THE
SECRET OF LIFE
Preview
What
you'll be tested on later
Chapter
11 study guide
back to Bio103 homepage |
 |
PREVIEW:
- We
will watch a real movie (BYO Popcorn etc.) about the almost-perfectly-real history of the
discovery of DNA structure, "RACE FOR THE DOUBLE HELIX," starring Jeff Goldblum
and other famous actors. The scientific aspects of the plot
are summarized in your textbook on Box 3.4 (pp. 61-62).
Also, x-Ray crystallography is explained
on box 13.1
(p. 264).
- After the movie, we'll spend thirty minutes or so
discussing one or more questions about the movie. For your report grade all you have
to do is to
- outline the contrasting points made during the discussion or prepare a "transcript
executive summary" of the discussion, including the consensus of your group and the
dissenting views.
- type a brief paragraph describing your own opinion about the question discussed and
summarizing your reasons for disagreeing with at least one point made during the
discussion. example.
If you're interested in learning more, here's some optional info about
Crick, and some about Watson, the Nobel Prize they won,
and the original Nobel-winning paper which was published in NATURE, the British periodical
for scientists. For more information and explanations of the
original version of the paper, see the
annotated version at the Exploratorium. You can access terrific historical perspective at the Gene Timeline. Watson himself is the head
guy at the organization which provides this summary: http://vector.cshl.org/dnaftb/1/concept/index.html
: #19 animation, gallery, biography, etc. (note that you can enlarge many displays by
clicking on them)
Here are two reviews of a new biography of Rosalind
Franklin: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/29/books/review/29HENIGT.html
"NPR : Rosalind Franklin: Dark
Lady of DNA" http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/oct/darklady/index.html
and a tv show based on the new biography:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/
(other goodies on this page)
If you want to see what Watson thinks about all of
this today, watch Watson recalling his double helix discovery
days: http://www.cshl.org/video/ddh_videolist.html
If you want to see how DNA researchers interact
today, you could check out this show: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/
(2001). You can watch it on your computer.
And here are collections of articles on the
50th anniversary of the discovery of the double helix:
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2003/02/25/health/genetics/index.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/300/5617/277
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/300/5617/258
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/300/5617/255
|
|
WHAT
YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR TEST #2 and THE EXAM
- You need to know how Watson and Crick developed their model of DNA structure and why it
was so important. In the movie several scientists said or implied that the model was
"beautiful." In what sense was it beautiful? Explain. If
you need to remind yourself, check out the old pictures
of the model (they're toward the end of the
animation; but going through the animation is a good review).
Or maybe you'd like to compare the beauty of the "Ten
most beautiful experiments in physics" at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/science/24BEAU.html
- How
did Rosalind Franklin help Watson and Crick? What was her reaction to the
model? Explain.
- Good scientists make hypotheses to explain observations. Was Watson and Crick's
model a hypothesis? What observations did it explain? Did they
test their hypothesis? These days, almost half a century later, their model is the
basis of the "central dogma" of molecular biology. Is central dogma only a
theory? Explain.
- Of course, you also need to understand the basic
chemistry of DNA as we now understand it, pp. 59-60 in
your textbook.
- What is the "central dogma" and why is it
"central" and "dogmatic"?
- p. 68 Conceptual Review #3
- p. 230 Conceptual Review #4
|
|
EXAMPLE of paragraph
(part 2 of the assignment)
(ok,
this WAS a little longer, but he got an A)
by Tony Goodwin,
Biology 103, 1998
Should Science Be Like A Game?
In the search to find the structure of DNA, the
competing scientists sometimes treated the whole project as if it were a game or
competition of sorts. I feel that the pursuit of knowledge should not be trivialized in
this manner, and my reasons for this are:
- As shown in the movie, many times the different researchers each held a crucial clue,
but because they were competing instead of cooperating, the project was done improperly,
and took more time than it really should have. Cooperation gets things done much
faster than useless competition.
- Also, scientific research is not a game, and shouldn't be treated as such. For decorum's
sake, the scientific community should refrain from having its members fighting like
spoiled three year olds.
- Finally, cooperating instead of competing means there will be a greater flow of ideas
and theories. Scientists may find the answers to their questions much quicker than they
would alone; also, their mind would be open to greater possibilities and new avenues of
research.
Nevertheless, competition is not without its
advantages: it does bring a little fun to something that would otherwise be tedious and
boring. Also, it's sort of unfair to have to share credit when you've done the bulk of the
work. With competition, there would be no need to lessen your glory by having to share it
with anyone else
.
|
|
