Talk:Maurice Wilkins

DNA Pioneers dropdown menu: addition of King's College London
Is the addition of KCL to the list a joke or is someone seriously unbalanced? I claim equal rights for the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge of course; so why just add KCL to the list? Nitramrekcap

Article needs infobox
This article needs Template:Infobox Scientist

195.92.67.75mp195.92.67.75

=Wilkins always thought DNA was a helix and Franklin said it wasn't, with #4 Klug reference== Seemingly not. I am reading the cited Aaron Klug's account and it doesn't say this at all. Whoever cited this reference apparently didn't read Klug. As so often, it's more complicated than that (and much more interesting). At the risk of oversimplifying, while Franklin interpreted her earlier DNA images as meaning that DNA was helical, a bad batch of DNA fibres sent her looking for a further explanation and Wilkins agreed with her that something else was going on.Eperotao (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * yeah, that is bizarre. i was really confused by "It should be noted that Wilkins was consistent in his belief that DNA was helical even when Rosalind Franklin expressed strong views to the contrary." as well.


 * it looks like the above statement was attributed to Klug in this edit on 30 december 2013; it was uncited before that, being added in this edit on 7 october 2013.
 * both edits done by User:Reson8r.


 * the following quotes are from Klug's paper: "There is no question that all along she held the view that B form was helical. p 14" "... an unfortunate mechanical accident in one of the specimens led Franklin to take a wrong path. In the spring of 1952, one DNA fibre gave an X-ray pattern showing strong “double orientation” ... in the A form ... This suggested to her that the symmetry of the crystallite was far from cylindrical, which might rule out a helical structure in the A form. Franklin concluded that this possibility had to be considered. It is this view of hers which gave rise to her supposed “anti-helical” stance, but for her it was a question which had to be answered. p.14" "In fact she seems to have persuaded Wilkins, even though relations were strained between them, to the same view. Thus, ironically, while Franklin does not mention this in a Report written in late 1952 for an MRC Subcommittee on the work of the King’s Unit, Wilkins does so, and accepts the possibility of a non-helical interpretation of the A form. p.14" "One correct result which emerged ... was that the A form contained two chains, and that they ran in opposite directions ... p.15" "Franklin’s ... analysis ran into an impasse ... she turned to her B-form, the X-ray pattern which was clearly characteristic of some kind of helical structure. Her notebooks show her shuttling back and forth between the two forms. She had by now abandoned her attempts to interpret the A form in non-helical terms. p.15" "... she is at last making the correct connection between the A and B forms—both have two chains. p.16" "Watson wrote later in his book “The Double Helix” that Franklin’s instant acceptance on first seeing their model surprised him. He had then no idea how close she had come to it. p.16"


 * i can't reconcile the statement in the article, and the information in Klug. it seems like it's either an honest misinterpretation of the information, or an axe is being ground. i'm just going to add Badref tag for now. ∈sensorsweep 20:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending sentence "Throughout this period Wilkins was consistent in his belief that DNA was helical even when Rosalind Franklin expressed strong views to the contrary", as it came to opposite conclusions from the supporting source material! Thus "There is no question that all along she held the view that B form was helical" and "In fact she seems to have persuaded Wilkins, ... Wilkins does so, and accepts the possibility of a non-helical interpretation of the A form." Also it has been here a year with no challenge. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A seemingly contradiction between the original text in the article and Klug's paper is not really a contradiction. Some points to bear in mind are:
 * There are two structurally related but different forms of DNA — the dry or crystalline A-DNA, and the wet or hydrated B form, discovered by Rosalind Franklin.
 * Although Franklin made the "best" X-ray image of B-DNA (Photo 51) in March 1952, without anlysing it, she pursued the A form because it was easier to work with.
 * It was by then generally believed (but no hard evidence) that B-DNA was helical.
 * Wilkins also surmised that A-DNA was probably helical.
 * But Franklin's best X-ray images indicates no evidence of a helix.
 * This even led Franklin to remark upon Wilkins that B-DNA might be helical, but not the A form. With her data supporting antihelix, Franklin even posted a satirical funeral certificate for the demise of helical notion for A-DNA. But she was mistaken, and was taken by surprise to see that both her A- and B-DNA data actually supported the double helical model of Watson and Crick in 1953. Hence, the original text should have read something like:

"It should be noted that Wilkins was consistent in his belief that both A- and B-DNA were helical even when Rosalind Franklin expressed strong views on the antihelical nature of A-DNA"
 * No need to reintroduce this in the article. Better treatment of the account is given in Rosalind Franklin. Chhandama (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maurice Wilkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050826083936/http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/DNA50/reviews.html to http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/DNA50/reviews.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050826083936/http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/DNA50/reviews.html to http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/DNA50/reviews.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maurice Wilkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811224911/http://josephgroup.ucsd.edu/CHEM13/DNA1.pdf to http://josephgroup.ucsd.edu/CHEM13/DNA1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404020818/http://www.ba-education.demon.co.uk/for/science/dnamain.html to http://www.ba-education.demon.co.uk/for/science/dnamain.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)