Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Taliesan
Perhaps this is something that follows necessarily from the known facts but which cannot, like the rest, be so definitively documented. Could Barfield, by this time, just have been a dope?

On a somewhat related note, I just got a postcard advertising a talk here at the U of Chicago by James Watson (the guy who ripped off Rosalind Franklin) who is going to talk about his new book: Honest Jim. Ha ha ha. I laughed my butt off over that one. I'd really be interested to know what the relationship was between young Watson and old Maurice Wilkins, both of whom were apparently petrified by Rosalind. It was apparent that Wilkins, who was not Rosalind's boss, was feeding results from her work to Watson. As far as Watson's claim that his jaw dropped when he saw her X-ray diffraction of DNA and realized its significance, he didn't have any such reaction when he had attended one off her presentations many months earlier and she showed the same "photo" and discussed its significance in terms of a helical structure for DNA. She also scooped Watson and Crick on the idea that the backbone of the molecule was external, something that Watson had strongly protested. Honest Jim! What a joke.
36 posted on 12/31/2003 7:37:25 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: aruanan
I have to admit ignorance of this whole affair. I've always been taught Watson and Crick, helical structure of the DNA molecule. You mean they pilfered it?
37 posted on 12/31/2003 7:44:48 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson