DOCSLIB.ORG

Little Science, Big Science and Social Closure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Little Science, Big Science and Social Closure Perrucci R. et al. Archives of Psychology, vol. 1, issue 1, October 2017 Page 1 of 5 REVIEW ARTICLE From Little Science to Big Science: Were Women and Non-Elites Left Out? Robert Perrucci*, Carolyn Cummings Perrucci, Mangala Subramaniam Affiliations: Purdue University * Correspondence author: Robert Perrucci, E-mail: [email protected] Author’s e-mails: Carolyn Cummings Perrucci: [email protected]; Mangala Subramaniam: [email protected] Abstract From Little Science to Big Science: Were Women and Non-Elites Left Out? In Little Science, Big Science (1963), Derek J. de Solla Price undertook a sociology of science that dealt with the growth and changing shape of scientific publishing and the social organization of science. The focus of Price’s work was on the long-term, gradual shift from “little science,” with the solo scientist, small laboratory, and minimal research funds, to “big science,” with collaborative research teams, large-scale research hardware, extensive funding, and corporate-political suitors of scientists. We extend Price’s focus on scientific publications by moving beyond his analysis of practices in physics and chemistry to examine a social science; namely, sociology. Specifically, we analyze 3,000 articles in four long-standing sociology journals over the fifty-year period from 1960- 2010 to determine the gender of authors, the prestige of authors’ departments, length of articles, number of references, sources of data for studies, and patterns of funding for research. We find that sociology is not immune from the shift from “little science” to “big science.” Key Words: Women, elites, non-elites, little science, big science, sociology journal publications 1. Introduction including the aggressive competition among In 1962, James Watson, Francis Crick, and laboratories pursuing the same scientific Maurice Wilkins were awarded the 1962 objectives, and for the intense relations Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for among laboratories and scientists engaged in discoveries of the molecular structure of efforts to be first in making the new nucleic acid, the building blocks of DNA. discovery. There was also criticism of how Several years later, in 1968, James Watson the competition resulted in ignoring published The Double Helix: A Personal contributions of those scientists who were Account of the Discovery of the Structure of less self-centered and who were left behind DNA. The award and the book were met or lost in the competition. One public critic was Ann Sayre, the author of Rosalind with criticism for a number of reasons Franklin and DNA (1975), a book that was Copyright © 2017, Archives of Psychology. All rights reserved. http://www.archivesofpsychology.org Perrucci R. et al. Archives of Psychology, vol. 1, issue 1, October 2017 Page 2 of 5 critical of Watson’s “personal account” and minimal funds, to “big science,” with argued that the team of Nobel Laureates had collaborative teams, large-scale research failed to give adequate credit for Franklin’s hardware, extensive funding, and corporate- contributions to the discovery of DNA. political suitors. Price provided extensive The pursuit of the Double Helix among the statistical data on the growth of scientific competing scientists was anything but the manpower, scientific journals and societies, idealized norms of science discussed by the and scientific abstracts and papers. He was distinguished founder of the sociology of aware of the research of well-known sociologists of science such as Robert science, Robert K. Merton (1957), who argued that the guiding norms of science Merton (1957), citing his publications on emphasized co-operation, sharing ideas, and priority claims and disputes among avoidance of personal gain. scientists, and Bernard Barber for his 1963 paper on multiple discoveries in science and The competition to uncover the scientific scientists’ cautious approach to accepting foundation for DNA took place in an era of new discoveries. big laboratories, teams of researchers, and extensive funding from private and 1.2. Current Currency of Price’s Work government sources. It was the era of what Although Price’s writings appeared over 50 others would call “Big Science.” years ago, they have an odd currency on a number of points. For example, when 1.1. Price’s Little Science, Big Science examining statistics on the growth of By coincidence, in 1962, Derek J. de Solla scientific periodicals he notes that the Price, a Yale University historian of science, history of the scientific paper reveals that gave a series of lectures at the Brookhaven they began as a solution to the problem of National Laboratories on the growth of “too many books,” and insufficient time for science that were published in 1963 under scientists to read them. He noted that great the title of Little Science, Big Science (Price, controversy accompanied the transition from 1963). The purpose of his lectures was to publishing books to publishing papers, and move beyond discussions of the increasingly commented on the expanded role of the crucial role of science in contemporary citation of references in scientific papers in society and of its humanistic implications, 1850 and of their serving multiple purposes. and to “turn the tools of science on science One purpose of the expanded use of itself.” In short, Price was undertaking a references was in response to the growth of sociology of science that would deal scientific publications and the need to show statistically with the growth and changing how each paper built on the foundation of shape of scientific publishing and the social previous work. He also discussed a less organization of science. One of his scientific purpose for the expansion of objectives was to identify some citations, namely, the desire to assert claims mathematical principles that could account of intellectual property in the face of the for such empirical regularities as the growth increasing possibilities of multiple of the number of scientists, of scientific discoveries. publications, and of the publication rates of “eminent” scientists and “ordinary” Another modern aspect of Price’s work is his scientists. discussion of the “invisible college.” In apparent response to the growth of scientific The focus of Price’s work was on the long- manpower and scientific papers which term, gradual shift from “little science,” with accompanied the transition from Little the solo scientist, small laboratory, and Science to Big Science, groups composed of Copyright © 2017, Archives of Psychology. All rights reserved. http://www.archivesofpsychology.org Perrucci R. et al. Archives of Psychology, vol. 1, issue 1, October 2017 Page 3 of 5 a small number of scientists began to form Every article was subjected to coding unofficial specialist societies associated with operations, excluding research notes and the common subject matter, and they devised presidential address. For each article, the means to enhance communication via the following measures were used: mailing of preprints, reprints, and 1) Gender and academic location of opportunities for physical contact. Price authors, measuring an institution’s recognized that such small networks status by Cartter’s (1966) ranking of top (“groups composed of our maximal 100 20 departments for journals from 1960 colleagues”) would take on the character of to 1980, and National Research an elite group of scientists. Council’s (2010) ranking of top 20 The discussion of the invisible college rarely departments from 1985 to 2010. moved beyond the level of individual 2) Length of articles in terms of number of scientists to encompass the actions of published pages; and number of collectivities such as universities or references; academic departments within universities. Although Price was clearly aware of the 3) Whether the article was primarily competitive nature of Big Science, his focus theoretical versus empirical (used some was not on competition at the institutional kind of data); level of universities and academic 4) Source of data used in each published departments. article (secondary data – national data sets, census tapes; primary data via 2. Publications in Sociology questionnaires or interviews or In our research, we extend Price’s focus on ethnographic; archival data; other scientific publications in the era of Big sources). Science by moving beyond his analysis of 5) Source of funding, if any (internal or practices in physics and chemistry to external – federal or other), as provided examine a social science, namely sociology. by the authors themselves, usually in an In order to determine if there has been a initial footnote in their articles. comparable shift to Big Science in Our analysis of published work examines sociology, we focus on publications five questions: appearing in the four leading academic journals in sociology during the period 1960 (1) What are the academic locations and to 2010, namely, American Sociological gender of the authors of articles across Review, American Journal of Sociology, the five decades? Social Forces, and Social Problems. (2) Has length of articles and number of Our sample is based on the population of references changed over time? journals that is ordered by decade and we (3) Has the nature of articles changed from use systematic sequential sampling for each theoretical to empirical? decade, selecting the first year of the decade (for example, 1960), the fifth year of the (4) What are the sources of data used in decade (for example, 1965), and the last year publications?
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Twisting the Night Away Events at the International Centre for Life (14–17 April, Newcastle, UK)
    HIGHLIGHTS 50TH ANNIVERSARY inspirational people after their ideas more than three people, so would and dedication made 1953 a water- she have been honoured even had shed year in science? she been alive? Regardless, Franklin Francis Harry Compton Crick, the did become something of a feminist Whatever happened to... man who, at the age of 30, in his own icon after Watson was rather dismis- words “essentially knew nothing”,has sive of her in his bestseller of the late continued to address ‘big’ questions 1960s, The Double Helix. Her last since he and James Watson answered working years produced what one of the biggest. Collaborations Watson describes as “very beautiful with the 2002 Nobel laureate Sydney work” on the structure of tobacco Brenner produced ideas on protein mosaic virus. synthesis and the genetic code. Crick James Dewey Watson has joined the Salk Institute in California retained the high profile that he in 1976, and this has remained his gained after widespread recognition affiliation up to the present, where he followed on the heels of the 1953 has focused on the problem of con- breakthrough. After brief stints sciousness. Most recently, he has been working with Alexander Rich, and considering the neural correlates of Crick again, Watson went on to consciousness: the minimal set of Harvard where he collaborated with neuronal events that give rise to a Walter Gilbert. In 1968, he took over specific aspect of a conscious precept. as Director of Cold Spring Harbor Rosalind Elsie Franklin, often Laboratory, which he revitalized by characterized as the wronged hero- focusing on tumour biology, even- ine of the double helix story, died tually becoming its President in four years before Watson, Crick and 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • The Annotated and Illustrated Double Helix
    000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page i s 000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page ii Cambridge city center, early 1950s. Detail of a map published by W. Heffer & Sons. 000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/17/12 10:12 AM Page iii JAMES D. WATSON THE ANNOTATED AND ILLUSTRATED DOUBLE HELIX Edited by Alexander Gann & Jan Witkowski SIMON & SCHUSTER New York London Toronto Sydney New Delhi 000_FrontMatter_DH_Double Helix 9/27/12 3:59 PM Page iv s Simon & Schuster 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Copyright © 1968 by James D. Watson Copyright renewed © 1996 by James D. Watson New annotations, illustrations, and appendixes Copyright © 2012 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever. For information address Simon & Schuster Subsidiary Rights Department, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020 First Simon & Schuster hardcover edition November 2012 SIMON & SCHUSTER and colophon are registered trademarks of Simon & Schuster, Inc. For information about special discounts for bulk purchases, please contact Simon & Schuster Special Sales at 1-866-506-1949 or [email protected]. The Simon & Schuster Speakers Bureau can bring authors to your live event. For more information or to book an event, contact the Simon & Schuster Speakers Bureau at 1-866-248-3049 or visit our website at www.simonspeakers.com. Designed by Denise Weiss Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Watson, James D., date.
    [Show full text]
  • The Double Helix 40 Years Later: Joshua Lederberg's Personal
    Current Comments@ EUGENE GA/?FlELi2 INSTITUTE FOtl WENTIFIC lNFORMATION@ I 2s01 hwmr ST., PtiIMDELWIA, PA wtru , The Double Helix 4) Years Later: Joshua Lederberg’s Personal Commentary About Its Impact on Basic Research Number 39 September 27, 1993 An Insider’s View of a Revolutionary DNA as an “informational duplex” and a Discovery “mechanical helix.” As Lederberg points out, “The most novel features of DNA are This year marks the 40th anniversary of associated with its duplicity, rather than its one of the most important events in mod- helicity.” em science-Watson and Crick’s landmark discovery of the DNA double helix.1,2Few The Double Helix A Personal Note other basic research breakthroughs have had as profound an impact on the future course In addition to its fundamental impact on of scientific investigation. Few others have basic research, Watson and Crick’s discov- led to as many practical applications in ery had an important benefit that is not medicine, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, often recognized. That is, it humanized sci- agriculture, and other industries. And few ence. This does not refer directly to the have achieved such widespread public rec- primordial 1953 Nature papers 1,2but to ognition. Watson’s 1%8 book, The Double Helix: A In a JAMA issue commemorating the dis- Personal Account of the Discovery of the covery, Joshua L.ederberg, president emer- Structure of DNA. 8 Twenty years later, itus of Rockefeller University, contributed Crick published his autobiography, What a personal commentary on the impact of Mad Pursuit: A Personul View of Scien- the double helix on basic biomedical re- tljic Discove~.9 search,3 which is reprinted below.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Discoveries in Science: the Double Helix [JUDSON:]
    Great Discoveries in Science: The Double Helix [JUDSON:] In the early twentieth century, physicists and chemists unlocked secrets of the atom that changed the world forever. But life remained a profound mystery. Among life's deepest secrets was inheritance. Everyone knew that traits like the shape of a peapod or the color of eyes and hair were passed on from generation to generation. But no one knew how such information was stored or transmitted. Scientists were convinced that there had to be a biological molecule at the heart of the process. And that molecule had to have some pretty special qualities. [CARROLL:] The three dimensional arrangement of atoms in those molecules had to explain the stability of life, so that traits were passed faithfully from generation to generation, and also the mutability of life. You have to have change in order for evolution to happen. [JUDSON:] The challenge of solving this mysterious arrangement of atoms, this fundamental "secret of life," was taken up in 1951 by two unknown scientists. Less than 18 months later, they would make one of the great discoveries of the twentieth century. They met and joined forces at the Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge, England. One was a 23-year-old American named James Watson. [OLBY:] He had a crew cut when he first came to Cambridge, and that was very rare in Cambridge in those days. He liked to wear what I call gym shoes and leave the laces untied and things like that. He was quite an ^Ienfant terrible^I I would say. But behind that, of course, was his extreme, intense love of science right from his early years, and his determination.
    [Show full text]
  • "Jim Watson, 'The Double Helix'" and "Responses to 'The Double Helix'." CSH Oral History Collection: CSHL Digital Archives
    Works Cited Primary Sources Adams, Jerry. Jerry Adams on "Jim Watson, 'The Double Helix'" and "Responses to 'The Double Helix'." CSH Oral History Collection: CSHL Digital Archives. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 15 June 2003. Web. 2 Jan. 2016. <http://library.cshl.edu/oralhistory/interview/james-d-watson/discovering-double- helix/adams-responses-to-the-double-helix/>. This was an oral history with Jerry Adams, a biologist who got his PhD under James Watson, and today, works as a geneticist. Adams worked with Watson when he published his book, "The Double Helix." In these short clips, he discusses James' negative response to the book due to his awful portrayal of Rosalind Franklin. He also says that Watson explains he wrote it this way because as a young man, he did see Rosalind in that way. He did not take her as seriously because she was a woman, and often concentrated on her annoyances and physical appearance. This is primary evidence of her encounter of prejudice, and shows historical context with Watson looking back on these actions. Adams, Jerry. Jerry Adams on Women in Science. CSH Oral History Collection: CSHL Digital Archives. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 15 Jan. 2003. Web. 2 Jan. 2016. <http://library.cshl.edu/oralhistory/interview/scientific-experience/women- science/adams-women-in-science/>. This was an oral history from the CSH Collection in which Jerry Adams, a biologist who studied under James Watson and today works as a geneticist, discussed women in science, both before and after Rosalind's time. He agrees that women were disadvantaged, both being plagued with social maternal obligations, and fewer opportunities due to male prejudice in the field-difficulty being hired, getting to go to conferences, and being taken seriously.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking Biological Boundaries: Rosalind Franklin and the Experimental Foundation of the Double Helix Theory
    Breaking Biological Boundaries: Rosalind Franklin and the Experimental Foundation of the Double Helix Theory Michaila Peters Senior Division Individual Exhibit Student-Composed Words: 498 words Process Paper Word Count: 499 words Process Paper Two things drew my interest to Rosalind Franklin; First, I have always been fascinated by women’s history and the history of science. Second, Rosalind’s personality and interests were things I could relate to in my own life, and the mystery surrounding her story, as well as its complexity, made me want to understand her, both in terms of the theme, and personally. My preliminary research proved challenging when secondary historical accounts I viewed at Edinboro Universtiy all had contradictory accounts of Rosalind, debating her relationship with feminism. To understand why, I had to focus on objective primary sources; lab notebooks, journals, photos, published papers, and most importantly, collections of Oral Histories of those who worked with Rosalind. I then applied historical context by looking at statistics on women in science/education/workforce at that time (from Dr. Pat Thane, professor of Kings College, London), oral histories on gender prejudice, and effects from major events like WWII. Conclusively, I determined that the contradictory accounts were so because some were pieces of writing written by the 1960s British Women’s Liberation Movement, which, though she was not, had made Rosalind into a feminist icon and subsequently wrote feminist-biased biographies on her to use as a platform to preach women’s equality, while others were more objective historical accounts written by more modern historians. From here, I could build the rest of Rosalind’s story, while maintaining historical accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA's Double Helix: 50 Years of Discoveries and Mysteries an Exhibit of Scientific Achievement Introduction
    DNA's Double Helix: 50 Years of Discoveries and Mysteries An Exhibit of Scientific Achievement Introduction The April 25, 1953 issue of the journal, Nature (vol. 171, no. 4356) may be the most import journal issue ever published. Its table of contents provides a modest descriptive title of "Molecular Structures of Nucleic Acids," by J.D. Watson and F.H.C. Crick; Dr. M.H.F. Wilkins, Dr. A.R. Stokes and H.R. Wilson; Rosalind E. Franklin and R.G. Gosling." The three, including the legendary paper by James Watson and Francis Crick, " A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid ," dramatically changed biology, biochemistry, and genetics research. The publishers of the journal, Nature published a special issue commemorating the 50th anniversary of this discovery ( another point of access to the special issue ).The other papers in this landmark issue of Nature are "Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids" by Dr. M.H.F. Wilkins, Dr. AR Stokes and H.R. Wilson and "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thyonucleate" by Rosalind E. Franklin and R.G. Gosling. DNA research, which has dominated the fields of biology, genetics, and biochemistry for more than half a century, has its origins the mid-19th Century. Friedrich Meischer discovered DNA in 1869, calling it nuclein (from its presence in the cell nucleus). Chemical Heritage , the magazine published by the Chemical Heritage Foundation, issued a special cover feature on Meischer's discovery, "Friedrich Miescher: The Man Who Discovered DNA," (vol. 21, no. 2, Summer 2003). A subscription to this journal is pending for the Science and Engineering Library.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]