trogon (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} trogon) wrote,@ 2007-11-05 10:14:00 |
|
What's wrong with this article?
The latest Scientific American has an article titled "The Forgotten Code Cracker". It's available online, and it's short, so go read it then come back and tell me what, if anything, you noticed.
Here's the article.
What I noticed is behind the cut so it doesn't prejudice you.
Notice whose name doesn't get mentioned? Someone who's widely known in certain circles for not getting mentioned in articles about the discovery of the structure of DNA?
Admittedly Nirenberg's issues are different -- it's mostly that pop-sci articles conflate 'structure' with 'code' -- but still you'd think that in an article devoted to giving DNA credit where DNA credit is due they might bother to MENTION Rosalind Franklin, rather than relegating her to an unnamed 'other'.
The latest Scientific American has an article titled "The Forgotten Code Cracker". It's available online, and it's short, so go read it then come back and tell me what, if anything, you noticed.
Here's the article.
What I noticed is behind the cut so it doesn't prejudice you.
Notice whose name doesn't get mentioned? Someone who's widely known in certain circles for not getting mentioned in articles about the discovery of the structure of DNA?
Admittedly Nirenberg's issues are different -- it's mostly that pop-sci articles conflate 'structure' with 'code' -- but still you'd think that in an article devoted to giving DNA credit where DNA credit is due they might bother to MENTION Rosalind Franklin, rather than relegating her to an unnamed 'other'.
