written for PHIL361 — Philosophy of Science
Dr. Stacey E. Ake
The "discovery" of the structure of deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 ranks as one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of the past 100 years and has been the foundation for much biomedical research including the invention of the genetic code and the mapping of the human genome. Fundamentally, the structure of DNA has also led to significant advances in health and healthcare, such as the understanding of the genetic transmission of disease and therefore the importance of genetic counseling. The discovery of DNA structure also poignantly illustrates and re-affirms the ideals of classic scientific experimental research put forth by some of the giants in the field of science, Louis Pasteur and Thomas Edison.
During a lecture at the University of Lille in France on February 7, 1854, Louis Pasteur expounded on scientific observation, stating that "In the field of observation, chance favors only a prepared mind." Pasteur had lost three of his five children to typhoid fever, which was most likely the impetus for his determination and perseverance in studying the treatment and prevention of disease. He believed that accidental discovery could occur but would only be understood and synthesized by researchers who had the knowledge and sensitivity to recognize the importance of the event. He made many fundamental discoveries just by careful observation. A hundred years earlier, Sir Horace Walpole (1717-1797), Earl of Oxford and member of the English parliament, "had coined the term Serendipity for accidental discoveries" (Kubinyi). A key example of this type of serendipitous discovery is the discovery of the antibacterial properties of penicillin by Dr. Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming was growing bacteria in a Petri dish before he left for vacation. When he returned, he found that the dish was contaminated with fungal mold (penicillium notatum) and that fewer bacterial colonies grew in the zones around the invading whitish fungus. Dean Charles Lin of National Cheung Kung University in Taiwan explains that
other researchers would have discarded the contaminated Petri dish immediately. Why [did] only Fleming [have] the idea of studying the fungus in the contaminated plate?... He had been studying the effects of lysozyme in inhibiting growth of bacteria during that period of time, which might have led him to pick up this "occasional phenomenon." (2008)
In the early 1950's, several researchers were working feverishly to determine the structure of the DNA particle, the molecule that was the basis of heredity, and were seeking to be prepared for this "occasional phenomenon". James Watson, an American-born scientist who had attained a bachelor's and doctorate in zoology in the United States and had just completed a bachelor's in physics in Cambridge, teamed with Francis Crick to focus on the modeling of DNA at Cavendish Laboratory. At this time, Maurice Wilkins, a New Zealand-born physicist, and Rosalind Franklin, a chemist, were working at King's College in London on X-ray crystallographic methods to elucidate the structure of the elusive molecule. On the other side of the Pond, Linus Pauling at the California Institute of Technology had already determined the structure of proteins "narrowly beat[ing] scientists at the Cavendish Lab to the discovery that proteins are arranged in structures called alpha-helices" (Watson) and was also studying the structure of DNA. He was hampered, though, by travel restrictions in the McCarthy era and was denied access to Franklin's X-ray crystallographic images. Because of the embarrassment dealt to Cavendish at the hands of Pauling, Watson and Crick were instructed to focus full-time on the DNA chase.
Preparedness for this duo was in the form of tireless brain-storming, strategizing, synthesizing, and theorizing. They spent little time doing bench labwork but instead their genius was in the synthesizing of information. As Thomas Alva Edison wrote in Harper's Monthly in 1932, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. Accordingly a ‘genius' is often merely a talented person who has done all of his or her homework" (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Alva_Edison). The perspiration exerted by Watson and Crick in synthesizing the works of several scientists ultimately culminated in the one incidental morning of inspiration experienced by Watson. The pair had studied the prior work of Chargaff in the biochemical composition of DNA while also integrating the DNA modeling of Pauling and Sven Furberg and the X-ray crystallographic images of Franklin. Serendipity struck when during on early morning, Watson realized that the cardboard cutouts he had constructed fit together in the way that "the overall shape of an adenine molecule paired with a thymine molecule was similar to the overall shape of a guanine-cytosine pair" (Watson).
Watson had a classic "Aha!" or "Eureka!" moment, a moment of clarity after a sudden insight. John Kounios, Professor of Psychology at Drexel, has focused on the neuro-cognitive basis of information processing, creativity, and problem-solving and has researched the "Aha!" moment. In his article, "The Prepared Mind," he studied on a neuro-physiological level the state of mind to which Pasteur was referring. His team used EEG and functional MRI to study brain activity in participants completing certain tasks.
His results revealed that there was a "different pattern of brain activity prior to problems…solved with an ‘Aha!' compared to the pattern of brain activity prior to problems…solved more methodically" (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/afps-aft040506.php). Kounios et al. stated "that a person's preparatory brain state even prior to seeing a problem influences whether the person will solve that problem with insight ["Aha!"] or noninsight processing" (2006). He concluded this type of research would "lead to the development of techniques for facilitating or suppressing insight in order to optimize performance for different types of problems or contexts" (Kounios 2006).
Scientific research as well as most other fields of study rewards the ideals of hard work, dedication, perseverance, and preparedness with moments of inspired insight and opportunity. Periodically, other prized ideals of humanity such as ethics, compassion, and equality are compromised in this pursuit of the goal. There have been many questions raised about the DNA race especially the treatment of some of the scientists, such as Rosalind Franklin, in the competitive world of biomedical research. It is unclear how history will ultimately judge the violations of ethics in the context of such monumental discoveries, but the hope is that in the future, perspiration will include ‘working' to maintain high ethical standards and preparedness will entail ‘moral enrichment' in addition to scientific study.
Works Cited:
Kubinyi, Hugo. "Chance Favors the Prepared Mind- From Serendipity to Rational Drug Design." Journal of Receptor and Signal Transduction Research 19 (1-4): 15-39.
Lin, Dean Charles CH. "Chance Favors Only the Prepared Mind- an Example in Medicine."
<http://conf.ncku.edu.tw/research/commentary/e/20080215/1.html>
Watson, J.D. and F.H.C. Crick. "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. (Annotated Verson)" Nature 171 (3): 737-738
<http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/coldspring/ideas/printit.html>
Wikiquote. Thomas Alva Edison
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Alva_Edison>
Eurekalert.org. "Aha! Favors the prepared mind."
<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/afps-aft040506.php>
Kounios et al. "The Prepared Mind: Neural Activity Prior to Problem Presentation Predicts Subsequent Solution by Sudden Insight." Psychological Science 17 (10): 882-890.
