疑问

附原文如下：Walson给了Rosalind女士很高的评价
“All of these people, should they desire, can indicate events and details they remember
differently. But there is one unfortunate exception. In 1958, Rosalind Franklin died at the early age
of thirty-seven. Since my initial impressions of her, both scientific and personal (as recorded in the
early pages of this book), were often wrong, I want to say something here about her achievements.
The X-ray work she did at King's is increasingly regarded as superb. The sorting out of the A and B
forms, by itse1f, would have made her reputation; even better was her 1952 demonstration, using
Patterson superposition methods, that the phosphate groups must be on the outside of the DNA
molecule. Later, when she moved to Bemal's lab, she took up work on tobacco mosaic virus and
quickly extended our qualitative ideas about helical construction into a precise quantitative picture,
definitely establishing the essential helical parameters and locating the ribonucleic chain halfway
out from the central axis.
Because I was then teaching in the States, I did not see her as often as did Francis, to whom
she frequently came for advice or when she had done something very pretty, to be sure he agreed
with her reasoning. By then all traces of our early bickering were forgotten, and we both came to
appreciate greatly her personal honesty and generosity, realizing years too late the struggles that the
intelligent woman faces to be accepted by a scientific world which often regards women as mere
diversions from serious thinking. Rosalind's exemplary courage and integrity were apparent to all
when, knowing she was mortally ill, she did not complain but continued working on a high level
until a few weeks before her death.”

楼主是否可以看过书再写评论。每本书都不可能事完全客观的，不知道你的这些看法是否来自另外一本关于Rosalind女士的传记：The dark lady of DNA.但如果你有认真看过本书，你可以看到作者在后来是得到了Rosalind的首肯的，并且Rosalind在DNA结构发表之后还与Crick （DNA结构另一发现者）有过多次的科学探讨。同时，作者在后记中也有提到，他最初对于Rosalind女士关于科学和人品的许多看法是错误的，他对Rosalind女士由衷表示敬意。作者也说他后来了解到Rosalind女士之前让他误解的一些举动是因为女士在科学界更不容易得到承认所致。不可否认的是，Rosalind女士是一个非常tough的科学家。而Rosalind女士之所以没有获奖完全是因为她英年早逝。我对她表示由衷的敬意，也请楼主不要一叶障目。

还有一本书，《创世纪的第八天》，也对分子生物学的这段历史做了详细的记载，里面对Rosalind Franklin的贡献是给予充分肯定的，而且也提到了她在国王学院那段不愉快的经历，并且指出，如果有一个很好的合作者，Rosalind Franklin是有可能发现DNA的结构的。

正如najja同学所说，Rosalind Franklin未能获得诺贝尔奖，只是因为她早逝了。

　　他在作品中没提到罗萨林，“贬低”无从说起。我认为沃森用不道德的手段获得了对他的理论设想至关重要的数据。而这个数据本身是罗萨林的成果。这个不是偏见，是对他人劳动成果使用的不道德。
　　
　　“偏见”一词，扣在罗萨琳所在的英国国王学院和当时社会环境上更合适。
　　
　　至于小车认为这是“偏见”，是“真理”，那是你的自由。不过真扯得高了点。你只需要说，你如何看待这种行为？

楼主的偏见一眼可见：当然地认为沃森的描述“贬低”了罗萨林。
奇怪的是，她却要求沃森不带偏见。
这是何等无理的要求？

沃森说出了他眼中的“事实”。
你可以不认可这些事实，你可以找出其他的观点来与之对峙。
却没有任何权利要求沃森“不带偏见”。
显然，偏见是人的当然属性。或者说，世界上根本没有不是偏见的意见。
真理并不会从某一个圣人的口中说出，而在于对立观点的竞争。
任何“偏见”都是真理的一部分。

I remember that the lady was Rosalind Franklin, who would have received Nobel prize together with W&C if she had not died in 1958 prematurely.

Background Information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson

A more enduring controversy has been generated by Watson and Crick's use of Rosalind Franklin's crystallographic evidence of the structure of DNA, which was shown to them, without her knowledge, by her estranged colleague, Maurice Wilkins, and by Max Perutz. Her evidence demonstrated that the two sugar-phosphate backbones lay on the outside of the molecule, confirmed Watson and Crick's conjecture that the backbones formed a double helix, and revealed to Crick that they were antiparallel. Franklin's superb experimental work thus proved crucial in Watson and Crick's discovery. Yet, they gave her scant acknowledgment. Even so, Franklin bore no resentment towards them. She had presented her findings at a public seminar to which she had invited the two. She soon left DNA research to study tobacco mosaic virus. She became friends with both Watson and Crick, and spent her last period of remission from ovarian cancer in Crick's house (Franklin died in 1958). Crick believed that he and Watson used her evidence appropriately, while admitting that their patronizing attitude towards her, so apparent in The Double Helix, reflected contemporary conventions of gender in science.

严重同意楼主观点，不能一俊遮百丑，特别是鉴于中国人历来有为圣人讳的传统，以及目前的学术腐败，大众观念的道德坚守具有“重要的现实意义和深远的历史意义”。

"如你想像，成为了一次严重的性别歧视事件"???

我有想像过性别歧视吗？：）

你的看法跟我的观点好像是两回事哦。

Anyway，我欣赏你的看法。

你举的例子，正是说明，第谷和开普勒的工作共同产生了科学成功。
除不同意你对科学贡献评估标准外，我同样不同意你对道德的看法。

科学竞争确实如同商场、战场，人们不断为各种商业规则和职业道德付出努力，是因为公平客观，对人施展才华，创新前进多么重要。确实竞争中存在众多矛盾和局限，但不意味着人们可以放弃这种客观公正的内在追求。

你怎么看待我的观点是你的选择，但我会坚持自己的标准。

一、这和获奖无关。希望他们说明自己使用了他人的数据。如果没有这些数据，他们不可能正确预测，因为预测不是纯粹的想像，是要基于客观数据的。当他们初期预测时，那位女士提出的意见，使二人意识到获取到她的数据是多么重要。所以他们从国王学院盗取了数据。无论如何，重要的贡献应被客观的予以重视和尊重，而对他们而言，因手段原因，存在困难。

二、这和性别无关。即使那位国王学院的科学家不是女士，工作成果仍当获得应有的认可。预测能力与实验能力都是平等而不可或缺的。但这个事件又确实如你想像，成为了一次严重的性别歧视事件。这位英国女士为DNA的拍照工作是国王学院的一项研究课题，她在那里呆得很不愉快，但她坚持完成工作之后，回到她求学的法国，似乎是在病毒学领域（领域记忆不清了）取得了卓越成就。你知道为什么这个数据可以从国王学院流失么？是因为英国国王学院存在的严重歧视，认为这是一位女士做出的实验成果。

总而言之，我以贡献应以公正的观点评估，并且为人所之。这是对那些付出青春和汗水的科学家的尊重。而其中，性别和其他因素一样，不应成为得到这种尊重的障碍。

MM请息怒：）

科学研究史上这样的例子太多了，评价时注意不要带上感情色彩。

远的有第谷观测天体，累积了大量天文学数据，但他没有能力分析总结出规律；后来他的弟子开普勒虽然不善于观察，但却精于分析，终于从浩瀚
的数据里提炼出“天文学三大定律”。

近的如现在的基因组海量数据，一般发现新基因组的人不善于从新信息里找到规律，因为那是体力劳动。只有善于用脑、精于数学推理和计算机的人才会有新发现，但这类人一般不会做实验。

“那位女士”测量出数据而不能获奖固然可叹，但科学竞争如商场、战场，“道德”在这是不适用的（我不是指造假之类的东西）。参照系不要搞错。