I am obviously going to read this entire book, as it is virtually impossible to put down. Today though I am to focus my discussion on responses by Klug (pp. 153-158), Stent (pp.161-175), Lewontin (pp. 185-187), Sinsheimer (pp. 191-194), Merton (pp. 213-218), and Medawar (pp.218-224).
I realized I did not not have the Norton Critical Edition, so I ordered it from Amazon and had it shipped overnight, so I should have it by Friday and be able to finish up my postings. Now having received the book and finished my assigned readings, I am glad I did because it always helps to get a variety of perspectives on an issue. Klug basically defends Franklin, and suggests that she was not far from figuring out the DNA structure herself. I am not so sure about this, but it cannot be denied that her work was instrumental to the collective effort that resulted in the final outcome. Personally, I feel she should have been included in the Nobel award group with Wilkins, Crick, and Watson. Stent covers the other reviews and discussions of The Double Helix and I agreed with him for the most part, in that Lewontin and Sinsheimer were somewhat offbase in their replies, and Merton and Medawar better understood, represented, and explained what was going on in Watson's accounts of the discovery of the double-helix.
Merton and Medawar pretty much describe the book as I saw it, whereas Lewontin and Sinsheimer are needlessly derisive and derogatory toward Watson. I felt Watson came across as somewhat of a conniver, even sly, but in positive way, as he ultimately was the best "puzzle-solver" of the group while Crick was the true intellect and Franklin, Donahue, Wilkins and others provided substantial data, ideas, and support as well. By the way, I intend to read all of the Norton Critical Edition as time permits. Waddington and Chargaff seem to be jealous, to a certain extent. I for one found reading The Double Helix to be one of the most informative, exciting, and eye-opening science related tomes I have ever come across.
I liked that Medawar emphasized the experiments of Griffith and their importance, even if Watson chose not to. I also noticed that a couple of times even these distinguished reviewers fall into the trap that Mendel's work was "rediscovered" in 1900. Another important point was the discussion that practicing scientists seem to take the history of science for granted sometimes, but it is explained that since science is a cumulative process, the practioners are dependent on their history, just maybe not immediately cognizant of it. I am a science teacher, but I have done original research at various times, and I think that colored my view in the past as well, to a certain extent. This summer has definitely helped to change that.
Bibliographic Note:
James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA-Norton Critical Edition,(W.W. Norton & Company, 1981). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."
Further Reading Note:
I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment