now those are what i call theoretical models derived from crystallographic calculations, hubba hubba
I wish I understood science. Breasts, however… thems, I gets.
I got a crick in my watson looking at them.
Around the same time I believe Playboy, a brand new magazine at the time, was finding it's voice by putting out articles on possible safety regulations to be imposed upon Nuclear Power Plants.
Marlyn Monroe was quoted as stating that a safe, energy-independant America was her biggest turn on.
Twist and shout, baby.
Dem lips. Unfff.
Subtle having the tatty-pocket-protectors with the white outlines. Gives the illusion that the pens are busting out from behind the bra.
Like her sweet bazongas.
I feel ever since you've gotten married (*sob*), you've gotten better at drawing the lady body ô_o
I feel like that's a really weird thing to say.
heyo this is kris's wife and yeah, that's weird to say. he's been drawing my head like that since we started dating.
Wait, Kris married? When did that happen?
I think if you want to see pretty cartoon ladies you can do a lot better than chainsawsuit…
Her contributions to science were profound. Profoundly arousing, amirite?
I like the subtle underboob…for science!
I'd like to run my helicase across her nucleic acid phosphodiester backbone, if you know what I mean.
Me neither; aren't you supposed to run it over her H-bondage?
Meh, I saw her genome. Its all T and A.
I'd like to bind my G and C to that.
G is for Genitals.
C is redundant.
Ur a sell out.
I would T-A-G her C.
To be fair, if I just did the powder diffraction runs for an experiment today my name wouldn't go on the paper either. No matter how righteous my rack was, the primary investigator that did the analysis and his adviser would be the first names.
You say that like its the totally blase and banal grad student busy work it is today. However, if you had done something that hadn't been done before and your yet-to-be-published experimental data was hijacked for a paper without your knowledge or consent, then I think you'd be pretty peeved, righteous rack or not.
Rosalind Franklin is fully cited in the Watson and Crick paper, and her crystallography data appeared in the exact same issue of Nature, only a few pages later. In it she credits others with solving the helical structure. She was hardly "hijacked."
Yeah, this comment makes me super angry. I've gotta go punch some ducklings now.
A tip: Wear a white lab coat when punching ducklings. People will let you do most anything if you're wearing a white lab coat. Except get money. That just doesn't happen.
In this months issue: Rosalind Franklin unzips her genes
Nice try, Snorgtees™®.
this actually isn't the first time science review did a cover story on a female scientist! in the early 1900s, they talked about "radiance" of marie curie.
Nor was it the last. Perhaps you remember their cover story from December 2007: "Dr. Mary Schweitzer: She Sure Permineralizes the Soft Tissue in OUR Bones! Rowr!"
Now this is New Yorker material!
Oh Jet Wiggledick, I see why you've changed publications. And your tie.
That's his cousin, Chester "Chet" Wiggledick-Marposium.
Actually it was his great-grandfather, Augustus J. Wiggledick.
No, it was his great-uncle, Weiner P. Ballsfart.
It's not strictly unfair that Watson and Crick get all the press, because they really were the ones who figured out the important bit – Watson-Crick base pairing. The double helical structure of DNA is important, but not that important, and there's no evidence that Franklin ever solved her crystallography for a helical structure herself.
X-ray crystallography is some deep juju, for sure, and the people who can coax good crystals out of biomolecules and get good x-rays are crucial to our advancement of biochemistry. But we don't apply a standard where we give crystallographers credit for all downstream achievements. I think Franklin gets exactly as much credit as her work deserves, and I've never taken a genetics class where her name wasn't prominently featured.
That's not all that's prominently featured. Heyoooo
But seriously, thanks for the info.
hurmph! That's the kind of answer a man WOULD give!
seriously though, give the lady a bit more credit, she got W&C half way to their conclusions.
There'd probably be less outrage about the extent to which her work was appropriated by Watson and Crick had Watson not then written a memoir which portrayed her as a shrill, useless man-hater who contributed almost nothing to the search for DNA. People can debate whether she or Wilkins deserved more of the credit, but Watson's protrayal of her in The Double Helix was just plain nasty.
"I want to be taken seriously as a scientist." Did you hear that man? She wants to be taken, seriously!
I love the scientific method.
Nice Marie Curies baby.
That euphemism is my new favorite. What do you think about "Test boobs" instead of test tubes? I dunno, let me workshop it.
good thing society has changed over the last 50 years to be more accepting and less neanderthal about genders
in other news did you hear about that chick who ruined mass effect 3 or something
I really learned a lot from today's Chainsawsuit. Kris presents material that really improves my cultural awareness.
I had no idea Rosalind Franklin was such a betty.
30 years later: Margaret Thatcher! A-thank-you.
CO-BOY, Grace Hopper sure is free to hop our grace!
Are they pens? I assumed they were some sort of splatter on the cover.
I'd like to examine that specimen under a microscope!
This isn't the first time a man has overshadowed a women in the press for a joint discovery. We all know Pierre Curie, right? Well his Nobel Prize was actually a joint award, to him and his wife. I bet most of you don't even know what his wife's name is.