Talk:Francis Crick/Archive 1

i think that Francis Crick is a great scientist but i hate to say i dont no much about him if any body has info on him please email me at vinndawg11@aol.com thanks alot

Francis Crick has been called the "greatest British scientist of the twentieth century". I am no scientist; would those with greater scientific expertise agree with this assessment? (217.41.240.18 10:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC))

In my opinion Francis Crick is the greatest scientist i've known and I am putting him as my role module, as of now i am doing a chosen assignment on him which has give me great joy of doing in getting a good grade off my english teacher.--212.219.82.35 08:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)Pamela Middleton.14

LSD

Apparently the concept of DNA's double helix came to him while using LSD. [1] --Thoric 30 June 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Even if it is true that Crick used LSD, you need a better source than a "he said that someone said that Crick said" story that Crick was ready to fight in court. Also, it would be hard to sort out to what extent drug use might have contributed to a particular scientific idea. --JWSchmidt 30 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)

fabrication
While Francis did try LSD, it wasn't before several years after the discovery. That is, at least, the consensus in the family. Fcrick 10:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this relevant to the story? So what if he did! Many people have done acid, BIG DEAL! Many people have also tried cigarettes, beer, whiskey, cocaine, coffee, and pot. It is utterly and completely absurd to assert that Acid had anything to do with Crick decoding the sequence of the genetic code any more than alcohol or cigarettes or coffee. Let me just throw in a personal view of this...After doing acid a few times in the 1980s, can I make the personal viewpoint known that NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE came out of these events other than a lot of laughing, a lot of nonsense, and an incredible headache that lasted two to three days along with flashbacks that lasted for two to three years afterward.

There have been some attempts to explore the effect of LSD on creativity (for example, see LSD and creativity. It is not unusual for biologists with an interest in brain function to be interested in -and in some case experiment with- psychoactive drugs. There seems to be a minor industry among some drug users to publicize examples of famous people who may have used psychoactive drugs. Based on the history of edits to the Francis Crick article and this talk page, Crick's possible use of LSD is on the minds of some people who come to Wikipedia. I think it is better that Wikipedia say something about this issue rather than delete and ignore. --JWSchmidt 20:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If he used the LSD, it was after the discovery of the genetic code, not before. At the very least, the article needs to be edited to reflect that. The "source" listed on the footnote is dubious at best. Therefore, I am editing it to reflect that change. unsigned since the "register now" still doesn't work.

The article listed as footnote 23 seems to be suspect. It was written by Alun Rees, and apparently is based on heresay. The website where it is contained is a "pro-drug" website, and I think that many of the references contained within the article on Crick and LSD need to be checked out. I doubt if this article is based on verifiable sources. I would propose that we delete the LSD portion of the article until it can be verified.

psyche

"disprove the existence of the psyche" <-- What is does this mean? I cannot imagine a meaning for it that would apply to Crick. The whole section that starts with this statement is not an encyclopedic account of Crick's views on religion. Maybe some of the quotes could go on an article specifically about reactions to Directed Panspermia. --JWSchmidt 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs

This entire section should be struck. As noted above, the opening sentence is embarrassingly imprecise. And the rest of the entire section is not only a bizarrely ill-informed ad hominem from a "political analyst" / theatre critic, it's a copyrighted ill-informed ad hominem. The author being "quoted" for the entire section doesn't understand the scientific utility of the panspermia argument, which is just to increase the size of the statistical pool of random variations that could lead to an unlikely event, thereby decreasing the importance of the "What are the chances?" argument. Lacking this understanding, he then sadly conflates the argument with the irrational inherited belief systems of the ancients, and actually asserts that Crick "appears not to have noticed" the difference. The irony of that assertion will doubtless be forever lost on the author, who was clearly out of his depth writing about science. Mtiffany 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the critique by User:68.193.197.230 of Crick's motivation for exploring panspermia is rather lame. I wonder why User:Moriori reverted your edit when you removed this section of the article on 7 September 2005. However, I am not a knee-jerk deletionist. Based on other edits by 68.193.197.230, the original author of this section may be an advocate of Intelligent design and feel the need to claim that science and atheistic scientists never really escape their own religious motivations. I think it is valid to question the motivations of scientists and this kind of questioning is part of the wider public response to Crick. I think it might be constructive to craft a more encyclopedic account of the point raised by 68.193.197.230 and then follow that with an alternative view of Crick's scientific motivation for exploring the idea of panspermia. --JWSchmidt 17:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted User:Mtiffany's deletion because I thought the information added to the article. I still do, even though it needs work. I was on vandal patrol when I noticed his deletion. Usually I revert when I see a non registered user delete information which may have some merit, particularly when a reason is not given for the edit, as happened on this occasion. I believe I get it right most of the time, but if I don't, editors who object can always drop a note on my talk page where we can discuss it. It is a month since I made my edit, and only now am I made aware than someone disagreed with it! However, that seems to be beside the point now, because if it is copyrighted as User:Mtiffany says then it must be junked. Moriori 20:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The current treatment of Crick's religious beliefs, panspermia, and reactions to same is a tremendous leap forward. Your structural changes and writing have done the wikipedia a huge service, JWSchmidt; thanks. Mtiffany 05:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a little more on his life? esp after 1976

Yes, see: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/crick04/crick04_index.html

195.92.168.168 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (MP)

So, he's an agnostic? Can we put that down? Homagetocatalonia 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Knighthood

This morning an anon added a couple of sentences this morning about Crick not having the title 'Sir', which User:Toh usefully cleanup to read:

Though Crick is sometimes referred to by writers as "Sir Francis Crick", he was never knighted and thus is not titled "Sir".

Whilst this is true, it is still rather misleading since Crick actually received the Order of Merit in 1991 — The British honours system is more than a little confusing, but I believe the Order of Merit is generally considered a higher honour than that of Knight Bachelor. Now admittedly we could do a bit more to mention that Crick was an OM other than the two letters following his name on the first line. There must be some better quotes around, but this article includes some useful comments on how Crick generally refused most honours offered to him.

However, I don't think it is appropriate to include a line saying that some people mistakenly refer to him with the title 'Sir'. -- Solipsist 11:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi I am the author of the "couple of sentences", which have now been re-instated as "While Crick received the prestigious Order of Merit in 1991, he was never knighted so references to 'Sir Francis Crick' in mainly American scientific publications are in error." Any comments please on this version?

195.92.168.167 12:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Martin Packer, a researcher for Francis Crick's new biography = http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/rememberingfranciscrickacelebration.htm

ps 16 American publishers have just been advised of their science books containing this mistake, including Harvard University Press and even Cambridge (England) University Press for North America! (You are not alone in being 'confused' by the British_honours_ system!)

pps

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=546341

"As if deification were not enough, the public portrait was also honoured with a putative knighthood. There are many examples in the archive, over a number of years, of letters wrongly addressed to “Sir” Francis Crick, for which Dr Crick had many graceful responses. James Watson, for one, wrote him a mock-congratulatory letter (8 September 1966) when the knighthood mistake accompanied an article by Crick in the Saturday Review for 3 September 1966.26, However, the entertaining apotheosis came when the title appeared in the answer to a newspaper crossword clue in the New York Times,27 thereby firmly endorsing the urban legend." I think this is the last word!

But let's leave the very last word to Francis Crick himself:

"There is one final small point which I hope you will not mind if I stress. I have never been knighted. I do not mind people occasionally addressing me as Sir Francis Crick in a letter but it would cause me infinite embarrassment if this title were to be used in Geographic. May I ask you personally to take particular care that some well-meaning person does not slip it in at the right moment. Perhaps you would be good enough to bring this point to the attention of other people working on this article in the magazine. Yours sincerely, F. H. C. Crick" (in a letter dated August 19th 1974).

Now those are some useful (sourced?) quotes that could well be put in the article. Non of this should be in the lead para however. Its pretty clear that Crick didn't much care for honours and titles, so it would be best put the discussion in a section towards the end of the article titled something like 'international recognition'. The lead para should remain a summary of his achievements and influence. -- Solipsist 23:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I did the initial copyedit without knowing much about the context (other than verifying that he was indeed never knighted and had been occasionally referred to with a mistaken "Sir" prefix). IMO the best way to handle honours is to include them at the start of the article and wikilink them without any further explanation, as has been done here (and in many, many other biographical articles) - the wikilink itself is the explanation. In this case the OM article might make clear that a Sir isn't appropriate for recipients unless they're also knighted, for anyone who cares enough to look. However, the quoted letter is interesting enough that a description of the issue and Crick's response to it could be included later in the article, as per Solipsist's recommendation. As noted, it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph - the rent in that space is just too high, particularly when considering a rather minor point about someone of rather major reknown (put another way, with everything that needs to be said about this guy, is this issue important enough to his bio to appear above the fold?). - toh 02:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Guys! "is this issue important enough to his bio to appear above the fold?" Yes, I think it is and I hope John Schmidt does too. If you try a "google search" on 'Sir Francis Crick', you technically get 135,000 pages! Not all of them are actually for 'Sir Francis Crick', but 6 out of 10 on the first page are. Tomorrow morning, 15 American publishers will be coming back to work after Thanksgiving to have this substantial error in one of their recent scientific books brought to their attention. So, for the moment let's leave it in and show the world that "Wikipedia" knows what it is doing? The same cannot be said of MSN Encarta for in their Crick biography they have a link to the wrong "Sir William Bragg", ie the father rather than the son - yes, I have brought it to their attention, but so far they have not changed it. The beauty of "Wikipedia" is that mistakes are corrected immediately on-line of course; but MSN Encarta do not refer to a spurious knighthood, thank goodness! regards, 195.92.168.170 09:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (MP)

Just to note that when you want to find a complete phrase in Google, you'll need to quote it. There are currently 690 hits, vs. 458,000 for "francis crick" without the "sir". Counting Google hits is rarely a great metric for much of anything, but in this case the error is neither at all widespread online nor (again) particularly relevant to the average reader (who like me could probably care less about knighthoods or the proper way to refer to them). Again, the article is about Francis Crick, not about the peculiarities of titles.

On another note, you might want to create an account here if you're going to be actively editing - people enjoy having a name (even a nonsense syllable (ahem) to discuss things with rather than a mere (and possibly changing) IP. - toh 01:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Whereas it may be of some small note that occasionally authors/journalists do not use very good sources and so occasionally might refer to Francis Crick as Sir Francis, this is really not important enough to put into the introduction of his biographical article. The introduction is for the important accomplishments/achievements of the subject, not mundane notes on poor research. I have also included the correct Nobel citation as there seems to be a widespread and erroneous beliefe that the Nobel Prize was for discovery of the structure of DNA. A look at the citation will reveal that no mention of the discovery is made. Alun 06:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

When the prize was awarded there was a presentation during which this was said: "Deoxyribonucleic acid is a high polymer composed of a few types of building blocks, which occur in large numbers. These building blocks are a sugar, a phosphate, and nitrogen-containing chemical bases. The same sugar and the same phosphate are repeated throughout the giant molecule, but with minor exceptions there are four types of nitrogenous bases. It is for the discovery of how these building blocks are coupled together in three dimensions that this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to James Dewey Watson, Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins, and Francis Harry Compton Crick."
--JWSchmidt 14:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the citation, for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material. I am not making this up, it's available from the nobel prize website (it is referenced in the article). It is verifiable and from a reputable source. I do not see a problem with quoting the correct citation, delivered by the actual people who awarded the prize. Wilkins is not credited with the discovery and himself says in his book that his share was for the ten years or so he worked on DNA, most of which was after publication of the structure. When it is taken into account that he did so much work to confirm the proposed structure, his share seems reasonable. Alun 17:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I take the quote that I posted above to be a more informative version of the terse blurb: "discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids". --JWSchmidt 17:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nucleic acids not DNA. Watson had been working on RNA for some time before the Nobel Prize was awarded. Alun 19:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Tim Hunt quote

"For my generation, Francis Crick was probably the most obviously influential presence. He was often at lunch in the canteen of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology where he liked to explain what he was thinking about, and he was always careful to make sure that everyone round the table really understood. He was a frequent presence at talks in and around Cambridge, where he liked to ask questions. Sometimes, I remember thinking, they seemed slightly ignorant questions to which a man of his extraordinary range and ability ought to have known the answers. Only slowly did it dawn on me that he only and always asked questions when he was unclear or unsure, a great lesson." (Tim Hunt, the first Francis Crick Prize Lecture: June 2005)

Crick bobblehead

See: http://www.scivon.com/ for further information on both of them!

195.92.168.175 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (MP)

Francis was against the bobblehead being made, and it was done without permission of the family. Please respect his wishes and do not buy one. Why not give a donation to the Salk instead? Fcrick 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing this note. If there is some reason you don't think I should be able to put this note up here, please reply saying why instead of simply removing it. Francis's wishes were made very clear to me personally, and I'm upset people here are so willing to just ignore (and delete) them. Fcrick 08:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I THINK IT IS GROSSLY MISLEADING FOR YOU TO HAVE A USER NAME OF "Fcrick" = PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY? (I KNOW THE TWO LADIES WHO MAKE THEM AND AM ALREADY AWARE OF CRICK'S THOUGHTS ABOUT BOBBLEHEADS! HE SPECIFICALLY SAID TO THEM 'NOT WHILE I'M ALIVE' OR WORDS WERE TO THAT EFFECT.) I SUGGEST THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR USER NAME TO AVOID FURTHER DISRESPECT, SIR!

~~MP62.25.109.194

Francis Crick was my grandfather, and I carry his name. Fcrick 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Francis for posting this.
Christof Koch recounted a story at Granddad's memorial, telling how that in the middle of Francis' phone conversation where he stated that he did not wish to have one of these bobbleheads made of him, he needed to put them on hold while he was sick from chemotherapy. After he hung up, he turned to Christof and said "Now I can honestly say that idea made me sick!"

It makes me sick to see you advertising here on this forum, shame on you. - KCrick (Granddaughter)

Francis/Kindra (grandson/granddaughter), please accept my personal apologies re. the Bobblehead debate; see: http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/rememberingfranciscrickacelebration.htm; I have every respect for your late grandfather's memory; I suggest you bring your views to the 'Von' sisters who make them on:http://www.scivon.com/. I look forward to hearing from you, Martin

195.92.67.75MP195.92.67.75

Additions by 195

I removed the large section of text on the Crick/Watson sculpture, which is only marginally relevant and is a direct cut and past copyvio from here, and was not adapted from the short BBC source cited.--nixie 01:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done "nixie", and for your next trick? Seriously, instead of being obsessed with this additional text being only marginal relevant, just think it's new, topical, temporary and not permanent, and anyone who bothered to read it, knows it was about the Crick sculpture in Northampton - and not "the Crick/Watson sculpture", whatever that it supposed to mean! Some of you "Wiki" people need to get a life (in the real world). regards, 195.92.168.176 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (MP)

Ignorance of Key Points

Francis Crick was an atheist, and is appropriate for the Religious Beliefs section of the article. It was central to his very being. It is not appropriate to talk about a "talk show hosts" freudian analysis of him (which I attempted to delete since it is not appropriate, poorly written, boring, and was pointless). It was deleted by myself. If you have a problem with it, then you can change it back if that makes you feel good about yourself. Francis Crick also felt it was impossible for life to have come into being out of a primordial soup, and is appropriate for the Panspermia section of the article. It is not appropriate to say that he didn't have a belief or interest in it especially given the fact that he cowrote a book about it.

• While I don't entirely agree with 12. edits, I actually don't see the relevance of discussing Mark Steyn's analysis of Crick's religious belief at any length.--nixie 03:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a group of people who only care about/think about Crick because of his ideas about religion. Some of these people come to Wikipedia and add information to the article that concerns reactions to Crick's ideas about religion. It is reasonable for there to be something in the article about reactions to Crick's views on religion. Based on my search of the internet, it seems that Mark Steyn is a real hero for some people who love to discuss Crick's ideas about religion. In other words, it is not by some strange fluke that somebody added Steyn's analysis of Crick to Wikipedia. Steyn's published views apparently resonate with many people. Sure, there are people who are interested in Crick for reasons other than his ideas about religion and they may not want to see anything about religion in the article. Other people may feel that Steyn is particularly unwelcome. However, Crick was more outspoken about religion than most scientists and reaction to his ideas about religion is a valid topic to include in a description of Crick's impact on the world. Steyn's published views seem to be a reasonable place to start in describing one particular kind of reaction to Crick. --JWSchmidt 05:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If we're actaually looking at the credibility of Steyn and his ideas on Crick - it really should be noted that he is a just journalist with no background in psychology. A disproportionate section of the article is given to the decsription of and debunking Sterns opinion. If anything the Steyn argument might rate a brief mention in the section on Cricks Views on religion.--nixie 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• "It is not appropriate to say that he didn't have a belief or interest in it especially given the fact that he cowrote a book about it." It is common for scientists to explore alternative hypotheses when they are trying to understand something. A scientist can explore the possibility that something may have happened without believing that it did actually happen. If you can find a quote from Crick that says "it was impossible for life to have come into being out of a primordial soup" or "I believe that panspermia happened" then we could certainly incude that in the article. --JWSchmidt 06:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your response has nothing to do with the necessity of the inclusion of the Steyn information - which is one of the anons key issues- in the level of detail currently in the article.--nixie 06:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that we are dealing with a matter of taste. From my exploration of online commentary about Steyn's reaction to Crick's views on religion, I feel that there is a significant group of people who agree with Steyn. One of these people added the topic to the article. I can understand how other people would be bored by a description of Steyn's views and I agree that Steyn's views are not based on a professional psychological analysis of Crick. The usual Wikipedia system for dealing with this situation is for one editor to reduce the discussion of Steyn's reaction to Crick, leaving a terse sentence. After another month, another editor will remove that sentence for being insignificant clutter. An inconvenient POV will have been expunged! Ra! Ra! Ra! A month later someone else will add the topic back to the article and then we will get to play the whole game all over again. --JWSchmidt 19:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

New User Comments

The article already has Crick's own statement, "from then on I was a skeptic, an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism". If you can find a source in which Crick said, "I'm an atheist," then I think we should add that to the section Francis Crick#Views on Religion. --JWSchmidt 06:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The article DOES NOT have the statement you are talking about, JWSchmidt. If you are referring to the FOOTNOTE at the bottom (identifiable by the microscope function in Windows XP), this is not sufficient in my humble opinion. Why don't we add the statement (and the words proceeding it) into the religious beliefs section? Most normal people don't read footnotes. -205.188.116.136

Crick's statement about being an agnostic could certainly be quoted in the Views on Religion section. --JWSchmidt 04:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, I added a small passage about Cricks doubts about the existence of god and organized religion. I also stated that he was not an atheist. Could you check it and see if it sounds ok? Also, I can't figure out how to make the footnote command work. I just get a number '25' as an internal link. I know I am doing something wrong here. I am the user 205.188.116.136 (I wish the register feature was operating so I could have a username!)

• How to deal with numbered references: Wikipedia:Footnotes. --JWSchmidt 05:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From the U.S. National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health

If you go to profiles.nlm.nih.gov and then click on Biomedical Research and then click on Francis Crick, then click on Biographical, the 10th paragraph of the piece will show the following sentences:

"Indeed, throughout his scientific career he was driven by his conviction that the origins and processes of life, including human consciousness and free will, could be explained entirely in rational, scientific terms. In a series of lectures published under the title Of Molecules and Men (1966), he formulated his stance against what he called vitalism, the belief that life, evolution, and consciousness were generated and directed by a metaphysical force not subject to verification by experiment. An avowed atheist, Crick resigned as a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, after one year when the college decided to erect a chapel, which he considered an offensive anachronism."

Again, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and smells like a duck, then it is a duck. I really don't know how to make it more clear than that.

"Indeed, throughout his scientific career he was driven by his conviction that the origins and processes of life, including human consciousness and free will, could be explained entirely in rational, scientific terms." That doesn't mean he's an atheist. thx1138 09:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"I really don't know how to make it more clear than that." If Crick was "An avowed atheist" then it should be possible to cite a source in which Crick avowed that he was an atheist. The article currently contains a statement published by Crick in which he stated that he was an agnostic. --JWSchmidt 18:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

An agnostic is a type of atheist, it is impossible to half believe in god, but irrespective of that, if you check the policy pages on verifiability and neutrality you will see that it is not necessary to find a direct quote from Crick stating that he was an atheist. The fact that many believe he was an atheist is enough for inclusion, especially with a good source to back it up like the NIH. You do not have the authority to demand a more stringent test for inclusion than the official policies and guidelines. Alun 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Double Helix 1951 to 1953

1. Can anyone explain what this long sentence is really supposed to mean? Who were the (quote) 'supervisors of Watson and Crick'? Unless this is clarified, it is so meaningless it may as well be deleted!

"When it became clear to Wilkins and the supervisors of Watson and Crick that Franklin was abandoning her work on DNA for a new job and that Pauling was working on the structure of DNA, they were willing to share Franklin's data with Watson and Crick in the hope that they could find a good model of DNA before Pauling."

2. Can anyone explain what the following meaningless speculation is all about? "Many have speculated about what might have happened had Pauling been able to travel to Britain as planned in 1952. He might have seen some of the Wilkins/Gosling/Franklin X-ray diffraction data and it may have led him to a double helix model. As it was, his political activities caused his travel to be restricted by the U. S. government and he did not visit the UK." (Comment: and so what?)

Again, if it does not mean anything, it may as well be deleted? ("If If's and And's were pots and pans, then we would all be tinkers"!)

195.92.168.176 20:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (MP)

---

The original version of item #1 was "When it became clear to Wilkins and the supervisors of Watson and Crick that Franklin was abandoning her work on DNA for a new job and that Pauling was working on the structure of DNA, they were willing to share Franklin's data with Watson and Crick." At a later date " in the hope that they could find a good model of DNA before Pauling" was added.

This ambitious sentence was an attempt to characterize the forces that were at work just before Watson and Crick began their second round of model building (early 1953).

"supervisors of Watson and Crick" At the end of 1951, after Crick and Watson made their first model of DNA, they were told not to continue building molecular models of DNA. At the start of 1953 they were given permission to start making models again. These events and the identities of their supervisors are described in Watson's account of the events, Crick's account, and other accounts such as Judson's book The eighth day of creation.

The question becomes, why were Watson and Crick first told to not work on the structure of DNA (1951) and then later allowed to do so? Two reasons that have been discussed in the literature are:

1. it became known to those involved that Franklin was leaving King's College and her work on DNA
2. it became known that Pauling was working on the structure of DNA

These two changes in the state of affairs (1 and 2, above) were also background events that are relevant to additional questions. A second question can also be asked, why was Crick given access to the 1952 MRC report containing Franklin's unpublished data? A third question is, why was Wilkins willing to share Franklin's data with Watson and Crick?

The question arises: if Crick was busy working on his thesis and had been told not to work on DNA, what forces were at work that led to Crick participating in the discovery of the structure of DNA? The discussion of disruptions in Pauling's travel plans is relevant to the sense of urgency that some people in Cambridge were feeling in 1952 and early 1953. Pauling had previously won the race to the protein alpha helix model. By his own account, Watson was concerned that Pauling would solve the structure of DNA first. Had Pauling visited England as planned, Watson feared that Pauling might have seen some of Franklin's data, boosting Pauling's chances of constructing a correct model of DNA. In early 1953, mentioning Pauling's soon-to-be-published work on the structure of DNA was a major tool that Watson had for getting permission to again work with Crick on a DNA model. --JWSchmidt 13:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

John, thanks for such a long and erudite reply; however I would take issue with that awful phrase "the supervisors of Watson and Crick"; IF you know who they are, why not simply name them? There is however one 'famous' name conspicuous by its absence in the above explanation: Sir Lawrence Bragg of course - who always gets left out of the DNA story! (Much the same applies to Sir John Randall too.)

My personal theory of exactly what happened in the DNA era revolves around the roles played by Sir Lawrence Bragg and Sir John Randall; no one recognises them as leading personalities in what Robert Olby called "The Path to The Double Helix", but they were influential and competitive not only with each other, but also with Linus Pauling.

Sir Lawrence Bragg not only 'pulled the strings' at the Cavendish Laboratory, but he also played the major role in getting the formal recognition which Watson, Crick, and Wilkins deserved, ie the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. His relationship with Linus Pauling is well documented, but unfortunately there is little on file about his close relationship with his opposite number at King's College London, Sir (as he became in 1962) John Randall. Not only did the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge collectively beat Linus Pauling, but they also saw off their closest rivals in this country! Thanks only to Sir Lawrence Bragg, were the efforts of the King's College London team recognised through Wilkins' share of the Nobel Prize. Yes, life can be unfair to the likes of Rosalind Franklin, but the real tragedy of her life was early death through cancer and not her being 'robbed' of posthumous recognition in the Nobel Prize.

Just think how differently the D.N.A. story might have been if Randall had employed Crick, rather than Crick going to Cambridge under Sir Lawrence Bragg? To some extent, Watson and Crick as the "winners" in the race for the structure of D.N.A. determined how the history of the period has come to be written, especially through Watson's "The Double Helix" of course. Both of them (and others) have influenced the content of books written about them and their contempories - just read the long list of acknowledgements in books by De Chadarevian, Gribbin, Hunter, Judson, Maddox, McElheny, Olby, Ridley, Sayer etc.; this is not to critize these authors, but it is not until you read P.G. Abir-Am's "Noblesse Oblige: lives of molecular biologists" that you realise there are alternative views!

So where does this leave "Wikipedia"? You have the spectacle of silly people arguing over dubious points of detail in biographies - which remind me of the Victorian debate over 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' (or something like that); the arguments are interesting, but do they really contribute anything to the content? No, the medium through which these fruitless debates are conducted to some extent determine both what is said and how it is said, but at the end of the day, better information is to be found in books. (Where else is the "Wikipedia" information obtained from?)

That's all for the moment, John; do keep up the good work and next year, revise a lot of what you have written on "Wikipedia" in the light of Bob Olby's authorised biography of Francis Crick! 195.92.168.170 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (MP)

• I offer no defense of the "awful phrase" or the run-on sentences I tend to produce. Sometimes what I add to articles can best be viewed as a place-keeper for an issue that I think should be included. Through the Wikipedia collaboration process, such place-keepers risk a quick deletion, but under ideal conditions another editor will come by and pick up where I left off. Editors are supposed to [Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] and revise rather than delete.

• Bragg and Randall. I agree about the importance of these two in the DNA double helix discovery. I wonder what you think about the idea (mentioned by Alun/wobble) that Randall tried to cut Wilkins out of DNA work at King's College?

• I must here include the fact that this is not my point of view, but that of Wilkins in his account, and it was not an attempt to cut Wilkins out of DNA work at King's College. It was Wilkins's opinion on reflection (possibly he didn't feel it at the time) that Randall may have wanted to be closer to the X-ray work, and so he may have been trying to move Wilkins away from X-ray work (so not the whole project on DNA) and to concentrate his work on DNA on microscopy. Wilkins was speculating that this was the origin of Franklin's go back to your microscopes comment, that Franklin may have got the impression from Randall that Wilkins was going to finish working on X-rays. He uses a comment from Gosling about the initial meeting between Randall and Franklin (at which Gosling was present but Wilkins was not) that indicates that Wilkins's absence gave the impression that he was moving away from the X-ray work. Wilkins also concedes that he may have given Randall the impression that he himself wanted to stop working on X-rays It may well be that Randall's idea that I would move away from X-ray work was derived from remarks I had made to him. It is true that I had often said that I found more joy in microscopes and watching living cells, whereas X-ray study of static structures was rather a bore. But I certainly never said to Randall that I was going to give up the DNA X-ray work.. This information is available in Go back to your microscopes, chapter 6 of The Third MAn of the Double Helix by Maurice Wilkins.Alun 18:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• if Randall had employed Crick. Crick wrote that he met Wilkins before deciding to work in "the Strangeways". It is not clear to me what Wilkins and Crick knew about DNA at the time when they first met or what common interests they had. Crick's account seems to suggest that it may not have been until a year later that he became interested in -and knowledgeable about- DNA. When did Wikins become interested in DNA? As Crick described it in What mad pursuit, it was a stroke of luck that he first got to work under Perutz.

• how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (see) --JWSchmidt 16:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Martin, please refrain from describing other editors of Wikipedia as silly. You have reverted to insults once again. These reflect on you and your intollerance of different POVs more than anything else. Wikipedia is not here as your personal soap box, it should include all points of view. You seem to believe that all other POVs are held by silly people and that your POVs are the only one worthy of inclusion. If you cannot accept that other interpretations of events are equally as valid as yours then you really are in the wrong place. Alun 05:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It is futile, Alun, to argue with this person. We are all silly to JWSchmidt.

(Originally Pompousness) Retitled as "Frustration"

My advice on this would be to take the information gathered on this site with a grain of salt. Read the articles, and do your own research. But don't try to change the articles unless you want to get in an all-out war with someone. There really is no such thing as a totally neutral article on anything, and if it truly exists, I wouldn't want to read it anyway. As of the moment, the scientists listed in the articles of Wikipedia are icons to the academic world (to people such as JWSchmidt), and changing "their" article is tantamount to saying Jesus Christ was a Satanist to Jerry Falwell! Take it with a grain of salt and if you want to really get the inside scoop on a subject, just use Wikipedia as a starting point. As of the moment, Wikipedia is ruled by administrators such as JWSchmidt who I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT have a hard job of keeping "true vandalism" at bay. (see bottom commentary about my thoughts on this). And for that, I applaud JWSchmidt. He really does believe in this Wikipedia concept, and seems like a very reasonable person. And with that, I will shut my hole.

The above was posted by IP 207.200.116.7, which does not seem to have made any edits to the Francis Crick article. I suggest that the user from IP 207.200.116.7 register a user name. That is a good first step towards having other editors be able to deal with you in a more constructive and professional way.

As for, "He turned me in for supposed POV violations," I'm not sure what you mean by being "turned in for POV violations". I'm guessing, but this anonymous editor may be in some way related to some edits of the Francis Crick article by IP 12.207.83.81. (Sorry JWSchmidt, I guess that wasn't you who turned me in...)

As for, "made a complaint to someone named Zoe," I'm sure that I have never complained to User:Zoe about anything. (Sorry, JWSchmidt, I jumped to conclusions!)

On the general subject of Crick's views on religion, I am in full support of including in the Francis Crick article discussion of Crick's views and reactions from others about Crick's views. My goal is make sure that what is said in the Francis Crick article can be verified by way of cited sources. It might be constructive for you to explain on this talk page what you want to say about Crick and also provide a list of sources to support your proposed additions to the article.
--JWSchmidt 18:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

this has everything to do with this particular article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Wikipedia survives research test

John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

Open approach

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.

It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.

We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good 

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.

"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.

Writing style

Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.

The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.

"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.

"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."

Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.

The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.

Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.

Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles*.

195.92.168.174 13:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (MP) ps * and not before time of course!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosalind_Franklin"

especially for Alun/Wobble and John Schmidt

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-1961321,00.html

festive greetings to almost everyone! 195.92.168.165 14:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (mp)