DOCSLIB.ORG

Crick, Watson, and Franklin 5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crick, Watson, and Franklin 5 5 CRICK, WATSON, AND FRANKLIN BIOGRAPHY 740L CRICK, WATSON, AND FRANKLIN THE RACE TO DISCOVER THE STRUCTURE OF DNA Rosalind Franklin Francis Crick Born Born July 25, 1920 June 8, 1916 London Northampton, England James Watson Died BornDied DiedBorn April 16, 1958 FebruaryJuly 28, 2004 12, 1809 April 19,6, 1928 1882 ByLondon Lorem Ipsum Shrewsbury,San Diego, California England Downe,Chicago, England Illinois By Cynthia Stokes Brown, adapted by Newsela In 1953, three biochemists helped unlock the mystery of life. They had determined the structure of the DNA molecule. Found in all life on Earth, DNA contains the information that allows organisms to regrow cells and pass on traits to offspring. 2 3 Setting the Stage Darwin explained natural selection and evolution. But he didn’t know how traits were passed down. Traits are handed down from parent to child, through generations. Over time, some traits change. Slight changes in traits as they get passed down are what makes evolution possible. This process was still not well understood a whole century after Darwin. Then after World War II, scientists began to study biology in a new way. In the 1950s, biochemists realized that DNA contained the instructions for copying a new organism. A yard of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is folded. It is packed into the nucleus of every cell in pairs called “chromosomes.” DNA has three parts: 1. a type of sugar called “ribose” 2. a phosphate responsible for its acidity 3. four kinds of bases — adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C) These four bases seemed too simple. How could they pass on all the informa- tion needed to create a new organism? The key was that the bases combine in different patterns to mark different genetic traits. Scientists wondered how to study the DNA molecule. Biochemists wanted to understand its structure. Then they could understand how a new organ- ism is copied. They began taking X-ray images of crystals of DNA. Linus Pauling worked at the California Institute of Technology. He was a pioneer in “X-ray crystallography.” Pauling seemed likely to unlock the mystery of life. He had already concluded that the general shape of DNA must be a helix, or spiral. 4 5 The race The competition to unravel DNA was one of the great scientific races of all time. Victory went to three people working in England. The first was Rosalind Franklin. She worked at the University of London. The other two were James Watson and Francis Crick. They worked together at Cambridge University, just 50 miles away from Franklin. Franklin was from London. She earned a PhD from Cambridge in chemistry. While studying DNA, she became an expert in X-ray crystallography. She was able to produce clear and accurate images of DNA crystals using precise X-ray equipment and pure DNA samples. At Cambridge, Francis Crick was 35. He was working on his PhD in the crystallography of proteins. He grew up in a small English village. Watson was only 23 in 1951. He grew up in Chicago. He entered the University of Chicago at age 15, and got his doctorate from the University of Indiana at just 22. He was at Cambridge to learn crystallography. Using her precise X-ray images, Franklin began to make hypotheses about the structure of DNA. In late 1952, she took an especially clear X-ray image. Her colleague Maurice Wilkins showed the image to Watson. He did so without telling Franklin or asking her permission. When Watson saw the image, he knew at once that DNA had to be a helix, or spiral. He returned to his lab to begin making models out of metal and wire. Watson and Crick built models to try to visualize DNA. How many strands did the helix have? Which direction did the strands run? Were they on the inside or the outside? How were the four chemical bases arranged? Franklin believed better quality X-ray images would solve the problem. But Watson and Crick knew they were racing against Pauling. They felt making models would lead them to an answer quickly. Using paper models, Crick and Watson finally visualized a structure that solved the puzzle. They pictured DNA like steps on two spiral staircases. The bases bonded together in pairs. Rosalind Franklin working at King’s College in London 6 7 The news gets out Crick and Watson published their discovery in Nature magazine in April 1953. Wilkins and Franklin wrote articles to go along with it. In 1962, Wilkins, Watson, and Crick received the Nobel Prize for their work. Franklin could not share in the prize. She had died in 1958 of cancer. She was just 37. Exposure to X-rays may have contributed to Franklin’s death. Even if she had lived, she may not have shared in the prize. Crick and Watson never told Franklin they used her images. They didn’t give her much credit in their Nature article. Much later, Watson admitted that they could not have solved the problem without Franklin’s work. Watson and Crick also addressed how DNA copies itself. They proposed that DNA’s double helix unzips into two strands to make a copy. Each strand has a backbone of sugar-phosphates with the four bases attached. Crick continued his research in England until 1976, when he moved to California. He died there in 2004. Watson returned to the United States. He did research at Harvard from 1956 to 1976. He helped establish the Human James Watson and Francis Crick in 1959 Genome Project in the early 1990s. He retired in 2007. They made up the steps in the staircase. The ribose sugar made up the sides, or railings, of the stairs. The two men made this discovery in February 1953. Sitting at lunch in their usual pub, they announced that they had found the secret of life. 8 9 Sources Image credits Bryson, Bill. A Short History of Nearly Everything, 398–415. New York: Francis Crick in 1962 Broadway, 2003. © Bettmann/CORBIS James Watson Judson, Horace Freeland. The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the © Bettmann/CORBIS Revolution in Biology. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003. Rosalind Franklin Maddox, Brenda. Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA. New York: © Science Source Harper Collins, 2002. An illustration of the DNA double helix © the Big History Project Watson, James D. The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. New York: Atheneum, 1968. Rosalind Franklin working at King’s College in London © Science Source Watson, James D. and Francis Crick. “A Structure for Deoxyribose James Watson and Francis Crick in 1959 Nucleic Acid.” Nature. April 25, 1953, vol. 171. Annotated version available © Bettmann/CORBIS at http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/coldspring/ideas/printit.html Wilkins, Maurice. The Third Man of the Double Helix: The Autobiography of Maurice Wilkins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 10 11 Articles leveled by Newsela have been adjusted along several dimensions of text complexity including sentence structure, vocabulary and organization. The number followed by L indicates the Lexile measure of the article. For more information on Lexile measures and how they correspond to grade levels: http://www.lexile.com/about-lexile/lexile-overview/ To learn more about Newsela, visit www.newsela.com/about. The Lexile® Framework for Reading The Lexile® Framework for Reading evaluates reading ability and text complexity on the same developmental scale. Unlike other measurement systems, the Lexile Framework determines reading ability based on actual assessments, rather than generalized age or grade levels. Recognized as the standard for matching readers with texts, tens of millions of students worldwide receive a Lexile measure that helps them find targeted readings from the more than 100 million articles, books and websites that have been measured. Lexile measures connect learners of all ages with resources at the right level of challenge and monitors their progress toward state and national proficiency standards. More information about the Lexile® Framework can be found at www.Lexile.com. 12.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The DNA Helix, Featured Scientist: Rosalind Franklin
    Cover Story Featu red Scientist: The Rosalind DNA Franklin: Helix "Bold John R. Jungck Experimentalist" Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/46/8/430/86225/4447893.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 On April 25th, 1953, three papers on the struc- Thus, it is disheartening to see a biographer cite ture of DNA appearing in Nature profoundly Rosalind Franklin's work as "not characterized by changed biology. Only the one by James Watson great originality of thought." This same biog- and Francis Crick still seems to receive much at- rapher, the distinguished biology historian, Robert tention. The primary authors of the other two pa- Olby, nonetheless raises the same contradictions as pers were Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. above. He describes Franklin as a "bold experi- While The Double Helix by "honest Jim" Watson mentalist" and "a deft experimentalist, keenly ob- (1968) changed many people's perception of sci- servant and with immense capacity for taking ence and rankled many more because of the chau- pains. As a result she was able with difficult mate- vinistic treatment of "Rosy" Franklin, I shall focus rial to achieve a remarkable standard of resolution on what has been largely ignored in our apprecia- in her X-ray diagrams" (Olby 1972). tion of these scientists, especially Franklin. While Similarly, Anne Sayre (1975, p. 84) fleetingly de- one of Franklin's biographers, Anne Sayre, spends scribes Franklin's skill: "When Rosalind was con- much space defending Franklin's role in this major fronted with DNA-an amorphous substance, diffi- discovery of our century, she only briefly discusses cult to handle experimentally, tiresomely recalci- Franklin's tremendous skill as an experimentalist.
    [Show full text]
  • Insight from the Sociology of Science
    CHAPTER 7 INSIGHT FROM THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE Science is What Scientists Do It has been argued a number of times in previous chapters that empirical adequacy is insufficient, in itself, to establish the validity of a theory: consistency with the observable ‘facts’ does not mean that a theory is true,1 only that it might be true, along with other theories that may also correspond with the observational data. Moreover, empirical inadequacy (theories unable to account for all the ‘facts’ in their domain) is frequently ignored by individual scientists in their fight to establish a new theory or retain an existing one. It has also been argued that because experi- ments are conceived and conducted within a particular theoretical, procedural and instrumental framework, they cannot furnish the theory-free data needed to make empirically-based judgements about the superiority of one theory over another. What counts as relevant evidence is, in part, determined by the theoretical framework the evidence is intended to test. It follows that the rationality of science is rather different from the account we usually provide for students in school. Experiment and observation are not as decisive as we claim. Additional factors that may play a part in theory acceptance include the following: intuition, aesthetic considerations, similarity and consistency among theories, intellectual fashion, social and economic influences, status of the proposer(s), personal motives and opportunism. Although the evidence may be inconclusive, scientists’ intuitive feelings about the plausibility or aptness of particular ideas will make it appear convincing. The history of science includes many accounts of scientists ‘sticking to their guns’ concerning a well-loved theory in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, and some- times in the absence of any evidence at all.
    [Show full text]
  • The Joys and Burdens of Our Heroes 12/05/2021
    More Fun Than Fun: The Joys and Burdens of Our Heroes 12/05/2021 An iconic photo of Konrad Lorenz with his favourite geese. Photo: Willamette Biology, CC BY-SA 2.0 This article is part of the ‘More Fun Than Fun‘ column by Prof Raghavendra Gadagkar. He will explore interesting research papers or books and, while placing them in context, make them accessible to a wide readership. RAGHAVENDRA GADAGKAR Among the books I read as a teenager, two completely changed my life. One was The Double Helix by Nobel laureate James D. Watson. This book was inspiring at many levels and instantly got me addicted to molecular biology. The other was King Solomon’s Ring by Konrad Lorenz, soon to be a Nobel laureate. The study of animal behaviour so charmingly and unforgettably described by Lorenz kindled in me an eternal love for the subject. The circumstances in which I read these two books are etched in my mind and may have partly contributed to my enthusiasm for them and their subjects. The Double Helix was first published in London in 1968 when I was a pre-university student (equivalent to 11th grade) at St Joseph’s college in Bangalore and was planning to apply for the prestigious National Science Talent Search Scholarship. By then, I had heard of the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA and its profound implications. I was also tickled that this momentous discovery was made in 1953, the year of my birth. I saw the announcement of Watson’s book on the notice board in the British Council Library, one of my frequent haunts.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovery of DNA Structure and Function: Watson and Crick By: Leslie A
    01/08/2018 Discovery of DNA Double Helix: Watson and Crick | Learn Science at Scitable NUCLEIC ACID STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION | Lead Editor: Bob Moss Discovery of DNA Structure and Function: Watson and Crick By: Leslie A. Pray, Ph.D. © 2008 Nature Education Citation: Pray, L. (2008) Discovery of DNA structure and function: Watson and Crick. Nature Education 1(1):100 The landmark ideas of Watson and Crick relied heavily on the work of other scientists. What did the duo actually discover? Aa Aa Aa Many people believe that American biologist James Watson and English physicist Francis Crick discovered DNA in the 1950s. In reality, this is not the case. Rather, DNA was first identified in the late 1860s by Swiss chemist Friedrich Miescher. Then, in the decades following Miescher's discovery, other scientists--notably, Phoebus Levene and Erwin Chargaff--carried out a series of research efforts that revealed additional details about the DNA molecule, including its primary chemical components and the ways in which they joined with one another. Without the scientific foundation provided by these pioneers, Watson and Crick may never have reached their groundbreaking conclusion of 1953: that the DNA molecule exists in the form of a three-dimensional double helix. The First Piece of the Puzzle: Miescher Discovers DNA Although few people realize it, 1869 was a landmark year in genetic research, because it was the year in which Swiss physiological chemist Friedrich Miescher first identified what he called "nuclein" inside the nuclei of human white blood cells. (The term "nuclein" was later changed to "nucleic acid" and eventually to "deoxyribonucleic acid," or "DNA.") Miescher's plan was to isolate and characterize not the nuclein (which nobody at that time realized existed) but instead the protein components of leukocytes (white blood cells).
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge's 92 Nobel Prize Winners Part 2 - 1951 to 1974: from Crick and Watson to Dorothy Hodgkin
    Cambridge's 92 Nobel Prize winners part 2 - 1951 to 1974: from Crick and Watson to Dorothy Hodgkin By Cambridge News | Posted: January 18, 2016 By Adam Care The News has been rounding up all of Cambridge's 92 Nobel Laureates, celebrating over 100 years of scientific and social innovation. ADVERTISING In this installment we move from 1951 to 1974, a period which saw a host of dramatic breakthroughs, in biology, atomic science, the discovery of pulsars and theories of global trade. It's also a period which saw The Eagle pub come to national prominence and the appearance of the first female name in Cambridge University's long Nobel history. The Gender Pay Gap Sale! Shop Online to get 13.9% off From 8 - 11 March, get 13.9% off 1,000s of items, it highlights the pay gap between men & women in the UK. Shop the Gender Pay Gap Sale – now. Promoted by Oxfam 1. 1951 Ernest Walton, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for using accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei 2. 1951 John Cockcroft, St John's / Churchill Colleges: Nobel Prize in Physics, for using accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei Walton and Cockcroft shared the 1951 physics prize after they famously 'split the atom' in Cambridge 1932, ushering in the nuclear age with their particle accelerator, the Cockcroft-Walton generator. In later years Walton returned to his native Ireland, as a fellow of Trinity College Dublin, while in 1951 Cockcroft became the first master of Churchill College, where he died 16 years later. 3. 1952 Archer Martin, Peterhouse: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for developing partition chromatography 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosalind Franklin, Nicole Kidman and Photograph 51
    #Bio Rosalind Franklin, Nicole Kidman and Photograph 51 I must admit that when I first heard that Nicole Kidman, in establishing her career there. This and her strained Clare Sansom winner of the Best Actress Oscar for her portrayal of relationship with Wilkins have been well documented in (Birkbeck College, UK) Virginia Woolf in The Hours, was to take the role of the her biographies. Very early in the play, when Franklin had Downloaded from http://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article-pdf/37/6/45/5486/bio037060045.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 pioneering structural biologist Rosalind Franklin in a West just arrived in London, we see Wilkins informing her that End play, I was slightly sceptical. However accustomed to she could not accompany him to the college dining room portraying brilliant minds, a blonde Australian seemed to because that was for male academics only. This seems be an odd choice for an upper-middle-class Englishwoman outrageous today, but it was a matter of course only two who was culturally, if not religiously, very much a Jew. But generations ago. Franklin’s angry response showed both I couldn’t resist the idea of a play about one of the most deeply held passion and control. Throughout the play, her crucial moments in the history of molecular biology. I polite and understated feminism and (it has to be said) her was lucky enough to acquire tickets for Anna Ziegler’s reserved and somewhat prickly character bring her into Photograph 51 at the Noel Coward Theatre, and I was not conflict with her male counterparts time after time.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Historical Perspective
    Chapter 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” modified by the developmental history of the organism, Theodosius Dobzhansky its physiology – from cellular to systems levels – and by the social and physical environment. Finally, behaviors are shaped through evolutionary forces of natural selection OVERVIEW that optimize survival and reproduction ( Figure 1.1 ). Truly, the study of behavior provides us with a window through Behavioral genetics aims to understand the genetic which we can view much of biology. mechanisms that enable the nervous system to direct Understanding behaviors requires a multidisciplinary appropriate interactions between organisms and their perspective, with regulation of gene expression at its core. social and physical environments. Early scientific The emerging field of behavioral genetics is still taking explorations of animal behavior defined the fields shape and its boundaries are still being defined. Behavioral of experimental psychology and classical ethology. genetics has evolved through the merger of experimental Behavioral genetics has emerged as an interdisciplin- psychology and classical ethology with evolutionary biol- ary science at the interface of experimental psychology, ogy and genetics, and also incorporates aspects of neuro- classical ethology, genetics, and neuroscience. This science ( Figure 1.2 ). To gain a perspective on the current chapter provides a brief overview of the emergence of definition of this field, it is helpful
    [Show full text]
  • Quiet Debut'' of the Double Helix: a Bibliometric and Methodological
    Journal of the History of Biology Ó Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10739-009-9183-2 Revisiting the ‘‘Quiet Debut’’ of the Double Helix: A Bibliometric and Methodological note on the ‘‘Impact’’ of Scientific Publications YVES GINGRAS De´partement d’histoire Universite´ du Que´bec a` Montre´al C.P. 8888, Suc. Centre-Ville Montreal, QC H3C-3P8 Canada E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. The object of this paper is two-fold: first, to show that contrary to what seem to have become a widely accepted view among historians of biology, the famous 1953 first Nature paper of Watson and Crick on the structure of DNA was widely cited – as compared to the average paper of the time – on a continuous basis from the very year of its publication and over the period 1953–1970 and that the citations came from a wide array of scientific journals. A systematic analysis of the bibliometric data thus shows that Watson’s and Crick’s paper did in fact have immediate and long term impact if we define ‘‘impact’’ in terms of comparative citations with other papers of the time. In this precise sense it did not fall into ‘‘relative oblivion’’ in the scientific community. The second aim of this paper is to show, using the case of the reception of the Watson–Crick and Jacob–Monod papers as concrete examples, how large scale bibliometric data can be used in a sophisticated manner to provide information about the dynamic of the scientific field as a whole instead of limiting the analysis to a few major actors and generalizing the result to the whole community without further ado.
    [Show full text]
  • Year 11 GCSE History Paper 1 – Medicine Information Booklet
    Paper 1 Medicine Key topics 1 and 2 (1250-1500, 1500-1700) Year 11 GCSE History Paper 1 – Medicine Information booklet Medieval Renaissance 1250-1500 1500-1750 Enlightenment Modern 1900-present 1700-1900 Case study: WW1 1 Paper 1 Medicine Key topics 1 and 2 (1250-1500, 1500-1700) Key topic 1.1 – Causes of disease 1250-1500 At this time there were four main ideas to explain why someone might become ill. Religious reasons - The Church was very powerful at this time. People would attend church 2/3 times a week and nuns and monks would care for people if they became ill. The Church told people that the Devil could infect people with disease and the only way to get better was to pray to God. The Church also told people that God could give you a disease to test your faith in him or sometimes send a great plague to punish people for their sins. People had so much belief in the Church no-one questioned the power of the Church and many people had believed this explanation of illness for over 1,000 years. Astrology -After so many people in Britain died during the Black Death (1348-49) people began to look for new ways to explain why they became sick. At this time doctors were called physicians. They would check someone’s urine and judge if you were ill based on its colour. They also believed they could work out why disease you had by looking at where the planets were when you were born.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA: the Timeline and Evidence of Discovery
    1/19/2017 DNA: The Timeline and Evidence of Discovery Interactive Click and Learn (Ann Brokaw Rocky River High School) Introduction For almost a century, many scientists paved the way to the ultimate discovery of DNA and its double helix structure. Without the work of these pioneering scientists, Watson and Crick may never have made their ground-breaking double helix model, published in 1953. The knowledge of how genetic material is stored and copied in this molecule gave rise to a new way of looking at and manipulating biological processes, called molecular biology. The breakthrough changed the face of biology and our lives forever. Watch The Double Helix short film (approximately 15 minutes) – hyperlinked here. 1 1/19/2017 1865 The Garden Pea 1865 The Garden Pea In 1865, Gregor Mendel established the foundation of genetics by unraveling the basic principles of heredity, though his work would not be recognized as “revolutionary” until after his death. By studying the common garden pea plant, Mendel demonstrated the inheritance of “discrete units” and introduced the idea that the inheritance of these units from generation to generation follows particular patterns. These patterns are now referred to as the “Laws of Mendelian Inheritance.” 2 1/19/2017 1869 The Isolation of “Nuclein” 1869 Isolated Nuclein Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss researcher, noticed an unknown precipitate in his work with white blood cells. Upon isolating the material, he noted that it resisted protein-digesting enzymes. Why is it important that the material was not digested by the enzymes? Further work led him to the discovery that the substance contained carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and large amounts of phosphorus with no sulfur.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Watson's Way with Words
    books and arts My teeth were set on edge by reference to “the stable form of uranium”,a violation of Kepler’s second law in a description of how the Earth’s orbit would change under various circumstances, and by “the rest mass of the neutrino is 4 eV”. Collins has been well served by his editor and publisher, but not perfectly. There are un-sort-out-able mismatches between text and index, references and figures; acronyms D.WRITING LIFE OF JAMES THE WATSON in the second half of the alphabet go un- decoded; several well-known names are misspelled. And readers are informed that Weber’s death occurred “on September 31, E. C. FRIEDBERG, 2000”. Well, Joe always said he could do things that other people couldn’t, but there are limits. Incidentally, my adviser was partly right: I should not have agreed to review this book. It is very much harder to hear harsh, some- times false, things said about one’s spouse after he can no longer defend himself. I am not alone in this feeling. Carvel Gold, widow of Thomas Gold, whose work was also far from universally accepted (see Nature 430, 415;2004),says the same thing. ■ Virginia Trimble is at the University of California, Irvine, California 92697-4575, USA. She and Joe The write idea? In The Double Helix,James Watson gave Weber were married from 16 March 1972 until his a personal account of the quest for the structure of DNA. death on 30 September 2000. Watson set out to produce a good story that the public would enjoy as much as The Great Gatsby.He started writing in 1962 with the working title “Honest Jim”,which is illumi- Watson’s way nating in itself.
    [Show full text]