The ones that got away

The ones that got away

Robert Matthews

Last Updated: May 30. 2009 9:02PM UAE / May 30. 2009 5:02PM GMT

Scientists who miss big discoveries often have nowhere to hide, however, with even Nobel Prize winners being made to look flat-footed when nature finally gives up her secrets.

Take the case of one of the biggest scientific stories of the last century, the discovery of the structure of the genetic molecule, DNA. As every schoolchild knows, DNA comes in the form of two intertwined spirals – the famous “double helix” – identified by the scientific world’s answer to Woodward and Bernstein, the Cambridge University biochemists James Watson and Francis Crick.

Watson and Crick were always convinced that the key to understanding genetics lay with the structure of DNA. They were also pretty sure it was made up of a pair of interlocking strings of molecules – not least because organisms tend to do things in pairs. Their hunch was proved right by detailed X-rays of DNA, and they went on to win a Nobel Prize for their work – leaving another Nobel Prize winner nursing his dented pride.

If anyone could have beaten Watson and Crick to the greatest discovery in 20th-century biology, it was Linus Pauling of the California Institute of Technology, the world’s leading expert on how atoms stick together in molecules. Just a few years before Watson and Crick’s breakthrough, Pauling had solved the long-standing mystery of how proteins are put together. Using X-ray data, he had shown that these complex biomolecules contain spiral-like structures. It was a discovery which earned Pauling his own Nobel Prize – and led him to take on the challenge of DNA.

Watson and Crick were understandably alarmed by Pauling’s entry into the race, and held their breath when he revealed his own theory about DNA’s structure. To their astonishment, Pauling believed it consisted of three helix-like spirals wrapped round each other. They suspected he had made a mistake – and confirmed it by consulting the most authoritative textbook on the subject: General Chemistry, written by Pauling himself. Incredibly, it turned out that Pauling had made a major blunder over chemical bonds – the very subject on which he was the undisputed expert.

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090531/FRONTIERS/705309902/1036

My understanding is that she actually made the discovery and W&C stole it from her. She thence died without recognition.

She didn't know they had been given the data - and she admitted later that she couldn't have put the pieces together with the information she had. She got the shaft, but they didn't steal it.

W&C did acknowledge her contribution (though I think they downplayed it) and since she died before the Nobel committee awarded the prize, she wasn't acknowledged by that group (which they could have done, even if they don't award the prize posthumously).

I remembered a movie about that from a few years back. I googled it, and I found it:

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Double-Helix-VHS-Pigott-Smith/dp/6303247911



Had Dr. Franklin had a word processor rather than to write long hand...

Franklin was a postdoc. Her boss, who had legal and ethical control of the data, collaborated with Watson and Crick freely. They recognized Franklin, and her PI, in their paper. She died before the Nobel was given, which only go to the living. But she didn't die unrecognized.

Like he's getting his info from wikipedia or something.

"Their hunch was proved right by detailed X-rays of DNA, and they went on to win a Nobel Prize for their work – leaving another Nobel Prize winner nursing his dented pride."

Actually, Watson and Crick were way off until they saw the X-ray data. It didn't prove any of their hunches. Secondly, Pauling's the only guy with two unshared Nobel prize, I don't think Watson and Crick getting honored dented his pride in any way.

"Just a few years before Watson and Crick’s breakthrough, Pauling had solved the long-standing mystery of how proteins are put together. Using X-ray data, he had shown that these complex biomolecules contain spiral-like structures. It was a discovery which earned Pauling his own Nobel Prize – and led him to take on the challenge of DNA."

Pauling et Al. figured out alpha helices and beta sheets, secondary structure. Not exactly "how proteins are put together." Pauling got the Nobel for the his studies on the nature of the chemical bond, his protein work only a minor player.

"Watson and Crick were understandably alarmed by Pauling’s entry into the race, and held their breath when he revealed his own theory about DNA’s structure. To their astonishment, Pauling believed it consisted of three helix-like spirals wrapped round each other. They suspected he had made a mistake – and confirmed it by consulting the most authoritative textbook on the subject: General Chemistry, written by Pauling himself. Incredibly, it turned out that Pauling had made a major blunder over chemical bonds – the very subject on which he was the undisputed expert."

Watson and Crick themselves had been working on a triple helix model before seeing the X-ray data. Both models were literally based on models, sticks and balls. There was nothing theoretically wrong either their model or Pauling's, except for the fact that they were wrong. The issue the author this article seems to be stuck on is the deprotonation of the phosphate backbone. In aqueous solution at physiological pH, the model is untenable, but that's only an issue if you make assumptions about the solvation state of DNA. Like the author said, Pauling wrote the book.