DOCSLIB.ORG

Francis Crick: Hunter of Life’S Secrets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Francis Crick: Hunter of Life’S Secrets The FASEB Journal • Book Review Francis Crick: Hunter of Life’s Secrets An intellectual biography by Robert Olby Hugh E. Huxley1 Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA FRANCIS CRICK:HUNTER OF LIFE’S SECRETS is a fascinating and base pairs between two chains would fit into a perfectly scholarly biography of the man whose ideas and discov- regular sugar-phosphate backbone in precisely the eries provided the basis for the remarkable revolution same way as the guanine-cytosine base pairs did— in the biological sciences in the second half of the provided the two chains ran in opposite directions. twentieth century, comparable—if not exceeding—in Thus, any sequence of bases along one chain was importance the revolution in the physical sciences in permissible, and would give a regularly repeating struc- the century’s first half. It takes full advantage of the ture, provided that the complementary sequence was many contemporary records and archives which cover present on the other chain. If DNA was the sole the intellectual history of these times, and also of the repository of genetic information (as it was seeming extensive contacts that author Robert Olby had with more likely at that time), then the genetic message Crick and his family beginning in the 1960s and must be written in the sequence of the bases which continuing up to Crick’s death in 2004 at age eighty- must be translated into the sequence of amino acids in eight. the proteins by a specific genetic code. During replica- However, this has not prevented Olby from dealing tion, the two chains would separate, each would pick up very fairly with some well-known matters of controversy. a complementary set of nucleotides, and an exact The book extends to some 538 pages, including about duplication of the original gene structure would have 50 pages of source notes for the numbered text refer- been achieved. In principle, it was an extraordinarily ences, chapter by chapter, and a 24-page index. It is an simple solution to what had seemed two of the most extraordinarily interesting story from many points of difficult problems in understanding life without invok- view, with sufficient scientific detail to explain most of ing miracles. the issues involved, and it provides a very clear picture Much has been written about the ethics of Crick and of Crick and his work, though perhaps without some of Watson (in Cambridge) using Franklin’s data without the color, force, and light-hearted humor that only a her permission or knowledge and without detailed recording of a conversation with him could convey acknowledgement of the work in King’s College Lon- (also, the large photograph of Crick as a very young don in their initial Nature paper, (though it was com- graduate student, which appears on the front dust- posed with Wilkins’ agreement). Wilkins believed, per- cover of the book, will be quite unrecognizable to those haps correctly, that Franklin would not agree to be a familiar with his strong characteristic features in subse- joint author with him and he refused Crick’s invitation quent years). to be a joint author on the Watson-Crick paper because Olby does a particularly good job in placing the DNA he had not participated in the model building. That is structure in the context of the uncertainty in some why there were two papers from the King’s group quarters at that time about the nature of the gene— (Wilkins, Stokes, and Wilson; and Franklin and Gos- whether it would have to contain proteins as well as ling) immediately following the short Watson-Crick DNA in order to give a structure which contained paper describing the structure, in April 1953. sufficient information to define other protein mole- When a more detailed paper about the structure was cules, given that DNA itself was apparently a relatively written by Crick and Watson (submitted in August 1953 simple polymer of only four different nucleotides and formed fibers whose X-ray diagram indicated a very 1 Correspondence: Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Re- regular structural repeat. The structure that Watson search Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454, and Crick arrived at was indeed very regular. From USA. E-mail: [email protected] model-building, they determined that adenine-thymine doi: 10.1096/fj.10–0404ufm 976 0892-6638/10/0024-0976 © FASEB and published in Proc. Roy. Soc. A in April 1954), in the tion by them of her role in the discovery and of her section headed “Crystallographic Considerations,” it is tragic death in the intervening years would have been a stated that “the information in this section was very kind gesture and a small price to pay. And since the kindly reported to us prior to its publication by Wilkins unpublished experimental data from the King’s group and Franklin, and we wish to point out that without this had obviously been essential for the discovery of the data the formulation of our structure would have been structure, there should have been at least four names most unlikely, if not impossible.” The section then goes on the initial publication. on to spell out what that data was—that the paracrys- One of the best sections of the book relates Crick’s talline B-form of DNA had a very strong meridional role in establishing the detailed nature of the mecha- reflection at 3.4Å and a fiber axis repeat of 34Å, with a nism of transfer of information, written in the sequence sideways repeat of 22–25 Å—vital facts for the model- of the bases in DNA, to specify the amino-acid se- ing, given that on general grounds the structure was quence—and, hence, the structure and function—of thought to be helical (the “details of their X-ray pho- the proteins which carry out their cellular roles. His tographs” which were not known to Watson and Crick, realization that it was unlikely to depend on direct would have been the spacing of the Bessel functions’ reading of the shape of DNA base sequence by incom- maxima on the various layer lines). Reading this, Frank- ing amino-acids themselves so as to form a polypeptide lin must have been aware that these measurements of chain of appropriate sequence, and his postulate, be- hers had been given to Watson and Crick prior to their fore the discovery of transfer RNA, of a whole set of 20 solution of the structure, yet there is no evidence—in adaptor molecules to perform the recognition, were fact quite the contrary—that she raised any complaints, certainly logic carried to the point of genius (“the as surely she would have done if she felt she had been Adaptor Hypothesis”). Equally striking was his virtually treated unfairly. But clearly, she should have been told simultaneous recognition, with Brenner, at a memora- directly. ble meeting with Jacob in 1960 (when it had become The paper shows that for their structure to fit to- clear from Jacob, Monod, and Pardee’s experiments gether properly, the two chains must run in opposite that ribosomal RNA was not the information carrier), directions, which presumably their model building that it was in fact the Volkin-Astrakan RNA already would have revealed anyway, but they do not mention found in phage infection which itself was the messen- the space-group evidence for this, which Franklin had ger RNA. overlooked, but which Crick realized immediately upon Crick was responsible for laying down the basic reading a circulated account of the DNA work written hypotheses and “dogma” defining the mode of expres- by Franklin and shown to him by Perutz. This also sion of genes—that the genetic message is contained in should have been acknowledged. the DNA base sequence, that DNA makes RNA, and Another point that has been made much of by some that the messenger RNA makes a protein with a defined writers is that, even after her early death in 1958, her sequence, which folds up and performs its cellular contribution was not mentioned in the three separate function, and that any subsequent changes in the Nobel Lectures given by Wilkins, Watson, and Crick as protein cannot feed back and change the original DNA part of the Stockholm arrangements in 1962. This is sequence. In remarkable experiments with Brenner only partially true. Wilkins was the only one who, and other colleagues in the MRC “hut,” but carried out presumably by mutual arrangement, spoke specifically largely by Crick himself, he showed that the code must of the genesis of the discovery of the DNA structure and be written in triplets of bases, which earlier work had subsequent work on it because he had started the work shown could not be overlapping. He did this, basically, and continued to work on it later. He does say in his by showing that three single base deletion mutants, talk that Franklin “made a very valuable contribution to lying close together near the start of a message, and the X-ray analysis” and in his conclusion, he thanked each individually destroying the same function by shift- Franklin “who, with great ability and experience of ing the reading frame by one step, would, when ex- X-ray diffraction, so much helped the initial investiga- pressed together, give rise to the expression of a tion.” It is notable, however, that he does not include functional polypeptide chain, generated by the correct any of her published papers on DNA in his list of 24 reading of the subsequent triplets in the corrected references (perhaps hardly surprising, after she had reading frame.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Francis Crick in Molecular Biology
    2019 Asia-Pacific Conference on Emerging Technologies and Engineering (ACETE 2019) Francis Crick in Molecular Biology Sun Yongping College of Physic and Electronic Information, Inner Mongolia Normal University, Hohhot, China Keywords: Crick, DNA, Protein, Genetic Codes, Molecular Biology Abstract: This article is a tribute to Francis crick, a biophysicist who passed away on July 28, 2004. Francis crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine for discovering the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material. It is pointed out that the diverse background and unique sensitivity of crick to science enabled him to have great insights into frontier research. He had a special capacity for prudent and logical thinking, which contributed so much to the development of molecular biology. Based on Francis crick’s academic achievements in molecular biology and by virtue of internal history approaches such as concept analysis and literature research, this paper is aimed at revealing the historical contributions of crick in a condensed way and to commemorate his work. 1. Introduction Francis crick (figure 1) was born on June 8, 1916 as an English citizen, and he left the world, aged 88. With lifelong devotion to scientific research, crick is credited as one of the central figures in the molecular revolution that swept through biology in the latter half of the twentieth century [1]. Keen on seeking after and tackling the profound problems, he developed a passion for biology although crick did research in physics at the beginning of his scientific life [2,3].
    [Show full text]
  • Francis HC Crick
    Francis H. C. Crick: memories of a friend of Francis and Odile The world feels strange without Francis. It is of course full of memories of him. Mostly memories of the charismatic personality, of the brilliant mind, of the great scientist, of the stories of his discoveries in molecular biology. After all, the names of Watson and Crick will be with us as long as Einstein’s and Planck’s. My fondest memories of Francis are of a different kind. I met him at about the time – in ‘76 – when Francis and Odile moved from Cambridge, England to the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California. At the Salk he became a theoretical neuroscientist, following his second passion. After the mystery of life, the mystery of the mind. I saw him at F.O. Schmitt ‘s Neuroscience Research Program meetings. I visited Francis and Odile during the summers in their house on Portugal Place in Cambridge, England, with its golden helix above the front door. I went with them and the Orgels in trips to the desert. I saw him debating about consciousness with various guests at my home. In ‘79, I worked for an intense month at the Salk Institute with him and the late David Marr, trying to understand the connection between the architecture of visual cortex and several intriguing aspects of our visual perception. In those years molecular biology was becoming the dominant science. I remember the difficulty – then, not now -- of getting neuroscience appointments through the well- earned intellectual arrogance of our friends and colleagues in the Department of Biology at MIT.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Historical Group
    Historical Group NEWSLETTER and SUMMARY OF PAPERS No. 69 Winter 2016 Registered Charity No. 207890 COMMITTEE Chairman: Dr John A Hudson ! Dr Noel G Coley (Open University) Graythwaite, Loweswater, Cockermouth, ! Dr Christopher J Cooksey (Watford, Cumbria, CA13 0SU ! Hertfordshire) [e-mail: [email protected]] ! Prof Alan T Dronsfield (Swanwick, Secretary: Prof. John W Nicholson ! Derbyshire) 52 Buckingham Road, Hampton, Middlesex, ! Prof Ernst Homburg (University of TW12 3JG [e-mail: [email protected]] ! Maastricht) Membership Prof Bill P Griffith ! Prof Frank James (Royal Institution) Secretary: Department of Chemistry, Imperial College, ! Dr Michael Jewess (Harwell, Oxon) London, SW7 2AZ [e-mail: [email protected]] ! Dr David Leaback (Biolink Technology) Treasurer: Dr Peter J T Morris ! Mr Peter N Reed (Steensbridge, 5 Helford Way, Upminster, Essex RM14 1RJ ! Herefordshire) [e-mail: [email protected]] ! Dr Viviane Quirke (Oxford Brookes Newsletter Dr Anna Simmons ! University) Editor Epsom Lodge, La Grande Route de St Jean, !Prof Henry Rzepa (Imperial College) St John, Jersey, JE3 4FL ! Dr Andrea Sella (University College) [e-mail: [email protected]] Newsletter Dr Gerry P Moss Production: School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS [e-mail: [email protected]] http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/rschg/ http://www.rsc.org/membership/networking/interestgroups/historical/index.asp 1 RSC Historical Group NewsletterNo. 69 Winter 2016 Contents From the Editor 2 Message from the Chair 3 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMISTRY HISTORICAL GROUP MEETINGS 3 “The atom and the molecule”: celebrating Gilbert N. Lewis 3 RSCHG NEWS 4 MEMBERS’ PUBLICATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS OF INTEREST 5 CAN YOU HELP? - Update from the summer 2015 newsletter 6 Feedback from the summer 2015 newsletter 6 NEWS AND UPDATES 7 SOCIETY NEWS 8 SHORT ESSAYS 8 175 Years of Institutionalised Chemistry and Pharmacy – William H.
    [Show full text]
  • Francis Crick Personal Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt1k40250c No online items Francis Crick Personal Papers Special Collections & Archives, UC San Diego Special Collections & Archives, UC San Diego Copyright 2007, 2016 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla 92093-0175 [email protected] URL: http://libraries.ucsd.edu/collections/sca/index.html Francis Crick Personal Papers MSS 0660 1 Descriptive Summary Languages: English Contributing Institution: Special Collections & Archives, UC San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla 92093-0175 Title: Francis Crick Personal Papers Creator: Crick, Francis Identifier/Call Number: MSS 0660 Physical Description: 14.6 Linear feet(32 archives boxes, 4 card file boxes, 2 oversize folders, 4 map case folders, and digital files) Physical Description: 2.04 Gigabytes Date (inclusive): 1935-2007 Abstract: Personal papers of British scientist and Nobel Prize winner Francis Harry Compton Crick, who co-discovered the helical structure of DNA with James D. Watson. The papers document Crick's family, social and personal life from 1938 until his death in 2004, and include letters from friends and professional colleagues, family members and organizations. The papers also contain photographs of Crick and his circle; notebooks and numerous appointment books (1946-2004); writings of Crick and others; film and television projects; miscellaneous certificates and awards; materials relating to his wife, Odile Crick; and collected memorabilia. Scope and Content of Collection Personal papers of Francis Crick, the British molecular biologist, biophysicist, neuroscientist, and Nobel Prize winner who co-discovered the helical structure of DNA with James D. Watson. The papers provide a glimpse of his social life and relationships with family, friends and colleagues.
    [Show full text]
  • 18-19--425 Cambridge School of Art Brochure AHSS 2020.Indd
    2019/20 Prospectus Inspiring creativity since 1858 aru.ac.uk/csa About Cambridge School of Art 2-19 Come and talk to us 20-21 Spotlight on…. 22-39 Undergraduate courses 40-73 Postgraduate courses 74-83 Get in touch 84 CLOSER TO CREATIVITY 2 A creative community like no other – 160 years of innovation, experimentation and collaboration Digital glitches, inky spills, happy We are proud of our past, but even more accidents and breakthrough moments excited about our future. As one of our – they’re all part of the creative process, students, you will have access to industry- and here at Cambridge School of Art we standard facilities, from traditional celebrate them all. printmaking and letterpress equipment, 3D workshops and making spaces, to A creative community like no other, we state of the art digital animation software, offer distinctive programmes that build on 3D printing and laser-cutting technology, our history of over 160 years of innovation, enabling you to learn expert skills as you experimentation and collaboration. Home explore your talents and discover new to students studying for undergraduate, ones that will prepare you for professional MA and doctoral qualifications across art, practice. design and visual communication, we are focused on developing the individual As well as bringing you closer to the creativity of each and every one of our creative and cultural industries through students through our innovative and live briefs, work placements and supportive studio-based courses. internships, we will provide you with the encouragement and practical support to Experimentation and risk-taking are key to showcase your creativity—whether you’re everything we do, allowing you to express incubating an early stage business idea in your imagination, develop your creativity our Start-Up Lab, pitching it to potential and find your own unique visual language, investors as part of the annual Big Pitch, as you produce a portfolio of work that or collaborating with local museums or will help you stand out in your future galleries to install your latest exhibition.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducción a La Biología Molecular E Historia Del Adn
    INTRODUCCIÓN A LA BIOLOGÍA MOLECULAR E HISTORIA DEL ADN Dr. Raúl N. Ondarza Profesor Titular de Bioquímica, Facultad de Medicina, UNAM e Investigador en Ciencias Médicas, Centro de Investigaciones Sobre Enfermedades Infecciosas, INSP ¿QUÉ ES LA BIOLOGIA MOLECULAR ? Según Crick es un término ambiguo que se emplea en dos formas: La primera en un sentido muy general que puede ser entender algún problema biológico a nivel molecular. La segunda forma es más clásica, se refiere a moléculas biológicas de elevado peso molecular; ej. Acidos nucleicos y proteínas. La simplicidad y la universalidad de los mecanismos básicos que operan en Biología, han permitido el avance espectacular de la Biología Molecular, sobre todo en el sentido clásico del término. LA BIOLOGÍA MOLECULAR TIENE SU ORIGEN EN TRES ESCUELAS a) La estructural y tridimensional de los británicos: Cristalografía por rayos X de la hemoglobina por Perutz, la mioglobina por Kendrew y la hélice alfa de las proteínas por Linus Pauling, Norteamericano . Max F. Perutz 1914 - 2002 John C. Kendrew 1917-1997 Linus C. Pauling 1901-1994 b) La genética unidimensional con el grupo de los fagos por: Max L. H. Delbruck, Alfred D. Hershey y Salvador Luria. 1906-1981 1908-1997 1912-1991 c) La Escuela Francesa de la Biología Molecular: Uso de la Genética Microbiana. ➢ Francoise Jacob, André Lwoff y Jacques L. Monod abordaron un problema diferente que fue un paso conceptual más allá de la expresión del gen, o sea la regulación y la interacción de los eventos que determinan el gen. EL DESCUBRIMIENTO CIENTÍFICO SE PUEDE CLASIFICAR EN TRES CATEGORÍAS Segun D.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Got Moseley's Prize?
    Chapter 4 Who Got Moseley’s Prize? Virginia Trimble1 and Vera V. Mainz*,2 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California 92697-4575, United States 2Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61802, United States *E-mail: [email protected]. Henry Gwyn Jeffreys Moseley (1887-1915) made prompt and very skilled use of the then new technique of X-ray scattering by crystals (Bragg scattering) to solve several problems about the periodic table and atoms. He was nominated for both the chemistry and physics Nobel Prizes by Svante Arrhenius in 1915, but was dead at Gallipoli before the committees finished their deliberations. Instead, the 1917 physics prize (announced in 1918 and presented on 6 June 1920) went to Charles Glover Barkla (1877-1944) “for discovery of the Röntgen radiation of the elements.” This, and his discovery of X-ray polarization, were done with earlier techniques that he never gave up. Moseley’s contemporaries and later historians of science have written that he would have gone on to other major achievements and a Nobel Prize if he had lived. In contrast, after about 1916, Barkla moved well outside the scientific mainstream, clinging to upgrades of his older methods, denying the significance of the Bohr atom and quantization, and continuing to report evidence for what he called the J phenomenon. This chapter addresses the lives and scientific endeavors of Moseley and Barkla, something about the context in which they worked and their connections with other scientists, contemporary, earlier, and later. © 2017 American Chemical Society Introduction Henry Moseley’s (Figure 1) academic credentials consisted of a 1910 Oxford BA with first-class honors in Mathematical Moderations and a second in Natural Sciences (physics) and the MA that followed more or less automatically a few years later.
    [Show full text]