Rosalind Franklin Quotes

Science and everyday life cannot and should not be separated.

We wish to discuss a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid. (D.N.A.). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biologic interest.

In 2010, the Royal Society, the world’s best-known scientific organization, put together a list of the ten most influential women in the history of British science. Anning turns up there, along with such notables as Rosalind Franklin, of DNA fame.

The British molecular biologist Rosalind Franklin, who played a central part in discovering the structure of DNA but suffered from the heavy chauvinism of her male colleagues.

Science and everyday life cannot and should not be separated. Science, for me, gives a partial explanation of life ... I do not accept your definition of faith i.e. belief in life after death ... Your faith rests on the future of yourself and others as individuals, mine in the future and fate of our successors. It seems to me that yours is the more selfish ... [as to] the question of a creator. A creator of what? ... I see no reason to believe that a creator of protoplasm or primeval matter, if such there be, has any reason to be interested in our insignificant race in a tiny corner of the universe.

You frequently state, and in your letter you imply, that I have developed a completely one-sided outlook and look at everything in terms of science. Obviously my method of thought and reasoning is influenced by a scientific training – if that were not so my scientific training will have been a waste and a failure. But you look at science (or at least talk of it) as some sort of demoralizing invention of man, something apart from real life, and which must be cautiously guarded and kept separate from everyday existence. But science and everyday life cannot and should not be separated. Science, for me, gives a partial explanation of life. In so far as it goes, it is based on fact, experience and experiment. Your theories are those which you and many other people find easiest and pleasantest to believe, but so far as I can see, they have no foundation other than they leaf to a pleasanter view of life (and an exaggerated idea of our own importance)... I agree that faith is essential to success in life (success of any sort) but I do not accept your definition of faith, i.e. belief in life after death. In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining. Anyone able to believe in all that religion implies obviously must have such faith, but I maintain that faith in this world is perfectly possible without faith in another world… It has just occurred to me that you may raise the question of the creator. A creator of what? ... I see no reason to believe that a creator of protoplasm or primeval matter, if such there be, has any reason to be interested in our significant race in a tiny corner of the universe, and still less in us, as still more significant individuals. Again, I see no reason why the belief that we are insignificant or fortuitous should lessen our faith – as I have defined it.

By and large, people who choose to go into science are not greatly interested in psychological problems... He liked the exactness of science, and the perfection of its truths - Humanity could be rather messy in comparison.

She discovered in a series of beautifully executed researches the fundamental distinction between carbons that turned on heating into graphite and those that did not. Further she related this difference to the chemical constitution of the molecules from which carbon was made. She was already a recognized authority in industrial physico-chemistry when she chose to abandon this work in favour of the far more difficult and more exciting fields of biophysics. {Bernal on the death of scientist Rosalind Franklin}

Wielding imaging techniques such as X-ray crystallography, which is what Rosalind Franklin used to find evidence of the structure of DNA, structural biologists try to discover the three-dimensional shape of molecules. Linus Pauling worked out the spiral structure of proteins in the early 1950s, which was followed by Watson and Crick’s paper on the double-helix structure of DNA.

The fact is that in two unhappy years, working in isolation except for Gosling, in a field new to her, she had come within two steps of answering the most exciting question in post-war science. What is more, she, unknowingly, had provided all the essential data for those who took the two brilliant leaps of intuition — to anti-parallel chains and base pairs — that cracked the problem.

Exactly," he answers again, with that patronizing smile. Watson's approach to science contains such a vital flaw it nearly takes my breath away. How can one call oneself a scientist and begin one's investigation with a conclusion instead of building to one only after exhaustive research?

Science IS life, dear cousin. It is the lens through which I see and experience the and make sense of the world around me, and it is my way of giving back. In solving crucial scientific mysteries at King's, I became closer and closer to the understanding of life itself. And I wouldn't undo that for anything. That IS my faith.

One of the most powerful tools for discovering structure is ‘X-ray diffraction’ or, because it is always applied to crystals of the substance of interest, ‘X-ray crystallography’. The technique has been a gushing fountain of Nobel prizes, starting with Wilhelm Röntgen’s discovery of X-rays (awarded in 1901, the first physics prize), then William and his son Laurence Bragg in 1915, Peter Debye in 1936, and continuing with Dorothy Hodgkin (1964), and culminating with Maurice Wilkins (but not Rosalind Franklin) in 1962, which provided the foundation of James Watson’s and Francis Crick’s formulation of the double-helix structure of DNA, with all its huge implications for understanding inheritance, tackling disease, and capturing criminals (a prize shared with Wilkins in 1962). If there is one technique that is responsible for blending biology into chemistry, then this is it. Another striking feature of this list is that the prize has been awarded in all three scientific categories: chemistry, physics, and physiology and medicine, such is the range of the technique and the illumination it has brought.

In 1950, a thirty-year-old scientist named Rosalind Franklin arrived at King’s College London to study the shape of DNA. She and a graduate student named Raymond Gosling created crystals of DNA, which they bombarded with X-rays. The beams bounced off the crystals and struck photographic film, creating telltale lines, spots, and curves. Other scientists had tried to take pictures of DNA, but no one had created pictures as good as Franklin had. Looking at the pictures, she suspected that DNA was a spiral-shaped molecule—a helix. But Franklin was relentlessly methodical, refusing to indulge in flights of fancy before the hard work of collecting data was done. She kept taking pictures. Two other scientists, Francis Crick and James Watson, did not want to wait. Up in Cambridge, they were toying with metal rods and clamps, searching for plausible arrangements of DNA. Based on hasty notes Watson had written during a talk by Franklin, he and Crick put together a new model. Franklin and her colleagues from King’s paid a visit to Cambridge to inspect it, and she bluntly told Crick and Watson they had gotten the chemistry all wrong. Franklin went on working on her X-ray photographs and growing increasingly unhappy with King’s. The assistant lab chief, Maurice Wilkins, was under the impression that Franklin was hired to work directly for him. She would have none of it, bruising Wilkins’s ego and leaving him to grumble to Crick about “our dark lady.” Eventually a truce was struck, with Wilkins and Franklin working separately on DNA. But Wilkins was still Franklin’s boss, which meant that he got copies of her photographs. In January 1953, he showed one particularly telling image to Watson. Now Watson could immediately see in those images how DNA was shaped. He and Crick also got hold of a summary of Franklin’s unpublished research she wrote up for the Medical Research Council, which guided them further to their solution. Neither bothered to consult Franklin about using her hard-earned pictures. The Cambridge and King’s teams then negotiated a plan to publish a set of papers in Nature on April 25, 1953. Crick and Watson unveiled their model in a paper that grabbed most of the attention. Franklin and Gosling published their X-ray data in another paper, which seemed to readers to be a “me-too” effort. Franklin died of cancer five years later, while Crick, Watson, and Wilkins went on to share the Nobel prize in 1962. In his 1968 book, The Double Helix, Watson would cruelly caricature Franklin as a belligerent, badly dressed woman who couldn’t appreciate what was in her pictures. That bitter fallout is a shame, because these scientists had together discovered something of exceptional beauty. They had found a molecular structure that could make heredity possible.

And while each subsequent effort saw steep declines in cost, the price tags were still staggering. Craig Venter, the renegade entrepreneur who had taken on the public genome project in a race to be the first to sequence a human genome, sequenced his own genome at a cost of around $100 million. An anonymous Han Chinese man had been sequenced in 2008 for around $2 million. And James Watson, who shared the Nobel Prize for work with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins and who, together with Rosalind Franklin, elucidated the structure of DNA, had his genome sequenced by a group at Baylor College of Medicine in early 2008 for the comparatively modest sum of only $1 million.

So, Rosalind became a symbol, first of an argumentative swot, then of a downtrodden woman scientist, and finally of a triumphant heroine in a man's world. She was none of these things and would have hated all of them. She was simply a very good scientist with an ambition, as she told Colin from her hospital bed, to be a Fellow of the Royal Society before she was 40. But she died at thirty-seven.

WE MAY TALK ABOUT WATSON AND CRICK’S DOUBLE-HELIX DISCOVERY IN SCIENCE CLASS, BUT BRITISH CHEMIST ROSALIND FRANKLIN IS THE ONE WHO REVEALED DNA’S STRUCTURE.

It has been suggested that she was plodding, that she could not understand her own data or work in teams, accept criticism or use imagination. That none of these alleged inadequacies manifested themselves in Rosalind’s work on viruses or coal is ignored by her detractors

There you have it. He is resentful that a woman is succeeding where he failed, and most likely, he will either continue to encroach on your territory or try to take credit for your work. Be careful.

It is in these moments that I wonder--despite my love of and commitment to science--if I have chosen the right track. Should I be following the long-established path carved out for me by my family, a path stolen from so many Jewish women and men by the Nazis during the past, horrible war? Do I owe it to them to carry on the Franklin traditions in their name?

When an atmosphere grows thick enough with justifications, explanations, rationalizations, postures, and regrets, not to omit occasional hostilities, untruth disappears just as surely as truth does.

In science, even more than elsewhere, to suppress a truth is to consent to a lie.

Those who are reserved by nature, and who rarely make friends quickly, or lightly, have a natural reluctance to say good-by, if only because new relationships will not quickly, or lightly, replace the ones that are left behind.

But one consequence of learning anything new is that one usually learns more than anticipated.

Talk is essential, talk stimulates, arguments clarify, speculations which are thrown out to the winds may fall like seed to spring up with a crop of perceptions.

The notion that accurate statements made by a woman scientist are first to be regarded as likely outpourings of feminism, and only under the strong pressure of irrefutable demonstration as science is Watson's own contribution.

I have yet to find, anyway, that those who urge the broad, philosophical view with respect to the work of others are quite so broad or philosophical when it comes to the correct attribution of their own productions.

But if one is going to create characters, I suggest that one is well-advised not to attach to them the names of real persons, living or dead.

She had a capacity for tact, but she was also extremely honest, and if tact and honesty conflicted on any important matter, the honesty won.

She was not engaging in any broad or sweeping challenge when she insisted that her own status be acknowledged as not only "equal" to that of any comparable male scientist, but to be quite indistinguishable as well, because to her the emphasis was solely upon scientist, not upon the adjective. She was not declaring war on behalf of women's rights, but demanding on behalf of science that those who served it be judged solely and wholly upon their abilities.

There is no real parallel to this in science, which abhors error, and which concerns matters in which naïveté cannot be distinguished from ignorance.

The general notion of raising the status of women was never more than peripheral to Rosalind, and on the whole it irritated her for its imprecision.

France is not England, and nowhere do they differ more than in their attitude towards intellectuals, toward women, and toward those who happen to be both.

Absurdities exasperated her. At the same time, the slow process of patiently leading recalcitrant thinkers to better thoughts by artful persuasions seemed to her a waste of time--a logical argument, cogently expressed, was surely sufficient to convince, and if it did not convince, then the case might well be hopeless and not worth pursuing.

Some tragedy is always implied when human beings can in no way communicate; what happened at King's is only a special example of it.

Your faith rests on the future of yourself and others as individuals, mine in the future and fate of our successors. It seems to me that yours is the more selfish

Although the nucleus might have been recognized by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in the late 17th century, it was not until 1831 that it was reported as a specific structure in orchid epidermal cells by a Scottish botanist, Robert Brown (better known for recognizing ‘Brownian movement’ of pollen grains in water). In 1879, Walther Flemming observed that the nucleus broke down into small fragments at cell division, followed by re-formation of the fragments called chromosomes to make new nuclei in the daughter cells. It was not until 1902 that Walter Sutton and Theodor Boveri independently linked chromosomes directly to mammalian inheritance. Thomas Morgan’s work with fruit flies (Drosophila) at the start of the 20th century showed specific characters positioned along the length of the chromosomes, followed by the realization by Oswald Avery in 1944 that the genetic material was DNA. Some nine years later, James Watson and Francis Crick showed the structure of DNA to be a double helix, for which they shared the Nobel Prize in 1962 with Maurice Wilkins, whose laboratory had provided the evidence that led to the discovery. Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray diffraction images of DNA from the Wilkins lab had been the key to DNA structure, died of cancer aged 37 in 1958, and Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. Watson and Crick published the classic double helix model in 1953. The final piece in the jigsaw of DNA structure was produced by Watson with the realization that the pairing of the nucleotide bases, adenine with thymine and guanine with cytosine, not only provided the rungs holding the twisting ladder of DNA together, but also provided a code for accurate replication and a template for protein assembly. Crick continued to study and elucidate the base pairing required for coding proteins, and this led to the fundamental ‘dogma’ that ‘DNA makes RNA and RNA makes protein’. The discovery of DNA structure marked an enormous advance in biology, probably the most significant since Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species .

Rosalind Franklin. She was instrumental in discovering the double helix in DNA, but it was two male colleagues, Crick and Watson, that got the Nobel Prize.

Elizabeth David’s highly popular book Mediterranean Cooking

The church of medicine has its own saintly patrons, the most prominent being Hypocrites who founded a new religion and its sacred oath and originated a new era of humanity. Then comes Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, who promoted herbal medicine, iatrochemistry and pharmacognosy. Next, Pasteur, the father of vaccines, who, like Moses, shepherded humanity away from the captivity of infectious diseases, led it towards the promised land of health and provided it with the tools for its salvation 8 (Clerc 2004: 7). There is Freud who founded a new sect within medicine— psychoanalysis (Cioffi 1998 [2010]; Rieff 1973) while Watson and Crick revealed to humanity the sacred mystery of life. Among these saints there are also martyrs, like the promoter of jogging Jim Fixx, who died of heart attack while running, or Rosalind Franklin, who died of cancer caused by her exposure to X-ray radiation.

Now she wondered if any woman could get away with the self-promotion successful science demanded. The rare women she’d heard of who resisted convention or tried to assert themselves—Barbara McClintock, Rosalind Franklin, now apparently Ruth Lehmann—were labeled “difficult.” “Greedy” for expecting to be recognized and rewarded in the same way as men.

官方学历《罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学毕业证(RFUMS毕业证书)》【微/Q:1954292140】成绩单、外壳、offer、学位证、留信学历认证（学历信息入库存档，永久查询)质量得到了广大海外客户群体的认可，同时和海外学校留学中介，同时能做到与时俱进，及时掌握各大院校的（毕业证，成绩单，资格证，学生卡，结业证，录取通知书，在读证明等相关材料）的版本更新信息，能够在第一时间掌握最新的海外学历文凭的样版，尺寸大小，纸张材质，防伪技术等等。 【办理罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学成绩单Buy Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science Transcripts】 购买日韩成绩单、英国大学成绩单、美国大学成绩单、澳洲大学成绩单、加拿大大学成绩单（q微1954292140）新加坡大学成绩单、新西兰大学成绩单、爱尔兰成绩单、西班牙成绩单、德国成绩单。成绩单的意义主要体现在证明学习能力、评估学术背景、展示综合素质、提高录取率，以及是作为留信认证申请材料的一部分。 罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学成绩单能够体现您的的学习能力，包括罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学课程成绩、专业能力、研究能力。（q微1954292140）具体来说，成绩报告单通常包含学生的学习技能与习惯、各科成绩以及老师评语等部分，因此，成绩单不仅是学生学术能力的证明，也是评估学生是否适合某个教育项目的重要依据！ Buy Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science Diploma《正式成绩单论文没过》有文凭却得不到认证。又该怎么办？？？美国毕业证购买，美国文凭购买，【q微1954292140】美国文凭购买，美国文凭定制，美国文凭补办。 专业在线定制美国大学文凭，定做美国本科文凭，【q微1954292140】复制美国Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science completion letter。在线快速补办美国本科毕业证、硕士文凭证书，购买美国学位证、罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学Offer，美国大学文凭在线购买。 特殊原因导致无法毕业，也可以联系我们帮您办理相关材料： １：在罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学挂科了，不想读了，成绩不理想怎么办？ 2：打算回国了，找工作的时候，需要提供认证《RFUMS成绩单购买办理罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学毕业证书范本》 帮您解决在美国罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学未毕业难题（Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science）文凭购买、毕业证购买、大学文凭购买、大学毕业证购买、买文凭、日韩文凭、英国大学文凭、美国大学文凭、澳洲大学文凭、加拿大大学文凭（q微1954292140）新加坡大学文凭、新西兰大学文凭、爱尔兰文凭、西班牙文凭、德国文凭、教育部认证，买毕业证，毕业证购买，买大学文凭，成绩单如何办理罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学学历认证失败怎么办【q微1954292140】毕业证样本罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学真实可查毕业证学位证1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。《罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学成绩单办理美国毕业证书办理RFUMS学历认证证书购买》 留信网的主办单位是北京留信信息科学研究院，主要职责就是为留学归国人员提供留学生就业等人力资源服务，提供“境外校库”海外院校办学信息查询。留信认证主要是出具“留学生专业人才入库证明”，以及一个留信网网络查询留学经历数据分析报告。 仿造在线制作本科文凭罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学毕业证成绩单防伪留服即中国留学服务中心，是教育部直属事业单位，主要从事出国留学、留学回国、来华留学以及教育国际交流与合作等领域的相关服务，其中国企，考公，落户，升学等都是需要留服认证的。 两种认证用处有所差异，大家肯定都想做更有用的留服认证。须知，留服认证只有在正规大学或项目就读，顺利毕业取得学位的情况下才能认证通过，如果是留学未能完成学业的，没有取得毕业相关证书，则无法通过认证。 因为各种原因在国外无法完成学业，被退学，被开除的同学，没有获得毕业证书和学位证书的留学生，留信认证是一种有效的认证途径，可以帮助证明你在国外的学习经历，让你有更多选择的可能，更多证明留学经历学习背景的机会。 国外留学无法毕业的留学生（即没有获得毕业证书和学位证书的情况下）想要在中国进行学历认证，通常不能通过正常的学历认证流程进行认证，因为正常的学历认证需要提供有效的毕业证书和学位证书，以及其他相关的学业文件。 在这种情况下，留学生可以选择通过留学服务中心的留信认证来尝试认证他们的学习经历。具体来说，留信认证是针对没有获得正规学位或毕业证书的学生，通过提供学习经历、课程成绩等材料，进行学业经历的认证。 留信网认证的作用: 1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份 2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定 3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书 4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方 5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息 6:个人职称评审加20分 7:个人信誉贷款加10分 8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才 办理美国罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学学位证【qq:1954 292 140】美国罗莎琳德富兰克林医科大学offer/学位证、留信官方学历认证（永久存档真实可查）采用学校原版纸张、特殊工艺完全按照原版一比一制作