The Search for the Structure of DNA
The foundation for the advances in molecular and genetic Biology began with the Watson and Crick Model. In 1962, they were awarded the Nobel Prize of Medicine and Physiology. Watson published a book in1968, called the Double Helix, which explains his accounts of the events leading to the solution of DNA. Anne Sayre also created a book, Rosalind Franklin and DNA, which portrayed a different experience of the discovery of the DNA model. She blamed Watson and Crick of stealing information of DNA from Dr. Franklin without giving credit. Rosalind was given the challenge of determining the DNA model. She discovered that the DNA was arranged in a coaxial helical structure. Watson and Crick also took on the challenge to further the discovery of the DNA structure. Watson and Crick did not actually experiment to find the structure of DNA; however, they took information from Dr. Franklin and other sources. Although they used Dr. Franklin’s information, Watson and Crick did not give credit to anybody. The main ethical question in this experiment was not giving credit to Dr. Franklin.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Questions
1. Sir Lawrence Bragg, Director of the laboratory in which they were employed, did not want Watson and Crick "fishing in other people's ponds" by working on the structure of DNA.. To what extent is science territorial, and to what extent is such territoriality: beneficial or harmful; necessary or unnecessary; ethical or unethical? (Consider Fat Man and Little Boy.)
Many Scientists disagree with the style Watson chose to show his discovery of DNA. We believe that is unethical to steal someone’s, a woman in this matter, work and make it your own without their consent. Also science should be territorial in such a way that when a scientist is assigned to one field, he or she should stay with that field. When a person starts fighting and competing over getting the correct answers for something, the line has been crossed. A scientist should not drop his or her own work to snatch another person’s job.
2. Watson and Crick clearly made use of the ideas and results of other scientists in pursuing their goal, including those of Linus Pauling, Erwin Chargaff and Rosalind Franklin. This is, of course, a commonly accepted practice. What was it, then, that led Ann Sayre to suggest that Franklin had been treated unethically as a result of the use of her findings in the construction of the Watson-Crick DNA model? Is Sayre correct in her assessment?
Watson and Crick were a little over the norm in competitiveness and went so far as to steal another person’s work just so they could turn out on top. We think Sayre is correct because Franklin didn’t get the credit that she deserved.
3. To what extent do the social values that Franklin had to confront (chauvinistic and derogatory attitudes toward women) justify her reticence to engage in discussions about her research progress with her male colleagues?
Franklin was quiet and kept to herself when doing her work because women were treated smaller than men. In her working place there was not girls’ bathroom. Things such as this could have affected the information she shared the men who looked down on her.
4. Credit for a scientific discovery is generally accorded to the person(s) who first publishes the finding in an accredited scientific journal. Do you see any ethical problems with this accepted practice? Can you think of any objective criteria for deciding how significant a scientist's contribution to a discovery or a result should have to be in order to merit receiving credit for it and/or being listed as one of the authors of the research paper that describes it?
Sometimes the first scientist who publishes new information isn’t the one who came up with it. The person to get recognized for their discovery should be the one who has the most work and contributed the project in the most way.
5. Competition can frequently stimulate rapid progress an scientific research. On the other hand, competition can also impede the sharing of ideas and interim results, which are generally of great value for the healthy development of science. Can you think of any guidelines that might result in an appropriate balance between these opposing values?
Competition makes scientist want to make discovers faster than others. On the other hand competition makes scientist secretive of their work which slows down the discovering process. We think science shouldn’t be a competition. Scientists should go slow, concentrate on every detail, and work together. When they work fast they have a possibility of missing small but important details. Working together can prevent false assumptions and even make the work go faster at the same time.
1. Sir Lawrence Bragg, Director of the laboratory in which they were employed, did not want Watson and Crick "fishing in other people's ponds" by working on the structure of DNA.. To what extent is science territorial, and to what extent is such territoriality: beneficial or harmful; necessary or unnecessary; ethical or unethical? (Consider Fat Man and Little Boy.)
Many Scientists disagree with the style Watson chose to show his discovery of DNA. We believe that is unethical to steal someone’s, a woman in this matter, work and make it your own without their consent. Also science should be territorial in such a way that when a scientist is assigned to one field, he or she should stay with that field. When a person starts fighting and competing over getting the correct answers for something, the line has been crossed. A scientist should not drop his or her own work to snatch another person’s job.
2. Watson and Crick clearly made use of the ideas and results of other scientists in pursuing their goal, including those of Linus Pauling, Erwin Chargaff and Rosalind Franklin. This is, of course, a commonly accepted practice. What was it, then, that led Ann Sayre to suggest that Franklin had been treated unethically as a result of the use of her findings in the construction of the Watson-Crick DNA model? Is Sayre correct in her assessment?
Watson and Crick were a little over the norm in competitiveness and went so far as to steal another person’s work just so they could turn out on top. We think Sayre is correct because Franklin didn’t get the credit that she deserved.
3. To what extent do the social values that Franklin had to confront (chauvinistic and derogatory attitudes toward women) justify her reticence to engage in discussions about her research progress with her male colleagues?
Franklin was quiet and kept to herself when doing her work because women were treated smaller than men. In her working place there was not girls’ bathroom. Things such as this could have affected the information she shared the men who looked down on her.
4. Credit for a scientific discovery is generally accorded to the person(s) who first publishes the finding in an accredited scientific journal. Do you see any ethical problems with this accepted practice? Can you think of any objective criteria for deciding how significant a scientist's contribution to a discovery or a result should have to be in order to merit receiving credit for it and/or being listed as one of the authors of the research paper that describes it?
Sometimes the first scientist who publishes new information isn’t the one who came up with it. The person to get recognized for their discovery should be the one who has the most work and contributed the project in the most way.
5. Competition can frequently stimulate rapid progress an scientific research. On the other hand, competition can also impede the sharing of ideas and interim results, which are generally of great value for the healthy development of science. Can you think of any guidelines that might result in an appropriate balance between these opposing values?
Competition makes scientist want to make discovers faster than others. On the other hand competition makes scientist secretive of their work which slows down the discovering process. We think science shouldn’t be a competition. Scientists should go slow, concentrate on every detail, and work together. When they work fast they have a possibility of missing small but important details. Working together can prevent false assumptions and even make the work go faster at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)