The Franklin DNA model

I am disturbed that none of my professors have bothered to mention Rosalind Franklin’s contribution to “Watson and Crick’s” description. Who did more real science, the person who actually showed the structure or those who drew the obvious inferences?

Their description contains the following assertions: DNA is double stranded in antiparallel sequences of four nucleotides bonded to each other by hydrogen bonds, producing two complimentary base pairs that provide a basis for accurate replication. It is telling to note the mistake in assuming it is the pairing that provides the basis for accurate replication. In the same paper they deny the existence of RNA as a coding molecule: “it is probably impossible to build this structure with a ribose in the place of the deoxyribose”. Additionally they assert that there are two hydrogen bonds in each base pairing, further revealing their ignorance in chemistry. Anyone who had done basic denaturing experiments of the sort used in discovering the five purine and pyrimidine variants a full half-century before Watson & Crick’s paper would have seen that one of the pairings has a different energy.

The double helix portion is what Watson got from seeing Franklin’s innovative X-ray crystallography, and the rest of the paper could have been written by anyone who was able to add two and two together.

Luckily, Crick was available to do the tedious math and dash a paper to publication without even mentioning Franklin by name, only a quick falsehood asserting they hadn’t seen her work, which clearly showed the double helix, before publication.

Crick is so blinded by the power of simple math that, in 1961, he announces at his Nobel Prize speech: “In all probability, therefore, codons do not overlap”, implying 64 amino acids. If Crick had taken the time to read the most highly cited paper in publishing history, already a decade old by the time he took his trophy, and stooped to testing his theory using the protocol described therein, he would have saved himself the embarrassment.

So the woman who did the real work gets no recognition, while the man who lifted her research, made some basic and false inferences, established a false and misleading Dogma that gets taught to gullible graduate students to this day, and for this he gets a Nobel?

6 thoughts on “The Franklin DNA model

  1. Welcome to the world…this isnt an isolated case, Ethan (as I’m sure you know). It’s been happening for a while. I’m sure it’s not as prevalent now (then again, who knows), but I’m glad to see you’re aware of it!

    Funny how men have ‘driven’ science when in fact in a lot of cases, they just took up where someone else left off, or blatantly stole work.

    Sad, dat.

  2. Hi,
    This site regarding info on DNA and magnetic grids etc is well worth a read. “”


    There is a lot more about the DNA and what it means and all the 12 layers in the Kryon Writings.

  3. This site makes some pretty strong claims that unfortunately seem to be built on fundamental misapprehensions of physics and biology.

    The notion that there are 10 non-physical strands of DNA for every 2 physical strand seems fanciful; the apparent inference that (4 nucleotides * 3 nucleotides per codon = 12 ) reflects a misunderstanding of how coding works in DNA. The slightly more valid version is (43 = 64), where four nucleotides make up sixty-four different triplet sequences, but I mention in the article above that this also doesn’t reflect the amino acids that result.

    The assertion that DNA is not a strand is true in bacteria and archaea, but not in any Eukaryote; if you’d like to learn more about eukaryotic DNA structure, you might want to look at telomeres, which are the end reigons of chromosomes.

    The earth does not have a magnetic grid; the magnetic field of the earth is, like all magnets, in a figure-8 pattern that is stretched into a tear-drop shape by the force of solar wind. It seems unlikely that we are here to move the magnetic field of earth when we have geological evidence that the magnetic field of earth has flipped many times before there were ever humans on earth.

    DNA does not have a current flowing through it. For current to flow, there must be a transfer of electrons from one atom to the next. If this were to occur in DNA, the DNA molecule would destabilize and either disintigrate or tangle up into an unreadable form.

    While electromagnetism is important for the hydrogen bonds that hold DNA together, these bonds are due to the difference in nuclear charge between the oxygen and the hydrogen atom, not because of any current.

    I really don’t think that spirituality is incompatible with biological knowledge, but any attempt at synthesis of these two subject areas would have to rest on a greater understanding of the fundamentals than Ms. Coleman, or this Kyron sort, appear to possess.

  4. I am not sure whether it should be called the Franklin model. But I definitely would, and have, mentioned Franklin’s contributions to the model. Her data was the last piece of the puzzle, but not the only piece. The A/T, G/C ratios (1:1) were also an important piece.
    I know of someone who didn’t get the prize while his mentor did. Just like Wilkins was the mentor and Franklin used his lab to generate the data. She was, as was Watson and Crick, in the right place at the right time.
    Shame on your professors for not mentioning Franklin, but Franklin Model….I have to disagree.

  5. Robin Franklin was the button pusher in this matter. She had expert experience at conducting x-ray diffraction but did not have adequate understanding to interpret the meaning of the plate. Her function was that of a technician in this situation. It is unlikely she would ever have recognized the meaning of her diffraction data. Watson and Crick saw the plate and were quickly able to interpret its meaning because they had a far greater understanding of the science.

    To credit Franklin with the double helix is outrageous and a complete misrepresentation of reality. If she receives credit for the double-helix then you should also mention the person that washed the glassware.

  6. If there was anything significant of value in his paper one might agree with that assessment. Franklin’s data spoke for itself; the inferences made by Crick were almost entirely mistaken.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s