CLOSE
Original image

Rosalind Franklin and the Search for DNA

Original image

In 1962, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was a awarded jointly to Francis Harry Compton Crick, James Dewey Watson, and Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins for their discovery of the structure of DNA. Many are aware of Watson and Crick's work in "discovering" DNA in 1953. But the world had known about DNA since 1944, when Oswald Avery declared it to be the molecule that carried genetic information. For years, scientists had raced to learn more about DNA. Watson and Crick worked on DNA in the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge. Physicist Maurice Wilkins was one of several scientists working on DNA at Kings College in London. And so was Rosalind Franklin

1962 Nobel laureates Maurice Wilkins, Max Perutz, Francis Crick, John Steinbeck, James Watson, and John C Kendrew. Photo from Keystone/Getty Images.

Sir John Randall assembled a team of scientists to work on the problem of DNA at his Kings College laboratory that included both Wilkins, who had just left work on the Manhattan Project, and Franklin, who had become renowned for her work in X-ray crystallography in Paris. Wilkins had been working on X-ray diffraction, but when his work lagged, Randall assigned Rosalind Franklin and graduate student Raymond Gosling to study the structure of DNA by X-ray diffraction. Franklin was delayed in getting to Kings College in 1950 due to her work in France. When she arrived in 1951, Maurice Wilkins missed the meeting in which she was introduced as a colleague. That led to an important misunderstanding.

Franklin was under the impression that the X-ray diffraction was her project. Wilkins assumed, depending on the source, that either Franklin was working as his partner or as his assistant. Because of this difference of views, the two did not get along well. Franklin had long been patronized for being a woman scientist, and she preferred to work alone or with her assistant Gosling.

Watson and Crick began to suspect that DNA took a helical pattern, but were looking into the possibility of a triple-twist helix. Franklin had her doubts about a helix pattern at all, because her mathematical models did not support the theory, but she did not dismiss the possibility.

In May of 1952, Franklin and Gosling took a X-ray diffraction image that became known as "Photo 51." Gosling presented the photo to Wilkins as part of his graduate work. In January of 1953, Wilkins shared the picture, and some of Franklin's unpublished notes, with Watson and Crick, without Franklin's knowledge. Watson and Crick saw that Photo 51 held the secret that confirmed the double-helix model, and ran with it.

Franklin studied Photo 51 and independently saw the double-helix model in February of 1953. She and Gosling prepared a paper in March, and it appeared in the journal Nature along with Watson and Crick's announcement of the double-helix discovery in April of 1953. Wilkins also had an article on DNA structure in the same issue. Franklin was unaware of Watson and Crick's breakthrough before publication, but she accepted it, not knowing how her work contributed to it. She went on to Birkbeck College to work on viruses. While Franklin poured herself into new research, Watson and Crick were celebrated for the discovery of DNA.

Rosalind Franklin, born in 1920, received her bachelor's degree in chemistry from Cambridge University in 1941 and her Ph.D. in 1945. She worked constantly in the laboratory until she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 1956. Franklin died in 1958 at age 37. There is speculation that her years of work with X-rays, during which she took little if any precaution against radiation, contributed to her death.


Comic by Kate Beaton of Hark! A Vagrant.

Franklin was not eligible for a Nobel in 1962 because they are never awarded posthumously. But when Crick, Watson, and Wilkins won the Nobel, none of them gave Franklin any credit for her contribution to the research. Interest in her work was ignited when James Watson published a memoir in 1968 called The Double Helix, in which he criticized Franklin's appearance and minimized her role in DNA research. During her life, Franklin had been a world-renowned chemist, virologist, and expert in crystallography within the scientific community. Then the backlash generated by Watson's book made Franklin a symbol of sexism in science, as the unsung hero of DNA research. Dr. Franklin would probably find that strange, but might possibly find it satisfying.

Original image
iStock
arrow
History
A Brief History of Time
Original image
iStock

You may have heard that time is a social construct, but that doesn’t stop it from having consequences in the real world. If you show up to a party 10 minutes before it’s scheduled to start, you’ll likely be the first one there, and if you arrive to an interview 10 minutes late, you likely won’t get the job. But how did humanity agree on when and how to observe certain times of day?

In their new video, the It’s Okay to Be Smart team explains how humans “invented” the modern concept of time. The increments we use to measure time, like seconds, minutes, and hours, come from the ancient civilizations of the Egyptians and the Babylonians. Early clocks, like sundials and water clocks, were pretty crude, so people couldn’t pinpoint a time like noon down to the second even if they wanted to. But as clocks became more accurate, the problem wasn’t being unable to tell time accurately, but deciding which clocks qualified as “accurate” in the first place.

In 1884, President Chester A. Arthur organized the International Meridian Conference with the intention of deciding on a uniform definition of time to be followed around the world. The attendees ended up choosing the meridian running through Greenwich, England as the official Prime Meridian, and all clocks would be measured against the clock in the town’s observatory. Greenwich Mean Time is still used as the standard world time today.

Check out the full story below.

[h/t It’s Okay to Be Smart]

Original image
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images
arrow
Big Questions
Why Do Baseball Managers Wear Uniforms?
Original image
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images

Basketball and hockey coaches wear business suits on the sidelines. Football coaches wear team-branded shirts and jackets and often ill-fitting pleated khakis. Why are baseball managers the only guys who wear the same outfit as their players?

According to John Thorn, the official historian of Major League Baseball since 2011, it goes back to the earliest days of the game. Back then, the person known as the manager was the business manager: the guy who kept the books in order and the road trips on schedule. Meanwhile, the guy we call the manager today, the one who arranges the roster and decides when to pull a pitcher, was known as the captain. In addition to managing the team on the field, he was usually also on the team as a player. For many years, the “manager” wore a player’s uniform simply because he was a player. There were also a few captains who didn’t play for the team and stuck to making decisions in the dugout, and they usually wore suits.

With the passing of time, it became less common for the captain to play, and on most teams they took on strictly managerial roles. Instead of suits proliferating throughout America’s dugouts, though, non-playing captains largely hung on to the tradition of wearing a player's uniform. By the early to mid 20th century, wearing the uniform was the norm for managers, with a few notable exceptions. The Philadelphia Athletics’s Connie Mack and the Brooklyn Dodgers’s Burt Shotton continued to wear suits and ties to games long after it fell out of favor (though Shotton sometimes liked to layer a team jacket on top of his street clothes). Once those two retired, it’s been uniforms as far as the eye can see.

The adherence to the uniform among managers in the second half of the 20th century leads some people to think that MLB mandates it, but a look through the official major league rules [PDF] doesn’t turn up much on a manager’s dress. Rule 1.11(a) (1) says that “All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style, and all players’ uniforms shall include minimal six-inch numbers on their backs" and rule 2.00 states that a coach is a "team member in uniform appointed by the manager to perform such duties as the manager may designate, such as but not limited to acting as base coach."

While Rule 2.00 gives a rundown of the manager’s role and some rules that apply to them, it doesn’t specify that they’re uniformed. Further down, Rule 3.15 says that "No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club." Again, nothing about the managers being uniformed.

All that said, Rule 2.00 defines the bench or dugout as “the seating facilities reserved for players, substitutes and other team members in uniform when they are not actively engaged on the playing field," and makes no exceptions for managers or anyone else. While the managers’ duds are never addressed anywhere else, this definition does seem to necessitate, in a roundabout way, that managers wear a uniform—at least if they want to have access to the dugout. And, really, where else would they sit?

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios