rosalind franklin

• londra kings kolejinde henüz bir asistanken dnanın sarmal yapısını ilk defa keşfetmiş kızıl saçlı,güzel bir kimyagermiş..fakat sanırım projeyi watson-crick ikilisi ve rosalindin hocası olan maurice wilkins ciddi bir biçimde devam ettirmiş ki nobel ödülünü bu üçlü almış..
• devem ettigi enstitunun kadinlara linans derecesi vermemesi nedeniyle, ancak uluslararasi ses getiren bir arastirmasi sonucunda doktorasini aldiktan sonra kendisine gecmise donuk lisans diplomasi verilen talihsiz bilim kadini. simdiye kadar cekilmis en iyi dna resimlerini cekmistir. artik kings collagedaki hocasi maurice wilkins'le gecinemedikleri bilindiginden midir, donemin ve james watson'in aleni cinsiyet ayrimciligindan midir, yoksa sadece nobel odulu almak icin hayatta olmak gerektigi gibi bi ayrinti nedeniyle midir bilinmez, 1962'de nobel alan watson, crick ve wilkins adlari olumsuzlesirken onunki golgede kalmistir.
• watsonla crickin kendisinden caldigi-bi nevi oyle- datalarini elde etmek icin yaptigi x isinli deneyleri yuzunden kanserden olmustur 38 yasinda 1958de.
• en sonunda bir kadında bulunup bir erkekte bulunmayan bir şeyin kanserinden ölmüştür: over kanserinden.
• nobel odulunu alamamasinin (o donemde hayatta olmamasindan ya da baskalarinin iddia ettigi gibi odulun dna sarmalinin formu icin degil nucleik asitler uzerindeki calismalar icin verilmesinden kaynaklanarak) golgede kalmasina sebep olduguna bir turlu ikna olamadigim, acaba o da sabrina spielrein gibi kadin oldugu icin mi bir dipnot olarak kaldi diye dusunmeden edemedigim kadin.
  ne kadar olsa watson bile belirtildigi gibi franlin'in soguk gorunumunden, asabiyetinden dem vurmus ama dna sarmalinin yapisinin anlasilmasina ya da cesitli viruslerin formalari uzerindeki calismalarina atifta bulunmayi onemsiz gormustur. sabina spielrein'i da cogumuz jung'un metresi olarak tanidigimiz dusunulurse bilimsel calismalar icindeki magazinsel tavir daha net anlasiliyor.
• dna'yı araştırırken kendi dna'sının bozulmasına sebep olarak ölmüş olması hikayeyi daha da ironikleştirir.
• rosalind elsie franklin, 25 temmuz 1920 – 16 nisan 1958. dna yapısının çözülmesine önemli katkılarda bulunmuş x-ışını kristalografisi çalışmalarıyla bilinir. az bilinen bir başka çalışması da askeri amaçlarla ikinci dünya savaşı sırasında kömür incelemesidir. cinsiyetçi, ırkçı, homofobik, faşist insanlarla dolu bir dünyada yaşamıştır.^* üstelik bu tür ayrımcılığın pek çok yerde kurumsallaşmış olduğu bir dönemde. bir erkek olsa alabileceği bursları alamamış, proje paralarına ulaşamamıştır. evinin kadını olmak yerine, bilim adamı olmaya kalkmıştır. e tabi kadın bilim adamı oximorondur. hasılı ayrımcılığa uğramış, hakkı yenmiştir.
  
  öykünün buraya kadar olan kısmını her yerde okuyabilirsiniz. aklı başında hiç kimsenin--franklin'in sunuşu sırasında onun saçıyla başıyla ilgilenen james d. watson'ın bile^{* * *}--bunlara itiraz etmediğini biliyoruz. ama genellikle hızını alamayıp, "franklin'e nobel vermedi pis, cinsiyetçi nobel komisyonu" da denildiğini duyabilirsiniz. oysa bence franklin nobel'i de bugün dna ile birlikte anılmayı da hak etmemektedir.
  
  düşen elmanın fotoğrafını çekmekle, yer çekimi kanununu bulmak arasında çok fark vardır.^* franklin değil genetik kodu çözmek, ikili sarmalın kalıtım kuramları açısından önemini bile kavrayamamıştır. şüphesiz "kadın olduğu için kafası basmadı" demek salakça olur. kendisinden çok daha iyi eğitim almış ve emrine geniş olanaklar sunulmuş kamyonla adam da anlamamıştır. ama franklin'in de anlamadığını söylemenin önemli olduğunu düşünüyorum.
  
  çünkü eğer franklin süper bilim yapmış her bi haltı erkeklerden önce bulunmuşsa, ayrımcılıkla mücadelenin temel görevi, ödül dağıtan komisyonlara cinsiyetçi olmayan görevliler atamaktır; bu da pek kolay bir iştir. ne yani, bütün ayrımcılık sorunları üç-beş jüride görev yapan üç-beş hıyarın varlığı mıdır?
  
  franklin, kendisinden--salt kadın olduğu için--esirgenen olanaklar nedeniyle, hakkı yenmiş ayrımcılığa uğramış bir bilimcidir. onun olanaklarına bile kavuşamamış daha da kamyonla kadın, eşcinsel, kürt vs. vardır. onlara, "yeterince çalışırsanız siz de yapabilirsiniz" demenin yakışıksız olacağını düşünüyorum. bugün nobel komisyonu cinsiyetçi değildir. bitti mi yani kadın bilimcilerin ayrımcılık sorunları?
  
  bi de büyük kuramsal atılımlar öyle bi kişinin çekeceği fotoğrafla olmaz.^*
• nobele aday gosterilmemistir, gerci nobelin verilmesinden 4 sene once ölmüs ama yine de adi bile gecmemis.
  
  wilkins daha sonra bu kadini laboratuvardan kovmus. kadin da gitmis virusleri filan incelemeye baslamis. kovarsiniz tabi itler, ucunuzun bi araya gelip beceremeyecegi bir seyi bu kadinin icatlariyla (x-ray kristalografi uzerine calismalari) becermis olmaniz acayip utanilacak bir sey olurdu, yuz karasi olurdunuz valla. tarih iste boyle kadin mezarliklariyla dolu.
• baska kaynaklardan edindigim bilgilerin benzerleri wiki'de var, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rosalind_franklin
  alintiliyorum:
  
  sexism at king's college (olayin tarihsel baglamina da bakmakta fayda var tabii oncelikle)
  
  rosalind franklin worked in a research community that acknowledged women as scientists, but was infused with both conscious and unconscious sexism.[7] this sexism pervades watson's memoir, the double helix, in which he denigrates her work and frequently refers to her in patronizing terms as "rosy", a name she never used. much later, francis crick acknowledges, "i'm afraid we always used to adopt--let's say, a patronizing attitude towards her". cambridge colleague peter cavendish wrote in a letter, "wilkins is supposed to be doing this work; miss franklin is evidently a fool". the one laboratory director who supposedly supported her, john randall, pointedly told her to "cease to work on the nucleic acid problem" upon her departure from king's.[7]
  
  the 1975 biography of franklin by anne sayre (a friend who actually knew franklin) asserted that rosalind franklin was discriminated against because of her gender and that king's, as an institution, was sexist. among the examples cited in alleging sexist treatment at king's was that while "the male staff at king's lunched in a large, comfortable, rather clubby dining room" the female staff of all ranks "lunched in the student's hall or away from the premises".[84][85] others recall differently that most of the mrc group typically ate lunch together (including franklin) in the mixed dining room discussed below.[86] there was a dining room for the exclusive use of men (as was the case at other university of london colleges at the time), as well as a mixed-gender dining room that overlooked the river thames, and many male scientists reportedly refused to use the male-only dining room owing to the preponderance of theologians.[87]
  
  another accusation regarding gender is that the under-representation of women in john randall's group where only one participant was a woman was due to unfair exclusion.[88] in contrast, defenders of the king's college mrc group argue that women were (by the standards of the time) well-represented in the group, representing eight out of thirty-one members of staff,[89] or possibly closer to one in three,[90] although most were not senior scientists.[91]
  
  contribution to the model of dna
  
  rosalind franklin's critical contributions to the crick and watson model include an x-ray photograph of b-dna (called photograph 51),[92] that was briefly shown to james watson by maurice wilkins in january 1953,[93][94] and a report written for an mrc biophysics committee visit to king's in december 1952 which was shown by dr. max perutz at the cavendish laboratory to both crick and watson. this mrc report contained data from the king's group, including some of rosalind franklin's and raymond gosling's work, and was given to francis crick — who was working on his thesis on haemoglobin structure — by his thesis supervisor max perutz, a member of the visiting committee.[95][96] maurice wilkins had been given photograph 51 by rosalind franklin's ph.d. student raymond gosling, because she was leaving king's to work at birkbeck. there was allegedly nothing untoward in this transfer of data to wilkins,[97][98] since the director john randall had insisted that all dna work belonged exclusively to king's and had instructed franklin in a letter to even stop thinking about it.[99] also it was implied by horace freeland judson, incorrectly, that maurice wilkins had taken the photograph out of rosalind franklin's drawer[100]. however, the b-dna x-ray pattern photograph in question was shown to watson by wilkins — without franklin's permission. likewise max perutz saw "no harm" in showing an mrc report containing the conclusions of franklin and gosling's x-ray data analysis to crick, since it had not been marked as confidential, although – in the customary british manner in which everything official is considered secret until it is deliberately made public – the report was not expected to reach outside eyes".[101] indeed after the publication of watson's the double helix exposed perutz's act, he received so many letters questioning his judgement that he felt the need to both answer them all[102] and to post a general statement in science excusing himself on the basis of being "inexperienced and casual in administrative matters".[103] perutz also claimed that the mrc information was already made available to the cambridge team when watson had attended franklin's seminar in november 1951. a preliminary version of much of the important material contained in the 1952 december mrc report had been presented by franklin in a talk she had given in 1951 november, which dr. watson had attended but not understood.[104][105] the perutz letter was one of three letters, published with letters by wilkins and watson, which discussed their various contributions. watson clarified the importance of the data obtained from the mrc report as he had not recorded these data while attending franklin's lecture in 1951. the upshot of all this was that when crick and watson started to build their model in february 1953 they were working with critical parameters that had been determined by franklin in 1951, and which she and gosling had significantly refined in 1952, as well as with published data and other very similar data to those available at king's. rosalind franklin was probably never aware that her work had been used during construction of the model,[106] but maurice wilkins was.
  [edit] recognition of her contribution to the model of dna
  
  upon the completion of their model, francis crick and james watson had invited maurice wilkins to be a co-author of their paper describing the structure.[107][108] wilkins turned down this offer, as he had taken no part in building the model.[109] maurice wilkins later expressed regret that greater discussion of co-authorship had not taken place as this might have helped to clarify the contribution the work at king's had made to the discovery.[110] there is no doubt that franklin's experimental data were used by crick and watson to build their model of dna in 1953 (see above). some, including maddox as cited next, have explained this citation omission by suggesting that it may be a question of circumstance, because it would have been very difficult to cite the unpublished work from the mrc report they had seen.[111] indeed a clear timely acknowledgment would have been awkward, given the unorthodox manner in which data was transferred from king's to cambridge, however methods were available. watson and crick could have cited the mrc report as a personal communication or else cited the acta articles in press, or most easily, the third nature paper that they knew was in press. one of the most important accomplishments of maddox's widely acclaimed biography is that maddox made a well-received case for inadequate acknowledgement. "such acknowledgement as they gave her was very muted and always coupled with the name of wilkins".[112]
  
  twenty five years after the fact, the first clear recitation of franklin's contribution appeared as it permeated watson's account, the double helix, although it was buried under allegations that franklin did not know how to interpret her own data and that she should have therefore shared her work with wilkins, watson, and crick. this attitude is epitomized in the confrontation between watson and franklin over a pre-print of pauling's mistaken dna manuscript.[113] watson's words impelled sayre to write her rebuttal, in which she designs her entire chapter nine, "winner take all" to be like a legal brief dissecting and analyzing the topic of acknowledgement.[114] unfortunately sayre's early analysis was often ignored because of the supposed feminist overtones in her book. it should be noted that in their original paper, watson and crick do cite the x-ray diffraction work of both wilkins and william astbury. in addition, they admit their, "having been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental work of [groups led by both both wilkins and franklin]".[2] franklin and raymond gosling's own publication in the same issue of nature was the first publication of this more clarified x-ray image of dna.[115]
  
  yanlis bilinciniz devreye girince arastirmaci sorusturmaci ruhunuz da kayboluyor, esyanin tabiati. cunku binlerce insan bu kadinin hakkinin yendigi konusunda deluzyonel davraniyorlar, herkes o kadar gerizekali. ve nobelde adinin bile gecmemis olmasini tuhaf bulmamaliyiz elbette, ya da arastirmalarinin bonbastik sonucunu vurguladiklari makalede kadinin adinin, izinsiz aldiklari ve ona dayanarak dna yapisini cozdukleri fotograflarinin bile dogru duzgun hakkinin verilmemesi (yukarida anlatilan sekilde, saka gibi sekilde) de hep normal seyler. dunya hakkinin yenildigini dusunen insanlarla dolu, therefore, hakki yenen birinin hakkini arayan biri muhtemelen sadece guvensiz (kendi hakkinin yenildiginden boyle dusunuyor. olaylari bir kere psikolojize etmezsek gebericiiz cunki). kisisellestirmeyelim derken kisiselligin dibine vuruyorsunuz, mantiksizligin ve sagduyusuzlugun dik alasini goruyorsunuz, bir de ordan el salliyorsunuz, ne diyeyim. ustelik bunun "ezilen kadin olma korkusu" gibi yine asiri psikolojize, fantastik kurgulara dayanarak yapilmasi da bir o kadar zavallica. kendinizi de fakto ezen kadin yerine koydugunuzda (ya da kendinize icten ice bunu yakistirdiginizi inkar edemediginizde), karsinizdaki kisilerin de ezilen rolune gectiklerini dusunebilir, bunu uygun gorebilirsiniz ancak. ancak kendinizden yola cikarak insanlar hakkinda genellemelere gidebilirsiniz, gerisi matematik.
  
  kendisini surekli guclu olanlarla ozleslestirmeye yatkin olan insanlarin elbette ki, kurbani yukari ceken kisileri asagi cekmek adina, kurbani tekrar kurban etmekte beis gormeyecegini gosteren kadindir ölüsüyle rosalind.
  
  haz etmediginiz birilerine laf sokmak adina bu basliga istediginizi yazabilirsiniz, kadin zaten ölü.
• suphesiz ki hakki yenilmistir, ona bir itirazim yok. fakat su adrese girip dna'nin yapisiyla ilgili nature'da yayinlanan makalelere arka arkaya bakacak olursaniz goreceksiniz ki watson ile crick isin daha cok 'bulmaca cozme' tarafiyla ilgilenip eldeki veriyle celismeyen en mantikli 3 boyutlu yapiyi oneriyorlar. franklin ise kendi urettigi x-ray resminin matematigini ortaya koyuyor, formullerle falan can sikiyor. watson ve crick makaleyi "bu onerdigimiz yapinin dna eslenmesi fenomeninin aydinlatilmasinda onemli olacagini da farketmedik sanmayin" diye bitiriyorken, franklin "the structure is probably helical" diye bitiriyor. arkadas probably'si mi kalmis bunun artik.
  
  ha belki franklin de watson ve crick gibi kendine guvenen bir metin yazmak istemistir ve hatta yazmistir da derginin hakemleri begenmeyip yeniden yazmasini istemislerdir. boyle seyler olabilir, bunlari bilemem ben.