role of a Principal Investigator (PI for short, in a university setting that's the professor in charge) varies, with some cases where the graduate student really deserves the credit and the PI contributed little more than funding, others where the PI was really critical in the insights needed to make the experiment happen, and occasionally the PI will really be in the lab quite a bit, though the way academic research works and funding models and all that makes that exceptionally difficult. The standard practice in our field is that the first author will be the graduate student or postdoc who took the lead in the experiment, with the PI (or PIs if it's a collaboration of multiple research group) as the final authors on the paper, so both the leaders in running the experiment and the PI are implicitly acknowledged (and occasionally there will even be a footnote stating that the first two authors, typically both graduate students or postdocs, contributed equally). Of course, because credit is how you get funding and get jobs and all of that, there are a lot of incentives to warp things, and sometimes the wrong person will be first author, though every lab that I've worked in has been healthy enough that I don't think this has happened, and you'll even have contributors who each need to get their big paper agreeing ahead of time, "I'm taking the lead on this experiment, you take the lead on that experiment, we'll each be first author, and we'll each be second author." But credit is where money and personal stakes really get involved, so it is the most fraught part of the process.
-In physics, the field is really divided up into experimentalists and theorists. Thus, a paper with no experimental data isn't uncommon, a large proportion of physicists' jobs don't directly involved experiment, just understanding and synthesizing the data that's out there to develop theories and proposals, much like the Watson and Crick paper. The best experimentalists respond to and understand theory, looking to see how their apparatus could run experiments that actually differentiate between different theories or provide data that could really help theorists formulate theories, and the best theorists respond to and understand experiments on some level, looking to understand the data that is out there and to make proposals for tests of theories that are achievable by the technology that's out there. Of course, experimentalists make jokes at theorists' expense and vice versa, but we rely on one another to move scientific research forward in the most effective way possible. I am personally an experimentalist.
-Looking at credit and the experimentalist/theorist divide, Nobel prizes have acknowledged a mix of experiment and theory over the years, though of course there are those who will argue that the balance is off one way or the other (personally I don't know whether it's off, I guess I haven't paid enough attention to that).
You're all messed up! The highest publication scores of all research fields, and this mess about work vs. credit!
Franklin didn’t recognise the significance of her photo.
That was where the magic was.
She did, she collected the data, constructed the model, obtained the measurements and published her research.
So very interesting as always.
Great video! You're right that many celebrated discoveries took many people to come through, although just a few receive their due recognition. The so called Higgs boson in physics is just one of them. 16:02 I learnt about DNA and RNA at high school back in 1967, and again you're right: I didn't appreciate the effort it had taken to discover them.
As commented earlier, the actual photograph was taken by Franklin's PhD student, Raymond Gosling who seems to be almost forgotten and ignored instead of receiving much of the credit. Both Franklin and Gosling were opposed to the idea of DNA being a double helix when Watson & Crick first suggested it, but eventually came round to that view. When Franklin left the laboratory, Gosling carried on with his DNA work for his PHD with Wilkins as his supervisor - this is why Wilkins had a copy of the photo.
It says that in the video
😊
I introduce my grad students to the fact that Raymond Gosling actually took photo 51, it quite often leads to interesting discussions about scientific credit. Typically grad students a very keen to think that Gosling was under appreciated.
Corrections:
🔸the X-ray diffraction was done from wet drawn out fibers of DNA not 3D crystals.
🔸You missed the important paper where Crick (+ Klug, Wyckoff) developed the diffraction theory for helical objects (Diffraction by Helical structures). So it wasn't guess work from Crick, he was the only person in the world who could correctly interpret photograph 51.
Source: 2 of my supervisors worked under Klug in the MRC.
68K views in 1 day.:) Never let the truth get in the way of a good story ... or of a pretty face.:):)
@@evad7933 What do you mean by that?
Crick was a much more experiment-oriented and had a much longer history of work in the field than Watson and he provided a gravitas to the 1953 paper ----- but even given his insights I am not sure why you say a sort of cleaning-up paper published 5 years after the fact showed it -- Crick, Klug, and Wyckoff published "Diffraction by Helical Structures" in 1958, Acta Crystallographica.
@@kevinkanter2537 Well they published later, because it had no relevance till after the DNA model come out and they wanted to keep their cards close to their chest. This paper best illustrated what they knew. Of course science moved quite slowly back then so publication are spread far apart.
Something similar happened to Jocelyn Bell,who discovered pulsars. The Nobel prize went to her thesis supervisor.
In Jocelyn Bell's case, she was outright robbed by her thesis supervisor and his friend. Fortunately the history books recognize that she alone discovered pulsars and the scumbags who won the Nobel Prize deserve to be remembered for being scumbags.
history only remembers the names of criminals.
@@sumdumbmickWow: GOATED comment! The more I see and hear, I'm increasingly believing this!
i wish there was a comment "playlist",@@sumdumbmick
Marie Curie would not have received her first Nobel if her husband had not insisted.
Routine hard work done well deserves recognition even if it doesn't directly produce dramatic results. Synthesizing fragments of known data into a new coherent theory is a different matter.
What a very good and clarifying video !
Excellent presentation and it shows what a deeply collaborative process Science is despite all the competition. It doesn't show the competition of Wilkins's lab with Linus Pauling's lab and the contributions Pauling made with explicating the structure of proteins.
Very informative and interesting!
we all stand on the shoulders of giants.
I didnt even know there was a second channel!
Under counter material.
Maybe there's a secret third channel.
"Double rainbow?! Triple rainbow!"
Really interesting video - I'd only heard the story as Franklin getting screwed over by colleagues and missing the Nobel; I had no idea that she didn't take the photo, and that actually there were a whole series of steps and discoveries prior to that. If big discoveries these days are more like long chains of events, makes you wonder if the nobel needs a new way to honour large groups of people (ie if we're not in the age of lone geniuses anymore). Great video!
Saw this video on Nebula and wanted to give you my support here.
Awesome video. Can’t believe you thought this belongs to the second channel. This is great stuff.
Nice presentation. It's interesting that people have actually amplified your main point that more people should have gotten credit for the result by bringing up others that you missed.
So Gosling showed his own work to someone who understood what they were looking at and took advantage. Sure it’s cutthroat.
@@whiskyguzzler982 Rosalind Franklin and James Watson both viewed Gosling’s image. But they drew different conclusions.
Seriously ❤️ Tibees !
Brilliant analysis! Well done!
Nicely put together. Seems like you should be, additionally, directing some attention on the structure and selection process of the Nobel Committee.
Great summary! Just to say there is a classic and balanced book on the discovery of DNA: "The Eighth Day of Creation" By Horace Freeland Judson. In the second part he goes on to discuss the role others such as Jacob & Monod made later, which are equally fascinating. Maybe a bit hard to obtain now, though.
Tibees! ❤
A wonderfully complete and objective perspective - thank you for this informative presentation.
It demonstrates the multifaceted nuances influencing scientific research, and that this field suffers from the same potential personal conflicts as any other field of research - including competition and ego.
We like to think of scientific research as the thankless work of dedicated individuals making great sacrifices to help improve the human condition, but the reality is that everything in life is competitive and this can sometimes become too personal.
Many thanks, Tibees. It is very interesting, well for those who were involved in these scandal " they'll live with The Nobel Prize's frame, but they died as the theft "
Oh... I thought you were going to speak about the recent Nobel price to IA. 😮
Nevertheless, the Franklin topic came just as handy. 😊
Amazing how cutthroat academia is, even at my small little out of the way uni in Florida. I was just glad there were still more than enough honourable professors and grad students to displace the distasteful types.
Thank you for some good rabbit hole history.
Great vid tx
A well-prepared and nicely done presentation. Thanks for posting this. I had no idea that the beginnings of DNA went back more than 100 years.
(Psst: it goes back way farther than that)
Thanks for highlighting her role in this research.
This shows again how a final theory is only but the consecration of scientific hypothesis constructed on top of each other into at some point a more general cohesive theory 12:07 , like the part on Franklin and the forerunners of the "discovery"🤌🏾🤌🏾🤌🏾
It's a good point well made that the big scientific leaps usually happen when certain, seemingly random, elements get put together by someone. Very reminiscent of James Burke and his Connection series. (I consider that a pretty sizeable compliment, btw.)
Connections was a really great series
Great work! I just wanted to point out that "Miescher" would actually be pronounced like "Meesher" at 12:19
Correct, it is "Meesher". It is a mystery to me why highly educated English speakers with lots of knowledge never care to find out the pronunciation in other languages.
@@svergurd3873 Even really smart English monolinguals seem to just assume everything about foreign languages is just too hard. Just a guess though. As a language nerd I can't help noticing stuff like this all the time everywhere.
As a language nerd, you might want to look into the actual meaning of, "all the time" and "everywhere". There are approx 7,000 languages in the world of which English is the most widely spoken, consequently even if I start a conversation in German, chances are it will be switched to English by the other party. Given that within languages pronunciation varies by region ......Glass, Castle, Scone etc, I can only advise .......get a life and study something useful ! 🤷♀️
This was an excellent depiction of who was actually involved in discovering the structure of DNA, thank you very much. ❤
Your DNA expose was extremely illuminating!
Undoubtedly, the socially individualistic and egocentric reward systems, where the success of one or a few results in the loss or neglect of others, have been creating significant unfairness. By recognising the value of all participants and the overall benefits to the greater collective, we can honour everyone involved.
Thank you for this quite interesting and contemplative thought provoking topic. 🙏🏻🔆
James Burkes outstanding series "Connections" explores how one persons observations or experiments produces a break through in knowledge, sometimes without intent.
As Issac Newton is reputed to have said
“If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants.”
I love your voice, you should do audiobooks!
Remarkable how they figured this out wit something so small.
She didn't deserve a Nobel.
Period.
They did, indeed
Next do a hitpiece on Einstein
Nice indeed hello from Australia.
Thank you for sharing the truth.
Great story on the topic. This is rather rampant in tech
money makes more money,
and creds get more creds
fight, or else be left
for the dead
An excellent movie on this topic is The Race for the Double Helix, a BBC production, depicting Watson's, Crick's and Franklin's efforts. Jeff Goldblum plays Watson, Tim Pigott-Smith plays Crick, and Juliet Stevenson plays Franklin. Curiously James Watson was a co-writer on the project, which pulls no punches on the role played by Franklin.
I'll have to check it out! Does the film talk about Watson's terrible views on Black people, women in science, and eugenics?
@@Bat_Biologist 1950s, one could just assume that was the case.
We saw this at school. Good film.
@maximecloutier-gravel8908 You make a good point. He has been quoted saying hateful things in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, too.
They probably didn't let him. In person, he's one of the worst characters I've ever met. Absolute nasty old person.
You have a soothing voice and makes me wanna learn more maths and stuff!
Great video.
Absolutely amazing!
Science is collaborative by nature. Giving awards to specific individuals kind of misses and undermines the point of science.
I teased an old bloke once that he sounded like Watson and crick, his accent and the way he spoke... he was like oh yeah, my first job out of uni was working in their lab.
There is no scandal here. Watson and Crick did get the Nobel prize for building the structure model of DNA. They did not really use any data in their work apart from commonly known bond distances and angles. In particular, they did not refine X-ray diffraction data. Franklin did this, and it is another occupation, and she got all the credit for that. Insinuating a scandal here just shows huge disrespect for the creativity of model builders, which could be thought of theoretical scientists, in comparison to experimentalist. I find it hugely dishonest and embarrassing to not pay respect to this kind of scientific task. I would be similar to blame Kepler for using Brahe's data and say that he stole it. Or to say Newton disrespected Galileo. These people just did very different things, and those things were not equally worthy a prize. Crystallographic data (much like data in general) in and of itself is worthless without the proper structure model, so devising the model is the ultimate task, not just measuring the data.
There are those who are opportunistic when the occasion arises, and they are worthy of credit, but all party's involved should be fully acknowledged, and it is good we have the whole story.
Some scientists are mainly experimenters and some are mainly theorists. If a single experiment is groundbreaking a Nobel prize may result. The Nobel for DNA structure was awarded for a theoretical synthesis that made sense of earlier lab experiments. I don't see a problem with that.
Einstein left the chat
I was once interviewed for an podcast about my own theories regarding a literary mystery. The interview lasted for about an hour or so. When the podcast came out, the pod caster related, among his own research, many of the original research findings and even opinions of my own. They made up a bulk of his broadcast, but he never once cited me. He made it seem as though the work was all his own: His discoveries, his research, his findings, his opinions.
It's nice that you have dispelled the myth that Franklin "took the picture" that first described DNA, and that this discovery was a complex and cooperative venture.
that is a really good explanation. thanks alot.
Great vid!
Toby this was a fantastic video, I really appreciate your work and calm thoughtfulness.
TLDR - Below is my plea for someone to take a look at the work of another brilliant woman who's scientific accomplishment may be even more overlooked.
By attributing particle diffraction patterns to physical wave interference, we may be inadvertently bypassing the work of another incredible woman, Carolyne (Karolyne) Van Vliet, whose work on understanding the quantum nature of diffraction pattern formation lies in obscurity. In 1967, Van Vliet took William Duane's 1923 quantum model of crystal diffraction, (roundly dismissed by Bohr and other theorists,) as being grounded in standard quantum theory, by showing how the collective reaction of the quantum structure in a lattice yeilds the correct elastic scattering behaviour. In 2010 at the age of 80 she then published a second paper that showed how Duane's model could work for aperiodic lattices and gratings, removing the need to consider wave interference across multiple apertures as the source of the scattering effect.
Well before the Schrodinger/Heisenberg formulation, Duane had essentially treated a crystal lattice as an array of cavities and showed that applying Bohr's own quantum rule to the cavity dimensions and form predicts an allowed set of momentum transfers that can occur during specular reflection of a particle or photon. The Bohr rule not anly gave the discrete energy levels of the atom, it also gave a discrete explanation the Laue/Bragg diffraction patterns. In momentum space, the discrete set of possible momentum exchanges from Duane's quantum rule predicts the peaks in the reciprocal lattice. Duane and others then deduced that the reciprocal lattice is the Fourier transform of the electron distribution in lattice (squared) multiplied by Planck's constant, and deduced that the crystal structure is the inverse transform of the pattern of momentum exchanges that form a diffraction pattern. By treating the quantized exchange of momentum as the result of the collective reaction of the matter in the scatterer, and not the incident particle acting in a non-localized manner gives the same result, Karolyne's 1967 contribution shows that Duane's model would have a sound foundation in quantum theory, but would contradict the interpretation that quantum effects could be universally explained by the principle of wave interference.
Duane's model was acknowledged at the 1927 Solvay conference as being superior to the Bragg model - by William Bragg! It is stunning that prior to de Broglie, Duane had a viable scientific model of discrete particle scattering by crystals, the Davisson Germer result also fit his work, and yet particle "diffraction" is written into every textbook as if it confirms de Broglie's hypothesis alone.
One key to Bohr's dismissal was that prior to 1924 and the failure of the BKS model, Bohr had staunchly denied the photoelectric effect was evidence of the photon, and Duane's model, even though it brilliantly incorporated Bohr's work, because it would have meant Bohr's "correspondence principle" was a bust. A reading of "Rejection of the Light Quantum: The Dark Side of Niels Bohr" might give insight to Bohr's fanaticism on this point. After living through WWII in Nazi occupied Netherlands, Karolyne emigrated to the US where she became a physics professor, specializing in quantum noise, and published 200+ scientific papers. If you jot down the Bragg condition sin(theta) = n*lambda/d, then solve for the momentum exchanged with some slits using p=h/lambda you get a simple momentum condition (delta)p= nh/d, completely independent of the incident momentum or type of particle - you can't unsee that. Thank you
If only Franklin hadn't let her "feelings" get in the way and had made Watson that sandwhich ....😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
Science is a collective effort of humanity. It would be something like no one should use a laptop or a computer to do research because you did not first invent a computer of your own
pretty much describes the situation in my opinion. the story with insulin is similar but different. though often regarded that it was by banting/best, it was macleod who received the recognition, and james collip was also left out. in the end, their discovery was so impure that it only got mixed results; and their treatment of dogs....
It's not about using previous work, it's about getting credit (that btw is very beneficial to a lot of these peoples' careers) for someone else's work
Well rosalind stole the best equipment and sample from wilkins and refused to work with him even though he hired her and bought the equipment. Watson and crick and wilkins would have discovered the helix farbquicker if she never came to kings
@@kenshikenji honestly, i'm surprised anyone discovered that dna was a double helix; just not trivial from seeing the x-rays
@@kenshikenji perhaps in a similar vein is the story of henrietta swan leavitt having discovered a relationship between period and luminosity of cepheid stars; but it was ejnar hertzsprung who discovered a mathematical relationship that showed those stars could be used to measure distances...
Very interesting. Thanks
The selection process of the winners may be questionable, but millions of lives were saved by Nobel prize winners, insulin, penicillin, cure for pernicious anemia, cardiac catheterization, better treatment for malaria, CT scan, PCR, LDL, monoclonal antibodies, mRNA, and who remembers today gastric ulcer?
Very enjoyable. Keep up the excellent work.
Ms Franklin is in good company. Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell comes immediately to mind. Thanks Tibees, you're the best!
Exactly what I was thinking.
Ditto
And Lise Meitner (she worked with Otto Hahn, who got the Nobel prize).
Henrietta Swan Leavitt.
Thanks for your channel! (1) I feel we should construct a small, 1-2 room monument for all the people like Rosalinda Franklin & Gosling & others, that got ignored. It could be somewhere near the Nobel Institute in Oslo, Norway and consist of audio visual, virtual etc medium. In fact, this RUclips post works as a memorial & is in the same direction :) (2) It seems Rosalinda died of ovarian cancer. My (conjecture) question is did the considerable exposure to the x-rays in her lab was anyway responsible? I do not know what was level of awareness for the need for protection in 1952 and also what was available for the protection at the King's College, London.
(1) Why in Oslo?? The Norwegian institute only works with the peace prize. The prizes in science and medicine are awarded by committees in Sweden (Stockholm). (2) I have always thought that her cancer was caused by x-ray exposure, but I think the question is not settled. That is what Wikipedia says.
@@svergurd3873 Right. Also, maybe it happens for many categories. In that case, we can have more than one location or just one at a central location, if they have something like a head-office :) Or they may already have a section in their library, called something like 'controversies' :)
Note that in the Franklin and Gosling paper, based on Gosling's PhD project, Franklin put herself forward as the senior author. Quite common practise at the time - not tolerated at all these days. Wilkins was one of Gosling' supervisors and Gosling never disputed his sharing of Gosling's data. The creator of data has the moral rights to that data, but the legal rights lay with the employer - university or government department - particularly in the immediate post-WWII days. The three laboratories co-ordinated the publication of their papers in the same issue of Nature.
If I understand well, Franklin thought about a helix, not a double helix. Watson and Crick were the ones that conceived the right structure, a double helix.
The Nobel Prize has its own rules on limits of Prize recipients. But that wouldn't prevent them from adding a second-honors category to capture and credit other contributors.
THANK YOU
Thankyou that was brilliant. I had always understood up till now that Rosalind Franklin did not recieve a Nobel prize because she had died.
Science always relies on the discoveries of those who went before, Franklin's results would not have been possible if not for the development of X ray crystalography by Laurence Bragg who in turn based his ideas on a discovery by Max Laue that X rays defracted when passed through certain crystals.
I noticed recently that some scientific companies name their meeting rooms to Rosalin Franklin.
Nobody naming them Raymond Gosling, though.
@@testboga5991 Go away, troll.
Yay! Someone talking about the wonderful Rosalind Franklin 🎉❤
I've always assumed that referees reject good papers then send a copy of them to their friend.
It's a horrible thought isn't it but you can protect yourself from this by sending the paper off for pre-publication to effectively be able to claim attribution.
A nonsense attack on referees who give their time freely from someone who has never been near the process as either author or referee.
Why would you assume such a ridiculous thing?
@@pshehan1I have been in both positions and know first hand that referees are not necessarily full of abnegation doing it for the good of the research community and of humanity. There are often favouritism and power games to favour oneself or colleagues.
@@SC-fk9nc I have also been in both positions. You can never eliminate wrong doers from any large collection of people but they are rare.
Tibees.. your proceuction quality is second to none. Being a teacher is truly your calling.
It's a pity that a gift of nature passed away at only 37. I wonder if she could live a bit longer than what much more she could contribute! I also feel bad that mischief happened to her 😔
When you work in the hard sciences you know that the ones getting the accolades are not necessarily the ones who did the dirty work. You work with repurposed equipment and chemicals that are not the safest. You work long hours and the boredom is interrupted by moments of fight when something goes wrong/right. It's not a prescription for a long life but for certain people it is their life.
Crick did almost all the work on DNA, Watson was the only guy who understood what he did and helped, some woman happened to get a photo of it and the clown world is giving its best to plug that she did everything.
But Rosalind not takeaway usual photo... she discovery the only method that DNA can be caracterized.
this makes me think of Kepler getting famous with Tycho Brahe's data
Another lost Nobel that bothers me is John Stewart Bell. He probably wrote the most important paper in all of quantum physics and died the year he was presumably nominated.