Talk:Francis Crick/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Info
i think that Francis Crick is a great scientist but i hate to say i dont no much about him if any body has info on him please email me at vinndawg11@aol.com thanks alot
Francis Crick has been called the "greatest British scientist of the twentieth century". I am no scientist; would those with greater scientific expertise agree with this assessment? (217.41.240.18 10:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC))
In my opinion Francis Crick is the greatest scientist i've known and I am putting him as my role module, as of now i am doing a chosen assignment on him which has give me great joy of doing in getting a good grade off my english teacher.--212.219.82.35 08:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)Pamela Middleton.14
LSD
Apparently the concept of DNA's double helix came to him while using LSD. [1] --Thoric 30 June 2005 15:51 (UTC)
- Even if it is true that Crick used LSD, you need a better source than a "he said that someone said that Crick said" story that Crick was ready to fight in court. Also, it would be hard to sort out to what extent drug use might have contributed to a particular scientific idea. --JWSchmidt 30 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)
fabrication
While Francis did try LSD, it wasn't before several years after the discovery. That is, at least, the consensus in the family. Fcrick 10:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is this relevant to the story? So what if he did! Many people have done acid, BIG DEAL! Many people have also tried cigarettes, beer, whiskey, cocaine, coffee, and pot. It is utterly and completely absurd to assert that Acid had anything to do with Crick decoding the sequence of the genetic code any more than alcohol or cigarettes or coffee. Let me just throw in a personal view of this...After doing acid a few times in the 1980s, can I make the personal viewpoint known that NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE came out of these events other than a lot of laughing, a lot of nonsense, and an incredible headache that lasted two to three days along with flashbacks that lasted for two to three years afterward.
- There have been some attempts to explore the effect of LSD on creativity (for example, see LSD and creativity. It is not unusual for biologists with an interest in brain function to be interested in -and in some case experiment with- psychoactive drugs. There seems to be a minor industry among some drug users to publicize examples of famous people who may have used psychoactive drugs. Based on the history of edits to the Francis Crick article and this talk page, Crick's possible use of LSD is on the minds of some people who come to Wikipedia. I think it is better that Wikipedia say something about this issue rather than delete and ignore. --JWSchmidt 20:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If he used the LSD, it was after the discovery of the genetic code, not before. At the very least, the article needs to be edited to reflect that. The "source" listed on the footnote is dubious at best. Therefore, I am editing it to reflect that change. unsigned since the "register now" still doesn't work.
The article listed as footnote 23 seems to be suspect. It was written by Alun Rees, and apparently is based on heresay. The website where it is contained is a "pro-drug" website, and I think that many of the references contained within the article on Crick and LSD need to be checked out. I doubt if this article is based on verifiable sources. I would propose that we delete the LSD portion of the article until it can be verified.
psyche
"disprove the existence of the psyche" <-- What is does this mean? I cannot imagine a meaning for it that would apply to Crick. The whole section that starts with this statement is not an encyclopedic account of Crick's views on religion. Maybe some of the quotes could go on an article specifically about reactions to Directed Panspermia. --JWSchmidt 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Religious Beliefs
This entire section should be struck. As noted above, the opening sentence is embarrassingly imprecise. And the rest of the entire section is not only a bizarrely ill-informed ad hominem from a "political analyst" / theatre critic, it's a copyrighted ill-informed ad hominem. The author being "quoted" for the entire section doesn't understand the scientific utility of the panspermia argument, which is just to increase the size of the statistical pool of random variations that could lead to an unlikely event, thereby decreasing the importance of the "What are the chances?" argument. Lacking this understanding, he then sadly conflates the argument with the irrational inherited belief systems of the ancients, and actually asserts that Crick "appears not to have noticed" the difference. The irony of that assertion will doubtless be forever lost on the author, who was clearly out of his depth writing about science. Mtiffany 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the critique by User:68.193.197.230 of Crick's motivation for exploring panspermia is rather lame. I wonder why User:Moriori reverted your edit when you removed this section of the article on 7 September 2005. However, I am not a knee-jerk deletionist. Based on other edits by 68.193.197.230, the original author of this section may be an advocate of Intelligent design and feel the need to claim that science and atheistic scientists never really escape their own religious motivations. I think it is valid to question the motivations of scientists and this kind of questioning is part of the wider public response to Crick. I think it might be constructive to craft a more encyclopedic account of the point raised by 68.193.197.230 and then follow that with an alternative view of Crick's scientific motivation for exploring the idea of panspermia. --JWSchmidt 17:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I reverted User:Mtiffany's deletion because I thought the information added to the article. I still do, even though it needs work. I was on vandal patrol when I noticed his deletion. Usually I revert when I see a non registered user delete information which may have some merit, particularly when a reason is not given for the edit, as happened on this occasion. I believe I get it right most of the time, but if I don't, editors who object can always drop a note on my talk page where we can discuss it. It is a month since I made my edit, and only now am I made aware than someone disagreed with it! However, that seems to be beside the point now, because if it is copyrighted as User:Mtiffany says then it must be junked. Moriori 20:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- The current treatment of Crick's religious beliefs, panspermia, and reactions to same is a tremendous leap forward. Your structural changes and writing have done the wikipedia a huge service, JWSchmidt; thanks. Mtiffany 05:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Could we have a little more on his life? esp after 1976
Yes, see: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/crick04/crick04_index.html
195.92.168.168 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (MP)
So, he's an agnostic? Can we put that down? Homagetocatalonia 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Knighthood
This morning an anon added a couple of sentences this morning about Crick not having the title 'Sir', which User:Toh usefully cleanup to read:
- Though Crick is sometimes referred to by writers as "Sir Francis Crick", he was never knighted and thus is not titled "Sir".
Whilst this is true, it is still rather misleading since Crick actually received the Order of Merit in 1991 — The British honours system is more than a little confusing, but I believe the Order of Merit is generally considered a higher honour than that of Knight Bachelor. Now admittedly we could do a bit more to mention that Crick was an OM other than the two letters following his name on the first line. There must be some better quotes around, but this article includes some useful comments on how Crick generally refused most honours offered to him.
However, I don't think it is appropriate to include a line saying that some people mistakenly refer to him with the title 'Sir'. -- Solipsist 11:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi I am the author of the "couple of sentences", which have now been re-instated as "While Crick received the prestigious Order of Merit in 1991, he was never knighted so references to 'Sir Francis Crick' in mainly American scientific publications are in error." Any comments please on this version?
195.92.168.167 12:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Martin Packer, a researcher for Francis Crick's new biography = http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/rememberingfranciscrickacelebration.htm
ps 16 American publishers have just been advised of their science books containing this mistake, including Harvard University Press and even Cambridge (England) University Press for North America! (You are not alone in being 'confused' by the British_honours_ system!)
pps
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=546341
"As if deification were not enough, the public portrait was also honoured with a putative knighthood. There are many examples in the archive, over a number of years, of letters wrongly addressed to “Sir” Francis Crick, for which Dr Crick had many graceful responses. James Watson, for one, wrote him a mock-congratulatory letter (8 September 1966) when the knighthood mistake accompanied an article by Crick in the Saturday Review for 3 September 1966.26, However, the entertaining apotheosis came when the title appeared in the answer to a newspaper crossword clue in the New York Times,27 thereby firmly endorsing the urban legend." I think this is the last word!
But let's leave the very last word to Francis Crick himself:
"There is one final small point which I hope you will not mind if I stress. I have never been knighted. I do not mind people occasionally addressing me as Sir Francis Crick in a letter but it would cause me infinite embarrassment if this title were to be used in Geographic. May I ask you personally to take particular care that some well-meaning person does not slip it in at the right moment. Perhaps you would be good enough to bring this point to the attention of other people working on this article in the magazine. Yours sincerely, F. H. C. Crick" (in a letter dated August 19th 1974).
- Now those are some useful (sourced?) quotes that could well be put in the article. Non of this should be in the lead para however. Its pretty clear that Crick didn't much care for honours and titles, so it would be best put the discussion in a section towards the end of the article titled something like 'international recognition'. The lead para should remain a summary of his achievements and influence. -- Solipsist 23:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- I did the initial copyedit without knowing much about the context (other than verifying that he was indeed never knighted and had been occasionally referred to with a mistaken "Sir" prefix). IMO the best way to handle honours is to include them at the start of the article and wikilink them without any further explanation, as has been done here (and in many, many other biographical articles) - the wikilink itself is the explanation. In this case the OM article might make clear that a Sir isn't appropriate for recipients unless they're also knighted, for anyone who cares enough to look. However, the quoted letter is interesting enough that a description of the issue and Crick's response to it could be included later in the article, as per Solipsist's recommendation. As noted, it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph - the rent in that space is just too high, particularly when considering a rather minor point about someone of rather major reknown (put another way, with everything that needs to be said about this guy, is this issue important enough to his bio to appear above the fold?). - toh 02:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Guys! "is this issue important enough to his bio to appear above the fold?" Yes, I think it is and I hope John Schmidt does too. If you try a "google search" on 'Sir Francis Crick', you technically get 135,000 pages! Not all of them are actually for 'Sir Francis Crick', but 6 out of 10 on the first page are. Tomorrow morning, 15 American publishers will be coming back to work after Thanksgiving to have this substantial error in one of their recent scientific books brought to their attention. So, for the moment let's leave it in and show the world that "Wikipedia" knows what it is doing? The same cannot be said of MSN Encarta for in their Crick biography they have a link to the wrong "Sir William Bragg", ie the father rather than the son - yes, I have brought it to their attention, but so far they have not changed it. The beauty of "Wikipedia" is that mistakes are corrected immediately on-line of course; but MSN Encarta do not refer to a spurious knighthood, thank goodness! regards, 195.92.168.170 09:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (MP)
- Just to note that when you want to find a complete phrase in Google, you'll need to quote it. There are currently 690 hits, vs. 458,000 for "francis crick" without the "sir". Counting Google hits is rarely a great metric for much of anything, but in this case the error is neither at all widespread online nor (again) particularly relevant to the average reader (who like me could probably care less about knighthoods or the proper way to refer to them). Again, the article is about Francis Crick, not about the peculiarities of titles.
- On another note, you might want to create an account here if you're going to be actively editing - people enjoy having a name (even a nonsense syllable (ahem) to discuss things with rather than a mere (and possibly changing) IP. - toh 01:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Whereas it may be of some small note that occasionally authors/journalists do not use very good sources and so occasionally might refer to Francis Crick as Sir Francis, this is really not important enough to put into the introduction of his biographical article. The introduction is for the important accomplishments/achievements of the subject, not mundane notes on poor research. I have also included the correct Nobel citation as there seems to be a widespread and erroneous beliefe that the Nobel Prize was for discovery of the structure of DNA. A look at the citation will reveal that no mention of the discovery is made. Alun 06:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
When the prize was awarded there was a presentation during which this was said:
"Deoxyribonucleic acid is a high polymer composed of a few types of building blocks, which occur in large numbers. These building blocks are a sugar, a phosphate, and nitrogen-containing chemical bases. The same sugar and the same phosphate are repeated throughout the giant molecule, but with minor exceptions there are four types of nitrogenous bases. It is for the discovery of how these building blocks are coupled together in three dimensions that this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to James Dewey Watson, Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins, and Francis Harry Compton Crick."
--JWSchmidt 14:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Read the citation, for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material. I am not making this up, it's available from the nobel prize website (it is referenced in the article). It is verifiable and from a reputable source. I do not see a problem with quoting the correct citation, delivered by the actual people who awarded the prize. Wilkins is not credited with the discovery and himself says in his book that his share was for the ten years or so he worked on DNA, most of which was after publication of the structure. When it is taken into account that he did so much work to confirm the proposed structure, his share seems reasonable. Alun 17:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I take the quote that I posted above to be a more informative version of the terse blurb: "discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids". --JWSchmidt 17:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nucleic acids not DNA. Watson had been working on RNA for some time before the Nobel Prize was awarded. Alun 19:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Tim Hunt quote
"For my generation, Francis Crick was probably the most obviously influential presence. He was often at lunch in the canteen of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology where he liked to explain what he was thinking about, and he was always careful to make sure that everyone round the table really understood. He was a frequent presence at talks in and around Cambridge, where he liked to ask questions. Sometimes, I remember thinking, they seemed slightly ignorant questions to which a man of his extraordinary range and ability ought to have known the answers. Only slowly did it dawn on me that he only and always asked questions when he was unclear or unsure, a great lesson." (Tim Hunt, the first Francis Crick Prize Lecture: June 2005)
Crick bobblehead
See: http://www.scivon.com/ for further information on both of them!
195.92.168.175 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (MP)
Francis was against the bobblehead being made, and it was done without permission of the family. Please respect his wishes and do not buy one. Why not give a donation to the Salk instead? Fcrick 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop removing this note. If there is some reason you don't think I should be able to put this note up here, please reply saying why instead of simply removing it. Francis's wishes were made very clear to me personally, and I'm upset people here are so willing to just ignore (and delete) them. Fcrick 08:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I THINK IT IS GROSSLY MISLEADING FOR YOU TO HAVE A USER NAME OF "Fcrick" = PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY? (I KNOW THE TWO LADIES WHO MAKE THEM AND AM ALREADY AWARE OF CRICK'S THOUGHTS ABOUT BOBBLEHEADS! HE SPECIFICALLY SAID TO THEM 'NOT WHILE I'M ALIVE' OR WORDS WERE TO THAT EFFECT.) I SUGGEST THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR USER NAME TO AVOID FURTHER DISRESPECT, SIR!
~~MP62.25.109.194
Francis Crick was my grandfather, and I carry his name. Fcrick 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Francis for posting this.
Christof Koch recounted a story at Granddad's memorial, telling how that in the middle of Francis' phone conversation where he stated that he did not wish to have one of these bobbleheads made of him, he needed to put them on hold while he was sick from chemotherapy. After he hung up, he turned to Christof and said "Now I can honestly say that idea made me sick!"
It makes me sick to see you advertising here on this forum, shame on you. - KCrick (Granddaughter)
Francis/Kindra (grandson/granddaughter), please accept my personal apologies re. the Bobblehead debate; see: http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/rememberingfranciscrickacelebration.htm; I have every respect for your late grandfather's memory; I suggest you bring your views to the 'Von' sisters who make them on:http://www.scivon.com/. I look forward to hearing from you, Martin
Additions by 195
I removed the large section of text on the Crick/Watson sculpture, which is only marginally relevant and is a direct cut and past copyvio from here, and was not adapted from the short BBC source cited.--nixie 01:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well done "nixie", and for your next trick? Seriously, instead of being obsessed with this additional text being only marginal relevant, just think it's new, topical, temporary and not permanent, and anyone who bothered to read it, knows it was about the Crick sculpture in Northampton - and not "the Crick/Watson sculpture", whatever that it supposed to mean! Some of you "Wiki" people need to get a life (in the real world). regards, 195.92.168.176 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (MP)
Ignorance of Key Points
Francis Crick was an atheist, and is appropriate for the Religious Beliefs section of the article. It was central to his very being. It is not appropriate to talk about a "talk show hosts" freudian analysis of him (which I attempted to delete since it is not appropriate, poorly written, boring, and was pointless). It was deleted by myself. If you have a problem with it, then you can change it back if that makes you feel good about yourself. Francis Crick also felt it was impossible for life to have come into being out of a primordial soup, and is appropriate for the Panspermia section of the article. It is not appropriate to say that he didn't have a belief or interest in it especially given the fact that he cowrote a book about it.
- While I don't entirely agree with 12. edits, I actually don't see the relevance of discussing Mark Steyn's analysis of Crick's religious belief at any length.--nixie 03:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- There seems to be a group of people who only care about/think about Crick because of his ideas about religion. Some of these people come to Wikipedia and add information to the article that concerns reactions to Crick's ideas about religion. It is reasonable for there to be something in the article about reactions to Crick's views on religion. Based on my search of the internet, it seems that Mark Steyn is a real hero for some people who love to discuss Crick's ideas about religion. In other words, it is not by some strange fluke that somebody added Steyn's analysis of Crick to Wikipedia. Steyn's published views apparently resonate with many people. Sure, there are people who are interested in Crick for reasons other than his ideas about religion and they may not want to see anything about religion in the article. Other people may feel that Steyn is particularly unwelcome. However, Crick was more outspoken about religion than most scientists and reaction to his ideas about religion is a valid topic to include in a description of Crick's impact on the world. Steyn's published views seem to be a reasonable place to start in describing one particular kind of reaction to Crick. --JWSchmidt 05:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- If we're actaually looking at the credibility of Steyn and his ideas on Crick - it really should be noted that he is a just journalist with no background in psychology. A disproportionate section of the article is given to the decsription of and debunking Sterns opinion. If anything the Steyn argument might rate a brief mention in the section on Cricks Views on religion.--nixie 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- "It is not appropriate to say that he didn't have a belief or interest in it especially given the fact that he cowrote a book about it." It is common for scientists to explore alternative hypotheses when they are trying to understand something. A scientist can explore the possibility that something may have happened without believing that it did actually happen. If you can find a quote from Crick that says "it was impossible for life to have come into being out of a primordial soup" or "I believe that panspermia happened" then we could certainly incude that in the article. --JWSchmidt 06:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Your response has nothing to do with the necessity of the inclusion of the Steyn information - which is one of the anons key issues- in the level of detail currently in the article.--nixie 06:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- It seems that we are dealing with a matter of taste. From my exploration of online commentary about Steyn's reaction to Crick's views on religion, I feel that there is a significant group of people who agree with Steyn. One of these people added the topic to the article. I can understand how other people would be bored by a description of Steyn's views and I agree that Steyn's views are not based on a professional psychological analysis of Crick. The usual Wikipedia system for dealing with this situation is for one editor to reduce the discussion of Steyn's reaction to Crick, leaving a terse sentence. After another month, another editor will remove that sentence for being insignificant clutter. An inconvenient POV will have been expunged! Ra! Ra! Ra! A month later someone else will add the topic back to the article and then we will get to play the whole game all over again. --JWSchmidt 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
New User Comments
- The article already has Crick's own statement, "from then on I was a skeptic, an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism". If you can find a source in which Crick said, "I'm an atheist," then I think we should add that to the section Francis Crick#Views on Religion. --JWSchmidt 06:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The article DOES NOT have the statement you are talking about, JWSchmidt. If you are referring to the FOOTNOTE at the bottom (identifiable by the microscope function in Windows XP), this is not sufficient in my humble opinion. Why don't we add the statement (and the words proceeding it) into the religious beliefs section? Most normal people don't read footnotes. -205.188.116.136
- Crick's statement about being an agnostic could certainly be quoted in the Views on Religion section. --JWSchmidt 04:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
JWSchmidt, I added a small passage about Cricks doubts about the existence of god and organized religion. I also stated that he was not an atheist. Could you check it and see if it sounds ok? Also, I can't figure out how to make the footnote command work. I just get a number '25' as an internal link. I know I am doing something wrong here. I am the user 205.188.116.136 (I wish the register feature was operating so I could have a username!)
- How to deal with numbered references: Wikipedia:Footnotes. --JWSchmidt 05:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
From the U.S. National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health
If you go to profiles.nlm.nih.gov and then click on Biomedical Research and then click on Francis Crick, then click on Biographical, the 10th paragraph of the piece will show the following sentences:
"Indeed, throughout his scientific career he was driven by his conviction that the origins and processes of life, including human consciousness and free will, could be explained entirely in rational, scientific terms. In a series of lectures published under the title Of Molecules and Men (1966), he formulated his stance against what he called vitalism, the belief that life, evolution, and consciousness were generated and directed by a metaphysical force not subject to verification by experiment. An avowed atheist, Crick resigned as a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, after one year when the college decided to erect a chapel, which he considered an offensive anachronism."
Again, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and smells like a duck, then it is a duck. I really don't know how to make it more clear than that.
- "Indeed, throughout his scientific career he was driven by his conviction that the origins and processes of life, including human consciousness and free will, could be explained entirely in rational, scientific terms." That doesn't mean he's an atheist. thx1138 09:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- "I really don't know how to make it more clear than that." If Crick was "An avowed atheist" then it should be possible to cite a source in which Crick avowed that he was an atheist. The article currently contains a statement published by Crick in which he stated that he was an agnostic. --JWSchmidt 18:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- An agnostic is a type of atheist, it is impossible to half believe in god, but irrespective of that, if you check the policy pages on verifiability and neutrality you will see that it is not necessary to find a direct quote from Crick stating that he was an atheist. The fact that many believe he was an atheist is enough for inclusion, especially with a good source to back it up like the NIH. You do not have the authority to demand a more stringent test for inclusion than the official policies and guidelines. Alun 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The Double Helix 1951 to 1953
1. Can anyone explain what this long sentence is really supposed to mean? Who were the (quote) 'supervisors of Watson and Crick'? Unless this is clarified, it is so meaningless it may as well be deleted!
"When it became clear to Wilkins and the supervisors of Watson and Crick that Franklin was abandoning her work on DNA for a new job and that Pauling was working on the structure of DNA, they were willing to share Franklin's data with Watson and Crick in the hope that they could find a good model of DNA before Pauling."
2. Can anyone explain what the following meaningless speculation is all about? "Many have speculated about what might have happened had Pauling been able to travel to Britain as planned in 1952. He might have seen some of the Wilkins/Gosling/Franklin X-ray diffraction data and it may have led him to a double helix model. As it was, his political activities caused his travel to be restricted by the U. S. government and he did not visit the UK." (Comment: and so what?)
Again, if it does not mean anything, it may as well be deleted? ("If If's and And's were pots and pans, then we would all be tinkers"!)
195.92.168.176 20:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (MP)
- The original version of item #1 was "When it became clear to Wilkins and the supervisors of Watson and Crick that Franklin was abandoning her work on DNA for a new job and that Pauling was working on the structure of DNA, they were willing to share Franklin's data with Watson and Crick." At a later date " in the hope that they could find a good model of DNA before Pauling" was added.
- This ambitious sentence was an attempt to characterize the forces that were at work just before Watson and Crick began their second round of model building (early 1953).
- "supervisors of Watson and Crick" At the end of 1951, after Crick and Watson made their first model of DNA, they were told not to continue building molecular models of DNA. At the start of 1953 they were given permission to start making models again. These events and the identities of their supervisors are described in Watson's account of the events, Crick's account, and other accounts such as Judson's book The eighth day of creation.
- The question becomes, why were Watson and Crick first told to not work on the structure of DNA (1951) and then later allowed to do so? Two reasons that have been discussed in the literature are:
- it became known to those involved that Franklin was leaving King's College and her work on DNA
- it became known that Pauling was working on the structure of DNA
- These two changes in the state of affairs (1 and 2, above) were also background events that are relevant to additional questions. A second question can also be asked, why was Crick given access to the 1952 MRC report containing Franklin's unpublished data? A third question is, why was Wilkins willing to share Franklin's data with Watson and Crick?
- The question arises: if Crick was busy working on his thesis and had been told not to work on DNA, what forces were at work that led to Crick participating in the discovery of the structure of DNA? The discussion of disruptions in Pauling's travel plans is relevant to the sense of urgency that some people in Cambridge were feeling in 1952 and early 1953. Pauling had previously won the race to the protein alpha helix model. By his own account, Watson was concerned that Pauling would solve the structure of DNA first. Had Pauling visited England as planned, Watson feared that Pauling might have seen some of Franklin's data, boosting Pauling's chances of constructing a correct model of DNA. In early 1953, mentioning Pauling's soon-to-be-published work on the structure of DNA was a major tool that Watson had for getting permission to again work with Crick on a DNA model. --JWSchmidt 13:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
John, thanks for such a long and erudite reply; however I would take issue with that awful phrase "the supervisors of Watson and Crick"; IF you know who they are, why not simply name them? There is however one 'famous' name conspicuous by its absence in the above explanation: Sir Lawrence Bragg of course - who always gets left out of the DNA story! (Much the same applies to Sir John Randall too.)
My personal theory of exactly what happened in the DNA era revolves around the roles played by Sir Lawrence Bragg and Sir John Randall; no one recognises them as leading personalities in what Robert Olby called "The Path to The Double Helix", but they were influential and competitive not only with each other, but also with Linus Pauling.
Sir Lawrence Bragg not only 'pulled the strings' at the Cavendish Laboratory, but he also played the major role in getting the formal recognition which Watson, Crick, and Wilkins deserved, ie the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. His relationship with Linus Pauling is well documented, but unfortunately there is little on file about his close relationship with his opposite number at King's College London, Sir (as he became in 1962) John Randall. Not only did the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge collectively beat Linus Pauling, but they also saw off their closest rivals in this country! Thanks only to Sir Lawrence Bragg, were the efforts of the King's College London team recognised through Wilkins' share of the Nobel Prize. Yes, life can be unfair to the likes of Rosalind Franklin, but the real tragedy of her life was early death through cancer and not her being 'robbed' of posthumous recognition in the Nobel Prize.
Just think how differently the D.N.A. story might have been if Randall had employed Crick, rather than Crick going to Cambridge under Sir Lawrence Bragg? To some extent, Watson and Crick as the "winners" in the race for the structure of D.N.A. determined how the history of the period has come to be written, especially through Watson's "The Double Helix" of course. Both of them (and others) have influenced the content of books written about them and their contempories - just read the long list of acknowledgements in books by De Chadarevian, Gribbin, Hunter, Judson, Maddox, McElheny, Olby, Ridley, Sayer etc.; this is not to critize these authors, but it is not until you read P.G. Abir-Am's "Noblesse Oblige: lives of molecular biologists" that you realise there are alternative views!
So where does this leave "Wikipedia"? You have the spectacle of silly people arguing over dubious points of detail in biographies - which remind me of the Victorian debate over 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' (or something like that); the arguments are interesting, but do they really contribute anything to the content? No, the medium through which these fruitless debates are conducted to some extent determine both what is said and how it is said, but at the end of the day, better information is to be found in books. (Where else is the "Wikipedia" information obtained from?)
That's all for the moment, John; do keep up the good work and next year, revise a lot of what you have written on "Wikipedia" in the light of Bob Olby's authorised biography of Francis Crick! 195.92.168.170 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (MP)
- I offer no defense of the "awful phrase" or the run-on sentences I tend to produce. Sometimes what I add to articles can best be viewed as a place-keeper for an issue that I think should be included. Through the Wikipedia collaboration process, such place-keepers risk a quick deletion, but under ideal conditions another editor will come by and pick up where I left off. Editors are supposed to [Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] and revise rather than delete.
- Bragg and Randall. I agree about the importance of these two in the DNA double helix discovery. I wonder what you think about the idea (mentioned by Alun/wobble) that Randall tried to cut Wilkins out of DNA work at King's College?
- I must here include the fact that this is not my point of view, but that of Wilkins in his account, and it was not an attempt to cut Wilkins out of DNA work at King's College. It was Wilkins's opinion on reflection (possibly he didn't feel it at the time) that Randall may have wanted to be closer to the X-ray work, and so he may have been trying to move Wilkins away from X-ray work (so not the whole project on DNA) and to concentrate his work on DNA on microscopy. Wilkins was speculating that this was the origin of Franklin's go back to your microscopes comment, that Franklin may have got the impression from Randall that Wilkins was going to finish working on X-rays. He uses a comment from Gosling about the initial meeting between Randall and Franklin (at which Gosling was present but Wilkins was not) that indicates that Wilkins's absence gave the impression that he was moving away from the X-ray work. Wilkins also concedes that he may have given Randall the impression that he himself wanted to stop working on X-rays It may well be that Randall's idea that I would move away from X-ray work was derived from remarks I had made to him. It is true that I had often said that I found more joy in microscopes and watching living cells, whereas X-ray study of static structures was rather a bore. But I certainly never said to Randall that I was going to give up the DNA X-ray work.. This information is available in Go back to your microscopes, chapter 6 of The Third MAn of the Double Helix by Maurice Wilkins.Alun 18:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- if Randall had employed Crick. Crick wrote that he met Wilkins before deciding to work in "the Strangeways". It is not clear to me what Wilkins and Crick knew about DNA at the time when they first met or what common interests they had. Crick's account seems to suggest that it may not have been until a year later that he became interested in -and knowledgeable about- DNA. When did Wikins become interested in DNA? As Crick described it in What mad pursuit, it was a stroke of luck that he first got to work under Perutz.
- Martin, please refrain from describing other editors of Wikipedia as silly. You have reverted to insults once again. These reflect on you and your intollerance of different POVs more than anything else. Wikipedia is not here as your personal soap box, it should include all points of view. You seem to believe that all other POVs are held by silly people and that your POVs are the only one worthy of inclusion. If you cannot accept that other interpretations of events are equally as valid as yours then you really are in the wrong place. Alun 05:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It is futile, Alun, to argue with this person. We are all silly to JWSchmidt.
(Originally Pompousness) Retitled as "Frustration"
My advice on this would be to take the information gathered on this site with a grain of salt. Read the articles, and do your own research. But don't try to change the articles unless you want to get in an all-out war with someone. There really is no such thing as a totally neutral article on anything, and if it truly exists, I wouldn't want to read it anyway. As of the moment, the scientists listed in the articles of Wikipedia are icons to the academic world (to people such as JWSchmidt), and changing "their" article is tantamount to saying Jesus Christ was a Satanist to Jerry Falwell! Take it with a grain of salt and if you want to really get the inside scoop on a subject, just use Wikipedia as a starting point. As of the moment, Wikipedia is ruled by administrators such as JWSchmidt who I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT have a hard job of keeping "true vandalism" at bay. (see bottom commentary about my thoughts on this). And for that, I applaud JWSchmidt. He really does believe in this Wikipedia concept, and seems like a very reasonable person. And with that, I will shut my hole.
- The above was posted by IP 207.200.116.7, which does not seem to have made any edits to the Francis Crick article. I suggest that the user from IP 207.200.116.7 register a user name. That is a good first step towards having other editors be able to deal with you in a more constructive and professional way.
- As for, "He turned me in for supposed POV violations," I'm not sure what you mean by being "turned in for POV violations". I'm guessing, but this anonymous editor may be in some way related to some edits of the Francis Crick article by IP 12.207.83.81. (Sorry JWSchmidt, I guess that wasn't you who turned me in...)
- As for, "made a complaint to someone named Zoe," I'm sure that I have never complained to User:Zoe about anything. (Sorry, JWSchmidt, I jumped to conclusions!)
- On the general subject of Crick's views on religion, I am in full support of including in the Francis Crick article discussion of Crick's views and reactions from others about Crick's views. My goal is make sure that what is said in the Francis Crick article can be verified by way of cited sources. It might be constructive for you to explain on this talk page what you want to say about Crick and also provide a list of sources to support your proposed additions to the article.
--JWSchmidt 18:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
this has everything to do with this particular article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Wikipedia survives research test
John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.
But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
Open approach
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.
It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.
We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good
Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.
In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.
"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.
Writing style
Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.
The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.
"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.
"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."
Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.
The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.
Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.
Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles*.
195.92.168.174 13:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (MP) ps * and not before time of course!
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosalind_Franklin"
especially for Alun/Wobble and John Schmidt
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-1961321,00.html
festive greetings to almost everyone! 195.92.168.165 14:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (mp)
intelligent design
"This of course is true, but it is often misunderstood that Creation Science is one thing, and Intelligent Design another. The fact that Crick wisely distances himself from disreputable creationists does not change the fact that his ideas fit like a glove into the logic of more mainstream and credentialed proponents of Intelligent Design. Namely, that in seeing the complexity of DNA, he was led to believe in some kind of intelligent designer, namely alien lifeforms."source
- Can you (User:140.180.164.138 or anyone else) provide a reference to the published work of an intelligent design advocate who has written about the possible movement of extraterrestrial lifeforms to Earth? Can you provide a reference to support the idea that Crick went beyond exploring directed panspermia as an idea and that he actually held a belief "in some kind of intelligent designer"? --JWSchmidt 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I woke up this morning, read this, and thought, "huh"? Then I came here and saw JW had already asked my question. Thanks JW! Semiconscious · talk 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Wobble Hypothesis
Including information or a link on Crick's wobble hypothesis might be good for this article.--Drewlew 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup header?
===To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. Please discuss this issue on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.This article has been tagged since April 2006.===
Can anyone explain why this header appears over the article? I think the article is excellent and a lot of hard work has obviously gone into it. (Yes, I do know the author!) Any comments.. 62.25.109.194 mp62.25.109.194
A pivotal moment in Crick's scientific career?
According to James Watson at the conference DNA: "50 years of the Double Helix" held in Cambridge (England) in 2003 : (quote) "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier. That's what it was saying."
19 years later Crick left Cambridge for La Jolla, California.
Not really pivotal if he stayed in Cambridge for another 19 years (appointed to head positions in the new MRC lab in 1962-3) and then left for the Salk Institute to focus on a different field Bwithh 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Reading between the lines of the UCam genetics department official history, http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/About/News/departmenthistory.htm , it sounds like there were substantial internal discord on the departmental politics level; the nature of this is not explained, but it was clearly bad enough to force the abandonment of the usual election process, deter Pontecorvo from the taking Lord Adrian's offer, and possibly offend Crick enough to turn down Adrian's offer too (though it is not confirmed that this second offer was made). University politics can be pretty cutthroat anywhere in the world. If Watson's line about Francis' rejection is accurate, it was likely down to "really stupid" departmental politics rather than a simple decision Bwithh 02:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Unable to find any hits on google or on commercial international newspaper and magazine database to verify the quote (using "james watson AND really was stupid" / "james watson AND uninspiring" searches. If Watson really said this at a conference lecture (the conference was webcast live internationally by the BBC so its unlikely only a few people heard it), its strange this wasn't reported in the press or in a science magazine. Treat quote as suspect. Bwithh 02:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Nitramrekcap, you need to come up with a reasonable external reference for that James Watson quote, or it'll have to be pulled. I haven't been able to find any james watson quote criticizing Cambridge like that. It seems odd that I cannot find any mention of this criticism in an international news and magazine database, nor in a quick search of his book, The Double Helix and in Crick's memoir nor anywhere else - especially given how outspoken Watson is. Even if Watson did say such a thing, the total lack of reportage about this would suggest that it was not seen as a particularly newsworthy , notable or supportable quote Bwithh 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Designs For Life: Molecular Biology After World War II" by Soraya De Chadarevian; CUP 2002, 444 pp; ISBN : 0521570786; it includes James Watson's "well kept open secret" from April 2003 in Chapter 6 (Locating The Double Helix) on pp 197!
"bwithh",the source is impecable, i.e. the transcript of the conference: last page is Watson's closing remarks? I have a copy at home which I was given this time last week at the LMB by the person who did the transcript. Please withdraw your unecessarily critical remarks! (Matt Ridley also records this in his forthcoming biography, as did Soraya in her book in 2002 by the way.)
I treat your comments as "suspect" as you cannot grasp that this is not yet on the internet; the real question is WHY did Watson use this opportunity to raise a 48 year old issue?
- Assuming you are a sock of Nitramrekcap as detailed above, I am mindful to treat your consistently patronising tone as a series of personal attacks. If you persist, and if other users agree, I would be disposed to begin the dispute resolution process and ultimately a request for arbitration. This could result in sanctions being taken against you. If you have some kind of social impairment-such as Asperger's syndrome- which might explain your behaviour, it would be beneficial to relate this to the other regular editors of this page, perhaps by email if you wish to maintain privacy. I must confess, I see little evidence from your edits that such a clinical explnation is likely, and assuming you don't have any such excuse, please learn to adopt a civil tone or leave the encyclopaedia. Badgerpatrol 13:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"Badger Patrol" (!) I think it is worth recording "Fisher retired in 1958 and in 1959 John Thoday, then in Sheffield, was appointed his successor (the word "appointed" is used advisedly, since he was not elected but appointed by the Chancellor under Statute D.XIV.16(b)(i). The reason for this is that the electors could not agree on an appointment. Pontecorvo (then at Glasgow) turned down an offer from Lord Adrian (then Vice Chancellor) 'and, it is said, so did Crick. Under these circumstances, Adrian consulted one of the external electors, Mather (from Birmingham))." quoted from http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/About/News/departmenthistory.htm
To which I will add Soraya De Chaderevian's comments; eventually we may get to the real truth!
- If that was supposed to be a response to my comment above, then we also add dyslexia or similar to the list of your potential clinical problems. Please read the comment again more carefully. If you require further clarification I will be happy to explain it to you if necessary. Please learn to sign in to the system with a consistent username and also how to sign your posts properly; again, if you need to be taught how to do this I am quite certain that either myself or another editor will be able to do so. Badgerpatrol 15:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"Fisher retired in 1958 and in 1959 John Thoday, then in Sheffield, was appointed his successor (the word "appointed" is used advisedly, since he was not elected but appointed by the Chancellor under Statute D.XIV.16(b)(i). The reason for this is that the electors could not agree on an appointment. Pontecorvo (then at Glasgow) turned down an offer from Lord Adrian (then Vice Chancellor) 'and, it is said, so did Crick. Under these circumstances, Adrian consulted one of the external electors, Mather (from Birmingham))." quoted from http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/About/News/departmenthistory.htm.
"Bhandh", I respectfully suggest there is a major contradiction between the above quote and Jim Watson's recorded remarks; I am grateful for you bringing the above to my attention, and therefore to the attention of Crick's authorised biographer i.e. Professor Robert Olby. I will also bring it to Soraya De Chaderevian's attention as it is rather inconsistent with her book's version. this incidentally was Crick's SECOND disapointment with Cambridge, the first one being his failure to get a place at a Cambridge college - unlike both Wilkins (St John's)and Franklin (Newnham)! Neither failure is documented in his autobiography, "What Mad Pursuit" of course.
SYDNEY'S BRENNER'S TALK AT CAMBRIDGE ON THE 1ST OF MAY 2006
See: * http://www.bluesci.org/content/view/436/265/ for a report on his talk on 1st of May 2006!
Just in case anyone has any doubt about it? John Schmidt would have found it very interesting!
CAIUS STAINED GLASS
I DO admire the initiative of whoever put the image of the 'Crick' window into the article, but the following wording is WRONG;
"Stained glass window in the dining hall of Caius College, in Cambridge, commemorating the co-discovery of the structure of DNA by Crick."
The window commemorates Francis Crick with the words: "F.H.C. Crick..Honorary Fellow 1976", not the co-discovery of the structure of DNA. However to avoid being totally negative, the following may be of some interest from "Once A Caian" (Michaelmas 2005):
"..Crick gave his blessing (provided Watson agreed and as long as the window was not visible at night, for the DNA would be coiling the wrong way.).."
and - in case anyone has any doubts about WHO (not what) is really commemorated, the caption in the above magazine from which the image was taken reads: "Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA with James Watson, and Nobel Prizewinner, is commemorated by a diagram of the double helix based with permission on a 1989 Swedish stamp."
QED. Thank goodness this is not the 'Rosalind Franklin' discussion page, otherwise the debate over the discovery would begin again.. well-informed critics are of course in short supply on Wikipedia!
- I am the uploader of the picture, and you are absolutely right. I also uploaded a similar picture for John Venn, and earlier today I realised that I made this mistake. I corrected it on the Venn page, but not here, so thanks for pointing it. And many thanks for the additional comments, which are very interesting. Schutz 09:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have corrected the description; fortunately, I got it right on the image description page on commons. I have also copied your comments (and a link to Once a Caian) there. Tell me is anything is still incorrect. Thanks ! Schutz 10:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear "Schutz",
Two down and four to go! What about Sherrington, Green, Fisher, and Chadwick?
Well done (so far)!
SYDNEY BRENNER'S JOKE ABOUT FRANCIS CRICK MEETING GOD
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/vehicles/francis-crick-goes-to-heaven.html
This is the version in Heinz Pagels, The Dreams of Reason (p. 266); he says he got it from Sydney Brenner:
Crick, the co-discovered of the molecular structure of DNA, dies and goes to heaven. He is met by St. Peter, who asks if he has any special requests. ``Yes, says Crick, I want to meet the Man himself and ask him a few questions. Peter says that there are not many requests of that kind, but it can be arranged, and he tells Crick to follow him. After passing through the Elysian fields, with their cool springs and lakes around which beautiful people are at play, their every desire fulfilled, Peter and Crick come to the mountains and enter a dark valley. The way is strewn with wrecked machines, electronic parts, broken glass and test tubes, organic garbage, old computers ---- a junkyard. At the end of the valley is a shack, which they enter, and inside is an old man, his coveralls stained in grease, blood, and chemicals. He is bending over a lab table filled with more junk, hard at work. Francis, meet God; God, meet Francis, says Saint Peter. Pleased to meet you, says Crick, but what I want to know is how you made the muscle system for the fly's wing. It's so ingenious. Well, says God, I did it a long time ago, and it's really very simple. Let's see now if I remember. You just take a bit of tissue and then it's...well, twisted..and then, somehow...and then you rearrange...slap together these protein chains...and...Well, I don't remember all the details. But who cares, it works, doesn't it?
A RIB-TICKLER OR WHAT? Any comments would be appreciated; I think it is quite funny and subtle!
and just a reminder of the more serious side of Sydney Brenner, who was present at the birth of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953:
Excerpted from My Life in Science by Sydney Brenner. Copyright © 2001. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved."Seeing DNA ...of course the most important thing that happened then is that Jack Dunitz told me about all the developments with DNA in Cambridge because he was following it all. He told me that Francis Crick and Jim Watson had solved the structure of DNA, so we decided to go across to Cambridge to see it. This was in April of 1953.Jack and I and Leslie [Orgel] and another crystallographer went to Cambridge by car. It was a small car. It was very cold I remember, and the car wasn't heated. No one had heaters in cars then. We must have arrived in Cambridge in the late morning, at about 11am or thereabouts. We went into the Austin wing of the Cavendish Laboratory. I went in with Jack and Leslie, into this room that was lined with brick, and there on the side I can remember very clearly was this small model with plates for the bases - the original model with everything screwed together. And I could see the double helix! Francis was sitting there. This was the first time I met him and of course he couldn't stop talking. He just went on and on and on, and it was very inspiring, you see. Of course at this stage neither of the two famous Nature papers had yet appeared. The first paper was expected in a few weeks. They talked mainly about what eventually was in the second paper. Jim was at his desk in that room which I came to occupy later when I came to the Cavendish, and he was interspersing comments with Francis. So that's when I saw the DNA model for the first time, in the Cavendish, and that's when I saw that this was it. And in a flash you just knew that this was very fundamental. The curtain had been lifted and everything was now clear [as to] what to do. And I got tremendously excited by this."
Never mind the politics of who really did what, it's the importance of the discovery itself that matters! To see Sydney Brenner at Cambridge on 1st of May 2006 53 years on was a vivid experience...but let's not forget the contribution made made by Sir Herbert Austin, later Baron Austin, at whose car plant in Birmingham cars/vans were built between 1905 and 2005; I say that as an ex-Austin apprentice (1969-1973) and ex-MG Rover employee (1969-2005)!
- Just a gentle reminder Martin- this page is for discussing the Francis Crick article specifically- it is NOT a general discussion board for the history of DNA research or even for Crick's life, outside of the scope of the Wikipedia article. Could you possibly make it clear in future how your contributions on this page are designed to increase the quality of the Crick article itself? Thanks, Badgerpatrol 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for indulging me, "Badgerpatrol"; I am very sure that the overall quality of the Crick article can only be much improved by reference to Matt Ridley's short biography - being published in the USA on 1.6.06 - and by reference to my own '40 page' web site: http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/rememberingfranciscrickacelebration.htm!
I am not advertising Matt Ridley's book (which I have already read by the way) in any shape, way or form - as my unbiased advice is to wait for Robert Olby's longer, authorised, scientific biography in 2007. There is still a massive amount of material on Crick on the internet, some of which is quite useful (shades of the curate's egg in "Punch") but some of which is very misleading and downright inaccurate.
I think that Wikipedia should lead the way with a really good Crick article - based on all available sources, both printed and the internet.
I wait your erudite response to these comments, but would remind you what happens to badgers on British roads, they get squashed! 217.134.249.144 mp217.134.249.144
ps Have you heard of the Badger Brewery by any chance?
a shoddy piece of journalism from "the sunday times" (11.6.06)
any comments anyone? see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2220486,00.html
the first on-line review of matt ridley's biography? (this is not 'advertising'!)
Selected quotes from the above: "This is one of science's signature stories, and Matt Ridley re counts it with verve and clarity in this compact, elegant biography...Deploying almost haiku brevity, Ridley sketches the missed opportunities, the blind alleys and the experimental slogging. Readers breathe the heady fumes of discovery as Brits competed against Americans and the King's College team in London pitted itself against the one at Cambridge. Oversized personalities abounded....Ridley gives Watson his due, who in turn provides his blessing for this perceptive little book. The author, however, is quick to dismiss claims that chemist Rosalind Franklin was cheated of credit in the DNA race. The essential persona here is Crick, "the dominant theoretical thinker, the best guesser, the indefatigable skeptic, the loudest debater, the conductor of the scientific orchestra"..."Francis Crick" shows off Ridley's command of the subject and offers the pleasure of thinking about a man whom Ridley ranks with Galileo and Darwin. And Ridley is among my favorite writers. His earlier book, "Genome" occupies a place of honor in my living room...Ridley's book is the first biography of Crick, who died in 2004, and the seventh in the new "Eminent Lives" series, which pairs a first-rate writer with a seminal life. The book lacks footnotes and an index, but a reader can hold it in the palm of one hand...While Ridley's writing skill makes "Francis Crick" almost a guilty pleasure, it is no piece of hero worship. Instead, we consider a man whom many scientists described as the cleverest person they ever met but also one prone to "doing other people's crosswords."
Doesn't this new book raise the bar for the revised Wikipedia article on Crick? Over to you, John Schimdt when you finally finish reading it! 195.92.67.74195.92.67.74mp195.92.67.74
- Martin, if you put as much effort into actually adding to and improving this article as you do to pointing out on this page (at excessive length) whenever a new publication emerges regarding Crick, then Francis Crick would be the best article in the encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us all know (again) that Matt Rdiley has a new Crick book out. If YOU have read the book and if it has any new information that should be added, then why don't you add it yourself? Over to you, Martin. Badgerpatrol 08:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"BADGERPATROL": this is the very FIRST new publication on Crick; I read it a few months ago; it is John Schmidt's article as far as I am concerned, and I am sure he will do a much better job than I can. To be honest with you, I am more interested in Robert Olby's biography of Crick, than I am about improving the Wikipedia article on Crick - which is good in parts, but not yet definitive! (Neither is Ridley's biography.) 62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194
- "MARTIN"- This article "belongs" to NOBODY. If you have read the Ridley book, then add anything it has to offer to the article. This page is for discussing changes DIRECTLY relating to the WIKIPEDIA Crick article. It is not for discussing Crick generally. If you feel that you can't write well enough to contribute to the Crick article, then put in what you can and I or someone else will endeavour to correct it for you- this encyclopaedia is a colloboration, after all. As an aside, please sign in and use a regular account to avoid confusion. Badgerpatrol 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
FailedGA
The article is long term tagged with {{cleanup}} and {{not verified}}. Nominating a cleanup tagged article for GA is quite frankly wasting the reviewer's time. Please renominate when these issues have been fully addressed and the maintenance templates removed. --kingboyk 15:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
On April 16 User:Wobble added a cleanup tag to the Francis Crick article. On 17 May User:Wobble added a bunch of tags requesting citations (first set,second set). On May 29 User:Wobble added a not verified tag to the article.
I believe that most (if not all) of the requests from User:Wobble for additional citations concern topics that are covered in detail by the sources that are already cited in the article, in particular What Mad Pursuit and The Eighth Day of Creation. I will try to find time to dig out citations to specific pages. --JWSchmidt 04:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is now one requested citation remaining concerning the quoted comments from James Watson made at the conference marking the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA. --JWSchmidt 07:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The same quote is in the James D. Watson article. There the source is given as, "conference transcript". --JWSchmidt 07:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The same quote was present twice in the Francis Crick article, the second time with reference made to the conference transcript as the source. I combined the two. I'm going to remove the tags from the top of the article. --JWSchmidt 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- The same quote is in the James D. Watson article. There the source is given as, "conference transcript". --JWSchmidt 07:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with this. It was the long term nature of the tagging which made it an automatic fail. If the tags has been added after the GA nomination it would have a different matter, then the reviewer might use some discretion if the maintenance tags were clearly incorrect or added in bad faith. Anyway, please resubmit as soon as you feel the article is ready. There's no minimum time period you must wait. --kingboyk 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
FRANCIS CRICK'S SHORT BIOGRAPHY BY MATT RIDLEY
This article is now out-of-date as there are far more facts in the public domain thanks to Matt Ridley's new book; I suggest the article needs to be comprehensively reviewed by its principal contributor and revised. If not should it carry a 'health warning'as being out-of-date? Sorry John(Schmidt) but "the bar has been raised"!
As it is NOT possible to create a link to the "Amazon" review, here it is - again - in the interests of someone (not me) 'picking up the baton' as it were from John Schmidt, reading the book, and improving the article. Yes "Badgerpatrol" I have actually signed in for a change!
"Ridley's Insightful Biography of a Great Scientist; Not the final word, June 19, 2006 Reviewer: David H. Peterzell "Ph.D., Ph.D." (San Diego, CA United States)
Matt Ridley has captured much of Francis Crick's essence in a very short, credible, engaging book. He has captured Crick's contributions to the discovery of DNA, but he also resurrects Crick's equally great contributions to understanding DNA's coding scheme. He has, I believe, portrayed the essence of Crick's thinking style - Crick's superb ability to visualize details in three-dimensional space; his life-long need to talk and debate with close colleagues; his intellectual pragmatism, his diligent reading abilities, his playfulness, and his ability to focus for long periods. Ridley has captured Crick's many moments of being polite, spirited, friendly, accommodating, and curious. But Ridley has also captured the stronger aspects of Crick's personality. These include his ability to take strong stands against things he despised, such as vitalism, royalty, and` organized religion. At times, these strong stands could be courageous and insightful. At others, Crick's behaviors could seem downright stubborn, cold and mean. A vitriolic attack on the Richard Gregory comes to mind, and is described in the later pages of the book. Another remarkable aspect of the book is its treatment of the mundane and perhaps "mediocre" Crick. The portrait of Crick and his work in WWII is fascinating for this reason, and invites considerable speculation.
Ridley weighs in on the well-known, controversial, mysterious and misunderstood aspects of the discovery of DNA. He includes sane descriptions and analyses of Crick's storied colleagues -Watson, Wilkins, Franklin, Brenner, Orgel, and many others. Ridley's treatment of Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, Pauling, Chargaff and others involved in the controversial steps toward the discovery of DNA is well worth a look. "The story of the double helix is awash with might-have beens. Every participant had cause for regret about a blunder made or an opportunity missed." We see that Rosalind Franklin's interactions with Crick and others were mysterious and complex. Despite any hard feelings, we see Crick and his wife befriend Franklin toward the end of her life. But we also see Crick respond to controversy by harshly describing Franklin as "not sound." We see Wilkins as a somewhat unfortunate figure, despite his Nobel Prize. He is remembered, in part, as the man who did not collaborate sanely with Franklin; who failed to build models in a timely manner; who stole Franklin's data.
As I write this review, the book has been on the market for about a week, and Matt Ridley has just presented talks on his book at UCSD and at the Salk Institute. These talks, moderated by Roger Bingham and Stuart Anstis, were taped and will be published in some form soon. If you have a strong interest in Crick and his story, then it will be well worth watching these talks and the discussions that followed. They were riveting. The rooms were filled with many people who knew Crick well, and their questions and comments made for a vibrant and important presentation.
A number of other materials enhanced my enjoyment of this book, and I recommend them. Start with Francis Crick's (1988) "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery." Have a copy of this book nearby while reading Ridley's book. This is Crick's autobiography, and it provides strong insights into Crick, his discoveries, his colleagues, and his times. In one intriguing passage, Crick commented on a movie drama about the discovery of DNA, and I couldn't help but thinking about it as I read this biography. Moreover, the autobiography contains many relevant photographs, including some that appeared in Ridley's talks in San Diego. One of the things I like about Crick's book is that it provides some details about his friendship with VS Ramachandran, co-founder of "the Helmholtz Club." Ramachandran is a great thinker and genius in his own right, and the two had many important interactions. Crick discussed how he was influenced by great vision scientists such as Hubel and Wiesel, among others. I would also recommend the introduction to "The Astonishing Hypothesis," in which Crick discloses more about himself and his ways. And of course, it helps to consult copies of Watson's books, Perutz' book on science and scientists, and books about Franklin, Wilkins and others.
I hope that Ridley makes some of his visual materials available, as the book contains no pictures. Moreover, it is a shame that the book does not provide an index. A book like this needs an index because on often times wants to find specific passages, topics or people within the book.
(On a personal note--I should say that I interacted briefly with Crick perhaps 20 times at talks and parties over perhaps a 7 year period, and did not know him particularly well. Even so, I felt like I had a somewhat reasonable sense of him. I caught first-hand glimpses of his kindness, enthusiasm and cantakerousness. He attended a talk I gave in 1997 at the Salk Institute, and I knew of him mostly through reports by mutual friends and colleagues. Their enthusiasm for Crick spoke volumes. My strongest memories are of Crick holding court at one of the many parties at Stuart Anstis' house, often kindly answering UCSD students' questions in an entertaining way. His last appearance at one of these parties was just a few months before he died. I went to the large memorial for him at the Salk Institute.)
Although Ridley has added another person's view regarding DNA and Crick, I think it is fair to say that this bio is "not the final word" and "the book is not out" in some sense. There are quite a few versions of Crick and the DNA story. I look forward to Ridley's version being picked over by people who are more knowledgeable than I. It is certainly possible to supplement ones understanding using other sources. One that comes highly recommended to me by a friend of Crick is "The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology." The word is that Crick figures predominantly in this book, and that the book provides a reasonably accurate portrayal. Another source is Olby's "The Path to the Double Helix." Again, I'm not familiar with the book, so won't comment. Perhaps the ultimate source on Crick will appear in 2007. Martin Packer reports that Crick's full-length scientific biography (by Olby) will appear then, and he is currently soliciting material for the book.
I wonder how Crick would react to all this posthumous attention. This is the man who wanted attention placed on the molecules, not the scientists who studied them. How ironic that his desire to remain somewhat anonymous has led to all this. Crick IS fascinating, whether he liked it or not.
'PROFESSOR' CRICK (sic?)
I could be mistaken but being a Visiting Professor to Harvard University does not make you formally a 'Professor' in my opinion?
Let's stick with "Doctor" until someone can prove me wrong!
Ironically the Crick article goes a long way to disproving that he was ever a Cambridge professor (quote) "James Watson claimed at a Cambridge conference marking the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 : "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier." (source: conference transcript)
According to the University of Cambridge's genetics department official website, the electors of the professorship could not reach consensus, prompting the intervention of then University Vice-Chancellor Lord Adrian. Lord Adrian first offered the professorship to a compromise candidate, Guido Pontecorvo (who refused) and then is said to have offered it to Crick, who also refused."
In the meantime, see:
http://www.edgwaretimes.co.uk/display.var.803953.0.a_school_history_rich_with_anecdotes.php
for what has been wrongly described as his "lacklustre education" (by Matt Ridley) at Mill Hill School, London.
Nitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)mpNitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As this looks like being a one man debate, I will throw this into the pot as the opening paragraph has been amended to reflect it:
"Crick was the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies" but I am NOT yet convinced!
Nitramrekcap 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
CRICK AND THE HUMAN BRAIN
This article contains several good references to Francis Crick:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2251248,00.html
including the fascinating phrase: "What makes a person with a particular brain state or formation a psychopath and another a university professor is likely to remain imponderable."
Please have ONE SECTION about Franklin
Franlink is mentioned a dozen times in this article. That is not appropriate. This is Crick's biography. Please consolidate references to Franklin. -- 67.121.114.170 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept the current version of the article. But the claim that there were three co-discoverers, to the exclusion of Rosalind Franklin, was inaccurate. --JesseBHolmes 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Controversy About Using King's College London's Results
The section of the article now called "Controversy About Using King's College London's Results" was restored to a version that lacks references. I will go into the history and attempt to find a version of that section that contains references. --JWSchmidt 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I was wrong to imagine that this section of the article ever had any citations. It was created by user 70.25.90.3 on 25 March 2006. The section seems to have been changed very little since then. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the referenced version was in the James D. Watson article. Rather than place versions of this into each relevant article, I wonder if we should have a short version to place in articles such as Francis Crick and link the short version to a longer version in its own article. The following is from the last time I edited it on June 28, 2006. I'm too tired right now to see if there was an improved version since then.
Controversy about using King's College London's results (from Watson article)
An enduring controversy has been generated by Watson and Crick's use of DNA X-ray diffraction data collected by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling. The controversy arose from the fact that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge, by her estranged colleague, Maurice Wilkins, and by Max Perutz[1]. Her experimental results provided estimates of the water content of DNA crystals and these results were consistent with the two sugar-phosphate backbones being on the outside of the molecule. Franklin personally told Crick and Watson that the backbones had to be on the outside. Her identification of the space group for DNA crystals revealed to Crick that the two DNA strands were antiparallel. The X-ray diffraction images collected by Gosling and Franklin provided the best evidence for the helical nature of DNA. Franklin's superb experimental work thus proved crucial in Watson and Crick's discovery.
In 1951, Franklin had presented some of her experimental findings for DNA at a public seminar to which Watson had been invited by Wilkins. Crick was given permission by his boss, Perutz, to read an internal MRC report containing those experimental findings. Wilkins let Watson view one of the better "B form" X-ray diffraction images collected by Gosling and Franklin. Franklin had made an agreement with Wilkins that he could work on the B form while she would concentrate her efforts on the A form.
The strangely informal nature of the interactions between Watson and Crick at Cambridge and Wilkins and Franklin in London arose from two sources. Wilkins had originally worked with Gosling on DNA and felt that he should have been able to collaborate with Franklin when she started working with Gosling on DNA[2]. Franklin was cold to the idea of collaboration with Wilkins[2]. The second issue was that Watson and Crick were in favor of trying an approach to solving the structure of DNA that neither Franklin nor Wilkins felt comfortable with.
The position taken by Watson and Crick was that the data from King's College should be used as a basis for molecular model construction, a view that conflicted with Franklin's view that the structure should be revealed by careful calculations. In the year leading up to the discovery of the double helix, Wilkins and Franklin had both refused to participate in the kind of molecular model building that was advocated by Watson and Crick. It was the Watson and Crick approach that eventually led to their discovery of the structure.
Prior to publication of the double helix structure, Watson and Crick had little interaction with Franklin. Crick and Watson felt that they had benefitted from collaborating with Wilkins. They offered him a co-authorship on the article that first described the double helix structure of DNA. Wilkins turned down the offer and was in part responsible for the terse character of the acknowledgement of experimental work done at King's College. Rather than make any of the DNA researchers at King's College co-authors on the Watson and Crick double helix article, the solution that was arrived at was to publish two additional papers from King's College along with the helix paper. Brenda Maddox suggested that because of the importance of her work to Watson and Crick's model building, Franklin should have had her name on the original Watson and Crick manuscript[3].
After the discovery of the DNA double helix, Franklin became friends with both Watson and Crick, and spent her last period of remission from ovarian cancer in Crick's house (Franklin died in 1958)[4].
references
- ^ Chapter 3 of The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology by Horace Freeland Judson published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press (1996) ISBN 0879694785.
- ^ a b Wilkins, Maurice, The Third Man of the Double Helix
- ^ Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA by Brenda Maddox. (2002) ISBN 0060184078.
- ^ What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery by Francis Crick (Basic Books reprint edition, 1990 ISBN 0465091385) and The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology by Horace Freeland Judson provide descriptions of Watson's and Crick's interactions with Wilkins and Franklin.
King's College (London) DNA Controversy
A new article now exists: King's College (London) DNA Controversy.
--JWSchmidt 12:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That article seems to have been deleted and links to Rosalind Franklin's page.--Gloriamarie 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Clean up
- this edit reverted some useful edits by several people. I will try to fix the damage. --JWSchmidt 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes - I thought I'd put them back, but I see I missed some. It seemed easier to replace the few minor edits since the large removal (apparently by a banned user) than to put back all that was removed other than by reversion. There's been a big mess left by the King's College DNA controversy web page creation then removal, with trails left in various places which are going to take a bit of unravelling. TSP 03:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- No serious harm was done and I think it is fixed now. --JWSchmidt 03:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Edits by a banned user
According to the replies to this Incident report, the banned user Amorrow is known to edit using IP addresses that start with numbers such as 75, 68 and 67. Augaeth started the King's College DNA controversy article and is listed as a suspected puppet of Amorrow. I guess all edits by the following users should be carefully examined and deleted if they do not improve the encyclopedia:
- Amorrow (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Augaeth (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- -Watson
- -Watson & Crick
- -Watson
- -Watson & Crick & Franklin & King's College DNA controversy
- -Watson
- -Watson
- -Crick
- -Crick
- -Crick
- -Crick
- Note: some of these users also edited additional Wikipedia articles not mentioned above.
- Note: some of these users also edited additional Wikipedia articles not mentioned above.
--JWSchmidt 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the deleted article King's College DNA controversy and agree that it was started by Amorrow. Sorry! --FloNight talk 02:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
King's College (London) DNA Controversy
In the best interests of free speech, can anyone say what the above deleted article was all about please? Is this so called 'controversy' related to the spurious "Rosy Franklin was robbed" 'controversy'? Seweryn Chommet's little book is the best available text on the whole subject, but unfortunately it has not been widely circulated in the global scientific academic community! Surely the best place for a debate over the KCL role in DNA was the deleted article? I would be the first to say that KCL's role in the DNA discovery has been historically underestimated, not least because of over focus on Rosalind Franklin personally, and not enough focus on the hard work of Maurice Wilkins, both were under the direction of Sir John Randall. (Both the Cavendish Lab. and KCL operated as fellow research units under the Medical Research Council.)
- Contents of the deleted article
- Reply to 62.25.109.194. Yes, the deleted article (King's College DNA controversy) was about "Rosy Franklin was robbed". The deleted page contained material that was cut from articles such as Francis Crick and also the section reproduced above (#Controversy about using King's College London's results (from Watson article)) from the Jim Watson article. A new article now exists: King's College (London) DNA Controversy.
--JWSchmidt 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was actually leaving a message on the King's College DNA controversy talk page when the article was deleted, it came as something of a shock to me. But there was a message that said that CanadianCaesar had deleted the article. When I sent him a message to ask what had happened this was his reply (copied from my talk page): Yes, I deleted both the article and the talk page. There was no AfD. It was deleted per WP:CSD- created by an extremely dangerous banned user. If you wish to recreate the article (using your words, not his), you are certainly welcome. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC). Personally I don't have a problem with the article being deleted, much information was removed from the Rosalind Franklin article without any discussion whatsoever, and wikipedia just doesn't work by dictat, so I was extremely angry by the attitude of the annonymous user who kept removing the material from here. Personally I think it makes more sense to have an article dealing with all of the history/controversies surrounding DNA, including the under reporting of the contributions of people like Avery, Astbury and Chargaff, but that's just my opinion. Alun 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As for Surely the best place for a debate over the KCL role in DNA was the deleted article?, well no, wikipedia is not a chat room it is an encyclopedia, debate should not centre on what happened, it should concentrate on what to include and how to include it in the article. Articles are not debates, they should be verified and included all published POVs, omiting any original research. Alun 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- More general "controversies in double helix discovery" or more specific King's College (London) DNA Controversy
- I have no objection to replacing King's College (London) DNA Controversy with a more general article that could cover all controversies related to DNA and the double helix discovery. --JWSchmidt 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think More general "controversies in double helix discovery" would make for a more complete article. There is some bad feeling and a sense of unfairness that touches others involved in the discovery right back to the 1930s if my memory of our conversations last year on the RF talk page is correct (I'm not as au fait with this as youself or Martin). I also think that a King's College controversy section would need to be specific about addressing the attribution issue, rather than getting into the Franklin was robbed sort of discussion, I think youself and Martin have covered that ground fairly well, and I for one am now convinced that there was nothing underhand going on. In fact the whole attribution issue can be cleared up with a few quotes from Maddox and especially Wilkins' books. Wilkins explains that at one point he was actually offered co-authorship of the original Crick-Watson paper and turned them down, only to regret it later, and of course he got a share of the Nobel Prize, for which Franklin was not eligible anyway. If I understand it correctly much of the Franklin was robbed attitude comes from certain claims in Watson's book (The Double Helix) which turned out to be somewhat over stated and were later cleared up in some letters to Science that Martin very kindly posted to me. Well we live and learn and I am certainly wiser for the experience. There is also a point in Maddox's book where she claims something like something was done which shouldn't have been done (or something similar), but she doesn't actually expand upon this and appears to at a loss as to what specific thing it was. But I guess this should be covered on the talk page of the relevant article. Alun 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Alun,
Please note the following amendment to the introduction to the Francis Crick article: "most noted for being one of the four co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953." It goes without saying who the fourth person was, she died in 1958 of course.
- I wonder if it might not be more accurate to describe Crick and Watson as co-discoverers and Wilkins and Franklin as major contributors, or have some such style. What is the general thinking? Alun 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Alun,
I guess that makes Messrs. Gosling, Stokes, and Wilson the minor contributors? But their names appeared on the KCL papers in "Nature" alongside Franklin (Gosling) and Wilkins (Stokes and Wilson), although you would never believe the latter from Wilkins' autobiography! Wilkins should have accepted the offer of joint authorship of the Watson and Crick paper of course, but why was the generous offer made in the first place? The debate goes on...Nitramrekcap
- In his autobiography, Wilkins wrote that when Watson and Crick asked him to be a co-author on the double helix publication, Wilkins felt he could not be a co-author because he had not directly taken part in the model building. The model building approach had been resisted by Wilkins and Franklin even when Crick and Watson had encouraged them to try it. In my mind, the description that seems to fit is that Wilkins and Franklin collected data that were used by Watson and Crick when they figured out the double helix structure AND Wilkins and Franklin had additional data that they were able to publish in the same issue of Nature along with the double helix article, additional data that supported the idea that model was correct and biologically important. It is often forgotten that Crick, and particularly Watson, were unsure of the model until they learned from the two King's College DNA papers how much data the workers at King's College had that was consistent with the double helix model. In fields where there are theoreticians and experimentalists, it is not unusual for there to be a synergy between data suggesting a model that allows more data to be understood in terms of the model. The double helix model was suggested by data from King's College (among other places) and the model in turn made sense out of more King's College data. Watson and Crick discovered the model, but the Watson-Crick model was just a guess until there could be testing against more data and confirmation that the guess was correct. Franklin and Wilkins were able to look at the double helix model and report that it seemed to be consistent with additional data that Crick and Watson had never seen while building the model. The data from Franklin and Wilkins contributed to both the ability of Watson and Crick to construct the model AND to the first steps towards confirmation of the model. Crick and Watson were co-discoverers of the model; Wilkins and Franklin were major contributors of initial data that first suggested the model and additional data that then confirmed the model.
- "Wilkins should have accepted the offer of joint authorship of the Watson and Crick paper of course" <-- Wilkins was too honest to take credit for work he had not done. "why was the generous offer made in the first place?" <-- Two possible reasons: Watson was afraid that the model was wrong. He knew that there were additional data at King's College that might possibly show the model wrong. It made sense to collaborate with King's in order to maximize access to the data. Also, it is a matter of professional courtesy to offer. Some scientists take the position of that their name must be on every article that they have made even a minor contribution to ....others accept acknowledgement of contributions and reserve authorship for situations where they make direct contributions to the work. It is polite to ask people if they want to be a co-author, even if you think that they should not be a co-author. --JWSchmidt 04:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- You make several good points, I have seen cases where people are given co-authorship of papers for doing far less than Franklin and Wilkins did, but I think that this sort of thing is generally looked down on. I agree that Wilkins acted out of honesty, and probably made the right decission. Whatever one may think about the state of affairs, it was Crick and Watson that built the model and no one else. Alun 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I will be bringing this new article to the attention of Seweryn Chomet at KCL very shortly, once he has finished doing Bob Olby and myself a big favour by finding a copy of a 'missing' Francis Crick video from 1994; in the meantime I stand by my personal recommendation to read the KCL booklet (see below*) as a good source for the debate. I hope to provide total cost including p. & p. to Finland and the USA (= a hint!) next week. Remind me who the author is please? 62.25.109.194 11:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chomet, S. (Ed.), D.N.A. Genesis of a Discovery, 1994, Newman- Hemisphere Press, London; NB a few copies are available from Newman-Hemisphere at 101 Swan Court, London SW3 5RY(phone: 07092 060530).
Is the addition of KCL to the list a joke or is someone seriously unbalanced? I claim equal rights for the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge of course; so why just add KCL to the list? Nitramrekcap
- I think the banned user that originally created the controversy article made the change (IP:67.121.114.170). I have reverted it today. Alun 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- They also modified the Template:King's College DNA, but onlt to include the names in alphabetical order, so I haven't reverted that. Alun 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The Eagle and "The Secret of Life"
Is the story of Crick walking into The Eagle Pub and declaring "We have discovered the secret of life" true? The BBC has an article mentioning it http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/25/newsid_2932000/2932793.stm
It seems noteworthy to me, it gives a small insight into Crick's character and is fairly well known. Perhaps even if it is not true it should be included in order to debunk it.
Ajmayhew 15:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes its true and a pretty well known story. On the 50th anniversary there was a plaque unveiled on the Eagle pub in Cambridge to mark the event. There were plenty of news stories around at the time (e.g. [2], [3]), and I imagine it is also mentioned in Watson's book, The Double Helix (been a while since I read it). I think Watson turned up for the unveiling along with various other luminaries.
- Actually we already have a picture of the plaque on The Eagle Pub article, which is probably a better place for it than here. But the story of the original announcement would probably be worth mentioning here. -- Solipsist 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- In Crick's autobiography (chapter 6) he wrote that he had no recollection of announcing the discovery of the double helix structure in the Eagle Pub. Crick wrote about having a distinct memory of telling his wife about the discovery. --JWSchmidt 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- John, Crick actually denied saying it - not the first time that he and Watson disagreed over the facts, but Odile (Crick) said it was the kind of thing her husband would have said! The pub is literally only a stone's throw from the Cavendish by the way, and is very historic inside!!
'PROFESSOR' CRICK (sic?)
I could be mistaken but being a Visiting Professor to Harvard University does not make you formally a 'Professor' in my opinion?
Let's stick with "Doctor" until someone can prove me wrong!
Ironically the Crick article goes a long way to disproving that he was ever a Cambridge professor (quote) "James Watson claimed at a Cambridge conference marking the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 : "Now perhaps it's a pretty well kept secret that one of the most uninspiring acts of Cambridge University over this past century was to turn down Francis Crick when he applied to be the Professor of Genetics, in 1958. Now there may have been a series of arguments, which lead them to reject Francis. But it really was stupid. It was really saying, don't push us to the frontier." (source: conference transcript)
According to the University of Cambridge's genetics department official website, the electors of the professorship could not reach consensus, prompting the intervention of then University Vice-Chancellor Lord Adrian. Lord Adrian first offered the professorship to a compromise candidate, Guido Pontecorvo (who refused) and then is said to have offered it to Crick, who also refused."
In the meantime, see:
http://www.edgwaretimes.co.uk/display.var.803953.0.a_school_history_rich_with_anecdotes.php for what has been wrongly described as his "lacklustre education" (by Matt Ridley) at Mill Hill School, London.
Nitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)mpNitramrekcap 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As this looks like being a one man debate, I will throw this into the pot as the opening paragraph has been amended to reflect it:
"Crick was the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies" but I am NOT yet convinced!
Nitramrekcap 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I see someone has 'reverted' the opening paragragh from 'Doctor' back to 'Professor' without entering into the above debate. In my opinion being a Visiting Professor to Harvard University and the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies are purely honorary titles; Crick was never appointed as a University Professor. Even Brenda Maddox refers to him in the acknowledgements to her biography of Rosalind Franklin as "Doctor Francis Crick", so unless someone can present a better argument, let's stick to 'Doctor'? You cannot simply call someone a 'professor' without justification!
What was the point of James Watson's protest at Cambridge in 2003 if Crick already was a professor; the sad fact is that he was never appointed as a professor by any university, including Cambridge. Can whoever 'reverted' enter this debate please with a lucid argument?
See also : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor for further information on 'Professors'...
Article needs infobox
This article needs Template:Infobox Scientist 24.126.199.129 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Skeptics Society from July 2004
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-07-30.html Discuss? 81.78.67.35mp81.78.67.35
Academic titles
Less is best! Crick has lost his "Doctor" and Watson has lost his "Professor" in line with Wikipedia guidelines apparently! Presumably Franklin had neither, and Wilkins' article did not contain one in the first place!! Problem solved QED? 195.92.67.75MP195.92.67.75
THE 1954 ROYAL SOCIETY DNA PAPER
John,
or start at: www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/archive and go via the Crick link!
~~mp~~
ROSALIND FRANKLIN'S BIOGRAPHER REVIEWS MATT RIDLEY'S BIOGRAPHY OF FRANCIS CRICK!
See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2353754,00.html
217.134.242.94mp217.134.242.94
INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH TO THIS ARTICLE
The words highlighted are totally unacceptable as they are a matter of opinion, not fact!
Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004) was an English physicist, molecular biologist and neuroscientist, most noted for being one of the four co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins, using the work of Rosalind Franklin, were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material"[1]. His later work at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology until 1977 has not received as much formal recognition. His remaining career as the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies was spent in La Jolla, California until his death; "He was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end” (a quote from his close associate Christof Koch [2]).
- Two issues:
- Does Wikipedia need to specify how many co-discoverers there were?
- Should Rosalind Franklin be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia article about Crick?
- Can someone provide reasons for trying to include mention of these issues in the introduction? --JWSchmidt 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Answering both of your points... I don't have any dispute with the accuracy of those words, but it is true that the introduction reads better without them. Deleting the words in bold above would leave a better introduction to Crick, which is what we're after, and the text remains true. Changing 'four' to 'three' is a less good idea as it opens up a whole can of worms discussed elsewhere.
Greg 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
John,
Your two issues:
- Not really, but the actual discovery is normally credited to W/C in most scientific circles (even in Maddox's review of Ridley's new biography)albeit Wilkins deserved joint authorship of their paper and lived to regret not accepting their offer; personally I will stick to TWO only.
- No she need not be; to include reference to her in that sentence is totally unnecessary; we need to defend the credibility of your Crick article in the same way as Alun does his for REF.
- You can't put numbers on how many discovered the structure. It is clearly more complex than two. As far as i can see there is no reason to quantitate it. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- [http://www.eyeonbooks.com/ibp.php?ISBN=006082333X listen to Matt Ridley talking about Francis Crick.
Inclusion of Delbruck and Pauling on a pioneers' template
I have pasted in a comment that I made elsewhere about a year ago with slight modifications but it deserves a wider audience. I have put it here so that more people might read it.
I have re-read Judson's Eight Day of Creation to check on Delbrück's role. He gets credit for inspiring Schodinger and for passing on information but to give him a big billing on the DNA template seems to me to be unnecessary. An unexplained sentence on p145 even says that Delbrück was "no friend of biochemistry".
In a transcript of a conversion between James Watson and David Baltimore, the President of Caltech [4], Baltimore mentioned the experiments by Oswald Avery: “One of the things I’ve always been curious about is why they didn’t have the impact that they might have. The genetics community, particularly around Luria and [Max] Delbrück, never seemed to appreciate that Avery —this is now 1944—and his colleagues had published a paper that quite clearly showed that as chemically pure DNA as you could get would transfer genetic characteristics. And yet the idea that DNA was the carrier of genetic information really didn’t take hold.”
I think it was just that everyone expected that proteins were going to be involved,” said Watson. “And also the covalent backbone—how the nucleotides were linked together—wasn’t established until ’51. It was the Avery result that was the stimulus for Erwin Chargaff to measure the relative concentrations of DNA’s four bases (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine) and for Alex Todd to get his organic chemists to establish the covalent structure. But neither Luria nor Delbrück thought in terms of molecules."
If you have to rank people in order of importance, a difficult thing to do, I would put the following people after Franklin, Watson, Crick and Wilkins:
- Oswald Avery, for showing that DNA carried genetic material and for proving that it was worth studying to begin with
- William Astbury, for showing them it was possible to take X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA
- Erwin Chargaff, for determining the ratio of the bases
- Alexander Stokes, for working out the mathematics of helical diffraction
- Phoebus Levene, for getting the components right
- Jerry Donohue, (see acknowledgement in the Nature article)
(After writing this Avery and Levene were added)
Obviously you could go back further and credit Pauling for his work on the chemical bond and the Braggs for inventing X-Ray diffraction, but I would draw the line there.
Claiming that Delbrück could be included for just being a big influence on Watson seems odd, you could also cite his father and mother. Pauling got the structure wrong, though he did propose the correct structure for an entirely unrelated molecule. However in the DNA story, he was someone who unwittingly applied some pressure to Crick and Watson. Again hardly merits inclusion in this box. JMcC 20:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Crick and criticism by Phillip E. Johnson
I added the following material to make the article more NPOV:
Phillip E. Johnson wrote in criticism of Crick: "Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through." [5] ken 18:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- It doesn't add anything NPOV and you didn't even source it to the original but rather to an nth hand source. In any event, it runs afoul of the undue weight clause of NPOV. JoshuaZ 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I directly cited the quote from the essay and had a link to the essay. Furthermore the sentence adds balance to the article. I reverted your POV pushing deletion. ken 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- It is unclear from the essay by Johnson as to what is said by Crick in his autobiography and what is added by Johnson. Given the disparate fields of endevour in which Johnson operates compared to Crick (both temporal and spiritual). Given Johnson in his essay doesn't cite Crick (ideally page number etc) but is happy to cite bible verses I call that Johnson's essay not worth of inclusion. This smells of WP:OR by proxy. Ttiotsw 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here is the Crick quote: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - Francis Crick ( Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine), "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138. ken 06:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- It is unclear from the essay by Johnson as to what is said by Crick in his autobiography and what is added by Johnson. Given the disparate fields of endevour in which Johnson operates compared to Crick (both temporal and spiritual). Given Johnson in his essay doesn't cite Crick (ideally page number etc) but is happy to cite bible verses I call that Johnson's essay not worth of inclusion. This smells of WP:OR by proxy. Ttiotsw 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is quite apparent to me that you haven't read the quote in the original context because if you had how it doesn't support you would be obvious. The point was that things do look designed and amazing and one needs to think about it to understand how things could have evolved. If you've read the entire section and other works by Crick you would see that that is precisely his point the amazing fact (almost a miracle if you will) that natural selection can give rise to things which are so fantastically complex that they look designed. JoshuaZ 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just another gem from the creationist quote mine. But in reality the Johnson quote really has nothing to do with Crick, it is simply a bit of sophist argument in support of creationism. In any case why would anything Johnson have to say on Crick be of importance enough to include in this article? --Michael Johnson 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Francis Crick/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Excellent article really, just needs a good once over for minor things - for example the headings shouldn't be capitalized as they are, and external links is very long (perhaps a trimming and capitalization, with a link to the ODP?) Richard001 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)