TSR George
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#1
What are your top five biologists? (we need to beat the chemists and physicists!)

1 Watson
2 Crick
3 Darwin
4 Rosalind Franklin
5 Linnaeus
0
reply
thegrassisgreenerontheotherside
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 years ago
#2
Watson+co should be up there with the whole DNA discovery
Mendel for his genetics work?
Darwin...what a dude!

um...can't think of anyone else atm..
0
reply
Revd. Mike
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 years ago
#3
Darwin for sure. However, I'm a little biased against Watson and Crick. Whilst they're famed with the discovery of the structure of DNA, it was actually Rosalind Franklin that did all the work, slaving away in my University's basement!

Watson and Crick picked up on her work, made the final step and published their paper without even a footnote acknowledging Franklin!
0
reply
clad in armour
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 years ago
#4
got a mate called laith as well ummmm....
top 5 biologists
Pasteur and Flemming are defo up there
Darwin as well
Aristotele(sp)
cant really think of any more
0
reply
BillyMarsh
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 years ago
#5
1 and 2. Watson and Crick (They go together like rammalammablamamdeblangdyblang)

3. Thomas Harvey

4. Charles Darwin (Though I disagree with evolution.... He did do alot of work)

Can't think of a 5th
0
reply
Revd. Mike
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 years ago
#6
I don't want this to go completely off topic, but what? How can you possibly disagree with evolution? Do you disagree with gravity too?

And I really wish that if people keep crediting Watson and Crick as being in the top 5 of all biologists, they at the very, very least credit Rosalind Franklin alongside them.
0
reply
Tibbles168
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 years ago
#7
This not ranked by the way since I can't decide who is the best...

1) "The DNA Posse" (i.e. Watson, Crick, etc - they had to be lumped together)

2) Richard Doll (he was the genius who made the connection between smoking and cancer)

3) Alexander Fleming

4) Darwin

5) Mendel
0
reply
BillyMarsh
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 years ago
#8
(Original post by Tibbles168)
This not ranked by the way since I can't decide who is the best...

1) "The DNA Posse" (i.e. Watson, Crick, etc - they had to be lumped together)
Haha DNA posse... If I hadn't used it already I would have repped that.
0
reply
anna_spanner89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 years ago
#9
Darwin

Mendel


David Attenbrough

Fleming

ANDDD...Florence nightengale- not necessarily a scentist, but she did a lot for medicine
0
reply
ixivxivi
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 years ago
#10
(Original post by Revd. Mike)
Darwin for sure. However, I'm a little biased against Watson and Crick. Whilst they're famed with the discovery of the structure of DNA, it was actually Rosalind Franklin that did all the work, slaving away in my University's basement!

Watson and Crick picked up on her work, made the final step and published their paper without even a footnote acknowledging Franklin!
Actually, if you look at the paper, it does mention Maurice Wilkins (referencing his "previously published X-ray data" ), but papers by both Wilkins and Franklin (on the X-ray data) were published alongside the structure paper. Additionally:
We are much indebted to Dr. Jerry Donohue for constant advice and criticism, especially on interatomic distances. We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King’s College, London (15). One of us (J. D. W.) has been aided by a fellowship from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis.
:p:. There is an interesting note on him being something of a :santa2::santa2::santa2::santa2: at the bottom of the annotated version of the paper I linked to though.

TBH, I'm not that sure Watson would have been that remembered if he hadn't immortalised his version of events in his v. readable, popular book. After all, post 1953, I don't think he didn't anything huge, whereas Crick at least played a big part in theorising about how you got from DNA -> Protein, and then went off and did Things [I don't know whether these Things had substance to them or not, they seem vaguely well thought off...] to do with neuroscience.
0
reply
Mattisabiologist
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 years ago
#11
1. Darwin
2. Dawkins
3. Linnaeus
4. W.D. Hamilton
5. Steve Jones
6. DNA people (Watson, Crick and Franklin)

I suppose arguably some are not the best, but I really enjoy their ideas.
0
reply
Speedbird2008
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 11 years ago
#12
Dawkins () and Darwin.
0
reply
Speedbird2008
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 years ago
#13
(Original post by Mattisabiologist)
1. Darwin
2. Dawkins
3. Linnaeus
4. W.D. Hamilton
5. Steve Jones
6. DNA people (Watson, Crick and Franklin)

I suppose arguably some are not the best, but I really enjoy their ideas.
Yeh they are great writers. What about Ridley?
0
reply
Erebus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 years ago
#14
Darwin, Linnaeus, Dawkins, The DNA co-hort. Important question though, should Mendel be included?
0
reply
ixivxivi
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#15
Report 11 years ago
#15
(Original post by BillyMarsh)
1 and 2. Watson and Crick (They go together like rammalammablamamdeblangdyblang)

3. Thomas Harvey

4. Charles Darwin (Though I disagree with evolution.... He did do alot of work)

Can't think of a 5th
I can't find that Thomas Harvey did any thing except fiddle a bit with Einstein's brain. What am I missing?

And also, although I have said this before OUR PRESENT CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION IS VERY VERY VERY DIFFERENT TO DARWIN'S. He noticed something from the outside, but didn't have any proper proof of the way in which characteristics were passed from an organism to its offspring. From what we know of organisms these days - that their characteristics are governed by their cells, which are in turn governed by the particular types and quantities of protein produced at particular times, which is controlled by the particular DNA present - and I can't be bothered repeating myself again. I made a post on this a while back, the third paragraph's the most relevant :

Spoiler:
Show
I still don't get why people are so insistent on biting onto evolution - couldn't we have a bit more of 'the origin of life' for variance? I think possibly it's because people may vaguely think that evolution is still what Darwin stated, you know, how he looked at the outside of things (lots of closely related finches etc.) and gave a theory about how that came about (i.e. he had observed, but couldn't explain properly, as we can now we have more knowledge).

In reality, biology has moved rather a long way in 100+ years (we didn't have biochemistry, the best bit until recently - no concept of DNA, how drugs work, how diseases really act) and if you look at things in the knowledge we have now, even just looking at the facts, you can see that evolution is going to happen:

You have DNA from which you get protein, which then basically makes cells do what they do, which then goes on to give the organism all of its characteristics and determines its actions. You get mutations [fact], changes in the sequence of the DNA, which may alter the protein a particular gene would cause the production of, stop its production or even increase the quantity of that protein. Some of these changes to proteins may affect the cell and may then in turn affect the entire organism [fact]. Different organisms live under different environmental conditions [fact] and the change wrought by the original mutation can make a particular organism more or less successful than those without the mutation in that particular environment [fact]. So, if the mutation makes the organism more successful, the organism is more likely to live to have a long & successful reproduction period and pass on more copies of the mutated gene (& vice versa if the new mutation decreases the chances of survival).

That's evolution, and if you want to attack it then I guess you'd have to start at one of the facts.
0
reply
Sarahl89
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 years ago
#16
(Original post by anna_spanner89)
Darwin

Mendel


David Attenbrough
Fleming

ANDDD...Florence nightengale- not necessarily a scentist, but she did a lot for medicine
eh what?


& i cant believe how low mendel is ranking with most people!
0
reply
Mattisabiologist
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#17
Report 11 years ago
#17
(Original post by Speedbird2008)
Yeh they are great writers. What about Ridley?
Oh yes, evolution is a good read.
0
reply
ixivxivi
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 11 years ago
#18
TBH, it's probably some boring old farts. I certainly know v. little of all the poss. people, but could putatively say something along the lines of:
*Francis Crick (for DNA structure and then the central dogma [his DNA->mRNA->tRNA->protein work])

*Kary Mullis (PCR, without which so much research would be essentially impossible. Perhaps it was just a matter of time before someone came up with the concept though?)

*Linus Pauling (for all his early work on protein helices and for being generally something of a polymath - important to keep biology multidisciplinary? Likewise, Erwin Schrödinger's "What is Life?" seems to have done a lot to help get a good host of physicists to come over to the Bio-side, which did good)

*Sanger (for both DNA and protein sequencing, which again has opened up the possibilities for new knowledge oh so much)

*Dunno about the fifth, I suppose a mix of one of the people that I know far too little about - Kornberg, Mellor, Fire, Hodgekin, my biophysics tutor [just for being among the saneist people I know ], Kendrew, Perutz, Krebs etc


Noticed I have something of a Biochem bias? :p: It's the only real part of Biology anyway...
0
reply
Mattisabiologist
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#19
Report 11 years ago
#19
(Original post by ixivxivi)
Noticed I have something of a Biochem bias? :p: It's the only real part of Biology anyway...
Oh no you didn't! :shifty: :eek: :p:
0
reply
Witches_Rave
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#20
Report 11 years ago
#20
(Original post by ixivxivi)
I can't find that Thomas Harvey did any thing except fiddle a bit with Einstein's brain. What am I missing?
I think he meant William Harvey first Westerner to discover about the systemic circulation of the blood and about valves in veins i believe. There was a middle eastern guy who discovered this quite a while before him but no one read his book :lol:.

I personal go for Andreas Vesalius over Harvey though :yep:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (189)
38.57%
Take autumn exams (150)
30.61%
Look for a job (17)
3.47%
Consider an apprenticeship (21)
4.29%
Take a year out (85)
17.35%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (28)
5.71%

Watched Threads

View All