Cipher sleuth

Tribute to Crick on Birth Centenary

Ukrainian Biochemical Journal, 2020

In the 20th century, DNA became a magnet, attracting representatives of various sciences. Prominent researchers competed among themselves to discover the structure of DNA and to explain the mechanisms that determine our "natural fate", i.e., our heredity. an american chemist, biochemist, chemical engineer linus Pauling, a British physicist and molecular biologist maurice Wilkins, a British chemist, biophysicist, and X-ray crystallographer rosalind Franklin, an american geneticist, molecular biologist, zoologist James Watson, a British molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist Francis Crick were among them. They searched for the scientific explanation for the enigma of life hidden in DNA. An accurate description of DNA double-helical structure belongs to James Watson and Francis Crick. However, the missing pieces of the puzzle were elaborated by Rosalind Franklin, who was not given enough credit for her dedicated scientific work. Unlike her, Francis Crick, James Watson, and maurice Wilkins were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962 for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material. Whatever the DNA story is, it shows that all great scientific discoveries are not made from scratch. The immense number of people have contributed to the development of science and literally every researcher stands on the shoulders of giants, while the idea itself is in the air. The discovery of the structure of DNA became a cornerstone for the new scientific paradigm-biology acquired a molecular and biochemical basis. K e y w o r d s: DNa, DNa double helix, James Watson, Francis Crick, rosalind Franklin, maurice Wilkins, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or medicine 1962.

Metascience, 2018

The eugenics movement was initiated by Sir Francis Galton, a Victorian scientist. Galton's career can be divided into two parts. During the first, Galton was engaged in African exploration, travel writing, geography, and meteorology. The second part began after he read the Origin of Species by his cousin Charles Darwin. The book convinced Galton that humanity could be improved through selective breeding. During this part of his career he was interested in the factors that determine what he called human "talent and character" and its hereditary basis. Consequently, he delved into anthropometrics and psychology and played a major role in the development of fingerprinting. He also founded the field of biometrics, inventing such familiar statistical procedures as correlation and regression analysis. He constructed his own theory of inheritance in which nature and not nurture played the leading role. He actively began to promote eugenics and soon gained important converts.

História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, 2018

The French physiologist and Nobel Prize winner Charles Richet was the author of an impressive quantity of writings, including novels and poetry. He was an out-and-out eugenicist, convinced that “intentional, conscious, scientific, and methodical” selection could achieve “any result, provided we have enough patience.” He believed that the quantitative and qualitative growth of the population was of vital importance for France. In La sélection humaine (1919) and other writings, he dreamt of conscious selection to create “intellectual élites.” This process would be crowned by the production of a “higher human nature, a real surhumanité.” A staunch believer in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, Richet combined Darwinism and Lamarckism.

This article opens with general and historical remarks on philosophy of science’s problems with the concept of discovery. Then, drawing upon simple examples of Watson’s and Crick’s non-philosophical usage, I characterize phrases of the type “x discovers y” semantically. It will subsequently be shown how widespread philosophical discussion on discovery violates the semantic constraints of phrases of the type “x discovers y.” Then I provide a philosophical reconstruction of “x discovers y” that is in keeping with the “folk”notion of discovery. The philosophical ingredients of this approach are taken from a certain aspect of action theory and from epistemological reliabilism. The approach draws upon theconcept of superior action and connects this concept to progressive research. In contrast tonormal actions, superior actions are primarily explained by competencies. This perspective includes reminders of what some nineteenth-century philosopher-scientists had advocated as a competence-oriented view on scientific research. Finally, this approach is applied to the case of Watson’s and Crick’s discovery.

This book explores the socio-political implications of human heredity from the second half of the nineteenth century to the present postgenomic moment. It addresses three main phases in the politicization of heredity: the peak of radical eugenics (1900-1945), characterized by an aggressive ethos of supporting the transformation of human society via biological knowledge; the repositioning, after 1945, of biological thinking into a liberal-democratic, human rights framework; and the present postgenomic crisis in which the genome can no longer be understood as insulated from environmental signals. In Political Biology, Maurizio Meloni argues that thanks to the ascendancy of epigenetics we may be witnessing a return to soft heredity - the idea that these signals can cause changes in biology that are themselves transferable to succeeding generations. This book will be of great interest to scholars across science and technology studies, the philosophy and history of science, and political and social theory.

Irish Theological Quarterly, 2003

Exploring the middle ground between abstract and applied ethics from the perspective of virtue ethics, the author singles out a number of virtues pertinent to genomics in general and the related area of human reproductive cloning in particular, giving special attention to the virtues of curiosity and scepticism. he mapping and sequencing of the human genome has sparked a spir-Tited public debate regarding the ethical implications of this new knowledge. Broadly, the debate has proceeded at two levels of ethical reflection: first, overarching questions about human nature -for example, the way and the degree to which our genetic endowment reflects and summarizes the more elusive concept of our 'humanity'. Chemistry Nobel Prize winner, Walter Gilbert, in 'A Vision of the Grail', indicates that knowledge of the genome will answer the questions: 'What actually specifies the human organism? What makes us humane James Watson spoke of the human genome project (HGP) as a search 'to find out what being human is.'2 Admonitory writing at this level tends to warn against the temptation to 'play God', and hearkens back to the enormities connected to the eugenics movements of the early part of the last century.

Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2001

Particularly, but not exclusively, in Germany, concerns are uttered as to the consequences of modern biotechnological advances and their range of applications in the field of human genetics. Whereas the proponents of this research are mainly focussing on the possible knowledge that could be gained by understanding the causes of developmental processes and of disease on the molecular level, the critics fear the beginnings of a new eugenics movement. Without claiming a logical relationship between genetic sciences and eugenics movements, it is nevertheless suggested in this article that a connection between both can become established when the distinction between scientifically validated statements on one hand and guiding hypotheses and assumptions on the other hand is blurred, as is observed particularly when scientists report their results to the public. This claim is demonstrated in comparisons between the current state of scientific knowledge on the role of genes in development an...