The Times purveys some science myths 4 Jun 2009 This is just bad reporting and scholarship. Probably done to fill some space in a hurry or something. Hannah Devlin is claiming that there are several cases of scientific plagiarism including, you guessed, Darwin from Wallace. They claim Copernicus stole from a Persian astronomer, al-Tusi, becuase the same diagrams were used; but the same diagrams would be used if the same ideas in the same (post-Euclidean) tradition were being expressed. There is a cottage industry of claiming that this or that westerner stole from some Arabic source, but so far I haven’t seen the slightest reliable and convincing evidence. And you have to worry when “right after Copernicus, Galielo came along”… 70 years later later. The Leibniz-Newton controversy is not a plagiarism case but a priority case that descended into invective and accusation. Only a few non-professional historians argue that Darwin stole from Wallace. He may have modified his ideas somewhat when he read Wallace’s letter, but the case is very weak for general plagiarism. The Einstein-Hilbert thing is new to me – I have read a few Einstein biographies and not heard it before. Again, it smacks of “let’s deflate the groundbreaker”. And the thing about Crick and Watson stealing a Nobel from Rosalind Franklin overlooks the small fact that Franklin had died of cancer before the Nobels were considered, and they do not award posthumously. This is well understood as a case of a bit of dodgy access, arguably within the rules, to someone else’s work in an affiliated lab. Oh well, I am sure that the various advocates will pipe up… History Philosophy Science
Epistemology The use of history by philosophers 28 Aug 2009 So I was doing my usual schtick of criticising the use of history by a philosopher (in this case a French philosopher named Canguilhem), when I was asked the following question by one Lenny Moss: “So who do you think uses history properly in philosophy?” I flapped my mouth a… Read More
Journalism Amis to Hitchens on agnosticism 25 Apr 201125 Apr 2011 My dear Hitch: there has been much wild talk, among the believers, about your impending embrace of the sacred and the supernatural. This is of course insane. But I still hope to convert you, by sheer force of zealotry, to my own persuasion: agnosticism. In your seminal book, God Is… Read More
The Darwin-screwed-Wallace meme comes up in Nino Ricci’s The Origin of Species (which is yet another data point for the thesis that CanLit is a wasteland of tedious navel-gazing whose only use is as a trial of passage for Canadian schoolchildren). He plays it as a class struggle thing: respectable, monied Darwin vs. the unknown pauper Wallace. Well, it is only a work of fiction.
The Watson and Crick thing seems the most likely to actually go down in history as being the result of skullduggery. Would they have come up with their paper without looking at someone else’s work? In a pig’s eye they would. Would those someone else’s have figured out the structure on their own, given enough time? Quite possibly. “The potential of this structure for self-replication has not escaped our attention”. Smug gits…
John, you are of course correct in the fact that the article is crap and incredibly badly researched and written but you are wrong on several points. There is indeed ‘proof’ that Copernicus ‘borrowed’ from Arabic sources and that proof is in the form of a diagram, however this proof was not discovered by Jim Al-Khalili but has been known for a long time by the Copernicus experts. There is a diagram in De Revolutionibus that is an exact copy of a diagram in a Latin translation of an Arabic manuscript that is, I think, in a library in Krakau. The important point is that one letter in Copernicus’ diagram doesn’t fit, it’s completely out of sequence and obviously strange, the same lettering peculiarity occurs in the translation of the Arabic manuscript and can be rationally explained by a translation mistake from the Arabic. This bizarre coincidence would seem to suggest very strongly that Copernicus copied his diagram from the Arabic one. You can find the details in Swerdlow and Neugebauer, Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus. It should how ever be noted that ‘borrowing’ from other authors without quoting your sources was common practice in Renaissance science and it is probably not correct to call it plagiarism. The following paragraph in the article is however complete crap as Copernicus only borrowed mathematical mechanisms to explain planetary motions and not the concept of heliocentrism as Arabic astronomy was strictly geocentric. The question of Copernicus’ borrowing became completely academic in 1609 when Kepler threw all of the mathematical mechanisms used by Copernicus, the Arabic astronomers and anybody else who had contributed into the rubbish bin and replaced them with simple elliptical orbits 😉 The lady is however right about Newton and Leibniz, the Royal Society’s investigation of the claims as to who should be credited with the invention of the calculus did indeed find Leibniz guilty of plagiarism and he was indeed innocent as she states. The claim that Einstein borrowed gravitational field equations from the work of David Hilbert is genuine and apparently has some substance but I personally don’t know enough about the situation to be able to judge it. You are of course the expert on Darwin and Wallace and I bow to you superior knowledge. The Franklin vs. Watson and Crick saga will run and run and doesn’t get any better for the telling.
The Leibniz/Newton thing was not, however, a matter of plagiarism. The accusations were made, but neither Leibniz nor Newton actually plagiarised from each other. I take your point about Copernicus.
Einstein and Hilbert wrote each other several letters between 1905 and 1915. But the earlier correspondence has been lost. Hilbert also died in 1943 and afaik always remained on friendly terms with Einstein. And Einstein had an article with a lot of “physical intuition” and Hilbert “merely” some equations. Lastly the action is still called the einstein-hilbert action. But a lot has been written about this, you can look it up yourself.
The treatment of Rosalind Franklin (by W&C and continued right here to this day) is the worst case of sexism in science I have come across. The writer above is correct – W & C would have been nowhere without her data, which was repeatedly accessed without her knowledge over a period of two years, yet even Crick admits she would likely have come up with the answer herself eventually. What is so difficult about giving credit where credit is due? It’s not about the Nobel. And why is it so hard for people to admit Watson is an asshole?
Sorry for awkward writing and grammar above I was in a bit of a rush…but thinking about it this afternoon, it really makes me mad that people are so lazy about working out the Watson/Crick/Franklin issue once and for all. What is the big deal? There seems to be a resistance to giving Franklin credit for her many key contributions (she was not some x-ray technician or “assistant”). No one is even denying it. Not even W & C. There’s no controversy! It shouldn’t have to be this big, emotional issue. It’s especially hard to swallow when it’s impossible to escape constant references to “Watson and Crick’s discovery.” “This is well understood as a case of a bit of dodgy access, arguably within the rules, to someone else’s work in an affiliated lab.” Really? Can you even imagine such a situation today, considered ethical, and getting published?
There is no doubt that Franklin was denied appropriate public recognition, and even less that Watson is a misogynistic dick. But at the time, shared information (by Maurice Wilkins, her lab head, not taken without permission by either Crick or Watson) was routinely done. And yes, I can conceive it being done today – I worked in a medical research institute for ten years, and the stories I could tell you… But the fact is that she had died by the time of the Nobel, and their rules do not permit posthumous awards (or else all their awards would be posthumous, since that’s when the import of a scientist’s work really becomes clear!). As to Watson’s character, I was peripherally involved in the making of the DNA TV series of 2002. Watson was the overall advisor, and he refused to permit one of the century’s most significant events, the discovery of PCR, to even be mentioned because he hates Kary Mullis. Also, more stories I could tell you about how he treats his subordinates and associates. Trust me, I’m not about defending the man. That said, he did some amazing work in ’52, and Franklin would not have got there in time to beat the others who were working on the matter. She was not, it seems, all that ambitious or competitive, and in an arms race like that, you need to be.
“That said, he did some amazing work in ‘52, and Franklin would not have got there in time to beat the others who were working on the matter. She was not, it seems, all that ambitious or competitive, and in an arms race like that, you need to be.” Who else was close? Watson was needlessly worried. Franklin was simply working steadily and carefully as usual. She may have been less aware of the “arms race” but she was extremely ambitious and went on to many great achievements. Watson writes of getting impatient with waiting around for her latest results. She was getting all the work done. And it is far beyond anything her lab head (who was not her supervisor) did, and it was without her knowledge. Have you investigated the issue in detail? It sounds like you have not. And really, you know of people who have published based completely on another lab’s results, without telling them? Exactly how did that work? How did they show support for their ideas? And you think that is fine???? ps. we all know about the Nobel – no one cares about that I didn’t even see it mentioned in the Times piece. But the idea that she was dead, didn’t get considered for the prize so now she should never be credited is ridiculous.
You seem to think it is normal behavior and to imply that it was Franklin’s own fault for being unambitious or something. Okay I give up- what was your point?
Isabel wrote: But the idea that she was dead, didn’t get considered for the prize so now she should never be credited is ridiculous. I find the fact that you so vehemently state Franklin’s right for recognition does you honour but you seeming claim that she has never received that recognition is a little bit over the top. * 1982, Iota Sigma Pi designated Franklin a National Honorary Member. * 1992, English Heritage placed a blue plaque on the house Rosalind Franklin grew up in. * 1993, King’s College London rename the Orchard Residence at their Hampstead Campus on Kidderpore Avenue Rosalind Franklin Hall. * 1995, Newnham College dedicated a residence in her name and put a bust of her in its garden. * 1997, Birkbeck, University of London School of Crystallography opened the Rosalind Franklin laboratory. * 1998, National Portrait Gallery added Rosalind Franklin’s next to those of Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins. * 2000, King’s College London opened the Franklin-Wilkins Building in honour of Dr. Franklin’s and Professor Wilkins’ work at the college. King’s had earlier, in 1994, also named one of the Halls in Hampstead Campus residences in memory of Rosalind Franklin. * 2001, The U.S. National Cancer Institute established the Rosalind E. Franklin Award for Women in Science. * 2003, the Royal Society established the Rosalind Franklin Award, for an outstanding contribution to any area of natural science, engineering or technology. * 2004, Finch University of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School, located in North Chicago, IL, changed its name to Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science. * 2004, The University of Groningen, The Netherlands installed Rosalind Franklin fellowships to promote the hiring of young, promising, female researchers. * 2005, the wording on the DNA sculpture (which was donated by James Watson) outside Clare College’s Thirkill Court, Cambridge, England is a) on the base: i) “These strands unravel during cell reproduction. Genes are encoded in the sequence of bases.” and ii) “The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins.”, as well as b) on the helices: i) “The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson while Watson lived here at Clare.” and ii) “The molecule of DNA has two helical strands that are linked by base pairs Adenine – Thymine or Guanine – Cytosine.” * An Honorary 2008 Horwitz Prize will be awarded by Columbia University to Rosalind Franklin, Ph.D., posthumously, “for her seminal contributions to the discovery of the structure of DNA”. ‘Borrowed! from Wikipedia!
First of all the only mention of her contribution to the structure of DNA in the above list is “The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins.” which based on what I stated above belittles her contribution. And Wilkins, like several other people, was a bit player. I never said I cared about prizes or “recognition” of that type. I said CREDIT as in a professor standing in front of a class talking about the Watson/Crick/Franklin model. And her name right there, equal with theirs every time the discovery is mentioned in a textbook or during an anniversary of the event. As far as the long list, she was a very accomplished scientists with an international reputation who made many discoveries and contributions to science and human health both before and after her work on DNA, so it is not surprising.