DOCSLIB.ORG

Signer's Gift ΠRudolf Signer And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Signer's Gift ÂŒ Rudolf Signer And HISTORY 735 CHIMIA 2003, 57, No.11 Chimia 57 (2003) 735–740 © Schweizerische Chemische Gesellschaft ISSN 0009–4293 Signer’s Gift – Rudolf Signer and DNA Matthias Meili* Abstract: In early May 1950, Bern chemistry professor Rudolf Signer traveled to a meeting of the Faraday Society in London with a few grams of DNA to report on his success in the isolation of nucleic acids from calf thymus glands. After the meeting, he distributed his DNA samples to interested parties amongst those present. One of the recipients was Maurice Wilkins, who worked intensively with nucleic acids at King’s College in London. The outstanding quality of Signer’s DNA – unique at that time – enabled Maurice Wilkins’ colleague Rosalind Franklin to make the famous X-ray fiber diagrams that were a decisive pre-requisite for the discovery of the DNA double helix by James Watson and Francis Crick in the year 1953. Rudolf Signer, however, had already measured the physical characteristics of native DNA in the late thirties. In an oft-quot- ed work which he published in Nature in 1938, he described the thymonucleic acid as a long, thread-like molecule with a molecular weight of 500,000 to 1,000,000, in which the base rings lie in planes perpendicular to the long axis of the molecule. Signer’s achievements and contributions to DNA research have, however, been forgotten even in Switzerland. Keywords: Bern · DNA · Double helix · History · Signer, Rudolf · Switzerland 1. Signer’s Early DNA Years With the advancement of research, Helix’, pointed out that Rudolf Signer made however, insight into the nature of macro- important contributions in two places: “It 1.1. Introduction molecules grew. This development was de- was no accident that the finest X-ray pic- The search for the structure of nucleic acids cisive in the discovery of the double helix tures of DNA available in 1953 had been had already occupied science for years pri- structure and its central meaning in trans- taken using material supplied by a former or to the 1953 discovery of the double helix mitting life. Regarding this change in para- student and colleague of Staudinger, Rudolf by biologist James Watson and physicist digm, science historian Robert Olby in his Signer” ([2] p.21). Francis Crick. In 1869, the Swiss chemist important book ‘The Path to the Double Friedrich Miescher had discovered nucleic acids in Tübingen, Germany, where he had isolated them from salmon sperm. Then, just after the turn of the century, an entire series of researchers turned towards the chemical analysis of nucleic acids, among them especially the chemist Phoebus Aaron Theodor Levene, an American of Russian origin. Levene coined the so-called tetra- nucleotide hypothesis, according to which nucleic acids are built non-covalently from smaller units. These were the four bases cytosine, guanine, thymine, and adenine, four molecules of the pentose sugar de- oxyribose (DNA) or ribose (RNA) as well as four phosphate residues. This is not the place to tell the entire story of the analysis of the chemical constitution of DNA [1]. *Correspondence: M. Meili NZZ am Sonntag Ressort Wissen Falkenstrasse 11 CH–8021 Zürich Tel.: +41 1 258 14 14 Fax: +41 1 258 24 14 E-Mail: [email protected] HISTORY 736 CHIMIA 2003, 57, No.11 1.2. Signer’s Path Towards and was able to confirm his earlier re- tance. According to Olby, Caspersson was DNA Prior to 1938 sults obtained from flow birefringence [7]. thinking of a high-polymer molecule, even As a student of Hermann Staudinger, In all this early work, Signer upheld the though he still spoke of ‘complexes’ in the pioneer of macromolecular chemistry, macromolecular model and defended with 1934. Nevertheless, Caspersson believed Signer was convinced of the existence of word and deeds through which his passion that the nucleic acids in the chromosomes large macromolecules. Staudinger, who in for research is evident. Moreover, he had no had merely a supporting function for the the first part of his career worked on the or- fear of inter-disciplinary work. Indeed, one proteins ([2], pp. 100–107). It is not known ganic synthesis of ketenes and polyketenes, of his achievements was to help to intro- how far Signer thought then about the bio- had developed his ideas on the existence of duce physical methods into organic chem- logical function. His later statements allow high polymers primarily after his switch istry. us to conclude that he guessed that nucleic from the ETH Zurich, Switzerland to In the early thirties, Signer was not yet acids had some biological significance ([8], Freiburg-im-Breisgau, Germany. In 1924, working with DNA or chromosomes. How- p. 17). He was, however, not a cell biolo- when he was still active at the ETH Zurich, ever, Signer always had a special relation- gist, but rather an organic chemist. With his he became the first to use the term macro- ship with living nature. While still a stu- research on polymers, he was active in a molecules and set out to prove the existence dent, he enthusiastically took part in natural field that was new and contested from many of these molecules through viscosity meas- science projects, and, in the excursions of sides. urements [3]. Signer, who had followed the ETH botanist Carl Schröter, he was ac- Signer’s method of flow birefringence Staudinger from Zurich to Freiburg in tive as ‘court photographer’, as Signer him- had worldwide fame at that time, which was 1926, used his experimental measurements self later commented with pride. A beauti- probably why Caspersson came to Bern. to help the idea on towards a breakthrough ful collection of plant photographs that With this method it was possible to deter- from a second direction. In particular, he Signer later destroyed existed from this pe- mine the ratio of the length to the diameter developed and optimized the optical riod ([8], p. 5). Signer continued to have a of a thread-like molecule. Indeed, “after method used by Vorländer in the twenties great love of flowers for the rest of his life, half a day, we knew the molecular weight, for the measurement of flow birefringence his favorite being the narcissus [9]. and we wrote a small publication the next and used it to measure the so-called homol- Signer’s teacher, Hermann Staudinger, day”, Signer said later in an interview for ogous polymer rows of synthetic and natu- also saw his goal in the study of Nature’s the Chemical Heritage Foundation ([8], p. ral polymers, especially the polystyroles macromolecules. As known from various 17). This work was published in January and cellulose [4][5]. In flow birefringence, lectures, he firmly believed that the natural 1938 in Nature [11] and consisted of only the dependence of optical behavior on flow high molecular weight polymers had evad- about 400 words. From their measure- conditions, concentration and the dissolved ed chemical study up to that time because ments, Signer and Caspersson determined substance is examined. A solution of the they were only able to exist under natural the viscosity and flow birefringence of thy- substance is allowed to flow through a glass conditions and quickly decomposed in the monucleic acid in water and drew the fol- tube that is illuminated with a ray of light. laboratory [3]. It is not surprising that Sign- lowing conclusions: The molecules orient themselves parallel to er, too, always lent great weight to the sci- 1) The molecules of sodium thymo- the direction of flow and the resulting entific observation of the substances that nucleic acid have the form of thin rods, anisotropy splits the light into two plane po- are important to life in animal and plant whose length is approximately 300 times larized beams. The longer the molecules cells [10]. greater than their width. are, the greater is the flow birefringence and 2) The molecular weight lies between the greater the difference between the re- 1.3. An Astonishingly 500,000 and 1,000,000, in agreement with fractive indices. Using this method in com- High Molecular Weight previous filtration and ultracentrifugation bination with measurements of viscosity Signer was prepared when Torbjörn studies. and sedimentation rates, Signer was able to Caspersson came to Bern with a sample of 3) The flow birefringence was negative, determine the form, size and molecular thymonucleic acid to determine its molecu- indicating that the polarization plane is per- weight of macromolecules [6][7]. lar weight and shape. Depending on avail- pendicular to the longitudinal axis. From flow birefringence, it had been able sources, this should have been in the 4) The optical anisotropy was very shown in the thirties that some virus parti- year 1936 ([2], p. 15) or 1937 ([8], p. 17). great, indicating that the molecules had cles have a roughly spherical shape. Also Cell biologist Caspersson had been a strongly double-refracting components in a from measurements of flow birefringence, student of Einar Hammarsten, who had very definite pattern. Obviously, the publi- Maurice Wilkins had gathered the first in- worked on chromosome research since the cation states, the purine and pyrimidine dications of the intra-molecular structure of early twenties. Hammarsten had isolated rings lie in planes perpendicular to the long DNA ([2], p. 16). The method is not very nucleic acids from calf thymus in 1924 and axis of the molecule. precise and has in the interim been replaced had described the product as ‘snowy white Finally, it is stated that “these results by better analysis procedures. However, it and of a curious consistency, like cotton will, it is hoped, be useful with reference to permitted making measurements quickly, wool’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Physics Today - February 2003
    Physics Today - February 2003 Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix Although she made essential contributions toward elucidating the structure of DNA, Rosalind Franklin is known to many only as seen through the distorting lens of James Watson's book, The Double Helix. by Lynne Osman Elkin - California State University, Hayward In 1962, James Watson, then at Harvard University, and Cambridge University's Francis Crick stood next to Maurice Wilkins from King's College, London, to receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their "discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material." Watson and Crick could not have proposed their celebrated structure for DNA as early in 1953 as they did without access to experimental results obtained by King's College scientist Rosalind Franklin. Franklin had died of cancer in 1958 at age 37, and so was ineligible to share the honor. Her conspicuous absence from the awards ceremony--the dramatic culmination of the struggle to determine the structure of DNA--probably contributed to the neglect, for several decades, of Franklin's role in the DNA story. She most likely never knew how significantly her data influenced Watson and Crick's proposal. Franklin was born 25 July 1920 to Muriel Waley Franklin and merchant banker Ellis Franklin, both members of educated and socially conscious Jewish families. They were a close immediate family, prone to lively discussion and vigorous debates at which the politically liberal, logical, and determined Rosalind excelled: She would even argue with her assertive, conservative father. Early in life, Rosalind manifested the creativity and drive characteristic of the Franklin women, and some of the Waley women, who were expected to focus their education, talents, and skills on political, educational, and charitable forms of community service.
    [Show full text]
  • DICTIONARY of the HISTORY of SCIENCE Subject Editors
    DICTIONARY OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE Subject Editors Astronomy Michael A. Hoskin, Churchill College, Cambridge. Biology Richard W. Burkhardt, Jr, Department of History, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Chemistry William H. Brock, Victorian Studies Centre, University of Leicester. Earth sciences Roy Porter, W ellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London. Historiography Steven Shapin, & sociology Science Studies Unit, of science University of Edinburgh. Human Roger Smith, sciences Department of History, University of Lancaster. Mathematics Eric J. Aiton, Mathematics Faculty, Manchester Polytechnic. Medicine William F. Bynum, W ellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London. Philosophy Roy Bhaskar, of science School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex. Physics John L. Heilbron, Office for History of Science & Technology, University of California, Berkeley. DICTIONARY OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE edited by W.EBynum E.J.Browne Roy Porter M © The Macmillan Press Ltd 1981 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1981 978-0-333-29316-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. First published 1981 by THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD London and Basingstoke Associated Companies throughout the world. ISBN 978-1-349-05551-7 ISBN 978-1-349-05549-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-05549-4 Typeset by Computacomp (UK) Ltd, Fort William, Scotland Macmillan Consultant Editor Klaus Boehm Contents Introduction vii Acknowledgements viii Contributors X Analytical table of contents xiii Bibliography xxiii Abbreviations xxxiv Dictionary Bibliographical index 452 Introduction How is the historical dimension of science relevant to understanding its place in our lives? It is widely agreed that our present attitudes and ideas about religion, art, or morals are oriented the way they are, and thus related to other beliefs, because of their history.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the Historiography of Molecular Biology
    Reflections on the Historiography of Molecular Biology HORACE FREELAND JUDSON SURELY the time has come to stop applying the word revolution to the rise of new scientific research programmes. Our century has seen many upheavals in scientific ideas--so many and so varied that the notion of scientific revolution has been stretched out of shape and can no longer be made to cover the processes of change characteristic of most sciences these past hundred years. By general consent, two great research pro- grammes arising in this century stand om from the others. The first, of course, was the one in physics that began at the turn of the century with quantum theory and relativity and ran through the working out, by about 1930, of quantum mechanics in its relativistic form. The trans- formation in physics appears to be thoroughly documented. Memoirs and biographies of the physicists have been written. Interviewswith survivors have been recorded and transcribed. The history has been told at every level of detail and difficulty. The second great programme is the one in biology that had its origins in the mid-1930s and that by 1970 had reached, if not a conclusion, a kind of cadence--a pause to regroup. This is the transformation that created molecular biology and latter-day biochemistry. The writing of its history has only recently started and is beset with problems. Accounting for the rise of molecular biology began with brief, partial, fugitive essays by participants. Biographies have been written of two, of the less understood figures in the science, who died even as the field was ripening, Oswald Avery and Rosalind Franklin; other scientists have wri:tten their memoirs.
    [Show full text]
  • “Other Histories, Other Biologies.” in Philosophy
    Gregory Radick, 2005. “Other Histories, Other Biologies.” In Philosophy, Biology and Life, ed. Anthony O’Hear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-47. Supplement to Philosophy, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement: 56. Other Histories, Other Biologies GREGORY RADICK 1. Taking the counterfactual turn When philosophers look to the history of biology, they most often ask about what happened, and how best to describe it. They ask, for instance, whether molecular genetics subsumed the Mendelian genetics preceding it, or whether these two sciences have main- tained rather messier relations.1 Here I wish to pose a question as much about what did not happen as what did. My concern is with the strength of the links between our biological science—our biology—and the particular history which brought that science into being. Would quite different histories have produced roughly the same science? Or, on the contrary, would different histories have produced other, quite different biologies? I shall not endeavour to address the whole of biology or its history. I will concentrate on genetics, the headline-grabbing branch of biology in our time. The claims of this science on our future have given its history an unusually high public profile. Newspaper articles on the completed Human Genome Project came with timelines of genetic achievement, stretching back into the pre- Mendel mists, and forward to a future where, thanks to genetics- based medicine (we were told), the average person will live to more than ninety. Even more recently, the fiftieth anniversary of the introduction of the double-helix model of DNA in 1953 prompted books, symposia, television programmes, even a cover story in Time magazine.
    [Show full text]
  • Photograph 51, by Rosalind Franklin (1952) [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Photograph 51, by Rosalind Franklin (1952) [1] By: Hernandez, Victoria Keywords: X-ray crystallography [2] DNA [3] DNA Helix [4] On 6 May 1952, at King´s College London in London, England, Rosalind Franklin photographed her fifty-first X-ray diffraction pattern of deoxyribosenucleic acid, or DNA. Photograph 51, or Photo 51, revealed information about DNA´s three-dimensional structure by displaying the way a beam of X-rays scattered off a pure fiber of DNA. Franklin took Photo 51 after scientists confirmed that DNA contained genes [5]. Maurice Wilkins, Franklin´s colleague showed James Watson [6] and Francis Crick [7] Photo 51 without Franklin´s knowledge. Watson and Crick used that image to develop their structural model of DNA. In 1962, after Franklin´s death, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine [8] for their findings about DNA. Franklin´s Photo 51 helped scientists learn more about the three-dimensional structure of DNA and enabled scientists to understand DNA´s role in heredity. X-ray crystallography, the technique Franklin used to produce Photo 51 of DNA, is a method scientists use to determine the three-dimensional structure of a crystal. Crystals are solids with regular, repeating units of atoms. Some biological macromolecules, such as DNA, can form fibers suitable for analysis using X-ray crystallography because their solid forms consist of atoms arranged in a regular pattern. Photo 51 used DNA fibers, DNA crystals first produced in the 1970s. To perform an X-ray crystallography, scientists mount a purified fiber or crystal in an X-ray tube.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Horticultural Science in England, 1910-1930
    The Development of Horticultural Science in England, 1910-1930 Paul Smith Department of Science and Technology Studies University College London Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2016 I, Paul Smith, confirm the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm it has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Abstract This thesis explores how horticultural science was shaped in England in the period 1910-1930. Horticultural science research in the early twentieth century exhibited marked diversity and horticulture included bees, chickens, pigeons,pigs, goats, rabbits and hares besides plants. Horticultural science was characterised by various tensions arising from efforts to demarcate it from agriculture and by internecine disputes between government organisations such as the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Education and the Development Commission for control of the innovative state system of horticultural research and education that developed after 1909. Both fundamental and applied science research played an important role in this development. This thesis discusses the promotion of horticultural science in the nineteenth century by private institutions, societies and scientists and after 1890 by the government, in order to provide reference points for comparisons with early twentieth century horticultural science. Efforts made by the new Horticultural Department of the Board of Agriculture and by scientists and commercial growers raised the academic status of
    [Show full text]
  • Bio-R/Evolution in Historiographic Perspective: Some Reflections on the History and Epistemology of Biomolecular Science
    VOLUME 11 ISSUE 1 2007 ISSN: 1833-878X Pages 4-13 Howard HsuehHsueh----HaoHao Chiang Bio-R/Evolution in Historiographic Perspective: Some Reflections on the History and Epistemology of Biomolecular Science ABSTRACT Does the molecular vision of life signify a unique revolution in biology or a more general evolution of the life sciences in the twentieth century? This paper visits this ‘big question’ by reflecting on a series of major debates in the historiography of molecular biology, especially those regarding its origins and the periodization of its development. For instance, while some have suggested that the discipline emerged in the 1930s, others have argued for its birth in the post-WWII era. Above all, the impact of the Rockefeller Foundation and the physical sciences on the formation of molecular biology remains a central topic of discussion among historians of biology. Unlike earlier historians of biomolecular science, recent scholars have also started to pay closer attention to the laboratory and material cultures that had conditioned its historical shaping. This paper argues that, ultimately, these debates all rest upon one fundamental historiographical problem: the absence of a unifying understanding of ‘molecular biology’ among historians (and practitioners) of biological science. This heterogeneous conceptualization of ‘molecular biology’, however, should be viewed as valuable because it allows for multiple approaches to resolving the ‘revolution versus evolution’ debate that together enrich our interpretation of the twentieth-century biomolecular vision of life. 4 BIOGRAPHY Howard Chiang is currently a Ph.D. student in the History of Science Program at Princeton University. He holds a B.S. in Biochemistry and a B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • “Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate” (1953), by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) “Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate” (1953), by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling [1] By: Hernandez, Victoria Keywords: DNA [2] DNA Configuration [3] X-ray diffraction [4] DNA fibers [5] In April 1953, Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling, published "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate," in the scientific journal Nature. The article contained Franklin and Gosling´s analysis of their X-ray diffraction pattern of thymonucleate or deoxyribonucleic acid, known as DNA. In the early 1950s, scientists confirmed that genes [6], the heritable factors that control how organisms develop, contained DNA. However, at the time scientists had not determined how DNA functioned or its three- dimensional structure. In their 1953 paper, Franklin and Gosling interpret X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA fibers that they collected, which show the scattering of X-rays from the fibers. The patterns provided information about the three-dimensional structure of the molecule. "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate" shows the progress Franklin and Gosling made toward understanding the three-dimensional structure of DNA. Scientists worked to understand the three-dimensional structure of DNA since the 1930s. In the early to mid-1900s, scientists tried to determine the structures of many biological molecules, such as proteins, because the structure of those molecules indicated their function. By the 1930s, scientists had found that DNA consisted of a chain of building blocks called nucleotides. The nucleotides contained a ring-shaped structure called a sugar. On one side of the sugar, there is a phosphate group, consisting of phosphorus and oxygen and on the other side of the sugar, another ring-shaped structure called a base.
    [Show full text]
  • Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin
    Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin B. E. Bishop Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988), has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution. Yet careful scrutiny of Mendel's Pisum pa- per, published in 1866, and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that It Is antievolutlonary In content, but also that it was specif- ically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859, and that Mendel's and Darwin's theories, the two theories which were united in the 1940s to form the modern synthesis, are completely antithetical. Mendel does not mention Darwin in his Pi- [Mendel] in so far as they bore on his anal- sum paper (although he does in his letters ysis of the evolutionary role of hybrids." to Nlgeli, the famous Swiss botanist with Olby's (1979) article, entitled "Mendel whom he initiated a correspondence, and No Mendelian?," led to a number of revi- in his Hieracium paper, published In 1870), sionist views of Mendel's work and his in- but he states unambiguously in his intro- tentions, although no agreement has been duction that his objective is to contribute reached. For instance, some writers, un- to the evolution controversy raging at the like de Beer, Olby, and Callender, overlook time: "It requires a good deal of courage or minimize the evolutionary significance indeed to undertake such a far-reaching of Mendel's paper, while others maintain task; however, this seems to be the one that Mendel had little or no interest in he- correct way of finally reaching the solu- redity, an interpretation that has been op- tion to a question whose significance for posed by Hartl and Orel (1992): "We con- the evolutionary history of organic forms clude that Mendel understood very clearly must not be underestimated" (Mendel what his experiments meant for heredity." 1866).
    [Show full text]
  • Theft Or Innovation? BOOKS & ARTS
    Vol 463|25 February 2010 BOOKS & ARTS Theft or innovation? A history of intellectual-property rights reveals how the pirating of ideas and goods has transformed science publishing, drug development and software, explains Michael Gollin. Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates by Adrian Johns University of Chicago Press: 2010. 640 pp. $35, £24 BLICKWINKEL/ALAMY By allowing scientists, inventors and artists to assert property rights over their creative work, the intellectual-property system rewards the investment of time and money required to bring ideas to market. Piracy, or unauthorized copying, of creative works is usually seen as a simple violation of commercial rights, with pirates as thieves. Historian Adrian Johns argues instead that piracy is a cultural force that has driven the development of intellectual-property law, politics and practices. As copying technologies have advanced, from the invention of printing in the sixteenth century to the present, acts of piracy have shaped endeavours from scientific The cinchona plant was targeted for illicit export as it contains the antimalarial compound quinine. publishing to pharmaceuticals and software. Pirates duplicate an innovative idea, pub- advantage — by moving quickly, using technical briefly during the French Revolution. Less lication or thing, ignoring the objections of countermeasures or banding together and pro- radical ideas have been adopted into law, contemporaries who assert a dominant right. moting reputation as an indicator of quality, including the copyright defence of fair use and Arguments against piracy have changed little such as through trademarks. In the nineteenth the compulsory licensing of patent rights on over the centuries: pirated books, machines, century, US policy encouraged the free use of important inventions such as drugs.
    [Show full text]
  • 21.8 Commentary GA
    commentary Who said ‘helix’? Right and wrong in the story of how the structure of DNA was discovered. in Paris, the double-helical structure of DNA Watson Fuller might not have been discovered in London The celebrated model of DNA, put forward rather than in Cambridge. In fairness to in this journal in 1953 by James Watson and Randall, it was his energy, enterprise and Francis Crick, is compellingly simple, both vision in establishing the King’s laboratory in its form and its functional implications that allowed the experimental work that stim- (see www.nature.com/nature/dna50). At a ulated the discovery to take place. stroke it resolved the puzzle inherent in the The proposed double-helical model for X-ray diffraction photograph (see right) DNA is commonly described as the most sig- shown by Maurice Wilkins at a scientific nificant discovery of the second half of the meeting in Naples in the spring of 1951. twentieth century. Inevitably, the contribu- R.COURTESY G. GOSLING & M. H. F. WILKINS This was the pattern that so excited Jim tions of the principal protagonists have been Watson, who, in The Double Helix1, wrote: subjected to minute scrutiny.Crick,Franklin, “Maurice’s X-ray diffraction pattern of DNA Watson and Wilkins have all endured hostile was to the point. It was flicked on the screen criticism and snide disparagement of their near the end of his talk. Maurice’s dry Eng- roles in the story. Franklin has loyal, influen- lish form did not permit enthusiasm as he tial and persistent champions,and in particu- stated that the picture showed much more lar has had her reputation boosted, mainly at detail than previous pictures and could, in Wilkins’expense.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Airway Management of Blunt Upper Airway Injuries: a Case Report and Literature Review
    Errors in Medicine: A Human Factors Perspective GAYLENE HEARD, MB, BS, FANZCA Department of Anaesthesia, St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne Gaylene Heard is a Visiting Medical Officer at St Vincent’s Hospital and the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne. Her interests include simulation, patient safety and human factors. INTRODUCTION “The real problem isn’t how to stop bad doctors from harming, even killing, their patients. It’s how to prevent good doctors from doing so”.1 The past decade has seen an increasing focus on the issue of errors in medicine. In particular, errors made by doctors, nurses and para-medical staff in hospitals have received significant attention. The report by the Institute of Medicine in the USA, aptly titled “To Err is Human”, estimated that between 44,000 to 98,000 hospitalised patients die annually in the USA as a result of medical errors.2 The Quality in Australian Healthcare Study3 found adverse events (unintended injury or complication caused by healthcare) occurred in 16.6% of hospital admissions, with 51% of these adverse events judged to be “highly preventable”. Death occurred in 4.9% of patients suffering an adverse event, and permanent disability in 13.7%. In 2000, a report from the United Kingdom4 found that medical errors caused harm (death and injury) to in excess of 850,000 patients admitted to National Health Service Hospitals annually. This represents 10% of total admissions.4 Although there has been much discussion and controversy about the methodologies of some of these studies,5, 6, 7, 8 it is now widely accepted that the risks to patients from medical errors are significant.
    [Show full text]