ROSALIND FRANKLIN - The ‘so-called’ Dark Lady of DNA

“The mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness He grinds all.”

wrote Longfellow in his ‘Retribution’.

Petronius says it more succinctly:

"Vengeance may be delayed but it comes when least expected".

50 years ago, Rosalind Franklin, scientific genius, died at the age of 37. She was killed by a cancer brought on in the early 1950s when she conducted x-ray experiments on the nucleic acids.


Over 50 years ago, James Watson and Francis Crick published their brief but epoch-making paper Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids in the scientific journal Nature. In a flash, it created modern, molecular genetics: their model of the structure of DNA allowed us to understand the chemical mechanism of Mendel's law of inheritance.


They were soon graced with the Nobel Prize. They had won a race and, with it, immortality. But it was an ignoble, duplicitous victory, one that Watson gloated about some years later in his account of the discovery, 'The Double Helix'.



One reviewer of that solipsistic book wrote:

"This is a saddening book, for it reminds us of that which we would rather forget - that, in Homo sapiens, brilliance need not be coupled with compassion, nor ambition with concern." The reviewer went on to lament that its reader would learn that scientific endeavour was "a clawing climb up a slippery slope, impeded by the authority of fools ... with malice towards most and with charity for none".

Or the quote by an Australian scientist after the author had given a lecture there: "If that's Watson, then Crick really must have a brain."


Rosalind Franklin was one of several brilliant scientists without whom Watson and Crick could never have succeeded. She was as much their antithesis as it was possible to be: but its also admirably clear that Franklin possessed tremendous personal and professional integrity, great laboratory diligence and skill, intellectual rigour and distaste for personal aggrandisement or scientific overstatement.


What is also apparent is how few of Franklin's English (as opposed to European) male colleagues recognised those qualities: she had the effrontery - as a woman - to match or exceed the quality of their work. To add to her 'dark lady' persona, consider Franklin's affluent Jewish family background with its important financial, political and publishing involvements which adds even more interest to Franklin's complex character: Jewish, female and a thoroughgoing European whose happiest scientific years were spent in Paris.


It is true that this woman - formidably intelligent, emotionally shackled - had a tendency to be 'prickly'. We've all met people like that, except that in Franklin's case the sense of self-worth was wholly warranted. In any case, nothing in her personality remotely justified the way she was plagiarised and calumniated.


The first to have treated her badly was the eminent Professor John Randall, of King's College, London, who, in enticing her back from France to work with his team in London, clearly misled her about what her working relationship would be with the austere New Zealander Maurice Wilkins. DNA research was his field, and new to Franklin - Wilkins therefore clearly saw her as intruding on his territory and (falsely so) as his subordinate. Wilkins soon drew solace from his developing association with fellow researchers Crick and Watson, and was none too scrupulous in divulging her experimental results to them, information which he acquired through a shared PhD student.


Another fly in this distasteful ointment was the much-liked Austrian refugee Max Perutz, another future Nobel laureate and member of Lawrence Bragg's renowned Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, which was the real rival to King's College.


As a member of a team of experts assembled by the Medical Research Council to assess work being undertaken at King's, Perutz obtained and divulged to Watson and Crick privileged and unpublished results - principally Franklin's - which gave them the crucial quantitative information they needed to build their physical model of the DNA molecule.

Perutz later tried hard to excuse himself - "I was inexperienced and casual in administrative matters" - but it is an inescapable fact that he was a party to the misappropriation of Franklin's material.


The real villains, however, were Watson and Crick. Their legendary paper in Nature contained a blatant and self-serving lie:

"We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of ... Dr R.E. Franklin ..."

Nothing, then or now, can justify that statement: they obtained her very specific data in an underhand way. These days I'd call it intellectual theft. Beside this, Watson's sneers and disparagement of Franklin as a scientist and a woman in The Double Helix are as nothing.


What's needed is an inspiring rehabilitation of the besmirched reputation of an extraordinary scientist (based on Watson's implausibly febrile account of his fear of her physical violence - she was half his size - for example, or his ridicule of her appearance and dress sense), nor merely a gripping reminder of an earlier scientific era (when, as fellow members of the Athenaeum Club in London, it was possible for Randall and the editor of Nature to effect a gentlemen's agreement to have King's research work appear in what was going to be a momentous occasion, the publication of the legendary April 25 issue).


It is also a clarion call for reform of the Nobel Prize rules, with their limits on the numbers of winners allowed for each prize (in this case, that it be shared between no more than three recipients) and the disqualification of the dead (Rosalind Franklin died, aged only 37, in 1958. Watson, Crick and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize in 1962).


Even more, we need to remember that scientists are not saints, that they will fight for success and fame, as well as money. They will at times denigrate their rivals and, alas, they will sometimes lie.


The last word should be with the pioneer crystallographer J.D. Bernal, Franklin's obituarist in The Times after her death from ovarian cancer: "Her life is an example of single-minded devotion to scientific research."


Now, may the Mills of God grind forth justice.


Resources:
NOVA - PBS

Race for The Double Helix (Life Story)- BBC - from C. Zanta
Who Discovered DNA? by Heather Kane

Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA by Brenda Maddox reviewed by Robin Marantz Henig in The New York Times

Neocon Babe Magnet and Loan Shark Mafia Don



It is often said some women are drawn to men of power. Henry Kissinger and Bubba Clinton come to mind. "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac," Doctor K. reportedly said. Or maybe mass murder is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Kissinger and Clinton certainly rank high in the rogue's gallery of war criminals, giving a new spin to the term "lady-killer."


Enter Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, founder of the neocon "think tank" Project for the New American Century, former consultant for the death merchant Northrop Grumman, and now head of the neolib loan shark operation, the World Bank.

Reports indicate that Dr. Clare Selgin Wolfowitz separated from Paul because he had an affair with a woman at Johns Hopkins University," Jackson Thoreau quotes consultant Barry O'Connell, a former Republican and now conservative Democrat, as saying. "Paul Wolfowitz was Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University. During that time he used his position to prey on woman under his authority. When the scandal broke, he and his wife Clare separated but appear not to have divorced. At this point it is unclear if the relationship with Shaha Ali Riza predates the scandalous affair at SAIS. One may wonder if Wolfowitz has trouble keeping track of his women, but I have it on good authority that he uses his protective detail of federal officers to manage his affairs and shuttle him from assignation to assignation.

Shaha Riza, supposedly a feminist, is the acting manager for External Relations and Outreach for the Middle East and North Africa Region at the World Bank. Sheesh, talk about sex in the office supply closet.

"Wolfowitz, a married father of three, is said to be so blinded by his relationship with Riza, that influential members of the World Bank believe she played a key role in influencing the Pentagon official to launch the 2003 Iraq war. As his trusted confident, she is said to be one of most influential Muslims in Washington," reports the Arab News site. "After [Riza and Turkish Cypriot Bulent Ali Riza, now divorced] moved to America, Riza worked for the Iraq Foundation, set up by expatriates to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. She subsequently joined the National Endowment for Democracy, created by President Ronald Reagan to promote American ideals."

In other words, the woman is a full-blown neocon. The Iraq Foundation, based in Washington, is funded by the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA," Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, is quoted by the historian William Blum as saying.


You'd think Wolfowitz's relationship with Riza would get in the way of his newly enshrined duties as mafia don at the World Bank. However, if we know anything about the neocons, it is that they get away with bloody murder -- literarily, as Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate -- and are strikingly above reproach.


In a hilarious article by Ward Harkavy in the Village Voice -- where Harkavy makes the obvious comparison between the World According to Bush and Superman's Bizarro World (I call this Bushzarro world) -- we learn that the neoconized World Bank will likely hand out grants rather then make loans. "Staff at the World Bank fear Mr. Wolfowitz might push through longstanding U.S. proposals to make it an organization that gives out grants rather than loans," Harkavy quotes Julian Borger of the Guardian as predicting. "It's much easier to politicize grants," an official told Borger.

You want to fight terrorism? Then fight suffering. But under Wolfowitz, look for more World Bank money to be poured into, say, Iraq projects brainstormed by the Bush regime's bidness pals. Not just in Iraq, but anywhere there's oil and other riches to be plundered," observes Harkavy.

Anandi Pandya of the Guardian has a bit different take.

The Bank would now lend money only to states willing to be clients of the US and agree to privatize their non-existent social security systems, schools and water supply, and only big oil companies will benefit," writes Pandya. "Being tough may require skills other than the traditional aid and debt relief approach to development, and that may make Wolfowitz dangerous for the status quo. But the status quo is not the only way to remove poverty.

Of course, bombing the bejesus out of third world nations does not "remove poverty" either.


Out here in the hinterlands, watching all of this unfold, one has to shrug with disbelief. Before the Shaha Riza allegation hit the blogosphere in full force and people began making comments about the unlikelihood of Wolfie doubling as a babe magnet, we were subjected to other inanities, such as the rather clownish U2 front man Bono pulling for the Wolf as loan shark mafia don.

Wolfowitz adviser Kevin Kellems told Reuters the deputy U.S. defense secretary initiated lengthy conversations with the lead singer of the rock group U2, whose name had been bandied about for the World Bank presidency," reported CNN Money soon afterwards. "An endorsement by Bono, who campaigns extensively for African aid and debt relief, could defuse some of the criticism of Wolfowitz.

Bono, who rubbed elbows with Bush because he bought into Dubya's promise to end AIDS in our lifetime, particularly in Africa, seems to have amnesia when it comes to the crimes of Wolfowitz and Bush -- as evidenced by 100,000 or more dead Iraqis. For some reason Bizarro Bono did not have the urge to take a shower after walking and talking with Bush the Junior, a man who expressed contempt for poor people from an early age onward, probably soon after he tired of blowing up frogs with firecrackers.


One is struck with amazement how easily people roll over and play dead - in the above case, Europeans who apparently don't have problems with Wolfowitz managing the World Bank, even after all the nasty things the neocons have said about "old" Europeans. Delusional thinking is the order of the day as Bushzarro world becomes the international norm, at least for the ruling elite.

The World Bank's incoming president, Paul Wolfowitz, declared debt relief for the poorest nations to be one of the most pressing issues when he assumes office in June after he was unanimously approved as the new chief of the organization.

Reports Reuters. War is peace, occupation and premeditated murder democracy, and loan sharking is compassion for the poor of the "htrae" (or earth in Bizzaro world). If you believe any of this, I have a bridge to sell you in the Kalahari.


Roll over George Orwell.

We salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove themselves from it. Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously.
These awards are give to people who die in stupid ways and therefore help evolution by not having children. The award is also given to people who become sterile through their own stupidity (see entry 11, below).


I know this isn't really in keeping with this site, but I'm a huge fan of the Darwin Awards and these are the 16 funniest of 2005.


Stories Ranked by Vote

I'm going to try to authenticate these myself and post one eveery couple of days as I find them. Here's the first:


Failed Frame-Up
2005 Darwin Award Nominee

Confirmed True by Darwin


(19 March 2005, Michigan) "Unusual" and "complicated" is how the Missaukee County sheriff described the mysterious death of 19-year-old Christopher.
After an evening spent imbibing large quantities of alcohol, Christopher noticed a shortage in his liquor supply that could not be attributed to his own depredations. He concluded that his neighbor had stolen a bottle of booze! He menaced the neighbor with a knife, to no avail, whereupon he retired to his own apartment to brood about revenge.

Finally he figured out the perfect way to get back at that conniving bottle-thief: Christopher would stab himself and blame the neighbor!
A witness saw Christopher enter the bathroom as he called 911. He calmly informed the dispatcher that his neighbor had stabbed him. Witnesses said he looked fine when he emerged from the bathroom, but a moment later gouts of blood spewed from his chest. Suddenly he began screaming begging for help. The dispatcher heard a woman shout, "Why did you do this?" He collapsed at the door of his apartment.

Deputies arrived quickly, but Christopher had already bled to death from self-inflicted stab wounds to his chest. An autopsy determined that he had stabbed himself in the chest twice. The first wound apparently didn't look dangerous enough, so he tried again. The second time, the knife plunged into his left ventricle. This wound was plenty dangerous: he had only two minutes to live.
Christopher died in vain. His deathbed accusation of his neighbor failed, as a witness confirmed that the neighbor was not in the apartment. All Christopher got for revenge was an accidental death sentence.


What The Papers Said. The Cadillac News

LAKE CITY - A 19-year-old Lake City man who died early Saturday inflicted two stab wounds to his own chest, police say.
Christopher Seward had been consuming large amounts of alcohol Friday night and early Saturday prior to his death, which police are ruling as accidental at this time.
He stabbed himself twice in the chest, the second wound pierced the left ventricle, while talking to Missaukee County Central Dispatch. The knife was found by police in Seward's kitchen.
Missaukee County Sheriff James Bosscher said the incident is "very unusual" and "complicated" but the evidence at the scene verifies an accidental death scenario.
Police believe Seward's actions were an attempt to get a neighbor in trouble.
Seward and the neighbor had an argument over the whereabouts of a bottle of alcohol during which Seward confronted the man with a knife, Bosscher said. Both men returned to their separate apartments.
Seward then called 911 at 1:22 a.m. from his apartment and said the neighbor had stabbed him. During the call, the dispatcher said Seward was relatively calm but as the conversation continues, he began screaming and asking for immediate help. Seward's girlfriend, Jennifer Bittell, who lives at the residence, could be heard screaming in the background and asking Seward why he had done this.
In a statement, Bittell told police Seward was talking to dispatch in the bathroom and then went into the kitchen. She did not observe any blood or stab wounds at that time and there was no one else in the apartment.
When Seward began to scream, she saw him bleeding profusely from the chest area as he ran to the door of the apartment.
Missaukee County deputies, who were first on the scene, attempted to revive Seward. Bosscher said the second wound caused Seward's death in less than two minutes.
The autopsy showed that the wounds were consistent with being self-inflicted. The neighbor has agreed to take a polygraph test, Bosscher said, and it is being scheduled for the near future. Witnesses at the scene said the neighbor was present in his own apartment during the stabbing.
Both Seward and the neighbor had "dealings with the criminal justice system," Bosscher said.
The case remains open until the department receives a few more tests and the polygraph is complete, Bosscher said.

news@cadillacnews.com

Is there more than one God?


This one depends on who you talk to. Most religions, Christianity included, believe in ‘The One God’ who created the Heavens and the Earth. However, the translators – who have a spiritual link with all things divine (if you think about it, are we really reading the word of God or the word of a translator) can change biblical text to suit their mood on the day. According to the original writing of Genesis, God was, in fact The Gods:

In the beginning God, created the heavens and the earth

Genesis 1:1


The word used for God in Genesis 1:1 is "Elohim," which is a form of the word "El." In the context of Genesis 1:1, there can certainly be no doubt as to who is doing the creating. In the Hebrew language the "im" ending definitely means plurality. Therefore, "Elohim" is the plural from of the word "El."


So there you have it, in the words of the original Hebrew text writers, “The Gods created Heaven and Earth”


Prove me wrong…..please!!!

Reading a humorous article about David Hasselhoff's role in the End of the Cold War on Love The Hoff, I was reminded of my personal feelings back in those turbulent and exciting times; times of hope and uncertainty - the third and final major change of the 20th Century.


Lets open with a short quiz:
1. Who was president of the USA through much of the 1980s?

2. Who was the Pope?
3. Who was the leader of the Soviet Union?

Recent statistics suggest that 85% of Americans correctly guessed Reagan as President; 55% got John-Paul II as Pope but only 6% said Gorbachev for #3 - the chances are that if you're reading this you're one of the 6% - or not American.


One of the most famous lines of the late 20th Century came in 1987 when Ronald Reagan stood at the infamous Berlin wall and said, "Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"


Many American high school and college students believe, because their history books tell them, that when Reagan said, "Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", he set the tone for the destruction of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The simplistic view is that this was a seminal moment in history and, as the wall crumbled, so did the 'Evil Empire' - The Star Wars term adopted by Regan to describe the Soviet Block when he came to power in 1980. However, I believe this to ba amyth and am prepared to argue that the Soviet Union was going to fall with or without Reagan and indeed, that the president played a dangerous and unnecessary game of chess with the Russians, using World Stability as a pawn.


When Reagan made that famous comment, he was aware, or rather his analysts were aware, that this was precisely what Gorbachev had set out to do. As president of the Soviet Union he introduced perestroika and glasnost: openness and candor a few years earlier and was working to democratize the system from within. Reagan's irresponsible attitude in attempting to bully the Soviet leader almost lead to an ‘Old Guard’ backlash within the Kremlin that would have had far more dangerous consequences for the world than Reagan's stance justified.


It was going to happen anyway.
Gorbachev, on coming to power was increasingly aware of the corruption and strength of the Soviet armed forces. Indeed, the army was, to all intents and purposes, more influential than the government itself. This was the most important item on his political agenda and he realized early on that the best way to address the issue of military might was by gradually empowering the general populous. This was capitalized on by Reagan and others.

Critics have often sited Gorbachev’s bloody suppression of the Lithuanian revolution and others as examples of his ruthlessness and this point is well noted, even by his supporters, however, taken in the context of the political climate of the time, if he’d allowed the Baltic states to break away when they wanted to, he risked inciting a military coup that would almost certainly put the clocks back at least a decade.


However, history is written by the victors and Gorbachev’s role will always be relegated to the footnotes as long as the United States, and in particular the US press is allowed to dictate the terms.

There is an East European joke from the late 1980s that goes:
Reagan and Gorbachev had a race over 100m – Gorbachev won. The Time Magazine Headline the following day:
Reagan Takes Silver, Gorbachev Last-But-One