Rosalind Franklin

 

I was reading Rosalind Franklin’s biography (by Brenda Maddox), quite a thick book but I finished it within two days. The reason is that I am not interested in personal lives of people. Biographies (as also autobiographies) of people who have made valuable contribution to the humanity is important in its exploration of how they worked to contribute in their areas of involvement. The process of how they went about doing their work, their understandings, influences as also the impact is what is important to know. Sieving that framework gives good estimation of mind at work. A discerning, indeed responsible, reader is not interested in personal matters. The ogler’s framework that the market worked out with confession seeking inanities of ludicrous to keep it exciting for the crude is what it is reduced to. Guardians of lowest denominator are celebrated as special hence their personal lives hold meaning to herd. It spirals down to ensnare best of people’s life into superficialities so as to connect to the herd. Rosalind Franklin was significant scientist whose contribution (as also how she was systemically ignored) stands out. She made indelible contribution to find the structure of DNA hence the code of life. This contribution and how she went about working it, the challenges and process of her scientific contribution, is what matters and not whether she was a good chef (why?) or that she was insufferable during her periods (imagine this book was published in 2002, it’s unfortunate, this writer needs to apologize. To know more about Rosalind’s contribution and her struggles as a scientist was the reason I invested in this book) or her preference for French or that she had elite English accent doesn’t matter whatsoever, nor am I interested. Yes, it is important to bring out prevailing patriarchal values (how it was more in feudal Britain than in liberty driven France) and what all hardships she faced despite being the best scientist of her generation, to understand how these systems worked to undermine best of minds. This author though lacks the skills and necessary grip to emphasis and prioritize what matters and nuance of empathy that should redeem not reduce as also awareness of contemporary world she is presenting to. I never really liked James Watson -few years back his racist rant worsened the matter and points to serious character flaw. This is further consolidated by his unethical appropriation of Rosalind’s material (iconic photo51) as also cleverly and ruthlessly sidelining her. His misogynism and patronizing attitude towards respected co-scientist (like Rosalind) shows how limited context of science creates insular minds unaware of larger world or progressive ideas that nurtures science. With little more support Rosalind could have taken the leap of imagination that her prescient mind was eminently capable of but she vacillated and chose the path of assurance through diligence of experimental work (very likely so as to not to embarrass hence fall prey to prevalent misogynist stereotyping, it is easy to imagine how this mindset must have hampered her at each stage as also contributed to her steely resolve) to establish it beyond doubt, this lag was capitalized by others to claim as their own (note that previously likes of Watson&Crick, even respected Linus Pauling, had made wild claims through their self-assured imagination to claim the glory). Therein lies the lessons and learning.         

The luxury and comfort in which we live in that enhance our possibilities is not accidental nor is it a god’s gift or a special divine design but consolidation of best of values over centuries into thinking and analyzing to create systems closer to understanding of reality to decipher mysteries of nature. This seems to be underplayed by devious who try to normalize the same regressive -the same pattern, that resisted and undermined humanity’s progress as diversity. In mediocrity thriving society they create attention seekers as celebrities to awe common populace as also carrier of expected pliable transactional values of profit and greed. Best minds shouldn’t be reduced to these kinds of nonsense. Ofcourse, they had their failing but that shouldn’t be used to titillate or brought down to crude sensibilities of herd. It is a civilizational loss. Though the book seems well researched and try to empathize with Rosalind’s short and brilliant life there are only few pages in this book that really matters. What is also important to note is that Rosalind’s long and arduous work involved exposure to Xray this could be a possible reason for her cancer (the book doesn’t mention it), many early scientists were not aware of the dangers (that includes Curie). So much sacrifices were made to create the world we live in must be emphasized. World is a better place because of undaunting efforts of likes of Rosalind.  

I also wanted to bring out from the book on how the best of minds were galvanized into finding the structure of DNA by Erwin Schrodinger in his Dublin lecture series titled ‘What is Life?’. His concern was ‘why biology was treated complete separate from physics and chemistry’. He declared that time has come to think of living organisms in terms of their molecular and atomic structure. There was no great divide between living and nonliving they all obey same laws of physics and chemistry. “How can the events in space and time which take place within the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry? ... The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences.” Through this influential lecture Schrodinger introduced the idea that life is characterized by highly organized, non-repetitive molecular structures, distinguishing living matter from inanimate objects. He also introduced concept of negative entropy, "the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the entropy it cannot help producing while alive." This series of lecture was published as book and changed the framework of discourse. Biological problems could now be tackled with physics, this opened up floodgate for biophysics which gave impetus for eventually finding the structure of DNA and advancement in molecular biology.

What Schrodinger did at the critical moment in history to galvanize research beyond silos of physics, chemistry and biology is what is needed to put in the framework of AI research (Turin’s test set up the standard, the world is well past it). It seems haphazard and spread out without a clear core as also the important issue of alignment. How to differentiate life from non-life in the complex bioAI? A prescient researcher with brilliance of Schrodinger is needed to consolidate wide range of subjects -from biotechnology to quantum, and concerns into coherent narration that is scientifically precise and ethically aligned. What is artificial life? So as to put the core of AI progress into narrative framework.