Very good interview - thanks - I was around the Salk in 76-77, but doing basic molecular biology, so never directly crossed paths with Crick.... Koch's work has been quite interesting as well - been following this since at least the 1994 book.... (which I believe is still in print).
That's to do with there being a pair of chromosomes, rather than each chromosome being made up of a double helix. There was no reason to predict two strands - everyone who worked on the problem of DNA structure toyed at one point or another with 3 or 4.
Found a cc version. Yes, Pauling was close. Perhaps if he hadn't necessarily spent so much time with attorney(s) defending himself from anti-communist attackers? At a dinner we shared, he said that he won enough cases to pay for the ones he lost.
Very good interview - thanks - I was around the Salk in 76-77, but doing basic molecular biology, so never directly crossed paths with Crick.... Koch's work has been quite interesting as well - been following this since at least the 1994 book.... (which I believe is still in print).
Also luckily got to play with neural networks around UCSD in the 80s... So all of this hits home more than a bit...
Note that the "transcript" doesn't work - "no transcript"
Curious how when you know it becomes obvious. In my ignorance does surely, dominance and recessive and Mendelian ratios predict double?
That's to do with there being a pair of chromosomes, rather than each chromosome being made up of a double helix. There was no reason to predict two strands - everyone who worked on the problem of DNA structure toyed at one point or another with 3 or 4.
Found a cc version. Yes, Pauling was close. Perhaps if he hadn't necessarily spent so much time with attorney(s) defending himself from anti-communist attackers? At a dinner we shared, he said that he won enough cases to pay for the ones he lost.
No cc. so no know.