🚀 go-pugleaf

aw3@ukc.ac.uk (A.Wilson) writes:

>In article <rl.717712058@cgl.ucsf.edu> rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge) writes:
>>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>[...discussion of Hahn/Meitner...]
>>>
>>>Not nearly as clear-cut a case as in the DNA story, where Rosalind (?) 
>>>Franklin actually made the measurements and the correct interpretation 
>>>of the measurements.  The excuse there is that she had died by the 
>>>time the award was made, and was thus not eligible, but begs the 
>>>question of why others who did not make the real discovery were 
>>>considered eligible! 
>>>[Carr]

>>There is certainly a case to be made that Franklin, if she had lived,
>>should have shared the Nobel Prize with Crick, Watson and Wilkins.
>>This would have given the Nobel Committee serious problems since the 
>>award is restricted to no more than three individuals.  As jac says,
>>no award is made posthumously, but to say that the three who got the
>>award did not make the real discovery is utter nonsense.  As in much of
>>science, no one person deserves the credit.
>>[Langridge]

>Can I add my 2p worth, before this thread takes off? This subject was
>discussed some six months ago in sci.chem - perhaps some kind individual
>who kept all the posts can summarise (I read a few, then headed for the
>KILL file......)
>[Wilson]

I e-mailed Wilson a while ago to ask if he had a pointer to an archive of 
the discussion in sci.chem but have not heard from him.  If anyone has this 
I would appreciate receiving it by e-mail.

This brings up again the issue of when, and if, one should post comments,
particularly on a subject which is as misrepresented as the DNA structure 
discovery was here.  It is of little help to respond as Wilson did if the 
previous discussion is no longer available.  Many of us can read net.news 
of various flavo(u)rs only irregularly, and the chances of missing exchanges 
on any given sci.* are high.

-rl