"photo 51": the first X ray image of DNA taken by Rosalind Franklin in 1952, where we can make out the double helix structure
Francis Crick's first sketch of the double helix pattern
Francis Crick and James Watson's original model of DNA built in 1953
I've been looking at this early visual and "physical" research on DNA. Building these models and drawing speculative forms of the DNA structure was an essential element of the research.
Physically playing around with the form was a necessary step in order to "see" it, and therefore understand it, make it work.
My interest in this particular scientific practice is that it can speak to the non scientific. It resonates with the process of materialisation of ideas, and conflict with the physical world as well as the viewer.
I feel that this bears a ressemblance to the process of making art, in my experience of it anyway: the idea only becomes valuable and possibly valid when confronted with the physical world, where it finds objecthood.
I am also attracted by the esthetic aspect of this material.
I might be driven to use models or other visual research (non scientific) in my project.
I feel that this bears a ressemblance to the process of making art, in my experience of it anyway: the idea only becomes valuable and possibly valid when confronted with the physical world, where it finds objecthood.
I am also attracted by the esthetic aspect of this material.
I might be driven to use models or other visual research (non scientific) in my project.
This idea of speculative or creative science is really interesting. It'd be great to see the preceeding images or images from other researchers; as although these ones are speculative, they're very close to the form we now accept as DNA- bascically because their speculations were right.
RépondreSupprimerHowever there's always the danger that time and technological advancements will not validate your claims, that your particluar blend fact and imagination might be seen to be a bit too biased to the latter and you won't be seen as a visionary but as a nut.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is scientific research is a rigorous process yet, in some pioneering fields, there must come a point at the end of this process where you make informed guesses (or wild claims) rather than stating fact. That's a paradox isn't it?
from what I understand,in this particular case,which lead to the "true", actual form of DNA, the scientists involved had different approaches, and fundamental dicordances.
RépondreSupprimerRosalind Franklin was the straight scientist believing only in hard solid fact and leaving no room for intuition or guesses.
On the other hand Watson and Crick were the young ambitious boys obsessed by the idea of "cracking it", which they did mostly by unwittingly taking advantage of other's research , and compiling it.
I think that it was coming to a point where someone was going to get it right, and they were the most ambitious and perhaps the smartest ones so they took the claim.
However, their obsession with the "form" which led them to manipulate it constantly instead of basing themselves on pure data alone, gave them more loosness, alowing them to work outside of the strict academic order.
Maybe their use of speculation was just fortunate this time, because of the amount of data to back it up.
I'll look into some older stuff
Do you think you can quantify 'visionary-ness'? On one axis you could could have the amount of information already established as fact and on the other you could have the amount of time taken before your idea is proved correct.
RépondreSupprimerSo, if you have pretty much all the facts and you take a small guess, which is very quickly proved to be right, then your just doing your job as scientist. But then on the other hand if your Darwin, and you basically just churn out loads of speculation based mainly on your personal knowledge and observations and science is still trying to catch up to you nearly 200 years later, then you get a really high score.