This giant of biology has recently passed at the age of 97. What's the verdict? Gifted pioneer of scientific inquiry or scheming, bigoted plagiarist? There is no middle ground.
>>16852678>Gifted pioneer of scientific inquiry>scheming, bigoted plagiaristThose are teh same thing. Getting peak results in bleeding edge research means having brilliant ideas of your own and then combining it with brilliant ideas you inherited from the minds of the past as well as blatantly stole from your peers, and then leveraging all of your connections, nepotism and administrative scheming to elbow out a place in the sun for the produced chimera to thrive and garner attention.
>>16852680What about Newton? He just spouted.
>>16852678Didn't he steal Franklin work?
>>16852800Is that an earnest question? The short answer though is no, at least as far as I can tell. Franklin produced and analyzed some useful data that were passed on to Francis and Crick through a middleman and used in their own theories. Her own work was formally unpublished and it is debatable whether the awkward transfer from her to another scientist and then to Watson was appropriate or whether scientific ethics were violated. Watson himself apparently much later suggested that Franklin and the middleman should have been awarded the Chemistry prize and himself and Crick the Physiology and Medicine prize.So it was more of a mix-up/oversight, Franklin probably deserved more credit but it wasn't the deliberate shafting many seem to try to imply. Also no sexism involved most likely.
>>16852678He was an Epstein client.
