How I discovered DNA - James Watson

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
  • View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/james-watso...
    Nobel laureate James Watson opens TED2005 with the frank and funny story of how he and his research partner, Francis Crick, discovered the structure of DNA.
    Talk by James Watson.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 778

  • @andro7862
    @andro7862 6 років тому +985

    How did I discover DNA? I don't know, ask Rosalind Franklin.

    • @dylanbranch5246
      @dylanbranch5246 3 роки тому +10

      cant shes dead

    • @noahway13
      @noahway13 3 роки тому +29

      She had her photo for eight months and did nothing with it. She was part of a team and she hid it from everyone. I do think she deserves more credit.

    • @kenshikenji
      @kenshikenji 3 роки тому +51

      she made fun of watson and crick for thinking it was helical, she openly derided them and wasted her time trying to prove them wrong

    • @noahway13
      @noahway13 3 роки тому +10

      @@kenshikenji But that is not PC

    • @marialombardi8912
      @marialombardi8912 3 роки тому +16

      Rosalind Franklin wasn’t given The credit due!

  • @dakshitasharma708
    @dakshitasharma708 3 роки тому +541

    Rosalind Franklin died of cancer, probably due to excessive exposure to x-ray since she was so much into x-ray crystallography. And it was her who gave the basis of the double helical structure of DNA but wasn't given the credit that she deserved. She deserved to share the noble prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins.

  • @mikewazowski1816
    @mikewazowski1816 6 років тому +551

    Wow I came hear to educate everyone here about Rosalind Franklin, but literally every comment is already talking about her.

    • @mushroomflow8499
      @mushroomflow8499 5 років тому +4

      Mike Wazowski!

    • @omega0195
      @omega0195 4 роки тому +7

      @LOCAL COPE who discovered DNA?

    • @Sara3346
      @Sara3346 4 роки тому +5

      @@omega0195 with that user name, and that image of Tucker Carlson I'm not sure if he actually expects anyone to take him seriously in the first place.

    • @mastersonogashira1796
      @mastersonogashira1796 3 роки тому +3

      Unlike the rest of UA-cam, people here actually have brain

    • @brianfoote813
      @brianfoote813 2 роки тому

      I want to interview the Watsons

  • @raytrebor
    @raytrebor 4 роки тому +150

    One of the main problems with Rosalind Franklin and DNA was that she died too soon. Most people don't realize that Watson and Crick's article did not receive that much fanfare when it first came out. They did not receive the Nobel Price until 1962, nine years after their first publication, and four years after Franklin died. He didn't write The Double Helix until 1968, 10 years after Franklin died. Had she lived, her contribution would have been more publicized. In fact, many people believe that it would have been Watson and Crick sharing the Nobel Prize Physiology and Medicine, with Watkins and Franklin would sharing the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

    • @uramijajlovic5444
      @uramijajlovic5444 2 роки тому

      ​@@kpopmember1233 Yep

    • @suparnadeb924
      @suparnadeb924 Рік тому +4

      she died due to excessive exposure to x rays which were instrumental in her discovery of DNA

    • @lesleywild8706
      @lesleywild8706 10 місяців тому +1

      Very sad that she died too soon - probably due to her personal contribution to science - but that was her all-consuming occupation? She was part of a huge scientific jig-saw and we have to say the rest is history because that is life - everyone gets their spot in the sun - just some longer than others!

  • @shadowboy7333
    @shadowboy7333 3 роки тому +376

    "How we discovered structure of DNA" should be the Title.

    • @irishguy200007
      @irishguy200007 3 роки тому +85

      How she discovered the structure of DNA

    • @shadowboy7333
      @shadowboy7333 3 роки тому +6

      @@irishguy200007 Yeah that's y I wrote We becoz they didn't gave the credit to whom it was.

    • @ankitathakur6858
      @ankitathakur6858 3 роки тому +3

      Yes westen sir and Crick sir both contributed to discover dna

    • @pallavmahato7865
      @pallavmahato7865 2 роки тому +9

      How we stole the idea of structure of DNA should be the title.

    • @aryamanjaswal3258
      @aryamanjaswal3258 2 роки тому +2

      @@ankitathakur6858 Franklin*

  • @aira7090
    @aira7090 5 років тому +296

    Title is misleading, he didn't discover DNA he just discovered the structure of DNA with the use of Franklins' photo

    • @dennisroy6615
      @dennisroy6615 4 роки тому +35

      Rosalind too deserved the Noble......sadly she was the victim of sexism and cancer......❤

    • @amaladasu
      @amaladasu 3 роки тому +9

      Tesla Nope, the shapes A and B were by her

    • @aimxnvn_x_geness4998
      @aimxnvn_x_geness4998 3 роки тому +2

      @@dennisroy6615 So did Maurice😃

    • @ayandadlamini5182
      @ayandadlamini5182 3 роки тому +2

      I'm glad someone mentioned this

    • @davidforshaw4810
      @davidforshaw4810 3 роки тому +2

      He & Francis Crick used LSD and discovered the double helix under the influence of the Psychedelic!" 🍄➡️🗝➡️🧩☯️

  • @RavenPH12
    @RavenPH12 6 років тому +180

    9:50 - 9:58 “I think the reason why she wasn’t interested is because she wasn’t a Chemist...”
    Franklin is a Chemist.... :/

    • @deskryptic
      @deskryptic 3 роки тому +8

      sounded off to me too

    • @muse5633
      @muse5633 3 роки тому +17

      A whole phd in chemistry *smh

  • @maanvigupta5462
    @maanvigupta5462 4 роки тому +193

    Its high time Dr Rosalind is given her due credit in the most righteous manner. Honouring her with a nobel prize wont do anything, but CHANGE THE TEXTBOOKS! let the world know that stealing someone's work and putting it across as yout own isnt okay.

    • @maanvigupta5462
      @maanvigupta5462 3 роки тому +2

      ua-cam.com/video/BIP0lYrdirI/v-deo.html
      do watch if you wish to broaden your horizons :)

    • @harshjain7516
      @harshjain7516 3 роки тому +10

      @The Snow Nigro are you crazy at one hand you saying that she had given the x ray of dna and she had contributed nothing after providing suvh big clue about dna how can you say that

    • @harshjain7516
      @harshjain7516 3 роки тому +2

      @@sivaniy.s.k.7819 sorry to say that but you have not enough information about dna discovery because you are still in class 12 when you know enough about dna discovery then come to this debate kid

    • @noahway13
      @noahway13 3 роки тому

      ua-cam.com/video/1vm3od_UmFg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=biointeractive

    • @kenshikenji
      @kenshikenji 3 роки тому +7

      @The Snow Nigro rosalind actually spent all her time and effort trying to prove watson and crick wrong, she wanted the dna form to be non-helical

  • @ordeloliveros5999
    @ordeloliveros5999 11 років тому +370

    The first time I see someone from my school text books in a TEDtalk, awesome

  • @user-vt2lm6mc6e
    @user-vt2lm6mc6e 6 місяців тому +13

    We need another video about how you discovered rosalind franklin's notebooks

  • @shadowboy7333
    @shadowboy7333 3 роки тому +286

    We all know who discovered the structure 😂

  • @federicoarmada8775
    @federicoarmada8775 5 років тому +58

    He wouldn't have done anything if it wasn't for Rosalind Franklin.
    And Franklin wouldn't have found anything if it wasn't for the insturments she had made by other people.
    And those people wouldn't have invented anything if it wasn't for previous scientist.
    Science is about continuing the work of others and standing on their shoulders to see farther.
    Stop being so individualistic and recognize that depending on other people isn't wrong.

    • @tobyiy
      @tobyiy 5 років тому +1

      Let's say you do something you're truly proud of, like raising a child very well, would it be wrong to give you the credit for it? I mean, after all, you likely didnt grow the food you fed your child, you likely didnt make the clothes, you likely didnt work on the electricity in the house, or the heat.
      My point is that, while you're right that we're maximally dependent in many ways, this shouldnt be used against honoring great achievements

    • @lawlstrike1911
      @lawlstrike1911 5 років тому +1

      Analogous Taking credit and intelectual property isnt the same of what happenend to the tesla and edison ? taking credit about the situation and yes was wrong into the end.

    • @videogamesTSH
      @videogamesTSH 5 років тому +1

      The problem is that he got to look at the photo because Maurice Wilkins showed him a photo without Franklin's approval

    • @HiteshKumar-wx9or
      @HiteshKumar-wx9or 4 роки тому +7

      Yes indeed, but one must not steal.
      He was using her work without her approval.
      Using instruments made by other scientists ( mostly dead) for research is one thing
      When two scientists working on a same project separately
      Stealing ideas and critical information so that you can do it first is cheap and not respect worthy
      So don't talk nonsense

    • @The_Revolutionist
      @The_Revolutionist 4 роки тому +1

      @@tobyiy
      This is definitely NOT a "great achievement".

  • @ceciliasousa7102
    @ceciliasousa7102 5 років тому +127

    Didn't you built a model of a three-helix molecule with the phosphates on the inside in November 1951? It was Rosalind Franklin who noted that was impossible for it to hold it together because you put it the hydrophobic part on the outside. And we can't forget the famous photo 51 that was shown to you by Raymond Gosling (without Franklin's knowledge) and Max Perutz (a Medical Research Council) showed you Franklin's unpublished research summary about the double helix. I'm sorry sir, but you didn't..

    • @amaladasu
      @amaladasu 3 роки тому +19

      ❤️❤️❤️ this guy doesn’t deserve to be called “sir”

    • @ashsingh469
      @ashsingh469 3 роки тому +23

      Ray Gosling didn’t give the photo, he was loyal to Franklin, it was actually Maurice Wilkins.

    • @madripurn123
      @madripurn123 Рік тому +3

      @@amaladasu I'll call him sir, he deserves to be sir.

    • @madripurn123
      @madripurn123 Рік тому +8

      "Rosalind Franklin really did 99% of the work," No she didn't? Watson and Crick were the ones who were able to piece together the puzzle; Franklin's picture was only a part of the puzzle, not the majority.
      Furthermore, Watson and Crick also used other scientists' findings to discover DNA, essentially.
      "Other researchers had made important but seemingly unconnected findings about the composition of DNA; it fell to Watson and Crick to unify these disparate findings into a coherent theory of genetic transfer. The organic chemist Alexander Todd had determined that the backbone of the DNA molecule contained repeating phosphate and deoxyribose sugar groups. The biochemist Erwin Chargaff had found that while the amount of DNA and of its four types of bases--the purine bases adenine (A) and guanine (G), and the pyrimidine bases cytosine (C) and thymine(T)--varied widely from species to species, A and T always appeared in ratios of one-to-one, as did G and C. Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin had obtained high-resolution X-ray images of DNA fibers that suggested a helical, corkscrew-like shape. Linus Pauling, then the world's leading physical chemist, had recently discovered the single-stranded alpha helix, the structure found in many proteins, prompting biologists to think of helical forms. Moreover, he had pioneered the method of model building in chemistry by which Watson and Crick were to uncover the structure of DNA. Indeed, Crick and Watson feared that they would be upstaged by Pauling, who proposed his own model of DNA in February 1953, although his three-stranded helical structure quickly proved erroneous."
      (profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/doublehelix.html)

    • @lanalaniakea
      @lanalaniakea 10 місяців тому

      oh so you´re saying that she took the picture, but didn´t realize that the dna has a double helix?@@madripurn123

  • @saikatbanik9359
    @saikatbanik9359 2 роки тому +44

    Title should be: How I discovered Double helical structure of Dna and made it's model, after knowing that DNA is helical from Rosalind Franklin

    • @madripurn123
      @madripurn123 Рік тому +3

      any evidence of ur words?

    • @lanalaniakea
      @lanalaniakea 10 місяців тому

      literally on every article about the double helical structure of the dna@@madripurn123

    • @FinetalPies
      @FinetalPies 5 місяців тому +1

      @@madripurn123
      You've had a year to look it up yourself, how's that going?

    • @kalidilerious
      @kalidilerious 29 днів тому

      I don't think Franklin's story is told correctly. The internet version of the story which is over aggressive (probably to gain attention) explains her work was simply stolen and she knew the discovery all along.
      Problem: Why would she keep the information to herself?
      She does deserve credit even though the most likely scenario is she didn't report the picture because she didn't realize how important it was.

  • @benjamin2620
    @benjamin2620 3 роки тому +13

    Plot twist DNA discovered you

  • @yogeshhm7165
    @yogeshhm7165 3 роки тому +52

    Title should be "How me and crick stole DNA structure"

  • @polygenio
    @polygenio 3 роки тому +81

    This gives me cringe, 9:30 He still doesn't give her credit as a chemist, when she actually was. It is an insult for her to say she didn't know any organic chemistry, even knowing that she worked with viruses and organic compounds. What a horrible person this guy is!

    • @WangMotions
      @WangMotions 2 роки тому +10

      Okay he has his flaws but you gotta calm down. He’s done more for science then any of us in the youtube comments ever will

    • @eraserfred406
      @eraserfred406 2 роки тому

      The feminazi's are out in full force

    • @geezgod231
      @geezgod231 2 роки тому +1

      He's american so we can expect this from him

    • @ramakbalsharma2726
      @ramakbalsharma2726 Рік тому

      Padhe likhe gawar..

  • @jeannabrewer6197
    @jeannabrewer6197 9 років тому +208

    I was surprised by humble how he was and that he mentioned Rosalind. I wish he would have talked about her contribution a little more.

    • @Montecristo21
      @Montecristo21 9 років тому +76

      Kreuzritter Pionier that's not correct. She provided a X-ray diffraction image of the DNA that was key for Watson & Crick's model. The problem was that Wilkins, who provided the picture, didn't do it with Rosalind Franklin's approval. She didn't win the Nobel Prize because she died years before the nomination. Probably. if she hasn't died and had received the Nobel Prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins, history would have forgiven Wilkin's act and Watson would have not treated her like "some assistant" in his book.

    • @Schatten2712
      @Schatten2712 8 років тому +44

      Kreuzritter Pionier what an ignorant comment. show some respect to the memory of one of the most important woman science has had. her contribution to science opened a new area of study that is having a relevance this century comparable to that of penicillin on the 20s'
      so don't spread bullshit about a person so valuable as Franklin

    • @XbobSector
      @XbobSector 8 років тому +27

      +Renzo Lanfranco The importance of Rosalind was certainly emphasized in Watson's book. The thing about his book was that he didn't hold back on what he thought, he told of all of the positive or negative character traits that many people had. That is one of the reasons the book was so great, it was honest.

    • @wilson6448
      @wilson6448 6 років тому +9

      of course he should be humble, he should be glad he's up there speaking at all!

    • @haroldnaples
      @haroldnaples 6 років тому +4

      She was close but there is no guarantee she would have made it and she doesnt need a nobel now that shes dead. What is more outrageous is the exagerated accolades and fortune showered upon Watson who was little more than Cricks monkey, I mean spy. Crick at least was a genuine "brain" with enough decency to be a recluse and a potential for further contributions to science. That and he did technically do the work.
      Perhaps more subtle and pervasive problem yet is the whole thing of "I was here first, its mine". What is this, kindergarten. Wilkins is the only decent person with the proper (though socially naive) scientific attitude in the whole story of genetic pioneering, and he rode the bus.

  • @dragnatspl6991
    @dragnatspl6991 8 років тому +211

    but.... Rosalind Franklin told her idea of DNA to her professor (james) and he called it preposterous, and then used it to become famous and Rosalind never really got much credit....

    • @therealjoedart
      @therealjoedart 8 років тому +3

      +Dragnats Top10s troll

    • @lordego414
      @lordego414 6 років тому +3

      Dragnats pl and she died before 62 which the nobel prize was given to the people who stole her research...

    • @yogichopra
      @yogichopra 6 років тому

      true that :-)

    • @CharlotteFairchild
      @CharlotteFairchild 6 років тому

      Who is going to fix unfairness?

    • @HippieSkippy100
      @HippieSkippy100 4 роки тому +2

      Dragnats pl - sources?

  • @Truthiness231
    @Truthiness231 11 років тому +105

    Really, really surprised this hasn't gotten more views than it has yet. Many of us know the credit goes to many way beyond Watson and Crick, but it's still a talk by Watson...

    • @skiney
      @skiney 2 роки тому +1

      Probably cause the others were dead long before

  • @andersa222
    @andersa222 3 роки тому +21

    The fact he’s not ashamed disgusted me

    • @rascal6
      @rascal6 3 місяці тому +1

      Womp wom0

  • @OverTheHillGamer
    @OverTheHillGamer 8 років тому +58

    7:50 WTF is with the awkward shot of this lady?

    • @FelonyVideos
      @FelonyVideos 5 років тому +2

      That's probably Linus Pauling's grand daughter.

  • @archentity
    @archentity 10 років тому +84

    7:19 I couldve sworn he said ''I did nothing, except weed..''

    • @crrist
      @crrist 10 років тому +5

      haha i heard the same XD

    • @alexisswaded
      @alexisswaded 10 років тому +1

      He did, but in a different context. He's talking about weeding through the facts, says it right after he says "weed"

    • @Ap3XR3WIND
      @Ap3XR3WIND 9 років тому +8

      No he didn't, he said "I did nothing but read"

    • @sosukeaizen1100
      @sosukeaizen1100 8 років тому +18

      How is that at 7:19 dumb fuck
      It's at 7:08

    • @harrysgaming1700
      @harrysgaming1700 8 років тому +3

      +Sosuke Aizen feisty

  • @GeneralBlorp
    @GeneralBlorp 3 роки тому +47

    *cough* X-ray Crystallography, of which he was not a practitioner *cough*

  • @GH-oi2jf
    @GH-oi2jf 7 місяців тому +2

    The title is wrong. Watson and Crick found the structure of DNA, as Watson said here at the outset. DNA was already known, but not its structure.

  • @Msstrawcherryblack
    @Msstrawcherryblack 11 років тому +17

    "I discovered it by stealing Miss Rosalind Franklin's x-rays, then did not giver her credit!," James Watson....Of course he will never say or admit this little statement!

  • @mikayelhakobyan1653
    @mikayelhakobyan1653 6 років тому +12

    If you look close at his belt its on sideways

  • @saniagharfhalia
    @saniagharfhalia 4 місяці тому +6

    After coming to the comment section, it feels so good that everyone now knows who discovered DNA

  • @someoneyouknow525
    @someoneyouknow525 4 роки тому +48

    OMG that guy's laugh from the audience! lol
    8:04 8:22 8:44
    Do you think this is him? 11:30 😂

    • @zulekhamunir6637
      @zulekhamunir6637 3 роки тому +5

      Idk if it is him but even the camera is trying to locate him lmao.
      Btw this is the best comment! hahahaha

  • @minio585
    @minio585 8 років тому +9

    holy shit those subtitles... just read the first 5 min i promise its way worth it...

  • @thisisagoldengranny
    @thisisagoldengranny 6 років тому +46

    PBS Nova, "DNA The Secret of Photo 51" has done a fabulous expose' of the work and true effect Rosalind had and the real deception of others who negated her work. The more important feature should be this film shown before James Watson spoke. I do not want history by the people who betrayed her but the acknowledgement of what her contribution really was. A correction of truth must become attached to any information on the subject.

  • @andrewmayes4443
    @andrewmayes4443 8 років тому +3

    I love how they always rush the speakers at these things...

  • @jacobwhite8456
    @jacobwhite8456 2 роки тому +19

    "How I stole someone's lab notes and images, and took credit for their work"****

  • @DarkKitarist
    @DarkKitarist Рік тому +20

    My god... We've gone from not knowing what DNA is to actively editing DNA and even programing parts of it to do stuff for us...

  • @gavinborden5451
    @gavinborden5451 3 роки тому +42

    Met him many times. He's usually not this confident and happy... But always bizarre. A genius regardless

    • @leticiarevuelta3429
      @leticiarevuelta3429 3 роки тому +28

      Guilt does not allow him to be happy

    • @kumarvikramaditya9636
      @kumarvikramaditya9636 2 роки тому +1

      Cheater

    • @hosamelsayed5723
      @hosamelsayed5723 2 роки тому +1

      where?

    • @rickw7903
      @rickw7903 2 роки тому +3

      He seems happy to me and he has a good sense of humor.
      Still happy, healthy, and sharp as a tack at 94 y.o.

    • @iraqi3612
      @iraqi3612 2 роки тому +1

      believe me it's hard to fill your brain with hypotheses and theories and be confident of something

  • @lucawits648
    @lucawits648 5 років тому +55

    Rosalind gave James Watson the beginning of the instruments for discovering DNA. James Watson improves upon it and did amazing things. Rather than everyone screaming about how this person did that and that person did this. We need to realize that scientific discovery wouldn’t be possible without scientists using other scientists work. It’s the beauty of science, everyone shares their work, others improve upon it and find something.

    • @FinetalPies
      @FinetalPies 5 місяців тому +1

      @pinak-ig4yr
      "In a 1954 article, Watson and Crick acknowledged that, without Franklin's data, "the formulation of our structure would have been most unlikely, if not impossible""

  • @simonjohn5059
    @simonjohn5059 3 роки тому +48

    Ah yes, Edison’s grandson

    • @nd_featnarcos
      @nd_featnarcos 3 роки тому +3

      Lovely. I praise your humor as vice as Oscar Wilde. 💗

    • @jin_cotl
      @jin_cotl 2 роки тому +5

      both are crooks who stole real work

  • @kevaran1422
    @kevaran1422 5 років тому +24

    HONOR TO ROSALIND FRANKLIN!!!

  • @jjww30
    @jjww30 2 роки тому +11

    The whole time the coordinators are thinking, “please don’t say anything bigoted.”

  • @ptstevewong
    @ptstevewong 6 років тому +4

    But Ted-ed said you took the photo 51!

  • @kenshikenji
    @kenshikenji 3 роки тому +5

    ryan gosling deserves to be here

  • @balarambiswanath9633
    @balarambiswanath9633 6 років тому +2

    It's good to learn more about it

  • @Freehandzzzzzzz
    @Freehandzzzzzzz 7 років тому +8

    liquidvisual 2 months ago No better way to comment this video: "This is offensive. Ted-Ed gives Watson a platform to further belittle Franklin and her contribution. What a revolting turd."

  • @sagansrun2932
    @sagansrun2932 6 років тому +5

    He didn't discover anything but Rosalind's research and stole it.
    He is a FRAUD!

    • @mouwersor
      @mouwersor 6 років тому +7

      He was given Rosalinds research (among others). Rosalind did not discover the structure of DNA, she only did important research. He and some other guys did figure out the precise structure of DNA.

    • @stran8261
      @stran8261 4 роки тому

      @@mouwersor If you ever had your hands on her actual hand-written notes then you will see for yourself.

    • @trinitaccad3066
      @trinitaccad3066 4 роки тому

      What Crick and Watson did was a summary of many published research done by many scientists about DNA. Then brainstormed a model based on all of those datas, but without Franklin's unpublished datas, they have zero clue to start with. So yeah, they are a fraud. They are nothing like Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel.

  • @Docchop1000
    @Docchop1000 6 років тому +19

    “My father was raised to be an Episcopalian and a republican but after one year of college he became an atheist and a democrat.”

    • @bakavasa
      @bakavasa 3 роки тому +2

      Don't think Bolsheviks. Think progressivists.

    • @LouieAblett
      @LouieAblett 3 роки тому

      @En ki Think educated and not based on whimsical emotions

    • @pissmillahgandullah9523
      @pissmillahgandullah9523 3 роки тому

      In 2014, Watson became the first Nobel winner to sell his prize because, he said, the race remarks made him an “unperson,” and he lost all but his academic income after being fired from the boards of companies he sat on. He hoped the sale of the prize (for $4.1 million) would help him to “re-enter public life.”
      I mean what a shame! 😡

  • @Ariadne4
    @Ariadne4 3 роки тому +37

    I always get pissed off whenever I hear the two names, Watson and Crick.
    Anyways, Rosalind Franklin slays 🔥

    • @nicholas6836
      @nicholas6836 3 роки тому +1

      Agreed

    • @angelachen9629
      @angelachen9629 3 роки тому +7

      @The Snow Nigro looks like someone’s male ego is too fragile 🥺

    • @nathanm7101
      @nathanm7101 3 роки тому +9

      @@angelachen9629@The Snow Nigro Actually, Roslind's partner, Wilkins told Watson and Crick about the new X-ray during a drink at the local bar near the university. The X-ray was a vertical image, so you could only tell it was a double helix at that moment. I'm saying this just to show that Watson and Crick weren't all bad at their discovery. Of course, Rosalind should have gotten a Nobel Prize with Watson, Wilkins, and Crick, but she sadly perished from cancer due to work with the Xrays in large, lethal amounts.

    • @santanupaul1409
      @santanupaul1409 2 роки тому

      Agreed

    • @santanupaul1409
      @santanupaul1409 2 роки тому

      @The Snow Nigro why don't you read books of 5th grade before studying about history of DNA discovery.
      I'm a man but I don't think it's required to mention cause you may probably think to be a man support a man nope let me correct you bro,,,
      To be a man support a human who's right, deserving.

  • @brianfoote813
    @brianfoote813 2 роки тому

    My mom gets overloaded with information easily

  • @-.Oz.-
    @-.Oz.- 7 років тому +116

    Rosalind Franklin didn't come up with the final structure, but yes, without her data it would have been impossible. Her X-Rays were the final key, but no one was able to decipher them because they showed a 2 dimensional image. These two nuts stole the data and still couldn't crack the structure, till Crick dropped LSD and it hit him. Rosalind Franklin really did 99% of the work, and LSD did the remaining 1%. Sad that those very same X-Rays ended up killing her

    • @genericereal
      @genericereal 7 років тому +31

      +Osman Ali Khan
      "Rosalind Franklin really did 99% of the work," No she didn't? Watson and Crick were the ones who were able to piece together the puzzle; Franklin's picture was only a part of the puzzle, not the majority.
      Furthermore, Watson and Crick also used other scientists' findings to discover DNA, essentially.
      "Other researchers had made important but seemingly unconnected findings about the composition of DNA; it fell to Watson and Crick to unify these disparate findings into a coherent theory of genetic transfer. The organic chemist Alexander Todd had determined that the backbone of the DNA molecule contained repeating phosphate and deoxyribose sugar groups. The biochemist Erwin Chargaff had found that while the amount of DNA and of its four types of bases--the purine bases adenine (A) and guanine (G), and the pyrimidine bases cytosine (C) and thymine(T)--varied widely from species to species, A and T always appeared in ratios of one-to-one, as did G and C. Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin had obtained high-resolution X-ray images of DNA fibers that suggested a helical, corkscrew-like shape. Linus Pauling, then the world's leading physical chemist, had recently discovered the single-stranded alpha helix, the structure found in many proteins, prompting biologists to think of helical forms. Moreover, he had pioneered the method of model building in chemistry by which Watson and Crick were to uncover the structure of DNA. Indeed, Crick and Watson feared that they would be upstaged by Pauling, who proposed his own model of DNA in February 1953, although his three-stranded helical structure quickly proved erroneous."
      (profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/doublehelix.html)

    • @baddvibez8702
      @baddvibez8702 6 років тому +1

      No

    • @diimoffatt983
      @diimoffatt983 6 років тому +14

      Her work was published at the same time in the same paper as his actually. She did all the hard work - he used her stolen image to get his work done.

    • @walteriamusic5556
      @walteriamusic5556 5 років тому +5

      @@genericereal
      Thank you for the most accurate account of what truly transpired with All of these great humans. We have read writing's from Francis Crick, and he gave credit & praise to All the person's you have mentioned, Thanks

    • @seanhardman1964
      @seanhardman1964 5 років тому

      ua-cam.com/video/BIP0lYrdirI/v-deo.html

  • @porchmyn5755
    @porchmyn5755 6 років тому +26

    I can't tell whether the comments are satirical or moronic. She did not build the DNA model, why not?

  • @notreallydavid
    @notreallydavid 7 років тому +5

    Was the title Watson's?
    He helped to elucidate the structure of DNA - he didn't discover it.

    • @cjhepburn7406
      @cjhepburn7406 4 роки тому +1

      Ur talking like 99% of the population know what elucidate means..

    • @cfalcon8342
      @cfalcon8342 3 роки тому +1

      @@cjhepburn7406 it means a type of raccoon

    • @ScrumpeyBros
      @ScrumpeyBros 2 роки тому

      @@cjhepburn7406 Ur talking like 0% of the people who read this comment have access to the internet..

  • @sophiaGmcrz
    @sophiaGmcrz 9 років тому +13

    My Genes, Behaviour and Environment Prof told me to watch this .... it didn't disappoint lol

  • @PSNDaSingh
    @PSNDaSingh 11 років тому +21

    How it should have gone:
    'I stole Rosalind's X-Rays, "discovered" DNA, and took all the credit.'

  • @saisevithaa1772
    @saisevithaa1772 6 років тому +12

    Oh and Ted Ed made a vid about Rosalind!

  • @Alaafa
    @Alaafa 6 років тому +15

    did James and Crick REALLY steal Franklin's discovery? how did y'all know?

    • @arthurepisodes-full8994
      @arthurepisodes-full8994 4 роки тому +16

      Al James and Crick didn’t directly steal it. Wilkins, who was Franklin’s lab partner, stole the Photo 51 and gave it to Watson and Crick

    • @amaladasu
      @amaladasu 3 роки тому +10

      By how he is speaking on this stage and the way he built initial models , says it all

    • @veronicaarchaga8306
      @veronicaarchaga8306 3 роки тому +2

      if watson did not mentioned Franklin on hes DNA 1985 book we will never knew her name but after research they did find out was stole from her office..you have to understand she did the work and she did made the DNA helix structure Sequences...every one did they work however try to stab someone because you think you can??? will hunt you down..
      here we suppost to talk abou a geneous who did discover DNA but yet Rosalin Franklin is always the ghost of the story...look at us now 7 years later qe still give credits to her...
      When i teach chemistry i teach her name as part of the credits..

  • @sandlikaushal5482
    @sandlikaushal5482 Рік тому +9

    Bhai why no one is talking about Friedrich Miescher who actually discovered the DNA, although it was a by chance discovery still no one gives credit to him! 🤦‍♀️

    • @GH-oi2jf
      @GH-oi2jf 7 місяців тому +1

      This isn’t about the discovery of DNA. The title is wrong. It’s about the discovery of the structure of DNA.

  • @miabobeea2644
    @miabobeea2644 2 роки тому

    Through the simple expedient of breaking into my coworker's office and stealing her data

  • @francismuiruri9064
    @francismuiruri9064 4 роки тому +2

    Interesting to listen to.

  • @aemcapello
    @aemcapello Рік тому +1

    In Dutch, we have an expression for this, "over lijken gaan". I guess its the same as "over my dead body". This is the first time ever i've seen someone doing it litterally though. Sickening

  • @atharvkulkarni1967
    @atharvkulkarni1967 4 роки тому +4

    Rosalind Franklin

    • @cjhepburn7406
      @cjhepburn7406 4 роки тому +1

      And where are you from Atharv Kulkarni...

  • @justinknitter6057
    @justinknitter6057 6 років тому +2

    Yo is he doing stand up or a Ted talk?

  • @rabbitlissa
    @rabbitlissa 11 років тому

    Thank you!

  • @DeepikaAditya
    @DeepikaAditya 2 роки тому +5

    “How I discovered the photos of DNA taken by Rosalind”

  • @carloshbinda
    @carloshbinda 5 років тому +7

    He speaks grrrsss like grsss precious grsss he speak like usssssgrrsss

  • @asadonfire9241
    @asadonfire9241 2 роки тому +1

    He discovered Watson_Crick model of DNA

  • @J.C-L73
    @J.C-L73 3 роки тому +3

    Respect sir

  • @kingofnoone
    @kingofnoone 11 років тому +15

    I don't usually participate in such discussions as these, but I did find this rather humorous as well as some of those "idiots" that you wrongly labeled. And to say that Watson and Crick are idiots that only rose to fame off of the work of Rosalind's x-rays, is also an opinionated statement. If you listen to his speech you would realize that he did not steal anyone's work but only listened to advice that was given them after they had made mistakes in their own work.

    • @MrWizardjr9
      @MrWizardjr9 7 років тому +4

      without proper crediation which is plagiarism

    • @yakarotsennin3115
      @yakarotsennin3115 Рік тому +2

      Watson and Crick tried to publish their paper without giving credit to individuals like Rosalind Franklin, who's data was take without her knowledge and used to support their theory.

  • @musharrafimam8097
    @musharrafimam8097 4 роки тому +5

    The Talk should Name As 'How i steal the Discovery of Dna.

    • @willow091
      @willow091 4 роки тому

      Close...kinda like Tesla and electron microscope...

  • @100meromero
    @100meromero 7 років тому +21

    your account is Not completely honest... forgot Ms. Rosalind Franklin?

  • @dizzolve
    @dizzolve 4 роки тому +18

    1:30 that godawful slurping is off-putting............. thank you for your contributions though, Mr Watson, Rosalind Franklin and Crick

  • @rickrobitaille8809
    @rickrobitaille8809 2 роки тому

    The rest of this story is exciting 😀🌐

  • @vasdgod
    @vasdgod 4 роки тому +2

    I thought he died in textbook

  • @rickrobitaille8809
    @rickrobitaille8809 2 роки тому

    Paper masterpiece 🌐🥊

  • @rickrobitaille8809
    @rickrobitaille8809 2 роки тому +1

    Escaped a world class phyisist 😁🇨🇦

  • @hrc7715
    @hrc7715 2 місяці тому

    Crick was always the more eloquent of the duo

  • @brianfoote813
    @brianfoote813 2 роки тому

    I've been to Copenhagen in 2008

  • @PasanJayaweeraYashoda
    @PasanJayaweeraYashoda 3 роки тому +6

    I have a test in biochem I'm watching this instead of studying Watson and crick model lol

  • @yudhakr
    @yudhakr 3 роки тому +7

    Franklin's photograph is crucial and defining pace of Watson for rediscovery 3D structure of DNA along with Crick.
    How does Watson stumble upon Franklin's photographs, is the help of Wilkins. Who take out that clear photo without Franklin's permission.
    In the end, in 1962 Watson, Crick and Wilkins earn the nobel prize. While Franklin had died in 1958.

  • @marscrumbs
    @marscrumbs 8 років тому +9

    The Famous Xray photo51 was actually taken by grad student Raymond Gosling who work in Dr. Franklin lab overseen by Dr Wilkins. Glad he include his picture.

  • @prashantkhatri336
    @prashantkhatri336 3 роки тому +5

    ADD TO QUEUE
    Rosalind Franklin discovered DNA period

    • @jasonbourne5142
      @jasonbourne5142 3 роки тому +3

      False

    • @miladravandi9506
      @miladravandi9506 3 роки тому +3

      She just took the photo. the person who found out that DNA is the molecule that stores genetic information was Oswald Avery

  • @dasisushma
    @dasisushma 8 років тому

    very nice.

  • @iulitus
    @iulitus 4 місяці тому

    The DNA molecule was discovered by Friedrich Miescher in 1869. In 1944, Oswald Avery demonstrated that DNA was the carrier of genes.

  • @DeepanshuSingh__IBT_
    @DeepanshuSingh__IBT_ 2 роки тому +1

    Franklin discover it

  • @shawndayvis6169
    @shawndayvis6169 6 років тому +18

    He tries to cover up his guilt by pretending that talking about his discovery of dna is BORING....

  • @AM-vl9nc
    @AM-vl9nc 7 років тому +39

    Enough with "You stole it from Franklin". Wilkins showed the picture of DNA to Watson, so he is to be blamed. By the way Franklin was mentioned in the Nature paper and would have won the Nobel Prize if she didn't die

    • @vanbracey
      @vanbracey 7 років тому +15

      But Crick and Watson have been denying her contribution of anything until there was legitimate evidence and he still denies her credit. he's a thief and a narcissist.

    • @AM-vl9nc
      @AM-vl9nc 7 років тому +14

      +oxymoron Again, Franklin is cited in the Nature paper that got them the nobel prize: how is that "denying her contribution"?

    • @vanbracey
      @vanbracey 7 років тому +7

      Rambling On Actually only Wilkins was cited on the Paper not Franklin. It wasn't until a year after that they finally gave her credit and still they boasted about how little her contribution actually was.

    • @KyleStLouis-wl9vn
      @KyleStLouis-wl9vn 6 років тому +2

      Rambling On shut up

    • @theultimatereductionist7592
      @theultimatereductionist7592 6 років тому +4

      THANK you, Rambling On, for pointing out the TRUTH in FACE of ASSHOLES who INSIST on MANUFACTURING UNNECESSARY CONTROVERSY.

  • @RYUKARYOTE
    @RYUKARYOTE 6 років тому +13

    Shame.

  • @brianfoote813
    @brianfoote813 2 роки тому

    Great invention the x-ray crystallography machine

  • @user-bs3ry5jz1l
    @user-bs3ry5jz1l 3 роки тому +1

    Obtain some data and draw a picture out of it are not equal tasks

  • @alarcon99
    @alarcon99 9 років тому +51

    yeah. that x-ray...that picture of DNA...YOU CAN THANK ROSALIND FRANKLIN FOR THAT!!!

  • @SabaFrida
    @SabaFrida 4 роки тому

    I had a hard time remembering his name for the exam now u won’t lol the guy is on UA-cam

  • @gayatri5455
    @gayatri5455 2 роки тому

    We must also appreciate wilkson and Franklin 🚩

  • @abhinav3450
    @abhinav3450 6 місяців тому +1

    By reading someone else’s notes

  • @brentwaits954
    @brentwaits954 2 роки тому

    RIP .. .. .. nvm this fuckin guy is almost 95 and still going hard

  • @priyasehgalinfj
    @priyasehgalinfj 6 років тому +25

    Rosalind Franklin studied X-ray diffraction techniques that was considered to be very difficult at that time. She excelled in her academics, got a PhD degree and found photo51 i.e. the photo of DNA. Watson stole the photo and with his guess work arrived at the right structure of DNA before she could publish her papers. And you know what's the saddest part of the story? She unknowing exposed herself to the X-rays which caused her with cancer and she died at the age of 38 without the recognition she deserved!..☹️

    • @realtechlabs5348
      @realtechlabs5348 Рік тому

      IRREGARDLESS WATSON SEEMS TO BE GENEROUS WITH INFORMATION AND PASSION IN IT.
      HE EVEN MENTION PEOPLE WHO HELPED COME UP WITH THE SAME SO WATSON DESERVES THE CREDIT

    • @cherrypie6784
      @cherrypie6784 9 місяців тому

      Women😂☕️☕️☕️☕️no one stoled do ur research before spreading false info

    • @shazdekochooloo6413
      @shazdekochooloo6413 2 місяці тому

      Wrong!!! She came up with her conclusion regarding the structure sooner than them! Even though she mailed her results it was still delivered (on March 6) sooner than watson finished with his results!!! They just put his results in more front page than hers!!! she still got the results faster than them!!!

  • @tshiamisorapudi3482
    @tshiamisorapudi3482 3 роки тому +1

    Jeff Bezos at 7:03? Jeff Bezos laugh - 8:04? Must be Jeff Bezos laughing at 8:23 :'😂😂

  • @marvwatkins7029
    @marvwatkins7029 3 роки тому +2

    So he stole Franklin's work and claimed it as this? That is the accusation?

    • @veronicaarchaga8306
      @veronicaarchaga8306 3 роки тому

      he did took the photo and when they got they glorious NOVEL PRICE
      AMERICAN SCIENTIST GIVE A " F" AND WE LOOK FOR ROSALIN FRANKLIN TO DO SOMETHING BETTER
      DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?
      RNA VIRUSES 😉😉😉
      WHAT WE DO TODAY IN SCIENCE
      VIRUS MOLECULAR STRUCTURE
      WHO DO YOU THINK WAS ON THE LIST OF RESEARCH
      ROSALIN FRANKLIN

    • @missdeejay
      @missdeejay 2 роки тому +2

      @@veronicaarchaga8306 dude, your spelling gave me a headache

  • @CraigMansfield
    @CraigMansfield 8 років тому

    I enjoyed that

  • @takeiteasy2232
    @takeiteasy2232 5 років тому +4

    Are you people in the comments trolling or what? Franklin discovered the dna but she didnt defined its final structure.
    They both deserve credit for their respective works.

    • @marcui_louie
      @marcui_louie Рік тому

      Franklin did define Ponoto 51 though. Her research paper was published the same day as Watson's.

    • @cherrypie6784
      @cherrypie6784 9 місяців тому

      ​@@marcui_louiedo ur research

  • @ethanburns8209
    @ethanburns8209 3 роки тому +4

    For clarification he took notes from Rosalind Franklin to help him and Crick to make the model. Although Watson and crick are assholes you can’t take away from them that they did come up with a 3D model of DNA. Most of their understanding though was taken from others.

    • @ThatCoalSoul
      @ThatCoalSoul 2 роки тому +1

      I bet you hate Elon Musk for stealing the car from Ford?

    • @ethanburns8209
      @ethanburns8209 2 роки тому +2

      @@ThatCoalSoul I never said I hate them. I was just clarifying that they stole notes. It’s well documented.

    • @Aj-ed2tn
      @Aj-ed2tn Рік тому

      @@ThatCoalSoul ohh yeah, scientific discoveries and cars are freaking same thing, you're right

  • @chuygogo1147
    @chuygogo1147 2 роки тому +11

    This great man inspire me to study

  • @stephenbeauman6290
    @stephenbeauman6290 2 роки тому +1

    Amazing