This blog is devoted to BIOL 6988, a graduate level seminar in the biological sciences at Youngstown State University. While targeted towards graduate students, BIOL 6988 actively incorporates undergraduate participants in their scholastic endeavors in the biological sciences. This blog is intended as a educational tool not just for YSU students and faculty, but for anyone who wishes to contribute to an active-learning environment.
Now that we watched "The Double Helix" today, I believe it is up to Gillian to begin the conversation. I'm looking forward to your thoughtful discourse.
I'm sure we've all had a few exposures to Watson and Crick and the discovery of the double helix throughout our biology careers. What I thought was particularly interesting about this video however, was the insight into the social factors that contributed to the actual determination of the structure and base pairing. Since beginning my research on empathy with Dr. Tall, social influences behind various biological concepts have been of particular interest to me. A few social/psychological points that I noted as seeming to be specifically relevant were: -the ability of James Watson and Francis Crick to successfully theorize and cooperate in the laboratory setting despite their diverse backgrounds as scientists -conflict between Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin, regarding both gender roles and personality, that lead to specific paths in their own research, despite working at the same college -the dedication and persistence displayed by the team, despite their first triple helix model being disproved and considered a failure -the "stubbornness" of Linus Pauling in his unwillingness to abandon the illogical triple helix hypothesis, despite being referred to as "the greatest physical chemist of all time"
It seems very obvious to me that the different personality traits and relationships between the individuals noted in the video directly lead to the determination of the double helix and advancement of all the related biology disciplines. Do you think the discovery would have been impeded or perhaps facilitated had these specific individuals not been so focused on the project? If their personal characteristics were not so strong? If relationships had developed differently? If the same individuals studied in different geographic locations?
I look forward to your feedback, thank you! -Jillian
I apologize for the double post, I'm still figuring out this blog thing!
You've raised some good questions there, Jillian. It is always interesting to think of how past events might have turned out differently had even the smallest detail been altered. For instance, while one might assume that a better working relationship with Dr. Franklin would have facilitated the group's research, it is equally plausible that her social distance led to a more focused effort by the other three members. What if, rather than disliking one another, she and Dr. Wilkins had developed romantic feelings for each other? It seems reasonable to think that this could have derailed their respective research at least to some degree. After all, Dr. Watson himself stated that he would either solve the structure of DNA or get a girlfriend. Let’s be thankful that he struck out with the ladies that year, or else we might still believe in protein as the genetic material!
I think in any research what one needs is determination and focus.We see many people being mentioned in the video who tried to work on the DNA but were unsuccessful.The fact that Watson and Crick had different background,they had the same interest that lead them share their ideas and work together as a team.The discovery of the triple helix at first by Watson and Crick was dismissed by Franklin and I guess it was not good news to them and this made them work extra harder until one day Dr.Watson was successful.If this great scientist(Watson) had found a girlfriend to my opinion, he would have quit research and have time with his girlfriend and perhaps start a family ,and we would still be in the world of "genes are transferred by the unknown molecules "up to this date, and research would not have made new discoveries such as DNA test that helps to connect to the unknown branches of your family in life.
After doing some light research on Linus Pauling, it seems that he was even more stubborn than the video depicted. After being proved wrong, he claimed he never saw the now famous “photograph 51” by Franklin, and was never able make it to England because a hold on his passport because of political reasons when he had scheduled a trip England. However, it was revealed that Pauling’s assistant was able to obtain a copy of the photograph and showed it to Pauling before he published his paper. Pauling did have a hold on his passport, but not for political reasons, and ended up going on a tour of England before publishing his paper. It was his choice not to visit King’s College or Cavendish Laboratory. Pauling could’ve added more to his legacy and saved some embarrassment had he not been so stubborn. I guess it goes to show that it takes more than intelligence to win a discovery race.
Sticking with the theme of social issues regarding the discovery of the double helix, I find it interesting how a combination of collaboration and competition really drove the discovery of the structure of DNA. For instance, what if James Watson and Francis Crick's paths had never crossed? How much would that have delayed the discovery of the double helix? I also believe that the competitive nature of the research, as well as the general dislike of the researchers for one another, catalyzed the findings. The sense of pride and accountability that all of the scientists involved took in their research and their willingness to sacrifice other aspects of their lives in order to win this "molecular arms race" really sped up the process of discovery in my opinion.
I agree, Kory. I think that when working on something as important as the discovery of the structure of DNA was, that the competition drove the researchers to be able to discover the structure. It is reasonable to say that if all of the researchers involved were working together, their personal beliefs could have impeded the research. With all the researchers working with different backgrounds and different expectations for the work, in the end contributed to the actual discovery of DNA structure. Without any one of the researchers, the structure of DNA may have taken much longer to be discovered. Sometimes the diversity of a lab can contribute more, than if you had a group of individuals all with the same expectations and research bias.
It's a shame that our culture puts such a value on who gets credit for research that it stifles discovery. Had Watson, Crick, Franklin, and Pauling not been worried about who was recognized for the discovery the structure may have been determined earlier. In the case of the discovery of DNA's structure it may have only advanced the discovery a few months. However, it is a good example of the importance of collaboration and cooperation.
I agree with Aaron, people put too much value in who should get credit for research, who had the ideas, etc. Imagine if everyone worked together to solve a common problem. Maybe a few more questions in science would have been solved by now. If Watson, Crick, Franklin and Pauling collaborated, the double helix more than likely would have been solved earlier.
I respectfully disagree with Bill and Aaron. I believe that competition empowers people to make great advances in pursuit of their goal(s). In this case, that goal was to be the person who would determine the structure of DNA. If Watson, Crick, Franklin, and Pauling were to work together, perhaps they would have eventually determined the structure of DNA but there is no doubt in my mind that it would have taken exceptionally longer without the sense of competition. For example, the value of competition in science could be more clearly recognized in the space race between the Soviets and Americans. In less than a decade Americans were able to put astronauts on the moon even though the Soviet space program was well ahead of ours when we began. It was the competition of who was going to reach the moon first that ultimately led to the US achieving this goal before the Soviets. And since the ending of the cold war humans have yet to travel in space to a distance past the moon, primarily due to the lack of competition.
I agree that the discovery of the structure of DNA was driven by the competition and the race to be the first to figure it out. Watson and Crick clearly worked well together and bounced ideas off each other. Adding anyone else to that mix probably would have impeded the discovery rather than helped it. Watson and Crick and Rosalind Franklin sounded very dismissive toward each other and while that attitude may have fueled the competitiveness, it would not have helped if they were working together the whole time. However, if they had been able to work together, they would have gotten several key pieces of information sooner such as the correct measurements from Franklin, Franklins photo 51 and her observation about the symmetry of DNA.
I will say that is is a shame that Franklin was unable to receive a Nobel Prize for either her work with Watson and Crick, though as mentioned she was a bit dismissive toward their work, or for her work in the development of crystallographic electron microscopy which was awarded to her colleague and probably would have been awarded to her as she was the one who even brought him into the project in the first place.
On the other hand, I think it was also interesting to see Pauling's rejection of double stranded for his belief of the triple stranded form. This is something that, I feel, is glossed over in education of this subject. Mainly because he was obviously wrong now that we know more. But at the time, he was one of the leading minds in biology and for him to dismiss something in favor of something else was kind of a big deal.
I agree with Joseph how being stubborn can be a downfall. While watching that clip it does show Franklin had a huge role in discovering the Double helix model through pictures. If they were to set aside their problems and differences and worked together they could have discovered the model much quicker. I believe to this day stubbornness, pride, and competition play a huge role on the delay in some research.
Thank you for the intro, Dr. Cooper.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure we've all had a few exposures to Watson and Crick and the discovery of the double helix throughout our biology careers. What I thought was particularly interesting about this video however, was the insight into the social factors that contributed to the actual determination of the structure and base pairing. Since beginning my research on empathy with Dr. Tall, social influences behind various biological concepts have been of particular interest to me. A few social/psychological points that I noted as seeming to be specifically relevant were:
-the ability of James Watson and Francis Crick to successfully theorize and cooperate in the laboratory setting despite their diverse backgrounds as scientists
-conflict between Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin, regarding both gender roles and personality, that lead to specific paths in their own research, despite working at the same college
-the dedication and persistence displayed by the team, despite their first triple helix model being disproved and considered a failure
-the "stubbornness" of Linus Pauling in his unwillingness to abandon the illogical triple helix hypothesis, despite being referred to as "the greatest physical chemist of all time"
It seems very obvious to me that the different personality traits and relationships between the individuals noted in the video directly lead to the determination of the double helix and advancement of all the related biology disciplines. Do you think the discovery would have been impeded or perhaps facilitated had these specific individuals not been so focused on the project? If their personal characteristics were not so strong? If relationships had developed differently? If the same individuals studied in different geographic locations?
I look forward to your feedback, thank you!
-Jillian
I apologize for the double post, I'm still figuring out this blog thing!
You've raised some good questions there, Jillian. It is always interesting to think of how past events might have turned out differently had even the smallest detail been altered. For instance, while one might assume that a better working relationship with Dr. Franklin would have facilitated the group's research, it is equally plausible that her social distance led to a more focused effort by the other three members. What if, rather than disliking one another, she and Dr. Wilkins had developed romantic feelings for each other? It seems reasonable to think that this could have derailed their respective research at least to some degree. After all, Dr. Watson himself stated that he would either solve the structure of DNA or get a girlfriend. Let’s be thankful that he struck out with the ladies that year, or else we might still believe in protein as the genetic material!
ReplyDeleteI think in any research what one needs is determination and focus.We see many people being mentioned in the video who tried to work on the DNA but were unsuccessful.The fact that Watson and Crick had different background,they had the same interest that lead them share their ideas and work together as a team.The discovery of the triple helix at first by Watson and Crick was dismissed by Franklin and I guess it was not good news to them and this made them work extra harder until one day Dr.Watson was successful.If this great scientist(Watson) had found a girlfriend to my opinion, he would have quit research and have time with his girlfriend and perhaps start a family ,and we would still be in the world of "genes are transferred by the unknown molecules "up to this date, and research would not have made new discoveries such as DNA test that helps to connect to the unknown branches of your family in life.
ReplyDeleteAfter doing some light research on Linus Pauling, it seems that he was even more stubborn than the video depicted. After being proved wrong, he claimed he never saw the now famous “photograph 51” by Franklin, and was never able make it to England because a hold on his passport because of political reasons when he had scheduled a trip England. However, it was revealed that Pauling’s assistant was able to obtain a copy of the photograph and showed it to Pauling before he published his paper. Pauling did have a hold on his passport, but not for political reasons, and ended up going on a tour of England before publishing his paper. It was his choice not to visit King’s College or Cavendish Laboratory. Pauling could’ve added more to his legacy and saved some embarrassment had he not been so stubborn. I guess it goes to show that it takes more than intelligence to win a discovery race.
ReplyDeleteSticking with the theme of social issues regarding the discovery of the double helix, I find it interesting how a combination of collaboration and competition really drove the discovery of the structure of DNA. For instance, what if James Watson and Francis Crick's paths had never crossed? How much would that have delayed the discovery of the double helix? I also believe that the competitive nature of the research, as well as the general dislike of the researchers for one another, catalyzed the findings. The sense of pride and accountability that all of the scientists involved took in their research and their willingness to sacrifice other aspects of their lives in order to win this "molecular arms race" really sped up the process of discovery in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Kory. I think that when working on something as important as the discovery of the structure of DNA was, that the competition drove the researchers to be able to discover the structure. It is reasonable to say that if all of the researchers involved were working together, their personal beliefs could have impeded the research. With all the researchers working with different backgrounds and different expectations for the work, in the end contributed to the actual discovery of DNA structure. Without any one of the researchers, the structure of DNA may have taken much longer to be discovered. Sometimes the diversity of a lab can contribute more, than if you had a group of individuals all with the same expectations and research bias.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame that our culture puts such a value on who gets credit for research that it stifles discovery. Had Watson, Crick, Franklin, and Pauling not been worried about who was recognized for the discovery the structure may have been determined earlier. In the case of the discovery of DNA's structure it may have only advanced the discovery a few months. However, it is a good example of the importance of collaboration and cooperation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aaron, people put too much value in who should get credit for research, who had the ideas, etc. Imagine if everyone worked together to solve a common problem. Maybe a few more questions in science would have been solved by now. If Watson, Crick, Franklin and Pauling collaborated, the double helix more than likely would have been solved earlier.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with Bill and Aaron. I believe that competition empowers people to make great advances in pursuit of their goal(s). In this case, that goal was to be the person who would determine the structure of DNA. If Watson, Crick, Franklin, and Pauling were to work together, perhaps they would have eventually determined the structure of DNA but there is no doubt in my mind that it would have taken exceptionally longer without the sense of competition. For example, the value of competition in science could be more clearly recognized in the space race between the Soviets and Americans. In less than a decade Americans were able to put astronauts on the moon even though the Soviet space program was well ahead of ours when we began. It was the competition of who was going to reach the moon first that ultimately led to the US achieving this goal before the Soviets. And since the ending of the cold war humans have yet to travel in space to a distance past the moon, primarily due to the lack of competition.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the discovery of the structure of DNA was driven by the competition and the race to be the first to figure it out. Watson and Crick clearly worked well together and bounced ideas off each other. Adding anyone else to that mix probably would have impeded the discovery rather than helped it. Watson and Crick and Rosalind Franklin sounded very dismissive toward each other and while that attitude may have fueled the competitiveness, it would not have helped if they were working together the whole time. However, if they had been able to work together, they would have gotten several key pieces of information sooner such as the correct measurements from Franklin, Franklins photo 51 and her observation about the symmetry of DNA.
ReplyDeleteI will say that is is a shame that Franklin was unable to receive a Nobel Prize for either her work with Watson and Crick, though as mentioned she was a bit dismissive toward their work, or for her work in the development of crystallographic electron microscopy which was awarded to her colleague and probably would have been awarded to her as she was the one who even brought him into the project in the first place.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think it was also interesting to see Pauling's rejection of double stranded for his belief of the triple stranded form. This is something that, I feel, is glossed over in education of this subject. Mainly because he was obviously wrong now that we know more. But at the time, he was one of the leading minds in biology and for him to dismiss something in favor of something else was kind of a big deal.
I agree with Joseph how being stubborn can be a downfall. While watching that clip it does show Franklin had a huge role in discovering the Double helix model through pictures. If they were to set aside their problems and differences and worked together they could have discovered the model much quicker. I believe to this day stubbornness, pride, and competition play a huge role on the delay in some research.
ReplyDelete