James Watson: How we discovered DNA
Articles Blog

James Watson: How we discovered DNA

Well, I thought there would be a podium, so I’m a bit scared. (Laughter) Chris asked me to tell again how we found the structure of DNA. And since, you know, I follow his orders, I’ll do it. But it slightly bores me. (Laughter) And, you know, I wrote a book. So I’ll say something — (Laughter) — I’ll say a little about, you know, how the discovery was made, and why Francis and I found it. And then, I hope maybe I have at least five minutes to say what makes me tick now. In back of me is a picture of me when I was 17. I was at the University of Chicago, in my third year, and I was in my third year because the University of Chicago let you in after two years of high school. So you — it was fun to get away from high school — (Laughter) — because I was very small, and I was no good in sports, or anything like that. But I should say that my background — my father was, you know, raised to be an Episcopalian and Republican, but after one year of college, he became an atheist and a Democrat. (Laughter) And my mother was Irish Catholic, and — but she didn’t take religion too seriously. And by the age of 11, I was no longer going to Sunday Mass, and going on birdwatching walks with my father. So early on, I heard of Charles Darwin. I guess, you know, he was the big hero. And, you know, you understand life as it now exists through evolution. And at the University of Chicago I was a zoology major, and thought I would end up, you know, if I was bright enough, maybe getting a Ph.D. from Cornell in ornithology. Then, in the Chicago paper, there was a review of a book called “What is Life?” by the great physicist, Schrodinger. And that, of course, had been a question I wanted to know. You know, Darwin explained life after it got started, but what was the essence of life? And Schrodinger said the essence was information present in our chromosomes, and it had to be present on a molecule. I’d never really thought of molecules before. You know chromosomes, but this was a molecule, and somehow all the information was probably present in some digital form. And there was the big question of, how did you copy the information? So that was the book. And so, from that moment on, I wanted to be a geneticist — understand the gene and, through that, understand life. So I had, you know, a hero at a distance. It wasn’t a baseball player; it was Linus Pauling. And so I applied to Caltech and they turned me down. (Laughter) So I went to Indiana, which was actually as good as Caltech in genetics, and besides, they had a really good basketball team. (Laughter) So I had a really quite happy life at Indiana. And it was at Indiana I got the impression that, you know, the gene was likely to be DNA. And so when I got my Ph.D., I should go and search for DNA. So I first went to Copenhagen because I thought, well, maybe I could become a biochemist, but I discovered biochemistry was very boring. It wasn’t going anywhere toward, you know, saying what the gene was; it was just nuclear science. And oh, that’s the book, little book. You can read it in about two hours. And — but then I went to a meeting in Italy. And there was an unexpected speaker who wasn’t on the program, and he talked about DNA. And this was Maurice Wilkins. He was trained as a physicist, and after the war he wanted to do biophysics, and he picked DNA because DNA had been determined at the Rockefeller Institute to possibly be the genetic molecules on the chromosomes. Most people believed it was proteins. But Wilkins, you know, thought DNA was the best bet, and he showed this x-ray photograph. Sort of crystalline. So DNA had a structure, even though it owed it to probably different molecules carrying different sets of instructions. So there was something universal about the DNA molecule. So I wanted to work with him, but he didn’t want a former birdwatcher, and I ended up in Cambridge, England. So I went to Cambridge, because it was really the best place in the world then for x-ray crystallography. And x-ray crystallography is now a subject in, you know, chemistry departments. I mean, in those days it was the domain of the physicists. So the best place for x-ray crystallography was at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. And there I met Francis Crick. I went there without knowing him. He was 35. I was 23. And within a day, we had decided that maybe we could take a shortcut to finding the structure of DNA. Not solve it like, you know, in rigorous fashion, but build a model, an electro-model, using some coordinates of, you know, length, all that sort of stuff from x-ray photographs. But just ask what the molecule — how should it fold up? And the reason for doing so, at the center of this photograph, is Linus Pauling. About six months before, he proposed the alpha helical structure for proteins. And in doing so, he banished the man out on the right, Sir Lawrence Bragg, who was the Cavendish professor. This is a photograph several years later, when Bragg had cause to smile. He certainly wasn’t smiling when I got there, because he was somewhat humiliated by Pauling getting the alpha helix, and the Cambridge people failing because they weren’t chemists. And certainly, neither Crick or I were chemists, so we tried to build a model. And he knew, Francis knew Wilkins. So Wilkins said he thought it was the helix. X-ray diagram, he thought was comparable with the helix. So we built a three-stranded model. The people from London came up. Wilkins and this collaborator, or possible collaborator, Rosalind Franklin, came up and sort of laughed at our model. They said it was lousy, and it was. So we were told to build no more models; we were incompetent. (Laughter) And so we didn’t build any models, and Francis sort of continued to work on proteins. And basically, I did nothing. And — except read. You know, basically, reading is a good thing; you get facts. And we kept telling the people in London that Linus Pauling’s going to move on to DNA. If DNA is that important, Linus will know it. He’ll build a model, and then we’re going to be scooped. And, in fact, he’d written the people in London: Could he see their x-ray photograph? And they had the wisdom to say “no.” So he didn’t have it. But there was ones in the literature. Actually, Linus didn’t look at them that carefully. But about, oh, 15 months after I got to Cambridge, a rumor began to appear from Linus Pauling’s son, who was in Cambridge, that his father was now working on DNA. And so, one day Peter came in and he said he was Peter Pauling, and he gave me a copy of his father’s manuscripts. And boy, I was scared because I thought, you know, we may be scooped. I have nothing to do, no qualifications for anything. (Laughter) And so there was the paper, and he proposed a three-stranded structure. And I read it, and it was just — it was crap. (Laughter) So this was, you know, unexpected from the world’s — (Laughter) — and so, it was held together by hydrogen bonds between phosphate groups. Well, if the peak pH that cells have is around seven, those hydrogen bonds couldn’t exist. We rushed over to the chemistry department and said, “Could Pauling be right?” And Alex Hust said, “No.” So we were happy. (Laughter) And, you know, we were still in the game, but we were frightened that somebody at Caltech would tell Linus that he was wrong. And so Bragg said, “Build models.” And a month after we got the Pauling manuscript — I should say I took the manuscript to London, and showed the people. Well, I said, Linus was wrong and that we’re still in the game and that they should immediately start building models. But Wilkins said “no.” Rosalind Franklin was leaving in about two months, and after she left he would start building models. And so I came back with that news to Cambridge, and Bragg said, “Build models.” Well, of course, I wanted to build models. And there’s a picture of Rosalind. She really, you know, in one sense she was a chemist, but really she would have been trained — she didn’t know any organic chemistry or quantum chemistry. She was a crystallographer. And I think part of the reason she didn’t want to build models was, she wasn’t a chemist, whereas Pauling was a chemist. And so Crick and I, you know, started building models, and I’d learned a little chemistry, but not enough. Well, we got the answer on the 28th February ’53. And it was because of a rule, which, to me, is a very good rule: Never be the brightest person in a room, and we weren’t. We weren’t the best chemists in the room. I went in and showed them a pairing I’d done, and Jerry Donohue — he was a chemist — he said, it’s wrong. You’ve got — the hydrogen atoms are in the wrong place. I just put them down like they were in the books. He said they were wrong. So the next day, you know, after I thought, “Well, he might be right.” So I changed the locations, and then we found the base pairing, and Francis immediately said the chains run in absolute directions. And we knew we were right. So it was a pretty, you know, it all happened in about two hours. From nothing to thing. And we knew it was big because, you know, if you just put A next to T and G next to C, you have a copying mechanism. So we saw how genetic information is carried. It’s the order of the four bases. So in a sense, it is a sort of digital-type information. And you copy it by going from strand-separating. So, you know, if it didn’t work this way, you might as well believe it, because you didn’t have any other scheme. (Laughter) But that’s not the way most scientists think. Most scientists are really rather dull. They said, we won’t think about it until we know it’s right. But, you know, we thought, well, it’s at least 95 percent right or 99 percent right. So think about it. The next five years, there were essentially something like five references to our work in “Nature” — none. And so we were left by ourselves, and trying to do the last part of the trio: how do you — what does this genetic information do? It was pretty obvious that it provided the information to an RNA molecule, and then how do you go from RNA to protein? For about three years we just — I tried to solve the structure of RNA. It didn’t yield. It didn’t give good x-ray photographs. I was decidedly unhappy; a girl didn’t marry me. It was really, you know, sort of a shitty time. (Laughter) So there’s a picture of Francis and I before I met the girl, so I’m still looking happy. (Laughter) But there is what we did when we didn’t know where to go forward: we formed a club and called it the RNA Tie Club. George Gamow, also a great physicist, he designed the tie. He was one of the members. The question was: How do you go from a four-letter code to the 20-letter code of proteins? Feynman was a member, and Teller, and friends of Gamow. But that’s the only — no, we were only photographed twice. And on both occasions, you know, one of us was missing the tie. There’s Francis up on the upper right, and Alex Rich — the M.D.-turned-crystallographer — is next to me. This was taken in Cambridge in September of 1955. And I’m smiling, sort of forced, I think, because the girl I had, boy, she was gone. (Laughter) And so I didn’t really get happy until 1960, because then we found out, basically, you know, that there are three forms of RNA. And we knew, basically, DNA provides the information for RNA. RNA provides the information for protein. And that let Marshall Nirenberg, you know, take RNA — synthetic RNA — put it in a system making protein. He made polyphenylalanine, polyphenylalanine. So that’s the first cracking of the genetic code, and it was all over by 1966. So there, that’s what Chris wanted me to do, it was — so what happened since then? Well, at that time — I should go back. When we found the structure of DNA, I gave my first talk at Cold Spring Harbor. The physicist, Leo Szilard, he looked at me and said, “Are you going to patent this?” And — but he knew patent law, and that we couldn’t patent it, because you couldn’t. No use for it. (Laughter) And so DNA didn’t become a useful molecule, and the lawyers didn’t enter into the equation until 1973, 20 years later, when Boyer and Cohen in San Francisco and Stanford came up with their method of recombinant DNA, and Stanford patented it and made a lot of money. At least they patented something which, you know, could do useful things. And then, they learned how to read the letters for the code. And, boom, we’ve, you know, had a biotech industry. And, but we were still a long ways from, you know, answering a question which sort of dominated my childhood, which is: How do you nature-nurture? And so I’ll go on. I’m already out of time, but this is Michael Wigler, a very, very clever mathematician turned physicist. And he developed a technique which essentially will let us look at sample DNA and, eventually, a million spots along it. There’s a chip there, a conventional one. Then there’s one made by a photolithography by a company in Madison called NimbleGen, which is way ahead of Affymetrix. And we use their technique. And what you can do is sort of compare DNA of normal segs versus cancer. And you can see on the top that cancers which are bad show insertions or deletions. So the DNA is really badly mucked up, whereas if you have a chance of surviving, the DNA isn’t so mucked up. So we think that this will eventually lead to what we call “DNA biopsies.” Before you get treated for cancer, you should really look at this technique, and get a feeling of the face of the enemy. It’s not a — it’s only a partial look, but it’s a — I think it’s going to be very, very useful. So, we started with breast cancer because there’s lots of money for it, no government money. And now I have a sort of vested interest: I want to do it for prostate cancer. So, you know, you aren’t treated if it’s not dangerous. But Wigler, besides looking at cancer cells, looked at normal cells, and made a really sort of surprising observation. Which is, all of us have about 10 places in our genome where we’ve lost a gene or gained another one. So we’re sort of all imperfect. And the question is well, if we’re around here, you know, these little losses or gains might not be too bad. But if these deletions or amplifications occurred in the wrong gene, maybe we’ll feel sick. So the first disease he looked at is autism. And the reason we looked at autism is we had the money to do it. Looking at an individual is about 3,000 dollars. And the parent of a child with Asperger’s disease, the high-intelligence autism, had sent his thing to a conventional company; they didn’t do it. Couldn’t do it by conventional genetics, but just scanning it we began to find genes for autism. And you can see here, there are a lot of them. So a lot of autistic kids are autistic because they just lost a big piece of DNA. I mean, big piece at the molecular level. We saw one autistic kid, about five million bases just missing from one of his chromosomes. We haven’t yet looked at the parents, but the parents probably don’t have that loss, or they wouldn’t be parents. Now, so, our autism study is just beginning. We got three million dollars. I think it will cost at least 10 to 20 before you’d be in a position to help parents who’ve had an autistic child, or think they may have an autistic child, and can we spot the difference? So this same technique should probably look at all. It’s a wonderful way to find genes. And so, I’ll conclude by saying we’ve looked at 20 people with schizophrenia. And we thought we’d probably have to look at several hundred before we got the picture. But as you can see, there’s seven out of 20 had a change which was very high. And yet, in the controls there were three. So what’s the meaning of the controls? Were they crazy also, and we didn’t know it? Or, you know, were they normal? I would guess they’re normal. And what we think in schizophrenia is there are genes of predisposure, and whether this is one that predisposes — and then there’s only a sub-segment of the population that’s capable of being schizophrenic. Now, we don’t have really any evidence of it, but I think, to give you a hypothesis, the best guess is that if you’re left-handed, you’re prone to schizophrenia. 30 percent of schizophrenic people are left-handed, and schizophrenia has a very funny genetics, which means 60 percent of the people are genetically left-handed, but only half of it showed. I don’t have the time to say. Now, some people who think they’re right-handed are genetically left-handed. OK. I’m just saying that, if you think, oh, I don’t carry a left-handed gene so therefore my, you know, children won’t be at risk of schizophrenia. You might. OK? (Laughter) So it’s, to me, an extraordinarily exciting time. We ought to be able to find the gene for bipolar; there’s a relationship. And if I had enough money, we’d find them all this year. I thank you.

100 thoughts on “James Watson: How we discovered DNA

  1. I think that she held back the information by not sharing the crystallographer image. Also when Watson showed her the final structure of DNA she couldnt believe that it was the right one which proves that she was very far from discovering it.

  2. I'm not going to go into my feelings and opinions of genetic discoveries, as they don't apply to this basic human statement. This is one of the most unique TED talks I've seen, because it seems very unscriped. It seemd to me as if he happened to be there, the guys who handle the guest speakers were short a speaker, asked him to speak, and he was like "Sure, why not?". Now if only Franklin (rest her soul) could speak, I'd be totally happy!

  3. That is the most racist, most inappropriate and simultaneoulsy hilarious thing I read today, and I have read a lot of such things today.

  4. While it is beyond question that it was Franklin's X-Ray data that formed the standard to which Watson et al.'s DNA models were made to fit, there seems to be a lot of evidence that Franklin herself did not actually try to decipher the model. Perhaps she was not imaginative enough or perhaps she was bogged down by the arduous process of acquiring the diffraction data. We will never hear her side. Either way though, the intellectual leap was definitely made by Watson, Crick and Wilkins.

  5. No. Watson might be a great biochemist and scientist, but he's no political scientist… he just read some reports on testing and assumes the results are as straightforward and simple as temperatures and enzymes.

  6. LMFAO yeah all white people come from outcast mutant albinos and subconsciously hate all black people mhm sounds correct you sir obviously know something about biology.

  7. Melanin theory-"Expanding upon known scientific properties of melanin, adherents of melanin theory claim the substance bestows upon people of color superhuman abilities,[5"
    LMFAO fucking moron

  8. hit the nail on the head until the end.War torn and poverty stricken communities exist throughout the world.The slums of Africa is no place for a bright young mind to blossom. It's a shame how many potentially amazing thinkers will have to be forced grow and live uneducated .

  9. I don't think that he ever said that she wasn't a scientist, but that she wasn't a chemist. It's a subtle difference, but it does take away a lot of the sting. As a biochemist myself, I don't deal with crystallography at all, and wouldn't be insulted if a crystallographer said I wasn't part of his club.

  10. This guy should not be presenting talks. I can't understand his intonation or flow of his sentences. This is a good example where Youtube needs subtitles

  11. OMG , so sad how all these people believe what he is saying.. it was not franklin who got the photo 51 it was Franklin, which Watson took photo 51 without permission from Franklin, because he and his incompetent partner (Crick) couldn't figure it out. their first try was a two helices with the nitrogenous bases outside, and thanks to the PHOTO 51 and much more calculations stolen from Franklin their second try they got it.. thanks to Franklin…  huh people do some research before idolizing someone that gave zero credit for the main person who discovered the structure of DNA…

  12. Rosalind Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, and Watson and Crick stole it, after Watson was showed that picture he showed at 5:00.

  13. When a man of his caliber ends his speech with "If I had enough money we would find them all this year" it makes me really really sad.
    Scientists, really good ones, that have discovered things for the betterment of the species are obstructed by money, something that has value simply because we said so, and that "something" is able to dictate what we will or won't discover. Practically decides if we will evolve e little bit more or not.
    When i listen to a scientist like that "beg" for money, to ask for something insignificant so that he would be able to find something of significance is surreal.
    I just feel ashamed as a human.

  14. "My Father was raised to be a 'episco pay' and a republican, but after one year of college he was an Atheist and a Democrat" 

  15. James Watson stole the lab files of Roselyn Franklin & Linus Pauling, waited until she died of cancer,  from the X-ray research she was doing,  and Pauling had his passport taken away by Nixon, for picketing against the A-bomb.  
    When the key witnesses were dead  or unavailable, Watson, Crook & Watkins published & won the Nobel.  
    Lying, dirty thieves.  
    They had never written anything original before or after they stole the Nobel Prize.  

  16. It was wonderful to read the responses to this video and the fact that many people know the truth about his theft of the discovery from Rosalind Franklin. Why is he not behind bars and his undeserved Nobel Prize removed from his name and person????

  17. What a shame,still putting down and making fun of the contribution of Roselyn Franlklin,so many years after using her work to build your model, and distording the truth of how you and Crick shall I say got behind her back her findings with the help of Wilkins. What a pity! what a shame.

  18. No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority that the patient refuses to accept. And therefore resents.         -C.S. Lewis

  19. They thought it was a helix oh yeah.That's what Franklin had on her unpublished papers with drawings and xray photographs.Where did Pauling come up with the helix idea I wonder hmmmmm maybe Miss Franklin!!!!!. This world is a sick place.

  20. Watson didn't steal anything – Franklin had X-ray photographs that showed the shape that the DNA took – that it was wider and thinner in some spots, making a criss-crossing shape. When Wilkins showed it to Watson, Watson realized that DNA was unlike Pauling's 3-part model, but rather a double helix. While Franklin's crystallographic photos DID show a crossing pattern that suggested the double helix, Watson & Crick were the ones to publish their complete model showing the components and positioning of the nucleotides, as well as the helical structure.

    Besides, Franklin died before the Nobel Prize was given to Watson & Crick

  21. After reading James D Watsons Double helix it became apparent the opportunistic aspect and high reliance of journal publications and contemporary breakthroughs. James is a prime example of this notion and from the look of things the structure was there all along in everyones face. The only thing keeping them from seeing it was preconceive notions and the over complication of their research. Somehow this clown managed to see the pattern and take in the various works of other and makes his discovery of the double helix.His book is overly extensive with jargon that could have been taken out and told in no more than 100 pages. I hate how much this novel made me paint a picture of someone(Rosalind Franklin) who clearly was beyond her time and deserves the credit for the discovery since had it not been for photograph 51 and the B model of DNA watson would not have made the discovery of the structure. It amazes me how the planets somehow aligned and pieces of the puzzle surfaced. I do however give watson props for his opportunistic and simple mind that allowed him to see the answer, so in the end he deserves some credit even though it was based on the works of others. The fact of the matter is that the breakthrough was discovered and deduced by James even though the breakthrough was not his….what bothers me most is how this clown is considered a genius when he clearly only had a basic understanding of chem and no technical know how that was required to dealt results instead he took the hard work of others and saw the simplicity of it all without the hard mathematics, and that amazes me even more than the inability of the leading scientist to make that same conclusion when everything was there waiting to be exposed.

  22. I hate how he said "franklin laughed at us". sure she would laugh at you given that she knew you were deducing things based on her crystallograph only. give some credit. she deserves it. had she been alive, she would have shared the Nobel prize. but since she could not I think respect is the least you could pay to her as a tribute for her great work.

  23. how appropiriate that this charlatons  video is preceded by  equaly bogus ads.  he stole credit from franklin a female scientist  far superioir than him.

  24. For all you people complaining about franklin, listen up. The only reason she didn't get any credit (aka the nobel) was because at the time you couldn't give the award to dead people. If she was alive she would have gotten the nobel (100%), and become a trio along with watson and crick as to discovering the double helix structure of DNA.
    Also if you're going to be picky, many other scientists contributed, but I don't see anyone bitching about Griffith, Hershey and Chase, Chargoff, etc. (granted they didn't contribute nearly as much as the x rays)

  25. "She didn't know any organic chemistry or quantum chemistry. She was a crystallographer."
    Rosalind Franklin received her bachelors and masters of science degrees in addition to a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at the University of Cambridge. Based on her x-ray crystallographies, she knew DNA was characterized by a helical structure with nucleic acids in the middle and phosphate groups on the outside. She specifically wrote: "The results suggest a helical structure (which must be very closely packed) containing probably 2, 3 or 4 coaxial nucleic acid chains per helical unit and having the phosphate groups near the outside."

  26. This man is why science must be rejected as a philosophy. Science will ultimately lead to the destruction of humans and this planet. My only hope is that it will implode and fail miserably as it has before and people return to religion and superstition.

  27. Wow there are alot of haters on here. All I have to say is you need to change the title of this video as Watson and Crick discovered the DNA structure not DNA the molecule, and he even says that they discovered the structure not the molecule. There is a difference, Friedrich Miescher should get that acknowledgement as he is the first to isolate the nuclein (now known as dna) from the nucleus of the living cell. Just thought I'd add my 50c 😂😂

  28. … and then he got shitcanned for telling the truth about race and average intelligence.

    Oh well.

  29. All of you pawns screaming about Rosalind Franklin should read this:


    She died before they were awarded the Nobel prize, retards. She contributed to the discovery, and Watson recognizes that. What else do you want? Stop bitching.

  30. The girl that never married him was my grandmom. But he knocked her up. My dad only met him once in Philadelphia. They went to the movies, had lunch and dinner. And that was it. My dad was pretty bitter by it. He always wanted a dad. Years later my grandmom married. Dad didn't like his stepdad (who I always called grandpop) until much later in life. It's ironic that one can go on a quest to see how were built but with All the genes in the world, you still can't fix a broken heart.

  31. Wrong title. Watson is not the discoverer of DNA. He decrypted with Crick only the structure of the DNA.

  32. Nobel is a Men's Club and it is bad. Thankfully we live in the times of the Internet and now we know Watson doesn't deserve all the credit he was given. What Wilkins and Watson did to Rosalind Franklin is now there for all to see with just a quick Google. How deeply ingrained sexism is in human culture and in science becomes more visible yet again. Not only is Watson sexist but he is also a racist.

  33. I think most people aren't upset over the fact that Franklin didn't get Nobel recognition, they're upset that Watson is flat out refusing to give her the credit she deserves. Watson pressured one of Franklin's lab assistants into stealing an x ray photo she took (from which she ultimately died from due to over exposure to x rays) and it just so happened that the photo was the final piece of evidence Watson needed to completely figure out the structure of DNA. They couldn't have done it without her, and most importantly, Franklin had previously already figured out the structure of DNA well before Watson did – she just knew that she couldn't share her findings in England because unlike France where she previously practiced science, England was very unwelcoming to the idea of women actually doing what they want with their lives. Franklin knew that if she had actually shared her findings Watson could very well easily swoop in and take the credit and no one would believe her, so she kept it to herself and didn't get the chance to share her own personal findings before she passed.

  34. Greatest living scientist. His "critics" will be forgotten while he will live forever because of his contributions to mankind.

  35. Watson's merit was to have found the right way to connect the base pairs. The cistralography indicated that it was a propeller, Rosalind knew that the sugar-phosphate skeleton was on the outside, but she did not know how the bases bonded in a complementary way.

  36. Some people still cant realize the fact that we live in time where all those facts are known and proven. But back then all those things were so ambiguous and mystirious (DNA itself and complementarity were discovered before discovering of DNA structure). People thought proteins were information carriers, chromosomes are partly dna and protein, and it was supposed that dna has some sort of stabilizer. Oswald Avery discovered that DNA indeed caries information, but didnt have theoretical background for his observation. But Crick and Watson has an explanation. What these people did is truly revolutionary and after their beautiful theory had to survive the "storm of scientific bombing" from other scientists. Just learn how to respect that fact. Nobody stole nothing from Anybody. You're just begin annoying to all with this PC stuff. Dozen of people stay behind their contribution (not only Rosalind Franklin) whose names you dont even know.

  37. Did you all just come off a Rosalind Franklin documentary or something? Because she helped photograph elements she couldn't explain she should get sole credit? If she was so intelligent why didn't she publish works on it or lead a discovery group? She probably didnt even know what she was looking at

  38. Dude is talking about curing cancer and 10 years later what he says is now in use and helping people, and all you lot can complain about is that he didn't give credit to a woman. Typical feminist oppression narrative. Talk about cancer.

  39. I’m sick of even having to address the torrent of feminist bullshit here. 90% of the comments address it. Even if you are on the side of reality and not historical revisionism, we’ve been derailed.

  40. the media and politicians trying their best to kill this guy who helped science, he was fired and all his titles and honours to be taken away when he said Africans IQ level is lower.. political incorrection as it is agenda working to destroy genuine people

  41. I think most are idiots for not at least figuring out that Blue Eye is the most recent 'Out of Africa'. OCA2/HERC2.

  42. Why did one of the graphs had CNPs written on it? I guess those should be SNPs since he looks to be talking about Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. If not, please do help me with what CNPs are, if they are something.

  43. ub tk zinda ho ??? me smjhi thi k mar gye r han wesy tm chor ho tmny chori kia ha frecklin wrinklin r chargaff ka stucture DNA ka….r khd nobel price le k beth gye chor…….. :p

  44. That's discouraging to hear that it costs 10-20 million dollars to do real research on a disorder to understand it.

  45. Estuvo seguro cndo a traves del ARN pudo sentitezar proteinas esa fue la confirmacion de q el ADN cmo tal era el codigo genetico

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top