He was strippedof his education this week. Good riddance, hes a racist bigot who doesn't back up his views with any scientific evidence. This makes him a racist bigot indeed, & he has embarrassed the science community and denigrated ethnic people. Disgusting Man. .
the media and politicians trying their best to kill this guy who helped science, he was fired and all his titles and honours to be taken away when he said Africans IQ level is lower..
I think most people aren't upset over the fact that Franklin didn't get Nobel recognition, they're upset that Watson is flat out refusing to give her the credit she deserves. Watson pressured one of Franklin's lab assistants into stealing an x ray photo she took (from which she ultimately died from due to over exposure to x rays) and it just so happened that the photo was the final piece of evidence Watson needed to completely figure out the structure of DNA. They couldn't have done it without her, and most importantly, Franklin had previously already figured out the structure of DNA well before Watson did - she just knew that she couldn't share her findings in England because unlike France where she previously practiced science, England was very unwelcoming to the idea of women actually doing what they want with their lives. Franklin knew that if she had actually shared her findings Watson could very well easily swoop in and take the credit and no one would believe her, so she kept it to herself and didn't get the chance to share her own personal findings before she passed.
Watson didn't steal anything - Franklin had X-ray photographs that showed the shape that the DNA took - that it was wider and thinner in some spots, making a criss-crossing shape. When Wilkins showed it to Watson, Watson realized that DNA was unlike Pauling's 3-part model, but rather a double helix. While Franklin's crystallographic photos DID show a crossing pattern that suggested the double helix, Watson & Crick were the ones to publish their complete model showing the components and positioning of the nucleotides, as well as the helical structure. Besides, Franklin died before the Nobel Prize was given to Watson & Crick
Maurice Wilkins (Franklin's partner/rival) stole Photo 51 and showed them. It was Franklin's photo and Wilkins deserves a spanking BUT he did help us get where we are today. HOORAY FOR ROBBERY!!! (eh)
She had not authorized the sharing of that photo. And she was later miscited and referenced by them in poor light, which has no name other than academic dishonesty. Even in this video he discredits her actual background in chemistry, in which she actually got her phd. Had they not been shown her data, they would not have directed their research based on it.
That photo was critical for deducing the DNA structure - her photo was the one that showed DNA was helical, multistranded, 10bp/turn, 3.4nm 2nm and all that - Franklin is where that originated and Wilkins showed it without her permission, and James Watson attended a seminar of Franklin and "took notes" of her research. Lol. Watson and Crick definitely deserve credit for deducing the full structure from what everyone else already learned and the Nobel, they were extremely smart and took a special kind of thinking, but face it, Watson sure "deserves credit" for a few other things.
I hate how he said "franklin laughed at us". sure she would laugh at you given that she knew you were deducing things based on her crystallograph only. give some credit. she deserves it. had she been alive, she would have shared the Nobel prize. but since she could not I think respect is the least you could pay to her as a tribute for her great work.
this PC nonsense is insufferable... a great man is set to die penniless because a generation of indoctrinated children can't get past seeing the entire world in terms of race and gender, and seem to actively search out offense
@@skyedge3407 She studied chemistry, she had a PhD. She even wrote a paper that came to the same conclusion as W & C, without their help. They would not even of gotten to their conclusion if Franklin did not note the fault in their initial model. She correctly pointed out the phosfor basis was in the wrong position. Also, the pair attented a seminar she held explaining her findings. That seminar also helped them figure out the structure. Give the person the credit she deserves.
No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority that the patient refuses to accept. And therefore resents. -C.S. Lewis
+kenykillr I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know. -Socrates
Did you all just come off a Rosalind Franklin documentary or something? Because she helped photograph elements she couldn't explain she should get sole credit? If she was so intelligent why didn't she publish works on it or lead a discovery group? She probably didnt even know what she was looking at
Exactly. Dude is pioneering the cancer treatments that are saving people today, and all they can do is go on about the photo he happened to see... Madness.
She knew but,at the time( stills happen now) women didn’t get much recognition or were allow to advance in their jobs... so she couldn’t get much done because we live in a society structure from patriarchy
@@esmeraldachaconsuarez7610 Prove it. You can't. Because what you say is just an ideological rewrite of history through a radical feminist lens. Please, please, consider that you might be wrong. Take a look at history again with a fresh mind, and you'll see that the idea of the constant oppression of the patriarchy is just a lie. You can take an event like the death of Henry I in 1135 and say that his daughter Matilda was usurped of her right to the throne because she was a woman... That's a conclusion, but it makes no sense when you look at the evidence. Many men were usurped too, William II was most likely killed by Henry I and there has been many male Kings of England removed from the throne, not because they were male, but because it's a cut-throat business at the top. Matilda was well supported, hence the civil war that ensued, and she did win a victory at the battle Of Lincoln and in the end succeeded in getting her son, Henry II as the next heir. So she was not simply dismissed for being a woman. My point? You could just say that she wasn't allowed to be ruler as she was a woman, that's a lazy conclusion and but not the truth when you investigate. You can do this throughout history. Gerty Cori won the same Nobel prize Franklin could have won a few years earlier. So you cannot say that a woman couldn't get recognition if she'd managed to get the research together, because it's not true. What you can say, is that science at the higher levels, just like the top of any field, is competitive and people will be ruthless if they have a chance at success. Franklin may have well been treated unfairly, but so have many male lower level workers.
She published in the same edition of the same journal, dipshit. Of course she knew what it was; she made the calculations herself and wrote the paper too. You fuckin nerd virgins. The fuckin worst.
@@neoepicurean3772 He was shown the stolen pic by her lab mate, with whom she had an atagonistic (hostile) relationship. You shoulf study more about this topic before commenting and taking my precious reading time.
While it is beyond question that it was Franklin's X-Ray data that formed the standard to which Watson et al.'s DNA models were made to fit, there seems to be a lot of evidence that Franklin herself did not actually try to decipher the model. Perhaps she was not imaginative enough or perhaps she was bogged down by the arduous process of acquiring the diffraction data. We will never hear her side. Either way though, the intellectual leap was definitely made by Watson, Crick and Wilkins.
Right, he barely acknowledged her and tried to play down her knowledge in Chemistry. She had a phD in physical chemistry from Cambridge University in London. It was he who was a zoologist by training that lacked the chemistry knowledge. He is still not very remorseful of his scandalous behaviour. This says a lot about his character.
Thanks to Max Delbruck, Nikolaj Timofeev-Resovski, Niels Bohr, George Gamow, Maurice Wilkins, Rosalind Franklin, Francis Crick and the biggest thanks, ofc to Erwin Schrodinger. if not him, nothing would happen.
Of course, and he credited her for it. But she was unable to predict the double helix and the central dogma. All she did was take the photo and release it. Remember, she wasn't a biochemist but a biophysicist. True that if it weren't for her, this discovery wouldn't have been made at that time. Watson and Crick received their credit due to their problem solving and connecting the missing dots.
For all you people complaining about franklin, listen up. The only reason she didn't get any credit (aka the nobel) was because at the time you couldn't give the award to dead people. If she was alive she would have gotten the nobel (100%), and become a trio along with watson and crick as to discovering the double helix structure of DNA. Also if you're going to be picky, many other scientists contributed, but I don't see anyone bitching about Griffith, Hershey and Chase, Chargoff, etc. (granted they didn't contribute nearly as much as the x rays)
Xoreign I think most people aren't upset over the fact that Franklin didn't get Nobel recognition, they're upset that Watson is flat out refusing to give her the credit she deserves. Watson pressured one of Franklin's lab assistants into stealing an x ray photo she took (from which she ultimately died from due to over exposure to x rays) and it just so happened that the photo was the final piece of evidence Watson needed to completely figure out the structure of DNA. They couldn't have done it without her, and most importantly, Franklin had previously already figured out the structure of DNA well before Watson did - she just knew that she couldn't share her findings in England because unlike France where she previously practiced science, England was very unwelcoming to the idea of women actually doing what they want with their lives. Franklin knew that if she had actually shared her findings Watson could very well easily swoop in and take the credit and no one would believe her, so she kept it to herself and didn't get the chance to share her own personal findings before she passed.
"She didn't know any organic chemistry or quantum chemistry. She was a crystallographer." Rosalind Franklin received her bachelors and masters of science degrees in addition to a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at the University of Cambridge. Based on her x-ray crystallographies, she knew DNA was characterized by a helical structure with nucleic acids in the middle and phosphate groups on the outside. She specifically wrote: "The results suggest a helical structure (which must be very closely packed) containing probably 2, 3 or 4 coaxial nucleic acid chains per helical unit and having the phosphate groups near the outside."
The only reason she didn't get a nobel was because she was dead. If that rule wasn't in place back then, she would have been credited just as highly as watson and crick.
"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material" - this sentence alone says it all.. What an absolutely brilliant man!!
Kyle Joultz +Akedev If only. They deduced the structure based on lab work stolen from a colleague. And scientists already knew the nucleic acids constituted genetic material.
@@edjoultz9678 You're wrong about the discovery of the function ,Oswald Avery and his team had proof that DNA was the herederity material in 1944. Then eight years later Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase did further research supporting that claim. Watson and Crick only built the model for DNA, not even doing that much research.
I hear about a prof at my college that attended the University of Chicago the same time James Watson did and he says that he copied off his notes in lab lol. Anyone who knows about the race between the scientists trying to find the DNA structure should not find that a surprise.
The Watson and Crick version always overshadows the work of Rosalind Franklin. As a woman this upsets me tremendously, and as a friend of many cancer survivors shame on the Nobel Laureate program for using this as an excuse to overlook her achievements.
When a man of his caliber ends his speech with "If I had enough money we would find them all this year" it makes me really really sad. Scientists, really good ones, that have discovered things for the betterment of the species are obstructed by money, something that has value simply because we said so, and that "something" is able to dictate what we will or won't discover. Practically decides if we will evolve e little bit more or not. When i listen to a scientist like that "beg" for money, to ask for something insignificant so that he would be able to find something of significance is surreal. I just feel ashamed as a human.
Relationship footnotes with corresponding images of him starting at 12:15. "It was a really shitty time...boy, she was gone....I never really got happy 'till 1960. "(Watson)
My favorite professor at University that taught among other things; genetics, biochemistry and graduate courses. He was a famous researcher himself. He had the privilege of meeting J. Watson at a lecture-he said he was incredibly smart in science. My Prof. also visited Oxford Univ.
The 79-year-old geneticist said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".
To all Rosalind fanatics: Yes she make that famous photo 51 but, 1) We don't give Nobel prize after death. 2) She wasn't able to analyse her own data (She believed that the double helix was impossible). 3) She worked not alone but with her student: Raymond Gosling. So stop about worshiping her like some kind of God...
After reading James D Watsons Double helix it became apparent the opportunistic aspect and high reliance of journal publications and contemporary breakthroughs. James is a prime example of this notion and from the look of things the structure was there all along in everyones face. The only thing keeping them from seeing it was preconceive notions and the over complication of their research. Somehow this clown managed to see the pattern and take in the various works of other and makes his discovery of the double helix.His book is overly extensive with jargon that could have been taken out and told in no more than 100 pages. I hate how much this novel made me paint a picture of someone(Rosalind Franklin) who clearly was beyond her time and deserves the credit for the discovery since had it not been for photograph 51 and the B model of DNA watson would not have made the discovery of the structure. It amazes me how the planets somehow aligned and pieces of the puzzle surfaced. I do however give watson props for his opportunistic and simple mind that allowed him to see the answer, so in the end he deserves some credit even though it was based on the works of others. The fact of the matter is that the breakthrough was discovered and deduced by James even though the breakthrough was not his....what bothers me most is how this clown is considered a genius when he clearly only had a basic understanding of chem and no technical know how that was required to dealt results instead he took the hard work of others and saw the simplicity of it all without the hard mathematics, and that amazes me even more than the inability of the leading scientist to make that same conclusion when everything was there waiting to be exposed.
Kyle Joultz after watching part of this video i've come to the conclusion that aside from Watson being an opportunist he was also a realist and inadvertently revolutionist chemistry by introducing the use of models to figure out as well as have a 3d model of a molecule....
Kyle Joultz it's funny how I've only read the story of the discovery of the structure of DNA from Watson's point of view and I still only see opportunistic he was I not only feel that Watson, Crick and Wilkins stole credit from Franklin but also Chargaff and Pauling
this just in, 'kyle joultz' on UA-cam calls James Watson a clown. show some respect for a mind far greater than your own, a man that helped make one of the most fundamental breakthroughs in human history, you snot nosed little git
You failed to understand that the most important aspect of the DNA structure is not the double helix, but the base pairing. Only Watson got that because only he was a biologist in those people and had the most keen interest in how information is copied. Others failed because they did not really understand biology. Hydrogen bonds are weak anyway, who cares about that? ONLY Watson did.
its soooo great to see this genius.. :) thanks ted... it realy annoys me that money gets thrown at stuff thats pointless, like 500 bn to banks, and this legend dosn't have the cash to put every thing he can, while hes still alive, into the thing hes best at. DNA. he discovered it. he should be given a free reign to do anything he likes!! he is doing it for the good of humanity, if he was in it just for himself he would have dissapeared long ago but hes still here, trooping on. what a legend!!!!
great person i ever seen..thanky you sir watson for your work. genius,,also thanks to f crick ,maurice wilkins and raymond gosling(photograph 51 capturer)
Actually Franklin was also contribute in discovering the structure of DNA but she is was not nominated in nobel prize.But according to the rules and regulation of Nobel prize is the Nobel prize was distributed only three members of discoveries.(Watson,crick also Maurice Wilkins ). another reason is a person who is died the Nobel prize was not issued.During the publication the Watson measured only she is contributed in the discovery of DNA structure.
The amount of people who still believe that these people did not steal and proceed to bash Rosalind Franklin because "She did not know what she was looking at" as if she was not a highly succsessful and precise scientist of her time and her works were accepted by the science community.This is not about feminism or being too offended.This is about bioethics.They exist and to this day these men are judged and their works are not recognized by actual scientist but are believed by people on the internet that accept everything they hear on a ted talk.Rosalind deserves every credit.Yes these men were studying on DNA but they were much behind Rosalind's work.Just give the credit where it is due.Stop defending white,cis men about everything they do.Whether their job is this or that I think we as a community should have already gotten pass the age of boomer logic.That's it loves
I'm not going to go into my feelings and opinions of genetic discoveries, as they don't apply to this basic human statement. This is one of the most unique TED talks I've seen, because it seems very unscriped. It seemd to me as if he happened to be there, the guys who handle the guest speakers were short a speaker, asked him to speak, and he was like "Sure, why not?". Now if only Franklin (rest her soul) could speak, I'd be totally happy!
I don't think that he ever said that she wasn't a scientist, but that she wasn't a chemist. It's a subtle difference, but it does take away a lot of the sting. As a biochemist myself, I don't deal with crystallography at all, and wouldn't be insulted if a crystallographer said I wasn't part of his club.
Why did one of the graphs had CNPs written on it? I guess those should be SNPs since he looks to be talking about Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. If not, please do help me with what CNPs are, if they are something.
@UnnaturallyNatural actually egyptian and aztec pictography is considered to be writing as is pictish pictography. as for runes, although influenced by latin alphabet, they date back as far as the bronze age and had symbolic meanings much like chinese characters do. no one is denying world heritage here except you.
@DEFACTO9 actually they weren't like nubians - they were not sub-saharan africans, they were meditteranean peoples. Also - see the orkney islands for information on a civilisation in northern europe (the egypt of the north) 6000 years ago.
@Westsidesccr5 kidding me? Watson was the genius. The brain. Franklin couldn't read anything from the DNA photos she have had When Watson saw the photographies he instantly understood how it works.
@ScientiaVeritasEtLux >> so what you are saying is that because Franklin did not sue, that makes taking her research OK, and that it was actually her fault for not suing?
He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade. He includes his views in a new book, published recently, in which he writes that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically".
Is it just me or does his speech greatly resemble John Merrick's speech? If you saw "The Elephant Man" you might know what I am talking about. And yes, I am aware that his real name was in fact Joseph Merrick and not John as was stated in the movie.
Wow there are alot of haters on here. All I have to say is you need to change the title of this video as Watson and Crick discovered the DNA structure not DNA the molecule, and he even says that they discovered the structure not the molecule. There is a difference, Friedrich Miescher should get that acknowledgement as he is the first to isolate the nuclein (now known as dna) from the nucleus of the living cell. Just thought I'd add my 50c 😂😂
They did not discover the DNA structure- they stole the idea and evidence of it from Rosalind Franklin who received no credit until after she died unknown
Great questions, but they also do well in the US and elsewhere even into the 2nd and 3rd generations with completely different culture pressures. We may also be confusing sophistication for intelligent. There are prisoners in jails such as Mexicans, Blacks and other minorities that can build things and put together things that would blow your mind. Breaking out of prison takes a great deal of sophistication. Our conjecture is really besides the point which is the fact that this proposition .....
The girl that never married him was my grandmom. But he knocked her up. My dad only met him once in Philadelphia. They went to the movies, had lunch and dinner. And that was it. My dad was pretty bitter by it. He always wanted a dad. Years later my grandmom married. Dad didn't like his stepdad (who I always called grandpop) until much later in life. It's ironic that one can go on a quest to see how were built but with All the genes in the world, you still can't fix a broken heart.
@noobenstein I don't really mean hard work but working smart or working efficiently, methodically. "Work hard" motto rather than the work smart one will only make you a peasant.
It was wonderful to read the responses to this video and the fact that many people know the truth about his theft of the discovery from Rosalind Franklin. Why is he not behind bars and his undeserved Nobel Prize removed from his name and person????
Some people still cant realize the fact that we live in time where all those facts are known and proven. But back then all those things were so ambiguous and mystirious (DNA itself and complementarity were discovered before discovering of DNA structure). People thought proteins were information carriers, chromosomes are partly dna and protein, and it was supposed that dna has some sort of stabilizer. Oswald Avery discovered that DNA indeed caries information, but didnt have theoretical background for his observation. But Crick and Watson has an explanation. What these people did is truly revolutionary and after their beautiful theory had to survive the "storm of scientific bombing" from other scientists. Just learn how to respect that fact. Nobody stole nothing from Anybody. You're just begin annoying to all with this PC stuff. Dozen of people stay behind their contribution (not only Rosalind Franklin) whose names you dont even know.
hit the nail on the head until the end.War torn and poverty stricken communities exist throughout the world.The slums of Africa is no place for a bright young mind to blossom. It's a shame how many potentially amazing thinkers will have to be forced grow and live uneducated .
***** Not so much. Do your homework. She contributed a bit and was acknowledged but she was third to publish on the topic while Watson and Crick came out sooner. It's not as if Watson and Crick were blind amateurs that just stole her notes and published them with their own names on them. Multiple groups of people were working independently and collectively on the topic simultaneously.
Ya you wish, Watson, Crick and Maurice Wilkins are far better scientists than Rosalind Franklin and deserve 100% of the credit that they have earned, don't be such a sore loser. This sounds like some feminist B.S. and screaming "privilege" just because that fraud Rosalind Franklin was exposed after her fake cries of victimhood. Don't try to lie about or change history because it doesn't suit your narrative or because it hurts your feelings. You remind me of some feminists I used to watch that said Einstein stole his work from his wife and that she did the work for him, also calling Einstein and misogynist, which is complete b.s.. Stop spreading your PC lies and learn to give credit where it is due. Women are not held back in any way and never were, nor was any other group of people. Stop trying to lie and accept responsibility for your own life and misfortunes.
Faux Mustache They in fact did base a lot of their work from the evidence she had found. Based on lab results that she had not authorized the sharing of, they shifted their research based on her evidence. Watson then went on to insult her skills as a scientist and unprofessionally and condescendingly calling her "Rosie" in concerning publications. Had they not found her work which was stolen from her, she would have been the first to publish.
@DEFACTO9 i dont see europe as being one culture and race, nor for africa. a more accurate division would be sub saharan africa, the med and northern europe. i am fully aware nubians worshipped same gods as egyptians and they were as advanced and traded and intermarried with egyptians. that does not mean they were egyptians.
Africa was once known as the dark continent because the vegetation was extremely thick and there was a lack of resources for humans to use. evolution is based primarily on geographical locations and africa was typically not the perfect spot for humans to live in and evolve. Times are changing constantly and this disadvantage does not exist anymore due to advancement in civilization today.
i love the myth that people use in saying the greeks got some of their information from india. the ancient indians believed the world was a plate on top of a turtle, with a giant snake wrapped around that. the greek philosophers and mathematicians had the scientific method, not mysticism.
They thought it was a helix oh yeah.That's what Franklin had on her unpublished papers with drawings and xray photographs.Where did Pauling come up with the helix idea I wonder hmmmmm maybe Miss Franklin!!!!!. This world is a sick place.
@TheSiqLad I don't care if he won a nobel peace prize after piggy backing from another scientist accomplishment; my problem isn't based on what he accomplished; it should not make anyone immune to criticism especially when they are wrong. He even knows he was wrong, this is why he had to save face and apologize after he realized his fellow scientist dubbed his study as inaccurate. He should be grateful for his black ancestors, he needed their DNA to exist no matter how dumb he thinks they are.
Watson's merit was to have found the right way to connect the base pairs. The cistralography indicated that it was a propeller, Rosalind knew that the sugar-phosphate skeleton was on the outside, but she did not know how the bases bonded in a complementary way.
it is also true that without Crick and Watson the crystallographies of Franklin would have yielded no concrete scientific discovery and in the end her efforts would have been in vain. i think it's only fair to say that scientific discovery is a cooperative process and that recognition sometimes overshadows the efforts of some more than that of others. In the end, anybody would be a nobody without the contribution of the great men and women before them. All have stood on the shoulders of giants.
I salute James Watson for his honesty, courage and scientific integrity. No more academia lies and censorship!
He was strippedof his education this week. Good riddance, hes a racist bigot who doesn't back up his views with any scientific evidence. This makes him a racist bigot indeed, & he has embarrassed the science community and denigrated ethnic people. Disgusting Man. .
@@DEFACTO9
At least he has an education, judging by your playlists...
DEFACTO9 he definitely does back up his claims... you’ve no basis for your claim on the other hand.
@@DEFACTO9 There is scientific evidence and there is an everyday evidence. Blacks underperform everywhere, in every country.
@@CrazyLeiFeng false
HOW ARE YOU STILL ALIVE
if i learn about someone in school, i expect them to be dead.
Louie McConnell Same 😂
Louie McConnell lmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmao
Yeah. Came here to check his current situation.
the media and politicians trying their best to kill this guy who helped science, he was fired and all his titles and honours to be taken away when he said Africans IQ level is lower..
He know how to change his DNA so he can be immortal
I think most people aren't upset over the fact that Franklin didn't get Nobel recognition, they're upset that Watson is flat out refusing to give her the credit she deserves. Watson pressured one of Franklin's lab assistants into stealing an x ray photo she took (from which she ultimately died from due to over exposure to x rays) and it just so happened that the photo was the final piece of evidence Watson needed to completely figure out the structure of DNA. They couldn't have done it without her, and most importantly, Franklin had previously already figured out the structure of DNA well before Watson did - she just knew that she couldn't share her findings in England because unlike France where she previously practiced science, England was very unwelcoming to the idea of women actually doing what they want with their lives. Franklin knew that if she had actually shared her findings Watson could very well easily swoop in and take the credit and no one would believe her, so she kept it to herself and didn't get the chance to share her own personal findings before she passed.
DNA is a fraud. It does not exist and the same Lab has now come up with another theory! It is all garbage!
Watson didn't steal anything - Franklin had X-ray photographs that showed the shape that the DNA took - that it was wider and thinner in some spots, making a criss-crossing shape. When Wilkins showed it to Watson, Watson realized that DNA was unlike Pauling's 3-part model, but rather a double helix. While Franklin's crystallographic photos DID show a crossing pattern that suggested the double helix, Watson & Crick were the ones to publish their complete model showing the components and positioning of the nucleotides, as well as the helical structure.
Besides, Franklin died before the Nobel Prize was given to Watson & Crick
Maurice Wilkins (Franklin's partner/rival) stole Photo 51 and showed them. It was Franklin's photo and Wilkins deserves a spanking BUT he did help us get where we are today. HOORAY FOR ROBBERY!!! (eh)
She had not authorized the sharing of that photo. And she was later miscited and referenced by them in poor light, which has no name other than academic dishonesty. Even in this video he discredits her actual background in chemistry, in which she actually got her phd. Had they not been shown her data, they would not have directed their research based on it.
That photo was critical for deducing the DNA structure - her photo was the one that showed DNA was helical, multistranded, 10bp/turn, 3.4nm 2nm and all that - Franklin is where that originated and Wilkins showed it without her permission, and James Watson attended a seminar of Franklin and "took notes" of her research. Lol. Watson and Crick definitely deserve credit for deducing the full structure from what everyone else already learned and the Nobel, they were extremely smart and took a special kind of thinking, but face it, Watson sure "deserves credit" for a few other things.
Yes he did
He did steal!!!!
Yes, world needs to speak up for Rosalind Frankiin
He was right and brave to speak about IQ differences.
I hate how he said "franklin laughed at us". sure she would laugh at you given that she knew you were deducing things based on her crystallograph only. give some credit. she deserves it. had she been alive, she would have shared the Nobel prize. but since she could not I think respect is the least you could pay to her as a tribute for her great work.
bored and the worst part is she died because of exposure to radiation while working in laboratory and got ovarian cancer.
all he said was "she laughed at us" then you go all crazy about it, hes just saying what happened
this PC nonsense is insufferable... a great man is set to die penniless because a generation of indoctrinated children can't get past seeing the entire world in terms of race and gender, and seem to actively search out offense
crystallographers are dime a dozen, she didnt even know what she was looking at
@@skyedge3407 She studied chemistry, she had a PhD. She even wrote a paper that came to the same conclusion as W & C, without their help. They would not even of gotten to their conclusion if Franklin did not note the fault in their initial model. She correctly pointed out the phosfor basis was in the wrong position. Also, the pair attented a seminar she held explaining her findings. That seminar also helped them figure out the structure. Give the person the credit she deserves.
No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority that the patient refuses to accept. And therefore resents. -C.S. Lewis
+kenykillr I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
-Socrates
Did you all just come off a Rosalind Franklin documentary or something? Because she helped photograph elements she couldn't explain she should get sole credit? If she was so intelligent why didn't she publish works on it or lead a discovery group? She probably didnt even know what she was looking at
Exactly. Dude is pioneering the cancer treatments that are saving people today, and all they can do is go on about the photo he happened to see... Madness.
She knew but,at the time( stills happen now) women didn’t get much recognition or were allow to advance in their jobs... so she couldn’t get much done because we live in a society structure from patriarchy
@@esmeraldachaconsuarez7610 Prove it. You can't. Because what you say is just an ideological rewrite of history through a radical feminist lens. Please, please, consider that you might be wrong. Take a look at history again with a fresh mind, and you'll see that the idea of the constant oppression of the patriarchy is just a lie.
You can take an event like the death of Henry I in 1135 and say that his daughter Matilda was usurped of her right to the throne because she was a woman... That's a conclusion, but it makes no sense when you look at the evidence. Many men were usurped too, William II was most likely killed by Henry I and there has been many male Kings of England removed from the throne, not because they were male, but because it's a cut-throat business at the top. Matilda was well supported, hence the civil war that ensued, and she did win a victory at the battle Of Lincoln and in the end succeeded in getting her son, Henry II as the next heir. So she was not simply dismissed for being a woman. My point? You could just say that she wasn't allowed to be ruler as she was a woman, that's a lazy conclusion and but not the truth when you investigate. You can do this throughout history.
Gerty Cori won the same Nobel prize Franklin could have won a few years earlier. So you cannot say that a woman couldn't get recognition if she'd managed to get the research together, because it's not true. What you can say, is that science at the higher levels, just like the top of any field, is competitive and people will be ruthless if they have a chance at success. Franklin may have well been treated unfairly, but so have many male lower level workers.
She published in the same edition of the same journal, dipshit. Of course she knew what it was; she made the calculations herself and wrote the paper too.
You fuckin nerd virgins. The fuckin worst.
@@neoepicurean3772 He was shown the stolen pic by her lab mate, with whom she had an atagonistic (hostile) relationship.
You shoulf study more about this topic before commenting and taking my precious reading time.
While it is beyond question that it was Franklin's X-Ray data that formed the standard to which Watson et al.'s DNA models were made to fit, there seems to be a lot of evidence that Franklin herself did not actually try to decipher the model. Perhaps she was not imaginative enough or perhaps she was bogged down by the arduous process of acquiring the diffraction data. We will never hear her side. Either way though, the intellectual leap was definitely made by Watson, Crick and Wilkins.
Right, he barely acknowledged her and tried to play down her knowledge in Chemistry. She had a phD in physical chemistry from Cambridge University in London. It was he who was a zoologist by training that lacked the chemistry knowledge. He is still not very remorseful of his scandalous behaviour. This says a lot about his character.
Are you still here?
Greatest living scientist. His "critics" will be forgotten while he will live forever because of his contributions to mankind.
Well said, Joe. Those hateful little children infected with PC madness in these comments are extremely annoying, disrespectful, tiresome
J Med, has nothing to do with political correctness. This guy would've had nothing if it wasn't for Franklin.
Thanks to Max Delbruck, Nikolaj Timofeev-Resovski, Niels Bohr, George Gamow, Maurice Wilkins, Rosalind Franklin, Francis Crick and the biggest thanks, ofc to Erwin Schrodinger. if not him, nothing would happen.
and His "critics" is totally right,
His Thieving will never be forgotten lol
Of course, and he credited her for it. But she was unable to predict the double helix and the central dogma. All she did was take the photo and release it. Remember, she wasn't a biochemist but a biophysicist. True that if it weren't for her, this discovery wouldn't have been made at that time. Watson and Crick received their credit due to their problem solving and connecting the missing dots.
She did not release it. Wilkins handed over her work without her consent.
For all you people complaining about franklin, listen up. The only reason she didn't get any credit (aka the nobel) was because at the time you couldn't give the award to dead people. If she was alive she would have gotten the nobel (100%), and become a trio along with watson and crick as to discovering the double helix structure of DNA.
Also if you're going to be picky, many other scientists contributed, but I don't see anyone bitching about Griffith, Hershey and Chase, Chargoff, etc. (granted they didn't contribute nearly as much as the x rays)
Xoreign I think most people aren't upset over the fact that Franklin didn't get Nobel recognition, they're upset that Watson is flat out refusing to give her the credit she deserves. Watson pressured one of Franklin's lab assistants into stealing an x ray photo she took (from which she ultimately died from due to over exposure to x rays) and it just so happened that the photo was the final piece of evidence Watson needed to completely figure out the structure of DNA. They couldn't have done it without her, and most importantly, Franklin had previously already figured out the structure of DNA well before Watson did - she just knew that she couldn't share her findings in England because unlike France where she previously practiced science, England was very unwelcoming to the idea of women actually doing what they want with their lives. Franklin knew that if she had actually shared her findings Watson could very well easily swoop in and take the credit and no one would believe her, so she kept it to herself and didn't get the chance to share her own personal findings before she passed.
Chargaff is pretty underrated.
A true madman. I love it.
"She didn't know any organic chemistry or quantum chemistry. She was a crystallographer."
Rosalind Franklin received her bachelors and masters of science degrees in addition to a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at the University of Cambridge. Based on her x-ray crystallographies, she knew DNA was characterized by a helical structure with nucleic acids in the middle and phosphate groups on the outside. She specifically wrote: "The results suggest a helical structure (which must be very closely packed) containing probably 2, 3 or 4 coaxial nucleic acid chains per helical unit and having the phosphate groups near the outside."
The only reason she didn't get a nobel was because she was dead. If that rule wasn't in place back then, she would have been credited just as highly as watson and crick.
Correct. She probably would have figured out the structure herself if Wilkins had not shown photo 51 to Watson.
Olivia Wills 9:45
Olivia Wills And even complementarity wasn't conceptualised by Watson. It was a work of Erwin Chargaff
😶
I've heard of him in school
great and courageous scientist, he had the honesty to say what everyone knows
"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material" - this sentence alone says it all.. What an absolutely brilliant man!!
He is the demonstration that certain truths cannot be said.
"How we discovered DNA" They didn't discover DNA, they discovered it's STRUCTURE.
AkeDev It's structure and its function, they discovered that DNA was the key of life and what every geneticist and chemist were trying to discover.
Kyle Joultz +Akedev
If only. They deduced the structure based on lab work stolen from a colleague. And scientists already knew the nucleic acids constituted genetic material.
@@edjoultz9678 You're wrong about the discovery of the function ,Oswald Avery and his team had proof that DNA was the herederity material in 1944. Then eight years later Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase did further research supporting that claim. Watson and Crick only built the model for DNA, not even doing that much research.
King and Peasant That does't surprice me! I stand corrected!
@@edjoultz9678 The civility of your comment really made my day.
I hear about a prof at my college that attended the University of Chicago the same time James Watson did and he says that he copied off his notes in lab lol. Anyone who knows about the race between the scientists trying to find the DNA structure should not find that a surprise.
My first rating of my subscription to UA-cam goes to James Watson 5 out of 5. A great video to listen to while cooking dinner! :-)
I was not even a year old when u commented this :)
The Watson and Crick version always overshadows the work of Rosalind Franklin. As a woman this upsets me tremendously, and as a friend of many cancer survivors shame on the Nobel Laureate program for using this as an excuse to overlook her achievements.
Ok women ☕️ the picture was taken by her student
When a man of his caliber ends his speech with "If I had enough money we would find them all this year" it makes me really really sad.
Scientists, really good ones, that have discovered things for the betterment of the species are obstructed by money, something that has value simply because we said so, and that "something" is able to dictate what we will or won't discover. Practically decides if we will evolve e little bit more or not.
When i listen to a scientist like that "beg" for money, to ask for something insignificant so that he would be able to find something of significance is surreal.
I just feel ashamed as a human.
Money funds research. No money = no research. Plus, researchers gotta eat too.
@@madaycampo5612
exactly, research only happens when it has investment, whether capital or intellectual
He is a great mind
One of the greatest scientists of modernity. He tells it like it is too.
Relationship footnotes with corresponding images of him starting at 12:15. "It was a really shitty time...boy, she was gone....I never really got happy 'till 1960. "(Watson)
My favorite professor at University that taught among other things; genetics, biochemistry and graduate courses. He was a famous researcher himself. He had the privilege of meeting J. Watson at a lecture-he said he was incredibly smart in science. My Prof. also visited Oxford Univ.
The 79-year-old geneticist said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".
To all Rosalind fanatics:
Yes she make that famous photo 51 but,
1) We don't give Nobel prize after death.
2) She wasn't able to analyse her own data (She believed that the double helix was impossible).
3) She worked not alone but with her student: Raymond Gosling.
So stop about worshiping her like some kind of God...
To all cowards who cannot admit they are thieves:
She did not give them consent to use her findings. No consent = Stealing
End of the story!
I'll worship whomever I choose, thank you
We are all living in the same world with different perspectives so this made us have different starting points but ends with the same direction.
After reading James D Watsons Double helix it became apparent the opportunistic aspect and high reliance of journal publications and contemporary breakthroughs. James is a prime example of this notion and from the look of things the structure was there all along in everyones face. The only thing keeping them from seeing it was preconceive notions and the over complication of their research. Somehow this clown managed to see the pattern and take in the various works of other and makes his discovery of the double helix.His book is overly extensive with jargon that could have been taken out and told in no more than 100 pages. I hate how much this novel made me paint a picture of someone(Rosalind Franklin) who clearly was beyond her time and deserves the credit for the discovery since had it not been for photograph 51 and the B model of DNA watson would not have made the discovery of the structure. It amazes me how the planets somehow aligned and pieces of the puzzle surfaced. I do however give watson props for his opportunistic and simple mind that allowed him to see the answer, so in the end he deserves some credit even though it was based on the works of others. The fact of the matter is that the breakthrough was discovered and deduced by James even though the breakthrough was not his....what bothers me most is how this clown is considered a genius when he clearly only had a basic understanding of chem and no technical know how that was required to dealt results instead he took the hard work of others and saw the simplicity of it all without the hard mathematics, and that amazes me even more than the inability of the leading scientist to make that same conclusion when everything was there waiting to be exposed.
Kyle Joultz after watching part of this video i've come to the conclusion that aside from Watson being an opportunist he was also a realist and inadvertently revolutionist chemistry by introducing the use of models to figure out as well as have a 3d model of a molecule....
Kyle Joultz it's funny how I've only read the story of the discovery of the structure of DNA from Watson's point of view and I still only see opportunistic he was I not only feel that Watson, Crick and Wilkins stole credit from Franklin but also Chargaff and Pauling
this just in, 'kyle joultz' on UA-cam calls James Watson a clown.
show some respect for a mind far greater than your own, a man that helped make one of the most fundamental breakthroughs in human history, you snot nosed little git
You failed to understand that the most important aspect of the DNA structure is not the double helix, but the base pairing. Only Watson got that because only he was a biologist in those people and had the most keen interest in how information is copied. Others failed because they did not really understand biology. Hydrogen bonds are weak anyway, who cares about that? ONLY Watson did.
Watson: "It was the worst time in my life."
Homie in the audience: 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂
That laugh at 0:40 kills me everytime.
A great man giving a great talk. I take my hat off to him.
i just enjoy watsons eyebrows and witty humor
There is something cool about listening so some old dude talk about his achievements.
its soooo great to see this genius.. :) thanks ted... it realy annoys me that money gets thrown at stuff thats pointless, like 500 bn to banks, and this legend dosn't have the cash to put every thing he can, while hes still alive, into the thing hes best at. DNA. he discovered it. he should be given a free reign to do anything he likes!! he is doing it for the good of humanity, if he was in it just for himself he would have dissapeared long ago but hes still here, trooping on. what a legend!!!!
great person i ever seen..thanky you sir watson for your work. genius,,also thanks to f crick ,maurice wilkins and raymond gosling(photograph 51 capturer)
Actually Franklin was also contribute in discovering the structure of DNA but she is was not nominated in nobel prize.But according to the rules and regulation of Nobel prize is the Nobel prize was distributed only three members of discoveries.(Watson,crick also Maurice Wilkins ). another reason is a person who is died the Nobel prize was not issued.During the publication the Watson measured only she is contributed in the discovery of DNA structure.
The amount of people who still believe that these people did not steal and proceed to bash Rosalind Franklin because "She did not know what she was looking at" as if she was not a highly succsessful and precise scientist of her time and her works were accepted by the science community.This is not about feminism or being too offended.This is about bioethics.They exist and to this day these men are judged and their works are not recognized by actual scientist but are believed by people on the internet that accept everything they hear on a ted talk.Rosalind deserves every credit.Yes these men were studying on DNA but they were much behind Rosalind's work.Just give the credit where it is due.Stop defending white,cis men about everything they do.Whether their job is this or that I think we as a community should have already gotten pass the age of boomer logic.That's it loves
Another SJW.
I'm not going to go into my feelings and opinions of genetic discoveries, as they don't apply to this basic human statement. This is one of the most unique TED talks I've seen, because it seems very unscriped. It seemd to me as if he happened to be there, the guys who handle the guest speakers were short a speaker, asked him to speak, and he was like "Sure, why not?". Now if only Franklin (rest her soul) could speak, I'd be totally happy!
I don't think that he ever said that she wasn't a scientist, but that she wasn't a chemist. It's a subtle difference, but it does take away a lot of the sting. As a biochemist myself, I don't deal with crystallography at all, and wouldn't be insulted if a crystallographer said I wasn't part of his club.
Why did one of the graphs had CNPs written on it? I guess those should be SNPs since he looks to be talking about Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. If not, please do help me with what CNPs are, if they are something.
I never understood why anyone considered a 3-strand structure, when two are sufficient to support replication.
راح ادرس علم الوراثة من وراكم 😂😂 من عرفت ال DNA لهسة اني وياه بعلاقة غرامية .
Love from Iraq to every scientist who served humanity
this man is my hero. he's a historical figure now.
Lol😂😂
Thanks TED for the great Lecture :)
@UnnaturallyNatural
actually egyptian and aztec pictography is considered to be writing as is pictish pictography. as for runes, although influenced by latin alphabet, they date back as far as the bronze age and had symbolic meanings much like chinese characters do. no one is denying world heritage here except you.
When TED talks weren't cringe.
THANK YOU for the video it really helped me with my project
@DEFACTO9
actually they weren't like nubians - they were not sub-saharan africans, they were meditteranean peoples. Also - see the orkney islands for information on a civilisation in northern europe (the egypt of the north) 6000 years ago.
here after he was stripped of his titles
thank you for validating his point...
@Westsidesccr5 kidding me? Watson was the genius. The brain. Franklin couldn't read anything from the DNA photos she have had When Watson saw the photographies he instantly understood how it works.
@ScientiaVeritasEtLux >> so what you are saying is that because Franklin did not sue, that makes taking her research OK, and that it was actually her fault for not suing?
"After one year of college he became an atheist and a Democrat" lol.
He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
He includes his views in a new book, published recently, in which he writes that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically".
08:13 that laugh @_@
Is it just me or does his speech greatly resemble John Merrick's speech? If you saw "The Elephant Man" you might know what I am talking about. And yes, I am aware that his real name was in fact Joseph Merrick and not John as was stated in the movie.
Trying to find the movie for this, but this will do.
@Gonzoidzz His general statement was correct, but failed to provide a link.
It was only a hypothesis - like it or not - it will stay a hypothesis.
i mean to say this to reaper7779 i respect knowledge and james watson
The structure of DNA maybe was found in Franklin's office ????.
"I see further because I stand on the should of giants" The Giant was Franklin.
He whistles and wheezes when he speaks.
thats cause hes old as old as bricks ... that noise is the effort he makes to not die
Wow there are alot of haters on here. All I have to say is you need to change the title of this video as Watson and Crick discovered the DNA structure not DNA the molecule, and he even says that they discovered the structure not the molecule. There is a difference, Friedrich Miescher should get that acknowledgement as he is the first to isolate the nuclein (now known as dna) from the nucleus of the living cell. Just thought I'd add my 50c 😂😂
😂😂😂 I've always wanted to say that too lol. Never been a good opportunity for me yet. Well played
They did not discover the DNA structure- they stole the idea and evidence of it from Rosalind Franklin who received no credit until after she died unknown
@@SR-sg5idanother dumb
Great questions, but they also do well in the US and elsewhere even into the 2nd and 3rd generations with completely different culture pressures. We may also be confusing sophistication for intelligent. There are prisoners in jails such as Mexicans, Blacks and other minorities that can build things and put together things that would blow your mind. Breaking out of prison takes a great deal of sophistication. Our conjecture is really besides the point which is the fact that this proposition .....
The girl that never married him was my grandmom. But he knocked her up. My dad only met him once in Philadelphia. They went to the movies, had lunch and dinner. And that was it. My dad was pretty bitter by it. He always wanted a dad. Years later my grandmom married. Dad didn't like his stepdad (who I always called grandpop) until much later in life. It's ironic that one can go on a quest to see how were built but with All the genes in the world, you still can't fix a broken heart.
I find it strange that Wilkinson, who shared the Nobel Prize, doesn't get so remembered. He didn't market himself as much maybe?
Who?
@@nickmiller76 -oops. I meant Maurice Wilkins.
did you know that one of the guys who came up with the double helix in dna was high on lsd when he discovered it?
@noobenstein I don't really mean hard work but working smart or working efficiently, methodically. "Work hard" motto rather than the work smart one will only make you a peasant.
I emphasize the the phrase "whereas all the testing says not really".
Thanks james watson
Somebody please identify the guy laughing at 8:14. I've heard this laughter at other Talks.
Barbados has an IQ of 78 and Bahamas has an IQ of 80. Both are countries with a good education system and GDP PC.
It was wonderful to read the responses to this video and the fact that many people know the truth about his theft of the discovery from Rosalind Franklin. Why is he not behind bars and his undeserved Nobel Prize removed from his name and person????
Some people still cant realize the fact that we live in time where all those facts are known and proven. But back then all those things were so ambiguous and mystirious (DNA itself and complementarity were discovered before discovering of DNA structure). People thought proteins were information carriers, chromosomes are partly dna and protein, and it was supposed that dna has some sort of stabilizer. Oswald Avery discovered that DNA indeed caries information, but didnt have theoretical background for his observation. But Crick and Watson has an explanation. What these people did is truly revolutionary and after their beautiful theory had to survive the "storm of scientific bombing" from other scientists. Just learn how to respect that fact. Nobody stole nothing from Anybody. You're just begin annoying to all with this PC stuff. Dozen of people stay behind their contribution (not only Rosalind Franklin) whose names you dont even know.
What a legend!!!
Wrong title! It should be *How we discovered the structure of DNA*
hit the nail on the head until the end.War torn and poverty stricken communities exist throughout the world.The slums of Africa is no place for a bright young mind to blossom. It's a shame how many potentially amazing thinkers will have to be forced grow and live uneducated .
These two stole Roselyn Franklin's discovery!
HES7183 you were working with them didn't you ?
thanks for posting it!
Rosalind Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, and Watson and Crick stole it, after Watson was showed that picture he showed at 5:00.
***** Not so much. Do your homework. She contributed a bit and was acknowledged but she was third to publish on the topic while Watson and Crick came out sooner. It's not as if Watson and Crick were blind amateurs that just stole her notes and published them with their own names on them. Multiple groups of people were working independently and collectively on the topic simultaneously.
Faux Mustache Maybe you should watch DNA: Secret of Photo 51.
Ya you wish, Watson, Crick and Maurice Wilkins are far better scientists than Rosalind Franklin and deserve 100% of the credit that they have earned, don't be such a sore loser. This sounds like some feminist B.S. and screaming "privilege" just because that fraud Rosalind Franklin was exposed after her fake cries of victimhood. Don't try to lie about or change history because it doesn't suit your narrative or because it hurts your feelings. You remind me of some feminists I used to watch that said Einstein stole his work from his wife and that she did the work for him, also calling Einstein and misogynist, which is complete b.s.. Stop spreading your PC lies and learn to give credit where it is due. Women are not held back in any way and never were, nor was any other group of people. Stop trying to lie and accept responsibility for your own life and misfortunes.
a*** misogynist
Faux Mustache They in fact did base a lot of their work from the evidence she had found. Based on lab results that she had not authorized the sharing of, they shifted their research based on her evidence. Watson then went on to insult her skills as a scientist and unprofessionally and condescendingly calling her "Rosie" in concerning publications. Had they not found her work which was stolen from her, she would have been the first to publish.
dammit Maurice Willkins, you just had to touch that damn paper, look what you have done.
@DEFACTO9
i dont see europe as being one culture and race, nor for africa. a more accurate division would be sub saharan africa, the med and northern europe.
i am fully aware nubians worshipped same gods as egyptians and they were as advanced and traded and intermarried with egyptians. that does not mean they were egyptians.
Is that really James watson? The man who worked with Francis Crick?
Rosalind Franklin.
Africa was once known as the dark continent because the vegetation was extremely thick and there was a lack of resources for humans to use. evolution is based primarily on geographical locations and africa was typically not the perfect spot for humans to live in and evolve. Times are changing constantly and this disadvantage does not exist anymore due to advancement in civilization today.
Isn't this the thief who stole Franklin's work? yes he is
Its a sound bite
i love the myth that people use in saying the greeks got some of their information from india. the ancient indians believed the world was a plate on top of a turtle, with a giant snake wrapped around that. the greek philosophers and mathematicians had the scientific method, not mysticism.
They thought it was a helix oh yeah.That's what Franklin had on her unpublished papers with drawings and xray photographs.Where did Pauling come up with the helix idea I wonder hmmmmm maybe Miss Franklin!!!!!. This world is a sick place.
@TheSiqLad I don't care if he won a nobel peace prize after piggy backing from another scientist accomplishment; my problem isn't based on what he accomplished; it should not make anyone immune to criticism especially when they are wrong. He even knows he was wrong, this is why he had to save face and apologize after he realized his fellow scientist dubbed his study as inaccurate. He should be grateful for his black ancestors, he needed their DNA to exist no matter how dumb he thinks they are.
Watson's merit was to have found the right way to connect the base pairs. The cistralography indicated that it was a propeller, Rosalind knew that the sugar-phosphate skeleton was on the outside, but she did not know how the bases bonded in a complementary way.
Did I miss him mentioning the "Chargaff Rules" ?
it is also true that without Crick and Watson the crystallographies of Franklin would have yielded no concrete scientific discovery and in the end her efforts would have been in vain. i think it's only fair to say that scientific discovery is a cooperative process and that recognition sometimes overshadows the efforts of some more than that of others. In the end, anybody would be a nobody without the contribution of the great men and women before them. All have stood on the shoulders of giants.
@ScientiaVeritasEtLux - again the difference is that Franklin has not yet opted to share her xray discoveries.
WOW! What a smart, witty man. I wish he had gotten the money. He may have found the cure for many diseases. Not good for pharmaceutical companies.