The discovering process and publication frenzy associated with discovering the structure of DNA was probably the most intense competition the biological sciences have ever seen. The competitors involved laboratories across continents, and some of the greatest biological talent ever; the accomplishment would produced 3 noble prize winners and bring certain scientist into the history books eternally . However, with the victors come the spoils, and ultimately it is the victors that write history of the event. What if we take a more objective look at that history apart from the victor's opinion?
Increasing evidence presents the case that Watson and Crick did not independently come up with the structure for DNA. But, had help from many biologist and chemist across laboratories. Harshly put, Watson and Crick used other scientist's data, but proposed a correct structure before others could publish findings. This is similar to writing a review, but with a great conclusion based on the literature and work done by other scholars in a particular field. There are doubts about who should have been recognized for the accomplishment.
Do you consider Watson/Crick victory to be a cheap victory?
Should Franklin have shared the prize with Crick, and others?
How much credit should watson/crick really be given for the discovery?
Who was the really pioneer in finding the structure for DNA?
Your thoughts?
Michael
I´m not decided. But as information I enclose the original 1953 paper of Watson/Crick.
This is a difficult, but recognisable question. In many comparable cases lots of scientists made minor or maybe even major shares for solving a principle problem. Crediting the right people for their achievements is now felt to be more important in science than it was fifty years ago (anti-plagiarism). Darwin got the credits for the theory of evolution, but we know that several other scientists had almost the same ideas for elements of the theory, such as Malthus. He outcompeted Wallace, although they even wrote a joint paper. Although we know that even the current theory is still under construction, the position of Darwin in the history of science remains. Nevertheless, Nobel prizes are still assigned to not more than three scientists at the time. Also outside science this issue can be debated. Neil Armstrong said on the moon: "this is a small step for man, but a giant leap for mankind". Who is to be credited? Neil Armstrong, who actually made that first step? All those texchnicians who made it possible? Or the director of NASA as major force? Or even John F. Kennedy who said to be willing to have a US citizin on the moon by the end of its decade? Again an interesting question, but answers are virtually impossible.
@Raamsdonk, the question boils down to this question. Can we credit anybody with a scientist discovery when they have produced no data or experiments?
And Neil Armstrong walking on the moon is not a scientific discovery.
@Michael: Thats exactly the problem. Everybody knows the Watson/Crick stories. There are more stories of this kind. Please remember the work of minkowsky, Lorentz and Einstein and so on....
Perhaps we should just accept the Oslo decisions.
@Hanno, Einstein should be credited with his discoveries. All of his works were original. Einstein proved that mass and energy are equivalent and thus applied Lorentz's transformation equations to matter to deduce new equations of motion. Einstein's field equations for general relativity are totally original and unify gravity/special relativity/curvature of space time.
Einstein's photoelectric effect demonstrated conclusively the particle nature of light bringing in the quantum revolution.
@Michael, I know, but he used the basics! PS: He has really "earned" the NP!
Sorry Michael, I used the wrong expression. I ment HE REALLY DESERVED THE AWARD! This was a misunderstanding.
I know that he won the NP for the interpretation of the photo electric effect, a wonderful work to develop the QM
Watson and Crick deserve the NP for their work., However, there contribution should be consider rpughly equal to Wilkins/Rosalind Franklin involved. The reality is that they are given the most credit for the discovery; making there victory kinda of cheap. IMO
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Molecular Biology