2690: Cool S
| Cool S |
 Title text: Although I hear they were caught cheating off of Rosalind, who sat at a desk in front of them. |
Explanation
|
This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a COOL MIDDLE SCHOOL RESEARCHER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks. |
The 'Cool S' is a stylized drawing of the letter "S". It is a popular doodle among teenagers as it can be quickly hashed out using six vertical lines which are then connected with an appropriate pattern of diagonal lines.
Randall first draws the steps to make the Cool S. Then he draws a chain of repeats of this pattern, excluding the end caps, making something that looks like a twisted rope. Finally he separates the two strands and adds cross bars, creating something that turns out to have a visual similarity to the discovered helical structure of DNA. However, although the final diagram is a double helix, the chirality, or "handedness", is backwards: an actual DNA molecule winds in the opposite direction (clockwise, if you're looking at it end-on). (The tutorial at How to (correctly) draw DNA describes this in more detail.)
He posits that the helical shape of DNA was originally discovered when somebody decided to doodle this extended S pattern.
Understanding the shape of the DNA molecule was an important step towards understanding how it duplicates itself and serves as a template for RNA. In real life, Francis Crick and James Watson were awarded a Nobel Prize for this discovery.
The title text is a reference to Rosalind Franklin, who made a material contribution to the discovery of DNA but was controversially not included in the Nobel Prize, although the reason was not as biased as common belief supposes. She wasn't excluded due to sexism, but because she had died in 1958, five years before the prize was awarded and as such was ineligible. Franklin's boss at the time of the discovery, Maurice Wilkins, was also named on the prize. Wilkins had shared some of Franklin's data with Watson, who then shared what he saw with Crick. None of the three men ever told Franklin that Watson and Crick had based their model on her data.
This account is reminiscent of how August Kekule said he identified the ring structure of the benzene molecule. He claimed to have had a dream in which the atoms were moving around, with the last grabbing onto the first like the classic image of a snake grabbing its tail, forming a ring of six lines.
Transcript
|
|
This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks. |
- [10 drawings evolving from simple dashes, to a "cool S" symbol, to a representation of DNA.]
- The structure of DNA was originally discovered by a group of especially cool middle school researchers.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ 
refresh comments!Discussion
Wow. Never seen a blank one before Boatster (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I used to do these chains! 108.162.237.25 15:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
- You must have used to be DNA polymerase, then! —While False (museum | talk | contributions | logs | rights) 19:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
As a molecular biologist, I'm a bit annoyed any time I see DNA drawn as a left-handed helix. Perhaps this was intentional on Randall's part.
- To expand on Bumpf's comment -- DNA is typically right-handed, so it was most probably derived from the "cool Z". (Yes, Z-DNA (q.v.) is left-handed -- perhaps leading to Randall's presentation) 172.70.178.221 17:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I've never seen on so angular before either. 17:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Z DNA was not discovered until the 1980s and is a minor form. Also, it doesn't really look much like the regular helix. Franklin had X-ray data on A and B form DNA. B is the most well known form. Also, so as not to have someone else blamed for my comment, the left-hand comment was "docpelletier," me.
This was actually a rediscovery, Celtic decorators had discovered it before. Fabian42 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Dosen't the transcript generally not have the title text included? --172.70.82.167 19:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. The transcript is of the image only. —While False (museum | talk | contributions | logs | rights) 19:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Should we try a more descriptive transcript? I could write up a description, but wasn't sure if I should. MAP (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, we always should. Remember that it's partly for people who cannot see the images and need something fully understandable read out to them (an easier ask than trying to accomodate every single possible relevent text-search for comic feaures, which is another reason to have it.) I was tempted myself, but not had the time. But anybody can 'improve' more or less anything (acknowledging that it's subjective) so if you have the means, motive and opportunity then why not? 172.69.79.163 23:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Not giving her the Prize because she was already dead is still discrimination. Didn't Pratchett even had word for that? -- Hkmaly (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- There is debate to be had on whether it is or isn't discrimination when as a rule, the prize isn't awared posthumously unless the person recieved the award before death.--Mapron01 (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- From the world of Pratchett: "Undead, not Unperson!" - Although that might only count if Franklin also became like 896: Marie Curie, at least in time for the original award being decided). 172.71.186.163 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I think there's more to the controversy over Rosalind Franklin than just being omitted from the Nobel Prize. The significance of her contribution was downplayed in the media in general. Practically everyone has heard of Watson and Crick, but relatively few lay people have heard of Franklin. Although I guess that can be considered a natural result of them receiving the Nobel. Barmar (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- She's at least getting (assuming it can be rearranged) a Mars rover... I think C&W aren't getting anything like that, whatever past supplemental honours they got in response/parallel to their Nobelisations... 172.71.186.163 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we need a clarification. Whether a spiral winds clockwise or widdershins when you look at it end-on depends which end you are looking at.MarquisOfCarrabass (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Except it doesn't. Take apart your nearest pen and try looking at the spring inside from either end, and you'll see. 141.101.77.62 06:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The spring in my pen twists to the right as it goes down, whichever end I hold upward. Nutster (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is a trick comment - when you take apart a pen the spring will invariably fly off somewhere never to be found again, so you won't be able to examine it.172.70.162.155 15:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, a spiral can wind differently depending upon how you view it (c.f. a watch-spring or a particular type of rafia tablemat). But not a helix, such as a pen spring or DNA, which is what we have here. That indeed has constant chirality; without deliberate deformation, either pushing it through itself or unwrapping and allowing it to rewrap in the opposite direction of coiling, as anyone trying to rationalise a badly tangled telephone handest cable of years past (or similar) will have realised. 172.70.85.25 17:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Idea for society
What if we dub Franklin as the sole discoverer of DNA, just to balance things out?
--172.69.79.140 13:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
