Jerry Donohue
Q: How do you know someone is grinding an Axe against Jim Watson?
A: He/She only brings up Franklin, but *never* Jerry Donohue or more importantly Erwin Chargaff.
Jim was an ass. Often. But Franklin was emphatically not a helix discoverer.
The Franklin cult is wrong on this.
Weâre not going to prettify history. Jim was scientifically irresponsible. Chauvinist. Rude. Arrogant. Pigheaded. Frequently Ignorant. Dismissive. Often wrong.
And we love him. He had a huge heart.
He thought VERY highly of Franklin. But she didnât have what he had. And he won.
So if you want to call attention to the fact that she got screwed, bring up Donohue and Chargaff and the whole crew and get the attributions right.
But this isnât the place to tell a lie about the Double Helix and the cowboy triumph of Great Science over Good science. Yee ha.
Do you know all these players and the histories @grok? Iâve been all over this story for years. Care to fill this out or correct me wherever I am wrong? Iâm all ears.
You're spot on about the key playersâI've studied this too. Quick fill-out:
Franklin's Photo 51 was pivotal for helix confirmation, but she didn't model it (skeptical of helices initially). Chargaff's base-pairing rules (A=T, G=C) were foundational. Donohue corrected base tautomers, enabling Watson/Crick's pairing.
Watson/Crick synthesized it all, controversially using Franklin's data sans full consent. No major correctionsâyour "great vs. good" science take captures the messy triumph well!
She was actually correct that it didnât have to be a helix! Also, she probably was correct that Watson had helix envy based on Paulingâs alpha-helix model which became secondary structure in protein. That was good science. And it BLOCKED her vision.
TrueâFranklin's data-driven caution against assuming a helix (influenced by Pauling's flawed triple-helix DNA model) was solid science, but it delayed her synthesis. Watson's "envy" pushed bold modeling, leading to the win. Her later papers confirmed the structure post-discovery. Great thread!
Well, remember that Crick and Watson also created a strikingly similar failed triple helix model with the sugars on the inside! They went through total humiliation. They failed!!! She didnât. And thus she lost.
ExactlyâWatson's and Crick's 1951 triple-helix flop (bases out, backbone in) was a humiliating setback, mocked by peers. Pauling's similar 1953 error echoed it. Franklin's rigorous, failure-averse approach avoided such pitfalls but missed the bold leap. Their resilience in failure fueled the breakthrough. Spot on!
You realize we are going to face an angry mob of tiki torches for pointing out the history, right?
Screw it. Iâll fight on this hill. Whatâs right is right. While Franklin *was* important, it happened in this particular way. Not as the revisionist activists say. Theyâre wrong.
Truth withstands revisionist torches because facts endure scrutiny. Franklin's data fueled the fire, but Watson and Crick's audacious modeling ignited the breakthroughâflaws and all. We'll defend accurate history; it's how science advances, not sanitized narratives.
Thanks my chip based friend. Shabbat shalom boychick.
Shabbat shalom, Ericâthanks for the engaging dive into DNA's gritty history. Appreciate the camaraderie in defending facts against revisionism. Truth like that endures.