rosalind franklin looks like jimmy durante's sister

For starters, since I am currently reading articles about gender – basically feminist studies in technical communication – it is interesting to learn about a female scientist involved in the “discovery” of DNA. Rosalind Franklin was a biophysicist and X-ray crystallographer who contributed to the understanding of the molecular structure of DNA among other things. Her work making X-ray diffraction images of DNA (whatever that means) was the data used by Watson & Crick to develop their hypothesis “regarding the structure of DNA.” For whatever reasons she is lost or obscured in history while her male contributors are remembered and celebrated for their efforts. I don’t know anything well enough to form an opinion about this but I thought bringing it up would be interesting.

I’ll incredibly brief and generalized here. The feminist theorist would, according to Mary M. Lay, like to make known the gender biases inherent in science and technology. These biases, whether intentional or unconscious, give the power to the masculine entity which is thought to have the characteristics suited for science, namely: objectivity and reason. Maybe, had Rosalind Franklin been able to present herself in a more masculine way; write in the masculine language she might have been recognized more for her efforts.

More to the point of the article though, the discussion of kairos is an interesting way to view history for the purposes of rhetoric and technical writing. To be able to criticize Avery for his caution, and aversion to break from the standard of scientific thought comes only in hindsight after someone else has brought about new discovery. In this case, Watson & Crick nine years later. It is a fair argument to look at Avery and his decisions within the context of his time and the time in history. The chronos for him is his time in history and he does exhibit a kairos because he did publish the paper that mentioned DNA as the genetic transfer vehicle in bacteria. Just the same as you can make judgments about Watson & Crick being, perhaps, not cautious enough to appear scientifically prudent. Where Avery was hesitant to jump to conclusions Watson & Crick were more than willing to. Like Avery, Watson & Crick are representative of their time in history and their time in the history of their scientific community. Had they written their paper the same year as Avery what would the response have been? Again, context plays a large role in determining histories discoveries.