Politics and Religion

Re: Yea, dem no bell prise whiners.... real pieces of work they are.
2sense 1387 reads
posted

Unusual for me to agree with BSD on virtually anything, but I seem to be in his camp (sort of) with regard to Rosalind Franklin not being awarded a Nobel prize, along with Crick, Watson & Wilkins.

Unfortunately, Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously. There were only two posthumous awards before 1974: Dag Hammarskjöld (Nobel Peace Prize 1961) and Erik Axel Karlfeldt (Nobel Prize in Literature 1931). In 1974, this "no posthumous award" practice was codified in the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation.

Rosalind Franklin died in 1958, and the 1962 Nobel prize was shared by Crick, Watson & Wilkins. As a practical matter, the Nobel Committee did not break with tradition to share this honor with Franklin.

Having said this, I agree with BSD that the experimental diffraction work of Franklin was fundamental to the Watson & Crick double-helix model. As detailed in the historically-accurate Nova program "Secret of Photo 51", there would have been no Watson & Crick model without Franklin's experimental findings. I agree
it would have been a scandal not to have shared out the Nobel prize to Franklin, if she had lived until 1962. But such was not to be.

At any rate, the details of this story are well known in the X-ray diffraction community, and have received wider recognition with Franklin's reputation undergoing a well-deserved renaissance these days (see below URL).

And as any experimentalist will tell you, models come and go, but there is nothing more important than good data..and Franklin's diffraction photographs were of the highest quality.  

-- Modified on 10/19/2007 5:49:06 PM

-- Modified on 10/19/2007 5:51:06 PM


First the give Al Gore one, now they give a prize in Economics to some guys who devised how government can best interfere in the Free Market.  

But the theory does more than that . . .

Looking at recent History of recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize most rational thinkers realize it doesn't mean much.. Henry Kissinger especially comes to mind ..Did he have to give his back???


Till now, the Prize has been going overwhelmingly to free-market economists.

The real question is are they good for anyone?  There are clearly some who deserve the prize - but for the most part.... some of the prizes are granted for political reasons.....

Very few individuals win a Nobel prize in more that one category... my personal fave...?  Marie Curie. 1903 - physics and 1911 Chemistry....

John Bardeen was one of a handful to win a prize twice (his was in physics and he probably should have won it a 3rd time... but there is that political statement thingy that goes into the no bell thinking)..... but notably won it with Shockley - of eugenics fame! Bwahahahaha  - who says academics don't have a sense of humor....

Now we get to the good doctor Watson... ya know - of Watson and Crick fame... for the DNA is the carrier of the gene... (oh, and that other fellow Wilkins...)... and the frickin gross oversight of the NO Fucking bell committee of Rosalind Franklin.  it was Franklin's actual data that "the boys" used to build their model... (well it is kinda like building a model airplane - right?)  (read the 8th Day of Creation - a chilling tale of "academics"!)

Yea Z.....   I really look to the no bell committee to tell me who the heroes of the world are.... each year I sit around - and wait.... just to see how really fucked they will be.  My heros... the cops and firemen who ran into the trade towers to save lives... and thus ended their own.


Not that they weren't great heroes mind you. Extreme heroes. Deserving all kinds of posthumous awards.

As for Watson, if his face looks that bad, I'm thinking his brain is probably half-dead now, too. I know he has been saying largely the same thing for years.

It's interesting to me that the MURDOCH OWNED Sunday Times chose to interview Watson and ask him an obviously trapped question (has he been making news a lot lately?) right after the prize was awarded to these economists. It's not a coincidence.  

Conservative bloggers will pick up everything you've said-- except without previous interest. At least none when the Prize always went to free market economists for years.

You yourself are not saying anything about this particular award, I know. But it sounds like the very meme you've been given is going to spread among conservative bloggers this week, without your previous premeditation.

No Bell???

no matter what you may think of an individual award.

With respect to Watson, as I say - read the Eighth Day of Creation - and you will find that this promoted icon of scientific purity and virtue has neither.  Most who've bumped shoulders with him - will acknowledge the accomplishment, but will also say that he stood on the shoulders of unacknowledged (at least by him) colleagues (such as R. Franklyn)...  

Trapped?  Watson was trapped?  this is something that he believes passionately - and I've heard this from his own mouth in the 80's.... Please!

But then again, by your logic Shockley was trapped as well I suppose...  (I notice your complete silence on Shockley).  

and Meme?  I've been given?  At least I come to my own conclusions, based upon what I've either done, read or witnessed first hand.  And in this instance of academic dishonesty - it is mostly witnessed and read...  Certainly not done.

So, as I said, await with baited breath the word from Stockholm as to which guy or gal is most deserving of our respect?   sorry, no can do.

2sense1388 reads

Unusual for me to agree with BSD on virtually anything, but I seem to be in his camp (sort of) with regard to Rosalind Franklin not being awarded a Nobel prize, along with Crick, Watson & Wilkins.

Unfortunately, Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously. There were only two posthumous awards before 1974: Dag Hammarskjöld (Nobel Peace Prize 1961) and Erik Axel Karlfeldt (Nobel Prize in Literature 1931). In 1974, this "no posthumous award" practice was codified in the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation.

Rosalind Franklin died in 1958, and the 1962 Nobel prize was shared by Crick, Watson & Wilkins. As a practical matter, the Nobel Committee did not break with tradition to share this honor with Franklin.

Having said this, I agree with BSD that the experimental diffraction work of Franklin was fundamental to the Watson & Crick double-helix model. As detailed in the historically-accurate Nova program "Secret of Photo 51", there would have been no Watson & Crick model without Franklin's experimental findings. I agree
it would have been a scandal not to have shared out the Nobel prize to Franklin, if she had lived until 1962. But such was not to be.

At any rate, the details of this story are well known in the X-ray diffraction community, and have received wider recognition with Franklin's reputation undergoing a well-deserved renaissance these days (see below URL).

And as any experimentalist will tell you, models come and go, but there is nothing more important than good data..and Franklin's diffraction photographs were of the highest quality.  

-- Modified on 10/19/2007 5:49:06 PM

-- Modified on 10/19/2007 5:51:06 PM

Register Now!